On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
> >>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
> >>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
> >>> wife.
> >>
> >> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
> >>
> > The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
> Ah. Got it.

Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
about thirty million women.

Female infanticide is not a recent problem.

William Hyde

In article <2c13c387-0402-4d71-8ffd-637b12afe8a4n@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> > On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> >> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>
>> >>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>> >>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>> >>> wife.
>> >>
>> >> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>> >>
>> > The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without
>the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what
>they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male
>offspring.
>> Ah. Got it.
>
>
>Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>about thirty million women.
>
>Female infanticide is not a recent problem.

Societal pressure for sons isn't unique to China, either.

On 2022-10-26 12:49, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:kZe6L.73592$kEr7.44991@fx44.iad:
>
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:tjbcob$2fm32$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>> news:rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com:
>>>>
>>>>>> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M
>>>>>> *men* that die, the population could recover reasonably
>>>>>> quickly, but in this day and age, there'd likely be some
>>>>>> rather severe social upheaval in the process...and, all
>>>>>> things considered, the population recovery might not happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child"
>>>>> policy, which produced millions of men who have no chance of
>>>>> ever finding a wife.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from
>>>> "one child"?
>>>>
>>> Do you believe that the female infanticide was caused, in any
>>> way whatsoever, even a little bit, by anything other than the
>>> one child policy?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_preference_in_China
>>
>> While the article is rather poorly translated, and doesn't
>> explicitly mention female infanticide outside of the context of
>> modern day ultrasound, it's likely that it occurred
>> historically.
>>
> If you trust Wikipedia to tell you what the day of the week is,
> much less provide accurate context on a controversial historical
> subject.
>
> Current consensus, however, seems to vary
>
> https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-
> policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors
> https://tinyurl.com/42hh5hh9
>
> "How China's One-Child Policy Led To Forced Abortions, 30 Million
> Bachelors"
>
>
> https://tinyurl.com/4atewh3c
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/01/08/chinas-
> birth-control-policy-drives-some-to-kill-baby-girls/77bf59d0-b0c0-
> 4261-a1e5-51ea6a3b8939/
>
> "China's Birth Control Policy Drives Some to Kill Baby Girls"
>
>

Aren't you on record as saying you wouldn't trust the Washington Post if
it told you the sky was blue?

In article <tjcd12$2ibro$2@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2022-10-26 12:49, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>> news:kZe6L.73592$kEr7.44991@fx44.iad:
>>
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tjbcob$2fm32$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>>> news:rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M
>>>>>>> *men* that die, the population could recover reasonably
>>>>>>> quickly, but in this day and age, there'd likely be some
>>>>>>> rather severe social upheaval in the process...and, all
>>>>>>> things considered, the population recovery might not happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child"
>>>>>> policy, which produced millions of men who have no chance of
>>>>>> ever finding a wife.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from
>>>>> "one child"?
>>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that the female infanticide was caused, in any
>>>> way whatsoever, even a little bit, by anything other than the
>>>> one child policy?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_preference_in_China
>>>
>>> While the article is rather poorly translated, and doesn't
>>> explicitly mention female infanticide outside of the context of
>>> modern day ultrasound, it's likely that it occurred
>>> historically.
>>>
>> If you trust Wikipedia to tell you what the day of the week is,
>> much less provide accurate context on a controversial historical
>> subject.
>>
>> Current consensus, however, seems to vary
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-
>> policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors
>> https://tinyurl.com/42hh5hh9
>>
>> "How China's One-Child Policy Led To Forced Abortions, 30 Million
>> Bachelors"
>>
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/4atewh3c
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/01/08/chinas-
>> birth-control-policy-drives-some-to-kill-baby-girls/77bf59d0-b0c0-
>> 4261-a1e5-51ea6a3b8939/
>>
>> "China's Birth Control Policy Drives Some to Kill Baby Girls"
>>
>>
>
>Aren't you on record as saying you wouldn't trust the Washington Post if
>it told you the sky was blue?

Obviously that doesn't apply to stuff he wants to hear.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>
>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>>>>> wife.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>>>>
>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>> Ah. Got it.
>
>
> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
> about thirty million women.
>
> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
>
No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
"Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 7:29:52 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> > Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
> > which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
> > wife.

> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?

The female infanticide was a _consequence_ of the one child policy. A female
child would not have interfered with having a male child otherwise.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> No, I don't mean 'Downfall'. I don't think I've even seen it.

Isn't that the one with the Hitler rant in which other dialogue has been substituted
for a great many Internet memes?

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 2:35:48 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
> about thirty million women.
>
> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.

No, that's true. And China certainly _had_ a problem with a preference for
sons before the one-child policy. But a one-child policy meant that in order
to have a son to support one in one's old age, one must not have any daughters,
because one has only one chance.

So combined with the existing cultural background, the one-child policy
drove a vast increase in sex-selective abortion and female infanticide.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 12:19:52 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 2:35:48 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>
> > Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
> > Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
> > about thirty million women.
> >
> > Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
> No, that's true. And China certainly _had_ a problem with a preference for
> sons before the one-child policy. But a one-child policy meant that in order
> to have a son to support one in one's old age, one must not have any daughters,
> because one has only one chance.
>
> So combined with the existing cultural background, the one-child policy
> drove a vast increase in sex-selective abortion and female infanticide.

Check these demographic pyramids:

China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_sex_by_age_on_Nov,_1st,_2020.png

India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_India#/media/File:India_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png

In both cases, the dark blue on the left represents excess males.

India has a strong male preference, especially for first borns, and selective abortion became common once
medically feasible.

China's chart is a lot more jaggy, due to changing government policies. There was a male excess even before the
one child policy, but that somewhat expanded it.

pt

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:35:45 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> > On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> >> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>
>> >>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>> >>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>> >>> wife.
>> >>
>> >> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>> >>
>> > The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>> Ah. Got it.
>
>
>Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>about thirty million women.
>
>Female infanticide is not a recent problem.

It was common in Ancient Rome. And probably Greece as well.

The arguments of the Church Fathers against infanticide (female or
other), based on the idea that every child is a gift of God, have now
been slimed by some as arguments against "post-natal abortion". Which
is, of course, an oxymoron.

Thus degrading Traditional Family Values.

(Every male was against abortion back then: the unborn child was the
/property/ of the father, so abortion was a /property crime/.)
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:56:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>>>>>
>>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>>> Ah. Got it.
>>
>>
>> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>> about thirty million women.
>>
>> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
>>
>No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
>"Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"

Actually, it was driven more by economics: girls cost [past tense, as
this is /their/ attitude I am describing] money to raise and money to
marry off (if they weren't married off, then they were dependent on
their family for their entire lives [1]). A Pater Familias with three
or four daughters already was strongly tempted to abandon any
additional daughters for economic reasons.

Sons, OTOH, married for free and brought glory to the family name.
[Again, this is /their/ attitude, not mine.]

[1] A small number became Vestal Virgins, but not enough to take care
of all girls not married before they aged out of the market.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:26:24 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:tjbcob$2fm32$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>> news:rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>>> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M
>>>>> *men* that die, the population could recover reasonably
>>>>> quickly, but in this day and age, there'd likely be some
>>>>> rather severe social upheaval in the process...and, all things
>>>>> considered, the population recovery might not happen.
>>>>>
>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child"
>>>> policy, which produced millions of men who have no chance of
>>>> ever finding a wife.
>>>
>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one
>>> child"?
>>>
>>Do you believe that the female infanticide was caused, in any way
>>whatsoever, even a little bit, by anything other than the one child
>>policy?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_preference_in_China
>
>While the article is rather poorly translated, and doesn't explicitly
>mention female infanticide outside of the context of modern day
>ultrasound, it's likely that it occurred historically.

It might be more accurate to say that the one-child policy increased
the rate of female infanticide because of the intense desire for a
son.

Then again, China has gone through multiple "Warring Nations" periods,
some of which might have been a way to get rid of excess males.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> No, I don't mean 'Downfall'. I don't think I've even seen it.
>
>Isn't that the one with the Hitler rant in which other dialogue has been substituted
>for a great many Internet memes?

I have no idea about Internet memes.

But, yes, it does have Adolf ranting. Quite a bit, especially as the
walls close in.

Kind of like Trump, whose lawyers are desperate to keep him from
testifying /anywhere/ under oath. Because they know he lies like --
well, like a Republican.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:03:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 10/26/2022 8:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:52:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/25/2022 8:36 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2022 03:24, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 12:32:07 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>> It's only going to get worse. Births peaked in 1987, then fell by
>>>>>> almost half by 1999. There was
>>>>>> a smaller echo of the 80s boom around 2012, but 10 year olds don't
>>>>>> make good soldiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> In two or three years they'll be old enough -- at least, kids that age
>>>>> were old enough for Adolf in 1945.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah, my Dad was born in Berlin in 1932, and lived there until 1952. They
>>>> didn't try to arm the kids under 16, but he said there were many stories
>>>> about it after the war, probably as many as about where the looted gold
>>>> was stashed.
>>>>
>>> There is film footage of under 16's being armed. There is IIRC even
>>> footage of Hitler reviewing and praising some who had already been in
>>> combat and even if there isn't film it is a well documented event as it
>>> was close to when he committed suicide.
>>
>> I'm hoping that by "film footage" you don't mean /Downfall/, which
>> does indeed show such scenes, but is not a documentary and may be
>> showing them because they are expected.
>
>No, I don't mean 'Downfall'. I don't think I've even seen it.

It's based in part on the experience of his personal secretary, who
appears on the DVD as a much older woman. She was right there in the
bunker to the end.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:56:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>>>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>>>> Ah. Got it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>>> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>>> about thirty million women.
>>>
>>> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
>>>
>>No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
>>"Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"
>
>Actually, it was driven more by economics: girls cost [past tense, as
>this is /their/ attitude I am describing] money to raise and money to
>marry off (if they weren't married off, then they were dependent on
>their family for their entire lives [1]). A Pater Familias with three
>or four daughters already was strongly tempted to abandon any
>additional daughters for economic reasons.
>
>Sons, OTOH, married for free and brought glory to the family name.
>[Again, this is /their/ attitude, not mine.]

The most important reason IMO is that the Son would be more likely
to be able to support the parents in their dotage in the millenia
before social security (1930s), NY state (1857) or government pensions (Bismark, 1889).

On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 12:05:31 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:56:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
> >>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
> >>>>>> wife.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
> >>>>>
> >>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
> >>> Ah. Got it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
> >> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
> >> about thirty million women.
> >>
> >> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
> >>
> >No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
> >"Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"

Evil is the word I would choose here.

> Actually, it was driven more by economics: girls cost [past tense, as
> this is /their/ attitude I am describing] money to raise and money to
> marry off (if they weren't married off, then they were dependent on
> their family for their entire lives [1]). A Pater Familias with three
> or four daughters already was strongly tempted to abandon any
> additional daughters for economic reasons.

IIRC there was a ceremony in which a new baby was put on the floor.
If the father picked it up, he acknowledged it as his child. If not,
the child would be abandoned.

Among the upper classes, though daughters were useful for
political alliances. And among the slaves, for work. I think the
main problem was in the middle.
>
> Sons, OTOH, married for free and brought glory to the family name.
> [Again, this is /their/ attitude, not mine.]
>
> [1] A small number became Vestal Virgins, but not enough to take care
> of all girls not married before they aged out of the market.

Yes, very few. And the requirements were very strict, with the parents
originally having to be patrician and of good character. If you were
merely middle class, this option was not available.

Vestals could be recruited as early as age six, and "retire" at thirty six, thus
leaving some time for marriage and children. But a retired Vestal had
the legal rights of a man (almost) only as long as she remained unmarried,
and not many of them wanted to give that up.

William Hyde

On 10/27/2022 9:05 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:56:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>>>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>>>> Ah. Got it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>>> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>>> about thirty million women.
>>>
>>> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
>>>
>> No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
>> "Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"
>
> Actually, it was driven more by economics: girls cost [past tense, as
> this is /their/ attitude I am describing] money to raise and money to
> marry off (if they weren't married off, then they were dependent on
> their family for their entire lives [1]). A Pater Familias with three
> or four daughters already was strongly tempted to abandon any
> additional daughters for economic reasons.
>
> Sons, OTOH, married for free and brought glory to the family name.
> [Again, this is /their/ attitude, not mine.]
>
> [1] A small number became Vestal Virgins, but not enough to take care
> of all girls not married before they aged out of the market.

Like I said. :P (Why do the fathers have to pay boys to marry their
daughters and not the other way around? Why are the girls utterly
dependent on a male relative for their entire life?)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <tjeoen$2r7q3$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>Like I said. :P (Why do the fathers have to pay boys to marry their
>daughters and not the other way around? Why are the girls utterly
>dependent on a male relative for their entire life?)

(Hal Heydt)
Depends on the culture. In some, the daughters have a dowry from
their parents to attract a partner. In others, the men pay the
woman's parents a bride price.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:15:56 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:56:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>>>>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>>>>> Ah. Got it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>>>> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>>>> about thirty million women.
>>>>
>>>> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
>>>>
>>>No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
>>>"Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"
>>
>>Actually, it was driven more by economics: girls cost [past tense, as
>>this is /their/ attitude I am describing] money to raise and money to
>>marry off (if they weren't married off, then they were dependent on
>>their family for their entire lives [1]). A Pater Familias with three
>>or four daughters already was strongly tempted to abandon any
>>additional daughters for economic reasons.
>>
>>Sons, OTOH, married for free and brought glory to the family name.
>>[Again, this is /their/ attitude, not mine.]
>
>The most important reason IMO is that the Son would be more likely
>to be able to support the parents in their dotage in the millenia
>before social security (1930s), NY state (1857) or government pensions (Bismark, 1889).

Particularly since the daughters became part of the family of their
husband -- at least after the first baby arrived.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:33:19 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <tjeoen$2r7q3$2@dont-email.me>,
>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>Like I said. :P (Why do the fathers have to pay boys to marry their
>>daughters and not the other way around? Why are the girls utterly
>>dependent on a male relative for their entire life?)
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Depends on the culture. In some, the daughters have a dowry from
>their parents to attract a partner. In others, the men pay the
>woman's parents a bride price.

In the latter, of course, girls are an asset.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 13:07:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 10/27/2022 9:05 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:56:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2022 1:35 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 11:25:07 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2022 09.31, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/2022 6:29 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2022 13.08, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>>>>>>>> which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wasn't that as much from female infanticide as it was from "one child"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The female infanticide was _because_ of the One Child rule. Without the One Child rule the poorer families would have kept on doing what they did before it, just keep having kids until they finally get a male offspring.
>>>>> Ah. Got it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that would not explain female infanticide or sex-selective abortions in
>>>> Pakistan, Vietnam, India, and elsewhere. Last I heard India was missing
>>>> about thirty million women.
>>>>
>>>> Female infanticide is not a recent problem.
>>>>
>>> No it definitely isn't and the explanation basically boils down to
>>> "Humans are REALLY, REALLY STUPID!!!"
>>
>> Actually, it was driven more by economics: girls cost [past tense, as
>> this is /their/ attitude I am describing] money to raise and money to
>> marry off (if they weren't married off, then they were dependent on
>> their family for their entire lives [1]). A Pater Familias with three
>> or four daughters already was strongly tempted to abandon any
>> additional daughters for economic reasons.
>>
>> Sons, OTOH, married for free and brought glory to the family name.
>> [Again, this is /their/ attitude, not mine.]
>>
>> [1] A small number became Vestal Virgins, but not enough to take care
>> of all girls not married before they aged out of the market.
>
>Like I said. :P (Why do the fathers have to pay boys to marry their
>daughters and not the other way around? Why are the girls utterly
>dependent on a male relative for their entire life?)

(Cue /Fiddler on the Roof/): "Traditio-o-on!"
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 10/27/22 13:33, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tjeoen$2r7q3$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Like I said. :P (Why do the fathers have to pay boys to marry their
>> daughters and not the other way around? Why are the girls utterly
>> dependent on a male relative for their entire life?)
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Depends on the culture. In some, the daughters have a dowry from
> their parents to attract a partner. In others, the men pay the
> woman's parents a bride price.

Traditionally, in the USA, it costs the bride's parents to get her
married off if they go the traditional route.

I have 3 daughters. Two are married, so far. It was not a small chunk of
change for either wedding. If #3 gets married (but first she needs a
boyfriend, girlfriend, SOMETHING!) we will happily pay for the wedding.

If my son gets married, and I think he probably will, we might end up
footing part of the bill. His girlfriend's parents might not be able to
afford all of it, if she wants that kind of a wedding.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

In article <tjhkbc$1tgl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On 10/27/22 13:33, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tjeoen$2r7q3$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Like I said. :P (Why do the fathers have to pay boys to marry their
>>> daughters and not the other way around? Why are the girls utterly
>>> dependent on a male relative for their entire life?)
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Depends on the culture. In some, the daughters have a dowry from
>> their parents to attract a partner. In others, the men pay the
>> woman's parents a bride price.
>
>Traditionally, in the USA, it costs the bride's parents to get her
>married off if they go the traditional route.
>
>I have 3 daughters. Two are married, so far. It was not a small chunk of
>change for either wedding. If #3 gets married (but first she needs a
>boyfriend, girlfriend, SOMETHING!) we will happily pay for the wedding.
>
>If my son gets married, and I think he probably will, we might end up
>footing part of the bill. His girlfriend's parents might not be able to
>afford all of it, if she wants that kind of a wedding.

(Hal Heydt)
Dorothy and I paid for our own wedding. Both our kids did
likewise. But, then, none of them were the sort of modern
potlatch that fills magazine pages.