UBI
we can keep on going around in circles, though now mamales position is far more vague (because she tries to explain why the girls have the upper hand by the chassidim and the boys by the non chassidim and she doesn’t present a strong argument for her underlying explanation(s), more good girls, easier to be a good girl, etc. a smorgasbord of unsubstantiated sevaros..)
But her general idea is the same, the one with the upper hand is the one that gets the name first, and you insist it’s the other way around. You insist that the one who gets the name first thus has the upper hand. and you insist that’s what she is saying.
It is actually kind of funny, but either way, i’m happy to drop the discussion as to what she said/means etc.
As for how shidduchim were redd 15/20 years ago. Honestly- i don’t have a good read on that. I’m not really sure if they went to the boys side first or not. It does seem that you are firmly convinced that it wasn’t. I’d be curious as to your proof to this statement, as well as to the explanation why the “halacha” changed. After all, you explain the reason for this “halacha” is protect the feelings of the girls (you may be right)and for some reason this is a new phenomena that shadchanim began to be sensitive to the feelings of the girls, as opposed to 15/20 years ago they didn’t mind hurting their feelings.
interesting thought…..
This is all in the spirit of understanding your erroneous position.
As for your comments about NASI- Please don’t see yourself short. Anyone can do what they did and are doing. They started off (and still are) a tiny tiny operation. Please don’t be afraid- Emes always wins out.
As for my debate style- that’s okay. But do realize that your “question” doesn’t poke a hole in “the theory”.
I’m not even sure what “theory” you are referring to.
Are you referring to
a. The observation that you yourself agreed to?
B. The statement that the observation of the imbalance of numbers causes havoc in the shidduch scene?
C. The explanation as to WHY there is a imbalance in the numbers. I assume it’s not point C- since in this thread i have purposely not even begun to address point C
So i guess you are “poking a hole” in point B. That a severe imbalance in numbers causes havoc in the shidduch scene. (by the way that statement should be self evident due to the simple law of supply and demand, but i guess it’s not self evident to you) And your proof that the theory is wrong is because
1. You assume 15/20 years ago there was also the same imbalance of numbers.
2. 15/20 years ago despite the same imbalance of numbers there was no shidduch crisis.
Am I understanding your “pircha on the theory” correctly?
If your answer to this question is yes- I’ll show you why your alleged “pircha” is simply based on a obvious error you are making.
Let me know