Shidduch Crisis Solutions

Home Coffeeroom Shidduchim Shidduch Crisis Solutions

Viewing 26 posts - 251 through 276 (of 276 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #956971

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    Im not admiting it defies logic. Im pointing out that all the math in the world can not change facts on the ground. And the facts are that somehow in spite of an “age gap” there was no shiduch crises 15 years ago. Period.

    You can disagree with the facts (which youve sort of done but with some hesitation in defining what exactly has changed) However to say the facts can not be true becuase they defy math is silliness

    #956972

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    No, if you’re talking about fifteen years ago, I can tell you that the fact that there were more girls around than boys was common knowledge, and a big topic of discussion.

    If you want to suggest that 30 years ago, there were more girls than boys but they all got married, I’ll tell you that one of those facts is wrong, but I don’t know which.

    #956973

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    No problem, change my 15 above to 30

    #956974

    AZ
    Participant

    MEMO to UBI: 30 years ago family sizes were on average much smaller than they are today.

    Thus, 30 years ago there was almost no concept of age gap, as the number of boys who were beginning shidduchim was close to if not equal to the number of girls who were beginning shidduchim.

    This is a point i made a while back but you choose to ignore it.

    I’ll make it here again one last time.

    If you choose to ignore it again, then i’ll know my self imposed silence was well warranted.

    #956975

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    30 years ago family sizes were on average much smaller than they are today.

    Most likely true, with the increase in kollel-type families.

    Thus, 30 years ago there was almost no concept of age gap,

    I think you meant there was minimal population growth.

    #956976

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    AZ

    I missed that point when you made it, My apologies, had I caught it I would undoubtedly have pointed out the absurdity of that statement.

    Smaller families wouldnt affect percentages. Are you saying 10% of girls (or whatever you claim the current percentage to be) remained single 30 years ago, and all that has increased is the number of people that represents?

    According to the stats you/NASI/DY/ Dr. Halpert (I dont remember whom exactly to credit but you all seem to agree) The population increase year to year is 4%. Of course over 30 years this leads to bigger families. But year to year the situation 30 years ago wouldve been the same as today unless the year to year growth shifted drastically. Is that what you are saying happened?

    If so when did this occur? And do you have any data to back it up?

    (again I am not asking about family sizes since that has no bearing whatsoever on our discussion)

    #956977

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Ubiquitin, are you actually asserting that family size has nothing to do with population growth?

    #956978

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    year to year? No it doesnt.

    over 4 years? (the age disparity between couples upon which this discussion is based)also not.

    So basically no family size has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Sure if 60 year olds where marrying 30 year olds there would be a huge problem. But when 24 year olds marry 20 year olds, if there hasnt been a problem when 30 years ago when the 24 & 20 year olds came from smaller familes, there shouldnt be a problem now. (although again, the same problem would appear bigger now, but youd have to assert that unless something else changed, 30 years ago 10% of girls remained single like you claim today)

    #956979

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    So you just have to figure out how long ago family size increased in order for disparity to take place 30 years ago.

    #956980

    Mammele
    Participant

    Ubiq: you are missing the big picture. To illustrate but one part of larger families mattering even on a small scale (which you are incorrectly focusing on) : very often large families equal two generations entering kindegarten at the same time. Would you still argue these numbers are irrelevant? When these kids grow up (assuming there’s a boy and a girl) at the age when the girl is already seriously into shidduchim, the boy still has another few years before he starts dating. So although they’re not marrying each other, do you at least see where the numbers start getting out of whack?

    #956981

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    IOW, family size is directly related to population growth, although the effects on gender disparity in the arena of shidduch are seen a generation later.

    #956982

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    But for each individual couple dating there is no discernable difference in family size unless the 60 year olds date the 30 year olds. In that case, yes I’d accept that on average 60 year oldscome from smaller families than 30 year olds. It is absurd to say that the family size difference between 24 year olds dating 20 year olds is today is vastly different than 24 year olds dating 20 year olds 30 years ago.

    Lets plug in years which may help you:

    currently boys born in 1989 are dating Girls born in 1993. Is there a different in their family sizes? Lets say there is. Let us call this (a)

    30 years ago, in 1983 (when there was no talk of a crises) Boys born in 1959 were dating girls born in 1963. Was their a difference in their family sizes sure! LEt us call this (b)

    Did families increase since from 1963 to 1993? Sure! But that is compltly irrelevant to the discussion at hand The people born to the larger 1993 families are not dating those born to the smaller 1963 families.

    What matters to us is the difference between (a) and (b).

    The only family growth that matters to our discussion is the family growth between the years 89′- 93′ vs 59′ – 63′. These are tow seperate subsets that are not marrying each other thus any family change between 63′ and 93′ is irrelevant. Are you saying that Families in 93 were bigger compared to 89′ as opposed to families in 63′ not being as big compared to families in 59′ in other words are you saying that (a)>> (b)?

    #956983

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mameleh

    no because For that girl entering kindergarden there is another boy who entered kindergarten four years earlier.

    Look If you say there always were 10% of girls who never got married but what changed is the number of girls included in that 10%, which has increased drasticly over the past 30 years, I would disagree but at least i’d here where they(you?) were coming from. Although the numbers havent actually changed, the number of people affected has to the point that now it is a “crises”.

    Are you saying that 30 years ago 10% of girls didn’t get married?

    If not what changed:

    1) Age difference between couples

    2) Less year to year increase in population(or rather I suppose over 4 years, though not 30 years as AZ and DY are saying that is irrelevant)

    3) Something else

    I say 3, and have discussed at length what I believe 3 to be.

    I have a few follow ups to save a few posts, if you so please.

    If you say 2 what was the yearly increase then. (The data provided by DY/AZ/NASI says 4% currently)?

    If 3, what do you believe the change to have been?

    #956984

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Ubiq:

    If average family size was smaller 50 years ago than 25 years ago, there would have been a smaller annual increase in population (which would manifest itself in a smaller gender disparity 25 or so years later).

    If gradually, average family size increased, we would see a gradual increase in population, and gender disparity for shidduchim.

    You’ve decided to compare current disparity with that of 30 years ago. Therefore, comparing family size from 50 years ago with that of 25 years ago is totally relevant.

    #956985

    Mammele
    Participant

    Ubiq: not necessarily. If we agree that the new generation has more kids than the one prior, the question becomes can we divide our population according to generations. In my community at least, mainly descending from Holocaust survivors, the dividing line used to be pretty obvious. Now the difference is less pronounced, but I believe the rule still holds true. If we can see the division, it becomes obvious that not all girls have a boy 4 years older, as 4 years older may mean a prior generation with presumably less boys.

    So if (to simplify the numbers) we assume 20 childbearing years per couple, every 4 years is 1/5 of a generation. Now if our population is increasing by 100 percent every generation (again, to keep the math simple, a conservative average of 4 kids per family) each 4 year period would have roughly 20 percent less children than the following 4 years. That would mean 10 percent less older boys than girls with a 4 year differential in a span of 4 years. In real life the numbers don’t work exactly this way, as a 4 year period is also not stagnant and I’m underestimating, but I hope you get my point.

    I’m not a mathematician, but I don’t think I’m being illogical. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    #956986

    Mammele
    Participant

    Correction: 16/17 percent older children by 4 years in a 4 year span, not 20.

    #956988

    AZ
    Participant

    UBI: if you didn’t understand the simply relevance of what i wrote then i don’t think there’s any hope for you to grasp the issue and thus i fully understand why you don’t grasp the significance of age gap.

    here it is one more time in a nutshell.

    Age gap is only a problem if the number of children (girls) in 9th grade, is significantly fewer than the number of children (boys) in 12th grade.

    the determining factor of how significant that discrepency is will be how many children are born each year. otherwise known as increase in birth rate also able to be measured by children per family.

    B”H our communities are having many more children per year and there are more children being born per family overall, now than was being born then, thus 30 years ago the number of boys in 12th grade was very close to the number of girls in 9th grade because 30 years ago the the community was NOT having 4% more babies each year than the year previously.

    WHAT CHANGED IS a 4% increase in children born per year, this didn’t exist 30 years ago.

    B”H (because more children being born is a bracha of course) it is now happening, and thus the difference of girls in 9th grade to boys in 12th grade is very stark.

    If this isn’t clear enough, then i give up trying to explain it to you.

    I just realized your post earlier. The answer is 2. in other words, 30 years ago there was far less year to year growth.

    #956989

    AZ
    Participant

    corrected:

    Age gap is only a problem if the number of children (girls) in 9th grade, is significantly MORE than the number of children (boys) in 12th grade.

    #956990

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Thank you AZ.

    What was the growth rate then?

    #956991

    AZ
    Participant

    I don’t know. But it’s very safe to assume that is was considerably smaller than it is today, by the simple observation (among other things) that they typical family had far few children than they do today.

    Which is the explanation as to why the girls 30 years ago didn’t face the same numbers imbalance that they do today.

    Perhaps there are people who have access to accurate data on the birth rate of 30 years ago, i haven’t seen any hard data but it is very possible that there are people who have seen it.

    I’ve yet to come across anyone who doesn’t recognize the self obvious truism that our communities per year rate growth is far greater now than it was then.

    I hope with all your groise kashas sufficiently answered, we can retire this circular discussion.

    #956992

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Sorry AZ

    That was my minor Kasha and i dont view it as sufficently answered but I do see how you dont view it as a question. So further discussion on that point is futile.

    #956993

    AZ
    Participant

    UBI:

    “That was my minor kasha”

    (How interesting… after you previously referred to it as a pircha on the entire age gap concept.)

    These are direct quotes from earlier posts of yours in this thread regarding your question to me about why the shidduch crisis is relatively new

    now that I showed you why you are wrong, you write, it was a “minor kasha,”

    interesting.

    and with a straight face (i assuem you are serios) you write…

    “Not sufficiently answered”

    Interesting…….

    UBI:

    Your intellectual honesty is simply a breath of fresh air.

    I’m retired from discussing with you.

    Hatzlacha Rabba in your efforts. May the Ribono Shel Olam shower your with tremendous hatlzacha in your avodaas hakodesh.

    #956994

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    That’s been answered about six times.

    #956995

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Az

    Youre hillarious

    [n]
    However I always viewed the other point as the more major one., I dont see how you can find contradiction there. In fact I’ll go one further the question about dating divide (which Ive called “more fundamental”) Is NOT a giant gaping hole in your “theory,” Nor does it throw a wrench nor poke a hole in it. It (if unsuccessfully answered) takes a wrecking ball to the whole edifice, since while the “age gap” MAY explain unmarried people. It DOES NOT at all explain the Dating divide. (Have I really not said this?)

    But its ok I had to beg and plead with you to get n answer that was more of a guess to my more minor kasha, which frankly wasnt super satisfying (though acceptable)

    Please dont lecture about intellectual dishonesty when it took you 6 pages of posts to finally address one of my points and you are still afraid to address another one.

    DY, Gd bless him, has been here from the start patiently addressing each point while he may be wrong, his attempts have been gallant. You, AZ waltzed in asserting this age gap business and repeatedly refused to answer questions posed making those who agree with you look dishonest by association. Shame on you

    Hatzlacha Rabba in your thougts, May the Ribono Shel Olam hinder you in your avodaas haraah

    DY

    answered or “answered” ? It has been addressed though I dont recall an answer?

    #1379982

    Anonymous1836
    Participant

    Many proposed solutions for the Shidduch Crisis advocate for the manipulation of the regular pool of Orthodox Jewish daters. These suggestions could prove valuable, and I don’t mean to disparage them at all, but they seem to go against free market principles and the human nature to strike the best overall deal, or at least the deal which an individual desires most; or they create new problems, both financial and sociological.

    How about adding boys to the pool? In addition to our current approach to kiruv, we could launch a campaign specifically designed to attract non-Orthodox Jewish men to become frum (and to some degree, a halachically acceptable, similar program could also result in an increase of male converts). Such a campaign could offer events and speakers that are more attractive to men, and/or it could be promoted and advertised in locations — physical or virtual — which naturally draw a higher concentration of men. The campaign could even target men of specific age groups, and the approach could be adjusted as needed.

    Of course, women who are interested in joining the fold wouldn’t be turned away. This supplemental kiruv program would simply draw more men.

    #1395753

    yehudayona
    Participant

    Lot’s daughters thought they had a real shidduch crisis.

Viewing 26 posts - 251 through 276 (of 276 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending