Before we can discuss the real problems in shidduchim and some real solutions to those problems, we need to all open our eyes, ears and brains to one certain thing: polygamy is not in any way, shape or form a solution--NOT A SOLUTION! It is not only the Tropper letter and article that have raised this spectre--it seems like every time I turn around someone else is bringing it up. Have we all lost our marbles?
1. Polygamy in the US is illegal, as it is in most "civilized" countries. Those lawmakers had some really really good reasons for outlawing the practice.
2. Polygamy assumes that women, both the first wife and the potential second one, would be willing to enter into this state, that a shared marriage is better then no marriage at all. Have you ever seen two women try to share one kitchen? Not always a happy state of affairs. And you want them to share a husband? Yeah, right. If you want to prove the truth of the statement "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" put two women in the position of vying for the attention of one man, and then duck for cover.
3. Polygamy assumes that men would be willing to enter into this state. All the bad jokes that I've heard over the years of the obvious "benefits" aside, married men claim confusion over understanding their one wife. You really think they would voluntarily submit to double the confusion? I'm going to be really frank here so close your eyes if you are squeamish: the extra sex won't be worth the extra aggravation. And for those gentlemen who are grinning and saying "Yippee! With two wives I'm always going to have a wife who isn't nidah" there is this: women living in close proximity, residing under one roof, have been found to have coordinated monthly cycles Regardless of the beginning differences, roommates have found that by the end of a year their cycles have become almost identical. Stop the daydreaming guys.
4. Hm, two wives, twelve children, all under one roof. Priced a roof big enough to hold them all lately?
5. Three sets of in-laws, yielding three mothers-in-law. Enough said.
6. 15 mouths to feed at every meal. Medical coverage for 15 people. Yeshiva tuition of $120,00 to $360,000 PER YEAR. Camp fees of $60,000 a year and up.
7. Three car families.
8. Want to take bets as to the incredible rise in divorces that would take place if polygamy were established? And wouldn't this defeat the purpose for the polygamy?
These are only a few, a very few, of the reasons why polygamy would not work and should, once and for all, be removed from "possible" solutions. The problems that would be caused by polygamy are themselves so monumental that any rational human being would never enter into such a relationship.
Just why is it that rabbanim who should know better, a lot better, still flaunt this solution? Scare tactics? You know what ladies, we deserve a lot better then polygamy as an answer, as a stick to beat us over the head with. Actually, so do men.
And to those who would answer that "it worked way back when," may I point out that we aren't living "way back when." Yesterday's answers were based on yesterday's situations.
So, could we "get real" and stop mouthing the word "polygamy"? It doesn't become us at all to be so facetious when trying to find solutions to the shidduch problem.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
More on the 10% controversy--Part #2
Before getting to the article that was attached to Mr. Tropper's letter, I think we should look at a comment that was posted on this blog, about a different posting.
"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.
"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.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
When 10% may not actually be 10%
A letter by Chaim Tropper was posted on the blog run by bad4shidduchim. In it he attempted to explain where the "10% of frum women who won't get married" came from. In addition, he attached an article he wrote which deals with the same issue. There are some problems in relying on everything in the letter or the article. I'm going to attempt to set them out, if not in one posting, then in two.
Point #1: When researchers set out to run a study about something they are either trying to prove something they believe, to disprove something they don't believe or to gather information for further study. How successful a study is depends on a number of factors: included in those factors is how the researchers gather their data, what is asked of whom, how terms are defined, are the questions bias-neutral, what is included in the data set reported--and what is left out--and what do the researchers do with the data gathered. Even a slight bias on the part of the researchers, whether intentional or accidental, can skew the results. Even small errors can reduce the practicality of using the results of the study.
Point #2: In the letter to bad4shidduchim Mr. Tropper says: "I took my data from the Avi Chai Study on day schools. By comparing the sizes of different grades I was able to extrapolate the growth rate of the community." He also states: "Briefly the 10% is based on two assumptions. The first is that the community is growing by about 4% a year...leaving compounding out for simplicity."
Point #3: There were two Avi Chai studies on day schools, one for the school year 1998-99 and one for the year 2003-4. Each study dealt with its particular school year; however, the second study also did a comparison of the figures from the first study and the second study. The studies are available to be read at avichai.org.
There are common assumptions used in our communities as to the meaning of "day schools." When we think "day school" we do not think the Lakewood Yeshiva, we do not think the Bobover Yeshiva and we do not think Bais Yaakov schools. For the Avi Chai study "day school" included all schools that offer a dual program of Jewish studies and secular studies, from age four through high school. They broke down "day school" into the following categories: Centrist Orthodox, Chabad, Chassidic, Community, Immigrant/Outreach, Modern Orthodox, Reform, Solomon Schechter, Special Education, Yeshiva. How does this impact on shidduchim?
Point #4: From the content of the article attached to the letter, the concern over the 10% falls mainly over that number as applied to the yeshivish element. So let's look specifically at those numbers across the two studies. For 1998-99: 47,643 students across all grades; For 1003-04: 54,326 across all grades. The change in enrollment is 14.03%. This represents a growth rate, over the five years between the two studies, of 2.80% per year on average. The actual rate of growth fluctuated from year to year. So where did the 4% a year come from? Not from these studies.
Point #5: Mr. Tropper uses the figure of 4% growth each year to explain the 10% of women who won't marry. He says: "Briefly the 10% is based on two assumptions...the second is that boys marry when they are about 3 years older than girls...In a community growing at 4% a year...there are 112 20-year-olds for every 100 23-year-olds (4% a year times 3 years leaving compounding out for simplicity). As more boys than girls are born, this works out to a gap of about 10%." Okay, the study Mr. Tropper says he based his figures on does not show 4% a year as shown above. Over three years Mr. Tropper's figures show a 12% difference; the Avi Chai study showed a difference of 8.4% for the same period. Plugging in 8.4% instead of the 12% used will result in less than a 10% figure for women who won't marry.
But here is the kicker: the Avi Chai studies do not break down any of their categories by gender. That is correct, they do not say how many males or how many females there are on any grade level or in any of the categories. The yeshiva category is defined as having single-sex schools, but the studies do not say how many of the schools are for males only and how many for females only. Where did Mr. Tropper get his information that "more boys than girls are born"? He says that using his 4% figure and the fact that more boys then girls are born will result in a gap of about 10%. Based on what? US government figures show a male/female disparity of approximately 49/51. According to Mr. Tropper's figures, the yeshivish element of the jewish population not only does not follow the general population in that the reverse is true, but that there are 4% more males than females per hundred, per year. Again, based on what study and on what data? Anecdotally we are not seeing an excess of males as opposed to females when we look around.
And let's look at that word "about." Someone posted a comment on here that she went out with a boy who told her he was "about 28." She wanted to know what that meant. I'm curious too. What does "about" mean? Is 9 about 10? Is 8 about 10? We already know that the 4% doesn't hold up and it is the basis for making the "about 10%" statement. If Mr. Tropper's "about 10" statement were actually 9, then figuring in 2.8 instead of 4 would also reduce the 9 quite a bit. Suddenly we are not talking about a 10% group of women.
Point #6: "the second is that boys marry when they are about 3 years older than girls." This is also an important point to consider. Much has been said about how this three year gap is contributing heavily to the 10% group of single women, in that there are proportionately more women born in succeeding years then the year they are looking to marry into. We have all heard that three-year number thrown about, but where did it come from? If generally yeshivish boys are marrying girls three years younger than they are, thus contributing to the 10% overage, how many are specifically not doing so? The Avi Chai study did not cover this at all. So yet again, where are the figures coming from? In the article attached to Mr. Tropper's letter there are some attempts at answering where the three years came from and trying to show that the figure is a true one, but based on no stated figures such as the Avi Chai study provided. And yup, the article is using that 4% growth figure. I'll leave that article for a second posting.
It seems from the lack of data that some of this three-year gap idea is surmising and based on anecdotal evidence. So let's look at some anecdotal evidence. I have a captive audience of male students at school, many of whom are married or "in the parsha." Eleven boys all the same age year--23-- and who are married and who self-select as yeshivish answered the age gap question for me. I asked them to choose one of the following categories: wife is older then me; age difference is less then a year; 12 to 23 month difference; 24 to 35 month difference; 36 to 48 month difference; more then a four year difference. One boy has a wife two months older then he is. 4 boys fell in the 12-23 month difference. 5 boys fell in the 24-35 month difference. One boy fell in the 36-48 category. Of this group, only 5 to 6 fell into the three-year gap category that we all say is what yeshivish boys want. Of course, I would also need to ask when they got married--late nights are death on brain cells.
For someone who professes to hate math I sure am finding myself mired in it lately. But I hope that this posting will at least point out one thing. Just because someone says that something is so does not make it so. Some statistics are born bad; some achieve badness after birth. Rounding is hell when it comes to social figures. If there is a disparity between the number of men and number of women available for shidduchim it may well not be anywhere near 10% and there are other factors besides which might be contributing more. I don't pretend to have all the answers but Mr. Tropper's letter sure doesn't have them all either.
Next up: a look at the article.
Point #1: When researchers set out to run a study about something they are either trying to prove something they believe, to disprove something they don't believe or to gather information for further study. How successful a study is depends on a number of factors: included in those factors is how the researchers gather their data, what is asked of whom, how terms are defined, are the questions bias-neutral, what is included in the data set reported--and what is left out--and what do the researchers do with the data gathered. Even a slight bias on the part of the researchers, whether intentional or accidental, can skew the results. Even small errors can reduce the practicality of using the results of the study.
Point #2: In the letter to bad4shidduchim Mr. Tropper says: "I took my data from the Avi Chai Study on day schools. By comparing the sizes of different grades I was able to extrapolate the growth rate of the community." He also states: "Briefly the 10% is based on two assumptions. The first is that the community is growing by about 4% a year...leaving compounding out for simplicity."
Point #3: There were two Avi Chai studies on day schools, one for the school year 1998-99 and one for the year 2003-4. Each study dealt with its particular school year; however, the second study also did a comparison of the figures from the first study and the second study. The studies are available to be read at avichai.org.
There are common assumptions used in our communities as to the meaning of "day schools." When we think "day school" we do not think the Lakewood Yeshiva, we do not think the Bobover Yeshiva and we do not think Bais Yaakov schools. For the Avi Chai study "day school" included all schools that offer a dual program of Jewish studies and secular studies, from age four through high school. They broke down "day school" into the following categories: Centrist Orthodox, Chabad, Chassidic, Community, Immigrant/Outreach, Modern Orthodox, Reform, Solomon Schechter, Special Education, Yeshiva. How does this impact on shidduchim?
Point #4: From the content of the article attached to the letter, the concern over the 10% falls mainly over that number as applied to the yeshivish element. So let's look specifically at those numbers across the two studies. For 1998-99: 47,643 students across all grades; For 1003-04: 54,326 across all grades. The change in enrollment is 14.03%. This represents a growth rate, over the five years between the two studies, of 2.80% per year on average. The actual rate of growth fluctuated from year to year. So where did the 4% a year come from? Not from these studies.
Point #5: Mr. Tropper uses the figure of 4% growth each year to explain the 10% of women who won't marry. He says: "Briefly the 10% is based on two assumptions...the second is that boys marry when they are about 3 years older than girls...In a community growing at 4% a year...there are 112 20-year-olds for every 100 23-year-olds (4% a year times 3 years leaving compounding out for simplicity). As more boys than girls are born, this works out to a gap of about 10%." Okay, the study Mr. Tropper says he based his figures on does not show 4% a year as shown above. Over three years Mr. Tropper's figures show a 12% difference; the Avi Chai study showed a difference of 8.4% for the same period. Plugging in 8.4% instead of the 12% used will result in less than a 10% figure for women who won't marry.
But here is the kicker: the Avi Chai studies do not break down any of their categories by gender. That is correct, they do not say how many males or how many females there are on any grade level or in any of the categories. The yeshiva category is defined as having single-sex schools, but the studies do not say how many of the schools are for males only and how many for females only. Where did Mr. Tropper get his information that "more boys than girls are born"? He says that using his 4% figure and the fact that more boys then girls are born will result in a gap of about 10%. Based on what? US government figures show a male/female disparity of approximately 49/51. According to Mr. Tropper's figures, the yeshivish element of the jewish population not only does not follow the general population in that the reverse is true, but that there are 4% more males than females per hundred, per year. Again, based on what study and on what data? Anecdotally we are not seeing an excess of males as opposed to females when we look around.
And let's look at that word "about." Someone posted a comment on here that she went out with a boy who told her he was "about 28." She wanted to know what that meant. I'm curious too. What does "about" mean? Is 9 about 10? Is 8 about 10? We already know that the 4% doesn't hold up and it is the basis for making the "about 10%" statement. If Mr. Tropper's "about 10" statement were actually 9, then figuring in 2.8 instead of 4 would also reduce the 9 quite a bit. Suddenly we are not talking about a 10% group of women.
Point #6: "the second is that boys marry when they are about 3 years older than girls." This is also an important point to consider. Much has been said about how this three year gap is contributing heavily to the 10% group of single women, in that there are proportionately more women born in succeeding years then the year they are looking to marry into. We have all heard that three-year number thrown about, but where did it come from? If generally yeshivish boys are marrying girls three years younger than they are, thus contributing to the 10% overage, how many are specifically not doing so? The Avi Chai study did not cover this at all. So yet again, where are the figures coming from? In the article attached to Mr. Tropper's letter there are some attempts at answering where the three years came from and trying to show that the figure is a true one, but based on no stated figures such as the Avi Chai study provided. And yup, the article is using that 4% growth figure. I'll leave that article for a second posting.
It seems from the lack of data that some of this three-year gap idea is surmising and based on anecdotal evidence. So let's look at some anecdotal evidence. I have a captive audience of male students at school, many of whom are married or "in the parsha." Eleven boys all the same age year--23-- and who are married and who self-select as yeshivish answered the age gap question for me. I asked them to choose one of the following categories: wife is older then me; age difference is less then a year; 12 to 23 month difference; 24 to 35 month difference; 36 to 48 month difference; more then a four year difference. One boy has a wife two months older then he is. 4 boys fell in the 12-23 month difference. 5 boys fell in the 24-35 month difference. One boy fell in the 36-48 category. Of this group, only 5 to 6 fell into the three-year gap category that we all say is what yeshivish boys want. Of course, I would also need to ask when they got married--late nights are death on brain cells.
For someone who professes to hate math I sure am finding myself mired in it lately. But I hope that this posting will at least point out one thing. Just because someone says that something is so does not make it so. Some statistics are born bad; some achieve badness after birth. Rounding is hell when it comes to social figures. If there is a disparity between the number of men and number of women available for shidduchim it may well not be anywhere near 10% and there are other factors besides which might be contributing more. I don't pretend to have all the answers but Mr. Tropper's letter sure doesn't have them all either.
Next up: a look at the article.
If we are going to toss around statistics...
Before I begin any discussion on the posting on the bad4shidduchim blog site, I would like to recommend the following works to my readers. The first is out of print but readily available in used copies (Amazon had it for the price of one cent.) If you read just one, start with Dr. Best's first book. He writes so that the reader can understand what is being presented, not always the case in books by academics, and yes, he has a sometimes biting sense of humor; in short, a good read even if it is about numbers. Much of the discussion of the shidduch "crisis" centers around statistics, statistics that are widely divergent, statistics that seem to be used to prove two opposite things at the same time. These books may help you to put those statistics into perspective.
"Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos
"Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists" by Joel Best
"More Damned Lies and Statistics--how Numbers Confuse Public Issues" by Joel Best
"Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos
"Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists" by Joel Best
"More Damned Lies and Statistics--how Numbers Confuse Public Issues" by Joel Best
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A Preview for an Upcoming Posting
There is a certain amount of reader overlap when blogs post material on similar or related topics. Some readers of this blog may well have seen a posting on the blog run by bad4shidduchim in answer to where the "10%" number came from. While there are some good points made in the posting, there are also some serious flaws in the letter of Mr. Tropper to bad4shidduchim, flaws in the reasoning and flaws in the supporting statistics used.
I wish I could sit down right now and discuss the posting but I can't. I do want to point out, however, that I definitely will. This is what rational discussion is supposed to be about: you say something then I say something. It is hoped that those who are "listening" to both sides of the conversation will come out the better for it.
I wish I could sit down right now and discuss the posting but I can't. I do want to point out, however, that I definitely will. This is what rational discussion is supposed to be about: you say something then I say something. It is hoped that those who are "listening" to both sides of the conversation will come out the better for it.
The Shidduch Crisis--A Hypothetical Case--#5
Previous postings in this thread have thrown out some statistical information and some possible conclusions that can be come to. Perhaps it would illustrate the difficulty in saying "there are more males then females" as it applies to frum Jews if we look at the following.
Let us look at a hypothetical community somewhere in New York City.
Year 2004: Number of children born: 100
Number of boys born: 49
Number of girls born: 51
Now let's break down those figures even further.
Number of boys born to yeshivish families: 9
Number of boys born to chasidish families:14
Number of boys born to modern orthodox machmir families: 12
Number of boys born to modern orthodox families: 14
Number of girls born to yeshivish families: 13
Number of girls born to chasidish families: 14
Number of girls born to modern orthodox machmir families: 12
Number of girls born to modern orthodox families: 12
Yes, in this year there were more girls born then boys; however, the distribution among the sub-groups was not equal. If, for arguments sake, this group of children would be required to marry each other, only two groups would have the "right" numbers for all members to get married. In the two remaining groups, one would have too many boys and one would have too many girls. (Please note: I am assuming here that members of a sub-group will only marry other members of the same sub-group.) However, in the real world people are not required to marry within their own age group. So let's look at some other hypothetical figures.
Year 2006: Number of Children born: 103
Number of boys: 51
Number of girls: 52
Now let's break down those figures even further.
Number of boys born to yeshivish families: 12
Number of boys born to chasidish families:14
Number of boys born to modern orthodox machmir families: 9
Number of boys born to modern orthodox families: 16
Number of girls born to yeshivish families: 17
Number of girls born to chasidish families: 14
Number of girls born to modern orthodox machmir families: 12
Number of girls born to modern orthodox families: 9
If, as the groups that are offering rewards for shadchanim who make matches for people no more than two years different in age, we assume that those girls born in 2006 are going to be looking for the boys born in 2004, will they find them? That depends.
2006 females 2004 males
Y-17------------ Y-9
C-14 ------------C-14
M-12 ------------M-12
MO-9----------- MO-14
For the Chasidishe and Modern Orthodox Machmir group there is a boy for every girl. As someone commented on one of the postings, this doesn't mean that they are all necessary going to want each other, but the theoretical possibility does exist. The modern orthodox girls are going to have a choice since there are more males then females. This means, however, that the "excess" number of boys will have to look at girls from a different year if they, too, are to get married. The girls in the yeshivish category are going to be in trouble. They outnumber the boys almost two to one for the years chosen to look at. They will have to look for boys outside of the two-year age difference that is being pushed. Even if they were willing to marry boys their own age, there weren't enough of the boys in 2006.
And yet, there were only 3 fewer males born then females for the years looked at. The disparity, the "crisis" if you must use the word, only affects part of the frum community, not all of it. And it affects the subgroups only if they 1)will not marry outside of their subgroup; 2) stick to a two-year age difference; 3)stick to finding mates only in their geographical area. Since actual births are always in flux, the numbers above might not be true for any given year other then the one looked at. 2005 might have been a year with more boys than girls--or not. 2007 could have seen a different spread of males across the various groups. And the spread could be different from one geographic location to another.
I only divided my groups into four distinct sub groupings. In reality Klal Yisroel has more then the four subgroups. In addition, some of the subgroups divide themselves into even further subgroups: for instance, various sects of Chasidus who do not intermarry with other sects. The figures were also only for one community; other communities, in other geographic locations may have shown different figures for the same years.
Conclusion: What can we learn from this hypothetical community seen across two years? For one thing, birth figures vary from year to year, from sub group to sub group. Artificially requiring a two-year age difference may or may not work, depending on the year and depending on the sub group. The more the various subgroups keep themselves isolated, the more problematic the number of births can become for some of the groups.
Let's stop talking about the shidduch "crisis" and let's stop blaming the "crisis" on what we believe to be a problem of too many girls and not enough boys. The male/female ratio only becomes a problem, and only for some subgroups, if we make it the ONLY criterion for marriage. There are a lot of other things which contribute in greater intensity and affect then how many girls and how many boys. But as long as we can point a finger at a number difference we don't actually have to sit down and think about the other factors that affect shidduchim.
Let us look at a hypothetical community somewhere in New York City.
Year 2004: Number of children born: 100
Number of boys born: 49
Number of girls born: 51
Now let's break down those figures even further.
Number of boys born to yeshivish families: 9
Number of boys born to chasidish families:14
Number of boys born to modern orthodox machmir families: 12
Number of boys born to modern orthodox families: 14
Number of girls born to yeshivish families: 13
Number of girls born to chasidish families: 14
Number of girls born to modern orthodox machmir families: 12
Number of girls born to modern orthodox families: 12
Yes, in this year there were more girls born then boys; however, the distribution among the sub-groups was not equal. If, for arguments sake, this group of children would be required to marry each other, only two groups would have the "right" numbers for all members to get married. In the two remaining groups, one would have too many boys and one would have too many girls. (Please note: I am assuming here that members of a sub-group will only marry other members of the same sub-group.) However, in the real world people are not required to marry within their own age group. So let's look at some other hypothetical figures.
Year 2006: Number of Children born: 103
Number of boys: 51
Number of girls: 52
Now let's break down those figures even further.
Number of boys born to yeshivish families: 12
Number of boys born to chasidish families:14
Number of boys born to modern orthodox machmir families: 9
Number of boys born to modern orthodox families: 16
Number of girls born to yeshivish families: 17
Number of girls born to chasidish families: 14
Number of girls born to modern orthodox machmir families: 12
Number of girls born to modern orthodox families: 9
If, as the groups that are offering rewards for shadchanim who make matches for people no more than two years different in age, we assume that those girls born in 2006 are going to be looking for the boys born in 2004, will they find them? That depends.
2006 females 2004 males
Y-17------------ Y-9
C-14 ------------C-14
M-12 ------------M-12
MO-9----------- MO-14
For the Chasidishe and Modern Orthodox Machmir group there is a boy for every girl. As someone commented on one of the postings, this doesn't mean that they are all necessary going to want each other, but the theoretical possibility does exist. The modern orthodox girls are going to have a choice since there are more males then females. This means, however, that the "excess" number of boys will have to look at girls from a different year if they, too, are to get married. The girls in the yeshivish category are going to be in trouble. They outnumber the boys almost two to one for the years chosen to look at. They will have to look for boys outside of the two-year age difference that is being pushed. Even if they were willing to marry boys their own age, there weren't enough of the boys in 2006.
And yet, there were only 3 fewer males born then females for the years looked at. The disparity, the "crisis" if you must use the word, only affects part of the frum community, not all of it. And it affects the subgroups only if they 1)will not marry outside of their subgroup; 2) stick to a two-year age difference; 3)stick to finding mates only in their geographical area. Since actual births are always in flux, the numbers above might not be true for any given year other then the one looked at. 2005 might have been a year with more boys than girls--or not. 2007 could have seen a different spread of males across the various groups. And the spread could be different from one geographic location to another.
I only divided my groups into four distinct sub groupings. In reality Klal Yisroel has more then the four subgroups. In addition, some of the subgroups divide themselves into even further subgroups: for instance, various sects of Chasidus who do not intermarry with other sects. The figures were also only for one community; other communities, in other geographic locations may have shown different figures for the same years.
Conclusion: What can we learn from this hypothetical community seen across two years? For one thing, birth figures vary from year to year, from sub group to sub group. Artificially requiring a two-year age difference may or may not work, depending on the year and depending on the sub group. The more the various subgroups keep themselves isolated, the more problematic the number of births can become for some of the groups.
Let's stop talking about the shidduch "crisis" and let's stop blaming the "crisis" on what we believe to be a problem of too many girls and not enough boys. The male/female ratio only becomes a problem, and only for some subgroups, if we make it the ONLY criterion for marriage. There are a lot of other things which contribute in greater intensity and affect then how many girls and how many boys. But as long as we can point a finger at a number difference we don't actually have to sit down and think about the other factors that affect shidduchim.
Results of the last Poll
As you can see, if you scroll all the way down, of the 32 people who voted, 25 believed that the Internet should be available in frum homes with supervision of those under 18. What this brought to my mind was the issue of supervision. How are parents going to supervise their children who use the Internet if they, themselves, are poorly trained to use it? You can't teach someone to drive if you don't drive yourself. The level of instruction in high school on using computers seems to be limited to word processing, in the girls high schools, and is not there at all in many of the boys high schools. Like every other piece of technology available today, there are both plusses and minuses to the Internet.
The Internet is fast becoming an excellent tool of research, a tool of information. What is needed is better training in evaluating the various sources available as to their veracity and trustworthiness. If we truly believe that the Internet should be present in frum homes then we need to hold schools responsible for better computer instruction, and we need to become proficient in "finding the gold" and eliminating the "dross."
Interesting that 2 people should say that the Internet does not belong in frum homes, and yet somehow had the Internet available to vote in the poll.
Also of interest were the 5 votes for the Internet in the frum home only being used for business. Even with the Lakewood ban on the Internet, they had to realize that a complete ban was both impossible and impractical. Computers are an entrenched part of any working environment, and using the Internet is a requirement for most jobs today. A number of young married Lakewood women work for my husband's company. They only have to come in to New York a few days a week; the other days they remain at home and telecommute. Thus, the Internet provides a solution to the problem of working mothers--they are working but also available to their children during daytime hours. Again, if this option is to remain open for young women, and young men, better training is necessary on the high school level.
At least for the readers of this blog, the Internet is here to stay. The question now seems to be how well we will use it.
The Internet is fast becoming an excellent tool of research, a tool of information. What is needed is better training in evaluating the various sources available as to their veracity and trustworthiness. If we truly believe that the Internet should be present in frum homes then we need to hold schools responsible for better computer instruction, and we need to become proficient in "finding the gold" and eliminating the "dross."
Interesting that 2 people should say that the Internet does not belong in frum homes, and yet somehow had the Internet available to vote in the poll.
Also of interest were the 5 votes for the Internet in the frum home only being used for business. Even with the Lakewood ban on the Internet, they had to realize that a complete ban was both impossible and impractical. Computers are an entrenched part of any working environment, and using the Internet is a requirement for most jobs today. A number of young married Lakewood women work for my husband's company. They only have to come in to New York a few days a week; the other days they remain at home and telecommute. Thus, the Internet provides a solution to the problem of working mothers--they are working but also available to their children during daytime hours. Again, if this option is to remain open for young women, and young men, better training is necessary on the high school level.
At least for the readers of this blog, the Internet is here to stay. The question now seems to be how well we will use it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)