AZ
youre funny, youre (deliberetly?) taking her quote out of context. Her point isn’t cause and effect, rather she first emntions “Most shadchanim by Chasidim suggest the shidduch first to the party regardless of gender. It just happens to be that girls are asked first in their current dynamic.
don’t have the money and advertising clout NASI has, and anyway they wont be successful anyway (Thank God since it wouldn’t help the “crises” and would create new problems).
No I don’t think the system is this way because of NASI, I do think NASI worsens the problem by causing people to not consider other possibilities.
I don’t know why the chasisim go to both sides at the same time or to either side first. Anyway it doesn’t need an explanation since it is the more logical way to do it. As to why we do it this crazy way, It is to protect the feelings of girls since they now get rejected when their name is just on a guy’ list which is obviously less hurtful than when they put themselves out there by agreeing to go out with a guy already and then getting rejected.
Incidentally I love your funny approach to arguing, you only reply to my argument that pokes a hole in your “theory” once I agree your “theory” is correct. Strange but amusing.
I don’t get your “I guess you believe” line, do you think it was this way 15-20 years ago that the guy had to give the yes before the girl?
DY
No it doesn’t we have been through this. 300 dates should be enough dates for all 112 girls. (Again though not enough for 112 weddings) It does not explain why many “suffer from infrequent dating”
No demographics have not changed, yet the disparity was not the same. I’m curious though which component do you think changed was the population increase less? or were couples the same age?
I get that you don’t know, but you must have a hunch that is misguiding you, Im just curious which one it is