Re: Chinese Slave Labor (was Re: say no to urban skydiving Re: AW:Aunti Behringer)

[mjnoble <not8ohm@iinet.net.au>]

Eric, this IS fun!

yes, according to 2003 statistics, the overall world gender balance is 
101 men to 100 women (3,169,122,000 men to
3,132,342,000 women), as taken from UN population figures for 2002.  
this varies as highly as 186 men to 100 women in United Arab Emirates (I 
guess we should never trust a man from UAE with a nuclear weapon, or for 
that matter most Arab nations where the male population is 
proportionally higher than females) down to 85 men to every 100 women in 
Latvia and Estonia (explains why these countries look so peaceful in the 
travel brochures).

Whilst we're on figures, the overall chinese population is in the 
vicinity of 1.3 billion, not the 50 billion you lovingly guestimate in 
your previous email.  This I thought was common knowledge as you put it 
perhaps a little too condescendingly.  Their gender imbalance is 
certainly worrying (the overall figure being 106 men to 100 men, with 
the newborn ratio as high as 119 to 100 men in some provinces), as is 
the death of female infants and unborns as a consequnce of one child 
policy disturbing. 

I doubt, however, the guys with their finger on the triggers are the 
ones not getting laid, and hence my point was, they are not too much of 
a concern to myself in regards to firing off missiles as a substitute 
for firing off, well, I'm sure you can complete the metaphor.  To be 
fair to the political expediencies at work, the point of one child 
policy was to control a hopelessly out of control rising population.  It 
has achieved that, albeit at a very expensivc cost (one would probably 
employ that always chilling phrase "collateral damage" if trying to see 
it from a governmental point of view - a phrase used by many nations 
politicians and ugly whichever way you look at it (15000-17000 civilians 
dead, sovereign nation... ring a bell?). 

So I'm certainly not saying I don't feel for the problem of chinese male 
sexual frustration, by any measure, but just that I don't see it as the 
greatest threat to the peace and prosperity of ALL peoples of ALL 
nations compared to say frustrated eschatologians trying to prove dogma 
true, or cynical politicians manipulating eschatological beliefs in a 
quest for a new world order.  Since you didn't address the point of my 
reply to your neo-Mcarthy "yellow menace" styled post, (my point being 
the worrying fact that people who have a vested interest in the world 
ending to prove a fundamental tenet and teleogy of their religious 
philosophy have the capably planet destroying lion's share of the 
world's nuclear arsenal, and stand largely unopposed militarily),  I'll 
assume that the distance between our points of view, non-heirarchically 
speaking of course, is somewhat large, thus leaving any attempt to 
discuss the issue as an ever spiralling loop of frustration enclosing 
the inability of each of us to see it "the right way".  To put it 
another way, this looks a bit like a case of "I'll see your paranoia and 
raise you...".  To break out of the betting loop, I think I'll fold.

-michael





Suit & Tie Guy wrote:

> dude, i don't know what countries you're talking about but the rest of 
> the world has a roughly a 45/55 to 55/45 mix of men and women. china's 
> ludicrous population control policy of one child only encourages the 
> abortion of millions of unborn girls (and the murder of born girls) 
> because they want sons instead. this is throwing china's sexuality 
> completely out of balance.
>
> as a matter of stereotype fundamentalist islam and fundamentalist 
> judaism and fundamentalist christianity all frown on promiscuity, 
> premarital sex, and unnecessary sexual activity (which its 
> practitioners often indulge in regardless), but when it's SIMPLY NOT 
> POSSIBLE for a certain percentage because of the numbers then it 
> becomes a big deal.
>
> i really thought this was common knowledge. sorry i didn't explain 
> myself.
> ---
> Eric Williamson
> www.suitandtieguy.com
>
>