Women outnumber men in South Korea's sports stadiums
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
https://freakonomics.com/2011/07/minority-rules-why-10-perce...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725190044.h...
Boys generally don't aspire to do the things girls do, and so it's plausible it's the effect of them switching away from sports and activities where girls' participation rises above 10%.
If there were predictive power in that, we could assess in a few years whether things like BJJ, and weight lifting at gyms, golf, and maybe camping go the same way. I'd offer other examples to test but there aren't really any male activities left that aren't considered too low status to attract that 10% threshold.
Ping pong and badminton are immensely enjoyable and played by both boys and girls without regard for the other's level of participation.
Female participation in track hasn't reduced male participation. The US female running team is incredible - with the level of flash and charisma that's on par with the the best men in history (I'm thinking Usain Bolt).
Other sports such as surfing have seen much higher participation from women - their skills and quality has improved considerably, but that doesn't seem to be making the boys avoid surfing.
I think many boys just want to play with someone that's close to or better than their skill level. I think this is also true of many girls. Then there are people that want to just play "for fun", but things get ugly when one person's fun is another person's utter boredom.
It might be true for some activities but not others. And it might be true for sports watching ... or not.
Edit: Legitimate question, not insinuating anything. If questions are off limits, that’s pretty sad for inquiry, understanding and knowledge.
It’s a legitimate question as the article points out such a male/female inversion of fans is unique. Maybe women choosing different lifestyles, which is 100% their choice. But can still be correlated. Or other factors at play?
The article doesn’t have answers. So questions are what we are left with.
This is obvious.
Raising children is full time, but both parents can and should be a part of it.
Is there any country on earth with a neutral or positive population growth where women are encouraged to pursue careers? As far as I know, not a single country that has a significant female career participation rate has a 2.1+ child rate per family outside of immigration.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-three-children_n_895517...
But it seems to me the issue is not that women are choosing to have careers, but that the work/career culture is not supporting women choosing to have children. So things like better maternity and paternity leave, allowing women to take years off, or part time without consequence to career, etc.
So takeaway should be, support our population by better supporting working mothers.
Let me know if you find one.
Countries that did all of those things as much as possible still fall below replacement rates, so no that isn't a sexist take that is just reality.
I'm not saying we should force women to not have careers, just that the women who have careers will eventually go extinct, which is their choice and I fully support that. I don't see a reason to force people to spread their genes. Instead of forcing career women to be unhappy at home with children, the women who are happy at home with children will eventually replace them.
A lot of these have been implemented in some European countries. They don't seem to be that effective on fertility rate given they are still below replacement.
So far the west is getting by on immigrants from countries it has destroyed. What happens when all of Africa falls below replacement rates in the next 15 years?
Keep in mind that _you_ will need doctors and nurses to keep you alive once you're past 60. At this point soylent green is the only retirement policy people with less than 10 million in the bank can expect.
Motherhood by itself can be a full time job, if the partner and the society doesn't help. Like enough (and affordable) daycare centers, kindgartens, schools that take care of children after school hours, i.e. offer all-day care or activities.
And as you said "very successful engineers". What's about not so successful people, making good money but not being able to afford the options around them?
Yeah! So you are totally right, that statement was pretty sexist, but to really help couples raising children there is still a lot of work do to.
It is my belief that you are fundamentally misunderstand the issue.
You are right that there are studies showing that especially in Northern European countries where women receive more support in raising children have lower birth rates. But there was no statement as to why this is so (at least that was the last time I was interested in the topic, maybe there is something new?).
So yeah, I didn't feel confident enough to tackle that point of yours, sorry.
Someone has to raise children. I believe a loving, caring parent would want to do that themselves and or with their immediate family structure. I would not want strangers raising my children.
I assume one with no pay or health insurance/benefits. Bills must be paid, and they never seem to get any cheaper.
Whether you like this or not is irrelevant. It is the only future that will exist.
The problem did exist for millennia, but the modern laws destroyed marriage without bringing a net positive outcome.
Do mind though that unemployment insurance should be time-limited and there should be incentives to find alternative employment to avoid the system becoming a replacement for paid employment which leads both to dependency on the side of the unemployed as well as eventual insolvency of the insurance system.
The genetic effects of this are going to be interesting because until the 1970s a woman had a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive.
I've also wondered similar things. For example, fertility rate is higher with lower wealth. Lower wealth is also correlated to many things. Similar wealth and education levels have been shown to be a large mate selection factor as well. Will that lead to implicitly selectively breeding for those traits over generations?
It's the poor and the rich that are having children.
The middle class has decided to have a hysterectomy for some odd reason.
At any rate, I just need to outlive the people not having children today, not too hard since they won't have a family safety net or enough to retire on, and I'll stop hearing these arguments since the people who believed them will be dead and the people who didn't listen to them are the only ones who will be around to talk.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
Middle class is defined as 2x the median, and adjusted for locality. In the vast majority of the US, $200k+ is not middle class and is impressive.
"That data is far too granular."
It's granular enough to show a trend. Perhaps you have other data to share?
To try to work around this awkwardness and provide the best for their family while mitigating risk, this group is likely to wait as long as possible to accumulate resources to act as padding. Unfortunately it’s not a given that these goals can be met before time runs out on the biological clock.
How does that math work out? Every child has a mom and a dad. Are you referring to widowhood and remarriage? Divorce and remarriage? Polygamy? Were those so significant in the 1920 that it caused a "much better chance"?
>In humans, this balance has been remarkably even, but the past few decades have seen a substantial shift towards men, notably in some Asian countries
Yes there's an imbalance at birth:
>around 103–107 male babies for every 100 female ones.
However, 2 things about that imbalance:
* I don't think 100:103 or 100:107 is big enough for "a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive". I would think "slightly better chance" would be more accurate.
* The imbalance only exists as babys/kids. By reproductive age (the previous comment said "a woman had a much better chance than a man" not "a baby girl has a much better chance than a baby boy"), it evens out:
>the initial surplus of boys decreases to roughly equal number of males and females during the all-important reproductive years in most populations.
Not really. For example, one could outsource childcare to varying degrees depending on wealth. There may be other reasons, perhaps even correlated ones, but I don't see any obvious link between women pursuing careers completely killing cultures.
[1] https://www.statice.is/publications/news-archive/inhabitants...
Meanwhile Iran, where women make up about 17% of the total labor force, has only a slightly higher natural population growth and a fertility rate of 1.69.
The parent comment might have been somewhat aggressive, but the West needs t figure this out: once women enter the workforce en masse, birth rates tend to slide down from there. And with the welfare state most Western democracies have built, there's a continuous need for warm bodies to pay taxes and fuel the state's long-term obligations (social security, medicare, etc.).
With the way the stance around immigration is changing, importing immigrants won't work as a strategy for very long.
Look at the first chart, "Ratio of female to male labor force participation rates, 1990 to 2021". Switch to Table view and sort by 2021 rates. You will find plenty of countries there with +80% rates which are all growing in population. You can see those numbers here [1].
But presumably you mean rich countries only. Just go down to the second chart on the same page, "Female labor force participation rates by national per capita income". This shows there is no or little correlation between GDP/capita and female participation.
The only cultures that have existed untouched for 200 years are uncontacted tribes, so the retvrn guys are advocating that we get women out of the work force, abandon industry, eliminate language entirely until a new one grows in its place, make American great again (at thatching and the tanning of hides by hand)
Fortunately, you can have a fairly fulfilling life without having children as of today. And as the time goes, more childless people grow up which somewhat paves the way to the younger people without children. So, the spiral of low fertility continues, because again, we say we care about having a society full of children, but in reality, we don’t.
This sentence doesn't make sense to me. How can the opportunity loss outweigh eternal happiness?
I've seen enough families clearly miserable with each other to know that anyone who calls marriage and children "eternal happiness" is a fucking snake oil peddler trying to sell me a bridge.
When I was a kid, that’s how older people around me described what parenthood gives you (eternal happiness). Later on, as sad as it sounds, I realized that line can be used as a cope for people for whom parenthood didn’t work out for a lot of different reasons (loss of a child, kids not meeting your expectations, work stress, problems in your partnership, societal priorities and etc.). So you start weighing your risks, and some come to conclusion that having no children or just one is good enough.
Then again, you get “you’ll never know until you experience it!” statements, and that still doesn’t cut it. Because, it’s really, genuinely good enough for some people, since you avoided most of the risks and enjoyed your life. Also as childless/small families age, they become a proof of concept to others how you really don’t need 3+ children (basically a requirement to be at the replacement level of the society).
There’s also a huge underlying “everyone wants others to have children, but only care about their own children” issue. And as we’ve gotten more competitive in the society, the best way to play the game is not playing it. But that’s a different topic.
Sorry for being a bit of a downer, but we talk about this with my friends quite often (late 20s-30s groups). And that’s generally how everyone feels - both men and women.
You mean the rulers don't value parenthood. Of course not, because they need to squeeze as much productivity and profit from the younger generations they can before they (the rulers) die. Parenthood gets in the way for that, when the only priority should be to generate as much taxes and corporate profits as possible, and not snot-ridden kids.
The reason for this is that all real estate value, 401K value and stock value gets transferred to the corresponding accounts in the afterlife, so you can understand why the older generation is in a hurry to get as much as they can.
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Matthew 13:12
"we say we care about having a society full of children, but in reality, we don’t."
We only care that we have an increasing population to drive our consumer economy.
I’m not saying it’s all doom and gloom in the future, but it’s simply a risk assessment. The usual semi-paradox of “if others don’t care about it, why should I”, but apply that to everyone in the world.
And bloody hell, if push comes to shove, we can give up on optional niceties and reallocate labour to the more important stuff.
Would-be workers have too high standards.
I don't necessarily blame them, it's the logical conclusion to being told "Go to college and get a degree if you don't want to end up flipping burgers at McDonald's." their entire life.
Lowering standards would not solve anything here, even if everyone accepted any job and relocate accordingly to fill every single vacancy, unemployment would hardly go down.
People having unrealistic expectations are mostly explaining the high unemployment and high vacancy of some positions. It is a mismatch and the numbers are cooked, France is importing workforce from abroad (including Romania) for positions that French natives don't want.
How many unemployed? And how many opened positions? Your wording suggests that the number of opened positions exceeds half of the number of unemployed workers, but what’s your actual numeric estimation?
1. In some rural areas it is economically more profitable not to work than working a low wage job. You raise some chicken and a pig or cow, grow some food for self-consumption, get benefits, gg
2. Some people go for work in Western Europe for 3 to 6 months, then spend the rest of the year at home doing nothing. Or go to work in the season on the seaside and "rest" for the rest of the year.
According to our own government, the number of unemployed people in France at the end of last year is estimated at 2.3 millions (7.5% of the active population). the number of open positions for private companies of more than 10 employees (excluding agriculture) is 331,700.
I don’t believe for a second that including agriculture and smaller companies would raise this number even close to 1M, let alone 2.3M. The total number is most likely well below 500K. So it looks like in France, there is there is at most 1 open position for every 4 unemployed people able to work. Likely less. Given these numbers, if all the unemployed French people filled every open position overnight, at least 75% of them would remain unemployed.
I really, really have a hard time believing your numbers now that I have checked the official numbers for my country. I suggest you check for yours.
Sorry, I missed that part. I'm not sure where to find the official numbers there, but the sources I could find suggest the vacancy rates there are still easily less than half the unemployment rates.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1391389/romania-job-vaca...
https://eures.europa.eu/living-and-working/labour-market-inf...
Supporting yet again that there are much fewer open jobs than unemployed people. Now I don't know how trustworthy the sources I just linked to are, but from what I've seen so far your current model of unemployment and vacancies seems to be wrong.
This is obvious.
Knowing Korean women, this seems to me a bad engliah translation of a very corny phrase.
Would men in other societies accept their significant other rooting for other men with corny phrases? I'm reading "horny" here, but nontheless.
Would the female partner accept that the male one brings his cameras for photos of cheerleaders only?
I'm pretty sure it is "no", which explains why this isn't similar elsewhere.
Is this small piece of understanding I tried to derive anywhere near correct?
(I don't think I should ask my korean colleagues for verification.)
I don't have kids but I would nonetheless appreciate family friendliness. It's a public event in a public space, after all. Sex and implications of such should be left within the walls of your bedroom, or at least a love hotel.
>Would men in other societies accept their significant other rooting for other men with corny phrases? I'm reading "horny" here, but nontheless.
>Would the female partner accept that the male one brings his cameras for photos of cheerleaders only?
Why not? If anything, demanding someone not do something for no reason besides "I am offended." is a flagrant violation of human rights.
I'm not married and never plan to, but hypothetically if I had a wife and she wanted to cheer for a man besides me? More power to her, I say. It's none of my business. I too would cheer for a woman besides her if I felt like it.