|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Kyo on 02:42 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
the falling female-to-male ratio - in 2001 it was 943 to 1,000
Are there any states today with a similar female-to-male ratio? If so, is anyone up in arms about that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 02:43 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoops, disregard that. I meant 943 males for every 1000 females.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:02 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Umm, not sure if you've been to India but there is a real problem with the population growth and because men are held higher in social status than women, families want and do what ever it takes to ensure that they have a male offspring to carry on the "family name" including abortion and infaticide. And just for the record, India is a VERY male dominated country and society and surpassing China for population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 03:16 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I haven't been to India, and while I know many Indian people, they've all had experience living abroad and thus probably aren't a representative sample of ordinary people in India.
That being said, however, wouldn't there be better ways to solve these problems than taking money from men's pockets and handing it to women? How about encouraging husbands to take their wives' family names? How about making abortion more difficult?
Laws like this one set dangerous precedents for other countries where favoring women will be not so much redressing problems as a power grab by hyper-feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:55 PM March 10th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, but governments will learn to use alleged "benefits" for social engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 04:45 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
And just for the record, India is a VERY male dominated country
Which explains why they've recently been looking at laws like making men have to get written permission from their wives to legally buy alcohol, a gender specific tax code which taxes men higher and spends a large percentage on women's issues while none on men's, and also why they've turned the other cheek on the recent gangs of feminist thugs who've been killing and burning down the houses of men who were found innocent of rape in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 08:56 AM March 11th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This is the most stupid thing i ever hoid...
men and women are NOT born in equal numbers, more men are born because nature kills more off before age of procreation.
what will happen is that there will be too many women and not enough men which greatly reduces the odds of a family for all the women. men that are not, shall we say, up to par will re-enter the gene pool... i am kind of talking from a darwinistic point here. the species does better when there is more of a selection for more of the women. (as far a humans are concerned nature seems to take many more risks with the men than the women. across many measures the women are more homogeneous than the men)
this is not a good recipe for success...
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Apparently one-child (ie, one-boy or -girl) families do not get the same consideration. Story