"Anonymous said...
Hey, it doesn't matter what the numbers are because nobody makes a shidduch by the numbers. Where in the numbers does it say that liking and trust and personality have to be compatible? If the numbers were number one in how to make a shidduch then we'd all just get one at birth, and at 21 the two matching numbers would get married and be finished with it. No dating, no agonizing. No love and respect and shalom bayis either I would imagine."
I think that this anonymous commenter has hit the problem squarely on. Good marriages are not a number game. The age of the two people is NOT the major factor, certainly not the only factor in deciding whether a couple are suited or not. There has to be some "kesher" that develops between two people for a marriage to have a chance of surviving. If you don't care about the marriages lasting, if you don't care about the shalom bais in these marriages, then by all means, play the number game.
If all that becomes important is the age, then you are changing the definition of marriage. Marriage then becomes a coupling for the purposes of not being single. And those who are suggesting this method hope that familiarity will breed content, not contempt. You cannot legislate good marriages through statistical manipulation. But it doesn't seem to be good marriages that are being worried about--it's marriage, period.
Okay single readers, how many of you would be willing to take any male or any female just to be married? How many of you would agree that the age is THE factor or the only factor that should be considered? What else is important to you when looking forward to marriage? And for those of you who are married, was age THE deciding factor in getting married? Would you have limited yourself to only those who are your age? What did decide you to marry the person you did?
In his article Mr. Tropper gives a chart showing 1000 boys and 960 girls all the same age. The main thrust of the article seems to be that if this cohort all married each other there would be no "crisis" for the girls. Of course, there would be 40 boys without partners. In the next year there would be 1040 boys and 1000 girls. This adds another 40 boys without partners.The year after that there would be 1080 boys and 1040 girls. The year after that there would be 1120 boys and 1080 girls. Using this chart, each year there would be 40 boys without whom to marry. Isn't this just shifting the "crisis" to the males? And this also supposes that there are indeed 40 more males per 2000 births to begin with. And it also supposes that the number of males and females born in any year will remain absolutely the same. And it also supposes that the number of children born will remain absolutely the same. Even a slight change in any direction to any of the numbers means that the whole system will not work.
In the article the chart mentioned above is used to show why there is a "crisis" for girls if boys marry girls three years younger then they are. In such a case, the 1000 boys aged 23 would have a pool of 1080 girls aged 20 to marry. This would result in 80 girls without possible partners. This assumes that the three-year age gap is constant, that it holds true for all 23-year-old boys and for all 20-year-old girls.
Looking at the chart and the numbers shows us this: if boys only marry girls their own age, not everyone is going to have someone to marry and if boys and girls only marry someone with a three-year age difference not everyone is going to have someone to marry. The chart does not prove that the suggested solution will eliminate a "crisis."
Another commenter gave an example of people shopping for coats: fifty shoppers and fifty coats available. Do all the coats get sold? No. Even if there are 100 coats there is no guarantee that those shopping will like the coats, that the coats will fit, that the coats will be suitable. So there are 1000 boys and 960 girls. Where is the guarantee that 960 marriages will result just because the people are there? Where is the guarantee that these people will "fit" each other as possible marriage partners? That commenter also said that if you have 50 prisoners and 50 coats then every coat and every prisoner will be matched--they have no choice. Is that what is being recommended? That choice of partner be eliminated in making marriages?
What if we said this instead: any attempt to formulize shidduch making using age will result in an imbalance, whether for males or for females. The three-year "rule" does so for females, the "same age" rule does so for males. Furthermore, any formula will be vulnerable to variations not under the control of the formula makers, such as a disparity in the numbers assumed to be a steady progression. The actual number of children born in any given year cannot be predetermined, neither can the distribution of males and females. Neither can the suitability of any given male and female for a marriage be determined through the use of numbers. Even an even number of males and females at any given time would not result in marriages for all of them at that time.
Conclusion: whatever "crisis" there is in shidduch making today, with a seeming disparity in the number of women able to find shidduchim, is not going to be solved by mathematics, certainly not by mathematics alone. Something else is going on, a something else that needs to be "found" and addressed.
I'll leave my readers with this: it would seem from Mr. Tropper's article that the "crisis" represented by that "10%" applies to the yeshivish community. He actually does explain why he feels that may be happening.
Next up: How "Yeshivish" contributes to the 10% shidduch problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment