The age gap theory is complex and nuanced, and needs to take into account a myriad of factors. A simple statement, for example, of something like the below, is factually incorrect on multiple accounts, and also fails to take multiple crucial factors into consideration. “The math is very imple and you can do it yourself. If the population grows every year by some percentage, say 5% for example, then in 2021 if there were 100 boys and 100 girls born (assuming approximately the same of both), so in 2022 there will be 105 boys and 105 girls born and in 2023 110 or more boys and girls each born. If then the boys and girls marry at close in age there are equal numbers for all. If the boys from 2021 marry the girls born in 2025 – there are more girls so not enough matches.”
This writer only mentioned 2 factors – population growth rates (5%), and male to female birth ratios (1:1). Both numbers mentioned were completely wrong. The math was correct, but the data was quite wrong. In addition, there are a large number of other factors that would need to be taken into account to factor for how many boys of a given age group would be compatible to marry the number of girls in the given age group.
It is hard to avoid the fact that there will be a degree of a mathematical imbalance. However, a careful calculation of the numbers will still reveal a marked discrepancy between the differences that should be there and the reality of the situation the way people are perceiving it. It would appear that there are many more factors than simply age and demographics to be taken into account.
A more accurate statement may be “There is a noted discrepancy between the particular profile boy being sought by girls of a given demographic and age group, and the availability of the number of boys fitting that profile”. However, there may be a large number of boys available that do not fit this exact criteria that are eminently marriageable and would make wonderful husbands and fathers that are being written off. The solution may well be an adjustment of expectations, rather than a changing of the system to try to satisfy these unrealistic expectations.
The Cherem deRabbenu Gershom conversation is a bit far fetched too. There are much simpler answers to the crisis, that would require a bit of maturity instead of a complete transformation of the marital and familial structure of our society. If we can’t convince litvishe girls to be willing to date wonderful chassidish boys, or various other great profiles that they refuse to consider, do you really think they’d be willing to date as a second wife? They would need to really be sold on the status symbol of the prestigious husband to be willing to be a second wife as long as they can be associated with his illustrious brand.
In general, that underlies a major factor in the shidduch crisis which is 100% real – that people are looking for a certain picture perfect image that they consider societally acceptable and pleasing, as opposed to a spouse that they can have a marriage and a family with. 40 days before conception, the Bas Kol may have delineated the spouse, but it didn’t necessarily include the whole package deal that isn’t necessary for a successful marriage but people still insist on. When we’re looking to solve this crisis, the entitlement and education crisis may be the real core issue to work on.