- This topic has 276 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY
It was you who first mentioned supply and demand. There is no shortage of dates available and yet many girls suffer from “infrequent dating” despite their being a mire than adeqyete supply.
As to what can be done to end the crises, pretty much anything that takes away the upperhand we currently give guys (example let women say yes first instead of limitibg it to men, stop perpetuating the idea that 10% of girls are doomed not to get married). These are simpler ideas.
More complex ideas that would meet more resistance but would get more girls dates, and thus more girls married are increasing venues to allow nous and girls to meet. For example encouraging meals with similar boys and girls thus in effect granting each girl at the meal a “date” with several compatable guys at once.
i have already debunked the “who gets to say yes first” myth.
try again.
i like the meal idea though. that should be a thing.
It was you who first mentioned supply and demand.
Yes, an oversupply of girls relative to the demand, to explain why despite “an adequate supply of dates”, some girls will date much less than others. Admit that you don’t understand, instead of endlessly repeating your mantra,There is no shortage of dates available and yet many girls suffer from “infrequent dating” despite their being a mire than adeqyete supply.
I’m not sure what you want with the rest of your post. Will these things create more boys, hence more demand?
It so happens that singles events, meals, or other ways of introductions (not shadchanim) might change the demographics, if boys would meet and want to date girls older than they (or their parents) would consider “on paper”. You’re right, though, that it would meet resistance, so NASI is encouraging the consideration of older girls, within the system which uses shadchanim.
Your first two ideas would have no effect, and just show lack of understanding of the underlying cause.
DY,
” I’m not sure what you want with the rest of your post. Will these things create more boys, hence more demand?”
No they will create more dates hence more weddings.
You can call it a mantra or whatever you like that doesn’t make it less true.
There are enough dates for all girls please understand this crucial point. Dating us not done 1:1.
Brony,
Don’t get caught up on specifics. Evening the yes playing field is but one idea.
I’m curious though, how do you think you debunked it?
No they will create more dates hence more weddings.
Do you think it will get a higher percentage of boys married, or create more boys?
who gets to choose first is irrelevant – only number matter. it’s hard to think of an easy to understand example because very few relationships are bilateral and resource-limited in the same way as monogamous marriage. maybe think about it in terms of baseball players and teams: it doesn’t really matter who drafts who if you think about it. the current draft setup is a function of the disparity in number of players and teams, but if the quantities were to be reversed one could easily picture a world in which a players chose his team(s).
Brony, although there’s no longer a reserve clause, for the first few years of a player’s career, he can’t really choose where he wants to play. The draft is still, for some reason, legal.
Maybe in a way it’s not a bad example, though. If there are 1200 ballplayers and only 1000 slots on major league teams, no matter who approaches whom for a tryout, there will still be 200 players without a team.
Also, those players who have had really poor minor league stats, they’re likely to get much fewer tryouts than the ones who had better stats (the dating divide). But having mass tryouts with all players involved will still not leave any fewer than 200 unemployed.
yeah it was a middling example because a team can draft more than one player, but a player can’t really draft more than one team. whatever, as long as people get the picture and stop with the “picking first” theory.
Brony,
I’ve been explaining at leangth, the shiduech crises us often described as many women suffer from “infrequent dating” in other words there is a dating disparity this can not be explained by a age gap since even if 100 guys are dating 112 girls, each guy goes out with more than one girl. Thus there is an excess of dates available not a shortage! Yet many girls are not getting dates. Granted not all girls can get married if those numvers were rigid and stagnant, but they should all get dates.” The “dating divide” tm can’t be explained by the “age gap”. And leveling the playing field between guys and girls MAY help those girls who suffer from “infrequent dating” (in spite if their being enough dates available) by helping them avoid just having to sit there waiting/davening to get picked.
DY both. Plus It will get people married quicker
and what I’m telling you is that 112 girls “okaying” 100 guys will have exactly the same outcome as 100 guys “okaying” 100 out of 112 girls. either way, it’s 100 guys dating 100 girls and 12 girls left in the cold. it is the number disparity (in this case, male scarcity) that determines number of dates, not who gets to take the first slice.
DY both. Plus It will get people married quicker
You’ve gone off the deep end if you think allowing girls to pick first, and ceasing advertising the shidduch disparity, will increase the number of boys available. Almost equally ludicrous is the notion that not advertising the crisis wil get people married quicker.
Saying that allowing the girls to say yes first would be more efficient and people would get married quicker could theoretically be true based on the quirks of human nature, but I don’t really see it.
You’ve gone off the deep end if you think allowing girls to pick first, and ceasing advertising the shidduch disparity, will increase the number of boys available. Almost equally ludicrous is the notion that not advertising the crisis wil get people married quicker.
Of course it would.
Think about it: When the musical chairs choose the people, they will sit and try to figure out which one to take. But when the people choose the musical chairs–they just grab one.
Brony
You’ve misunderstood. Im not saying to let the girls go first, merely to level the playing field to let either side go first. We have to try to level the field as much as possible removing the unfair advantage one group has.
Even if the numbers were strictly true and 112 girls were being matched up with 100 boys. And these numbers would not change, ie no more players or chairs added to the mix. It STILL would be right to let each side go first to at least give all 112 girls a fighting chance (although in that fake scenario 12 girls would still be left standing, at least the game is fair) This has been addressed before think of it as 12 girls who are hard of hearing, the game of musical chairs will not be fair no matter how many chairs are added unless the issue of their hearing is addressed as well. Granted if ONLY the hearing is addressed 12 girls will still be left standing, but at least the game is fair.
Granted this may be complicated, but it has been addressed at length already.
I don’t hink this will end the crises. I do know that the “age gap” alone is not the cause (nor can it be) thus dealing with it alone can not possibly solve anything.
DY
” theoretically be true “
whohoo progress!!!
PBA
I would add a few kneitches. Think of it as some less comfortable chairs in the mix. These chairs do not stand a chance. Unless the chairs can call out and say “Hey I’m right here and available, don’t bother dancing around all the chairs trying to find an available one just sit here” Then at least all the chairs have a chance.
(I know it is a silly mashal, but I wasn’t the first to bring in musical chairs, which is silly to begin with as has been discussed)
you mean like tinder, where each side okays the other in a double-blind manner? okay with me, I say that’s how all online dating should work (maybe req’d shadchan approval to join to make sure PUAs aren’t ruining it).
But when the people choose the musical chairs–they just grab one.
Does that create more chairs?
Granted if ONLY the hearing is addressed 12 girls will still be left standing, but at least the game is fair.
I think getting more girls married is a much more worthy goal than fairness.
DY
” theoretically be true “
whohoo progress!!!
I’ll let you try and convince me. Why would having the girls say yes first speed up the process?
DY.
I’ll address your points in order:
A. No but chairs (and players) are constantly added so as long as we try to level the playing field and keep the game fair most players will end up with a seat eventually. True sine never will but sadly this was allways the case, but the current “crises” will be gone.
B. See above. Plus addressing fairness is better than nothing. I don’t think the age gap will get more girls married since it cannot explain the “dating divide” tm.
C. No gaurantee, just a way to even things. The hope is when a guy has a list of girls that “look the same on paper” some can stand out by saying yes first.
A. Your point about adding chairs and players is worth commenting on because it does indeed affect the equation. The problem is that more players are added than chairs. Unless the boys entering shidduchim marry girls who were already in shidduchim (IOW, older girls), it won’t help the disparity.
C. Then the others won’t get married. Different players finding seats, same number left out. I’m disappointed; I think I could have come up with something better than that.
In my opinion It starts with education. These seminaries brainwash girls into marrying the top lakewood boy even though there are only few of the top lakewood boys. Then yeshivas don’t convince guys to work. Most of these guys only want to learn if they get supported. You have a bunch of ignorant boys and girls who don’t know what they’re doing. There has to be radical changes in most of the yeshivas. There isn’t a shidduch crisis, people have their heads in the clouds.
There isn’t a shidduch crisis
Well, how would you describe hundreds and hundreds of older girls, and not nearly as many available boys for them?
DY
A. Of course some boys will marry girls already in shiduchim as they allways have. It is not like their has been a mass shift in age disparity among couples. Make dating less rigid, remove obstacles int he way of girls getting dates and nature will take its course as it has in the past resulting in more girls getting dates and thus married than today.
C. I agree. Though my point is even in a “closed game” where only 112 players are vying over 100 seats. And the doors are locked. It still would be an advantage to make the game as fair as possible (giving the deaf players hearing aids, the slower players boosters so they can run the same speed. Sure 12 players will be left standing, though I think its making the game fair is a worthy goal. (again though I dont think this is comparable since in real life the doors arent closed)
I’m still curious to know what you think is holding back certain girls from getting dates, which “silly criteria” boys have, how to possibly change their priorities in criteria, and why a different set of criteria wouldn’t simply result in a different set of girls being under-dated.
I suppose we can argue about B. forever.
I addressed C.; the way the constantly renewed influx of boys could help is if they go out with older girls. You seem to agree to this point, which is really NASI’s goal, so I don’t quite understand your point of contention.
The biggest proof of how disingenuous AZ, DY, and all of NASI really are is this conversation with ubiq. He present a problem that is indisputable (on “shidduch island” even 112 girls to 100 boys should lead to all girls getting ample dates) and they say “We could argue about that forever”. Note that ubiq isn’t even contending the age gap or any other NASI dogma, he is accepting their dogma as fact and then going a step further (or to the side perhaps), but even that amount of intellectual honesty is not to be found with them.
Off of the island, aka the real world, this is also true. There will always be some folks who will not marry and some who will never land a date (except a 100% blind one). This doesn’t go against anything NASI stands for, so I can only think of one reason why they would fight against the acknowledgement of this point.
You’re way off, squeak. Ubiq is saying that the dating unevenness is causing the problem, and that addressing the age gap is wrong because it will detract from the much more important issue of uneven dating.
As to whether or not (s?)he is or isn’t contending the age gap, I really can’t figure it out; I think it changes from post to post.
sorry to break my silence:
Squeak: your accusation is false and unfounded. An apology is in order but i won’t hold my breath.
as for Ubi’s assertions that
1. there are “enough dates to go around”
2. and there are some girls who don’t get ANY dates.
They are simply silly statements, and i’m tired of going around in circles with him.
btw: (how many girls do you know who are 25 and have not dated 5 guys. Are their some girls 25 who have dated 25 guys and some age 25 who have dated 5 guys- yes. But don’t say they have never dated.)
If you want to talk saychel and discuss that the girls who are less likely to be picked, are the ones who are at risk for being stuck, and thus efforts should be made to create programs for them to get them more shidduch attention.
Absolutely correct.
Obviously a girl at 24 that is rich, pretty, in town, right family or whatever other silly criteria we give to make her be “picked” by the boys and get shadchan attention, is going to get more shidduch opportunities than a a girl at 24 who is missing the “appropriate shidduch edge” and thus the girl with less shidduch opportunities is at greater risk of getting left out.
And that’s why precisely why NASI has various programs in different communities to deal with exactly these issues.
now back to my self imposed silence/retirement from this thread.
Az
Calling it silly doesn’t make it less true. DY provided a nice post by a phd outling the age gap theory. In it the author identified the problem as many girls suffering from infrequent dating. DY (and yourself I thougt) agreed with this but contended that it wasn’t as worth focussing on as the marriage issue or that it to us a result of the age gap. I never saud girls dont get any dates. All I said was there is a dating divide unexplainable by the age gap, that is causing the “shiduch crises”
DY
As to silly criteria here are but a few. Color of father’s shirt (recent yated shiduch forum), the old cliches plastic table cloth etc, yichus, where in Europe the ancestors were from, demanding full support, age (this may be what has been confusing you, age is a factor but not THE cause), grandmother pushing a wagon, premature infant (recent ami column) etc.
This is what has changed in the past 15-20 years and what is causing the “crises” Not demographics that hasn’t changed
Ubiq: although I hate taking a stand here, you are kind of beating a dead horse here. Yes, some of the criteria used to “pick” girls is downright silly – people are more shallow/petty than prior generations. However, PART of the reason they do it is because they can. They have so many offers, why not opt for the absolute best, however that’s defined. If there were less girls available perhaps their expectations would go down accordingly. If the only problem was inflexibility there would have been just as many eligible unmarried boys as girls. That is more likely to happen in more modern circles where singles hold out for the “perfect soulmate” as the years tick by.
Yes, even if the numbers were to become equal some boys will continue to be stubborn and choosy, but the vast majority won’t.
We merely need to replicate ancient Scotland.
From Macbeth, act 4, scene 2:
Macduff’s son: Nay, how will you do for a husband?
Lady Macduff: Why, I can buy me twenty at any market.
Ubiq, Mammele said it well.
The silly criteria could explain why so many older singles, but not why so many more girls.
How would you address fixing the silly criteria problem? Learning musser? That’s already encouraged.
As Mammele said, and AZ and I have been repeating often, making the numbers more even will go a long way towards removing silly criteria from the list of requirements.
A lot of the girls also have silly criteria. They view dating as more of a shopping list than as a means to find their partner for the future.
Mamaleh
There are plenty people available. If the numbers were reversed and 112 girls vied over 100 girls. If we give each guy a list if 10-20 girls like we currently do and prevent girls from initiating, the same silly criteria would be used in picking.in other words regardless of the global statistics, for each boy there are a seemingly endless number of girls. So the total number doesn’t really affect each individual.
DY
I suggested a few ideas, take away the upperhand we unfairly give boys. Provide more venues to date so as to get more dates to more girls. There are others some of which willl meet with more resistance than others, but all of which might actually help
Interjection,
Agreed and that is part of the problem.
take away the upperhand we unfairly give boys.
On this we agree. The way to do this ia to even the numbers. How would you suggest it?
Getting rid of the upperhand we artificially assign boys by insisting only they go first
How would that help? There will still be a lot of girls saying yes and a lot of boys who are busy.
Also, how do you plan on “insisting”?
It would even the playing field than in of itself is a worthy maaleh. ESPECIALLY if girls were at a disadvantage already as a result of a “age gap” The girls who say yes may have a leg up on the other girls on boys list.
Again though this is just an idea and not my main point. Feel free to disagree with it, I thik it would help, if id doesn’t nu nu.
This discussion is going in circles and ha gotten off track.
It began with MOP saying we all know the sidduch crises is a result of the “age gap”
I replied that we don’t all know that for two main reasons: 1) The age gap isn’t new and yet the shiduch crises is. and 2) The age gap doesn’t explain the dating divide.
All other discussion as to what should be done or what I think is the real cause are side issues that you have been getting to caught up in.
You believe evening the playing field wont help? Fine lets keep artificially giving boys and unfair advantage. That isn’t my point anyway.
1) As has been amply demonstrated, that’s a false argument.
2) Also false, as has been explained numerous times. Besides, even if we give prime importance to the dating divide, and falsely assume that evening the numbers wouldn’t help, the actual numbers should still, if possible, be dealt with. Even if all girls would get the same number of dates, some, if there are more girls than boys, won’t get married, yet you would ignore that.
That should read:
the disparate numbers should still, if possible, be dealt with. Even if all girls would get the same number of dates, if there are more girls than boys, some girls won’t get married. Yet, you would ignore that.
1 has nor been demonstrated, amply or otherwise. (az made a few guesses he wasn’t really sure and you were less certain, is that the ample demonstration you mean)
2 see above.
The numbers if they turn out to be a problem in spite of not having been a problem in the past can be dealt with AFTER the more immediate dating divide is solved
Ubiquitin, you can’t keep on denying that age gap + large families = disparity. It’s simply unavoidable. I am not at all uncertain that 1) is false; I just don’t know which of the three parts to the equation changed.
Why deal with a questionable, less severe problem first, if it still won’t solve the bigger problem? Why not deal with the larger, certain issue, which will help solve the dating divide?
If you want both to be dealt with, go ahead and take care of the dating disparity. Get haskomos from dozens of roshei yeshivos, and convince philanthropists to help you. AFAIK, that’s what NASI did (AZ can correct me if I’m wrong), and I’m certainly not stopping you from doing the same. But there’s no logical reason not to address the very real numbers issue.
DY
Weve covered that to.
It takes away from the real issue. when i point out to people the two points outlined above as to why the age gap is not the cause. Even after a while spent convinving them that this is true. And that simply “closing the gap” will not, nor can it, help. The best I get is Hmmm lets deal with that later and focus on silly age gaps now.
This is not helpful (and potentially harmful)and certainly draws attention and resources (not just financial) away from addressing the real more fundamental issues at hand
DY I would also like to point out in regard to point number 1, a few posts earlier you said “As has been amply demonstrated, that’s a false argument.”
you now say “I am not at all uncertain that 1) is false; I just don’t know which of the three parts to the equation changed.” You can hardly call that ample demonstration.
Dr. Halpert demonstrated it nicely. You’re ignoring math, but using a set of anecdotal “facts” (which are not commonly observed) to “prove” that the math must be wrong.
There’s nothing more fundamentally flawed with the system as is, than the fact that there are just not enough boys to marry all the girls.
I ordered and received two regular pizza pies and two mushroom pies. I got a total of five pies. I’ve just “proven” (with your logic) that 2+2=5.
(Although the mathemeticians think 2+2=4, they don’t account for the fact that not everyone eats the same amount of pizza).
DY
but if youve been ordering 2 + 2 pies for years and years and consistently been geting 5 pies. You have proven that the store has a funky policy of sending an extra pie when pizza are ordered in that combination. In other words that may in fact be the norm in that store. As little sense as it may make mathematicly, after all We all know 2+2 doesn’t equal 5. Yet in this case, at that pizza store, in a very real sense it does!
Is it absolute proof? Of course not. ( obviously It is possible that for years and years you have had the same hard of hearing delivery man, but at a certain point you would agree that it isn’t likely). it cant just be ignored as “anecdotal facts”
In other words I guess what I am saying is that real life doesn’t always follow math. Sometimes in life 2+2 can equal 5. Facts cannot just be ignored becuae of math. The odds of your having been born are infinitesimally small (Think of all the people in all generations who had to meet whose exact sperm of millions had to combine with the right egg, over generations and generations.) Based on math I have proven you dont exist! Yet here we are. (granted not the best mashal, perhaps the pizza reply was better). At a certain point reality has to be taken into account.
Now if the age gap demographics have existed (you insist that something changed but arent sure what, fine. But I am certain nothing has and until presented with evidence to the contrary, see no reason to change that view.) and yet their was no “shiduch crises” any math you or Dr. Halpert want to introduce has to placed aside in favor of the overwhelming anecdotal evidence. How did all those 1000’s of excess older girls get married? I dont know (we outlined possiblities earlier but it doesnt matter for this point.) They somehow did. That is all that matters. Therfore in addressing the current “crises” new factors that DID NOT exist then are what need to be studied not old factors taht have not changed.
So you’re admitting that your theory defies logic.
BTW, in my moshol, I received only two regular and two mushroom, for a total of five.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.