India Strips Kashmir of its Special Status

[Formerly Black Trash]

You mean why are there way more men than women?

Boys are culturally favored far more than girls. The biggest issue is a practical one - male children stay with their birth parents and inherit the family home and land and are expected to take care of their parents into old age, while female children are sent away to live with their husband. So if you have a male child you have a future wageearner and caretaker, while if you have a female child you're just going to lose her in the end after you spent all those resources raising her. On top of that, they have this terrible dowry tradition where the husband's family demands an exorbitant gift at marriage that can often be the equivalent of six months or a year's wages. So that turns having a girl into a giant future loss.

Due to that issue, sex-selected abortions are common. Too many families who don't want a girl (either they already have a girl or "too many girls" or they only want 1-2 children so they want them to be boys) will abort the baby if it's a girl. On top of that, girls don't get taken care of as well because there isn't as much invested in their future, so girls are far more likely to malnourished, far more likely to get sick, and their mortality rates at younger ages are high.

All of that adds up to somewhere between 85 and 95 girls for every 100 boys in many of the northern states. It's a massive gap and creating all sorts of social issues.

No
Why are men with no women/family more prone to radicalization?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

No
Why are men with no women/family more prone to radicalization?

I think two reasons.

One is that a lot of men are set up to feel that their legacy depends on their family. That's probably partly cultural and partly genetic. If a man feels like he has no chance at a family, no chance at a legacy, then he might either start getting depressed and hopeless about his life (and thus more vulnerable to recruiters) or he might get more extremist about trying to "do something" to leave an impact on the world (and thus more vulnerable to become a lone wolf).

The second is that I think family tempers a lot of men's negative impulses. Everyone has an impulse to do something bad sometimes, but most of the time we temper our impulses one way or another. Perhaps it is our religious values, or our logical thoughts about the consequences, or we realize that doing the wrong thing would hurt the people we love. If someone doesn't have a spouse or children that they love in the world, if they don't see their future lasting beyond their own person, then they have a lot less to tie them down and keep their from following through on their worst thoughts.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

I think two reasons.

One is that a lot of men are set up to feel that their legacy depends on their family. That's probably partly cultural and partly genetic. If a man feels like he has no chance at a family, no chance at a legacy, then he might either start getting depressed and hopeless about his life (and thus more vulnerable to recruiters) or he might get more extremist about trying to "do something" to leave an impact on the world (and thus more vulnerable to become a lone wolf).

The second is that I think family tempers a lot of men's negative impulses. Everyone has an impulse to do something bad sometimes, but most of the time we temper our impulses one way or another. Perhaps it is our religious values, or our logical thoughts about the consequences, or we realize that doing the wrong thing would hurt the people we love. If someone doesn't have a spouse or children that they love in the world, if they don't see their future lasting beyond their own person, then they have a lot less to tie them down and keep their from following through on their worst thoughts.

Yeah
For sure

I've been saying we need to stop laughing at incels
Because they out here killing ppl

Government need to address it

 

[Sukairain]

You mean why are there way more men than women?

Boys are culturally favored far more than girls. The biggest issue is a practical one - male children stay with their birth parents and inherit the family home and land and are expected to take care of their parents into old age, while female children are sent away to live with their husband. So if you have a male child you have a future wageearner and caretaker, while if you have a female child you're just going to lose her in the end after you spent all those resources raising her. On top of that, they have this terrible dowry tradition where the husband's family demands an exorbitant gift at marriage that can often be the equivalent of six months or a year's wages. So that turns having a girl into a giant future loss.

Due to that issue, sex-selected abortions are common. Too many families who don't want a girl (either they already have a girl or "too many girls" or they only want 1-2 children so they want them to be boys) will abort the baby if it's a girl. On top of that, girls don't get taken care of as well because there isn't as much invested in their future, so girls are far more likely to malnourished, far more likely to get sick, and their mortality rates at younger ages are high.

All of that adds up to somewhere between 85 and 95 girls for every 100 boys in many of the northern states. It's a massive gap and creating all sorts of social issues.

Again there's a massive variation between the north, which as you say averages below 90 female births per 100 male births, and the south. The state I'm from has a ratio of 99.6 females to 100 males. But regardless the fertility rate is actually below replacement. In the north it's often in excess of 3, 3.5 children per woman.

The maths of it doesn't work out to me, how can you have such a high birth rate but such a low sex ratio?

 

[FAH1223]

 

[ZoeGod]

Just to put in perspective what a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would entail for the world.

Nuclear Winter From an India-Pakistan War Could Kill 2 Billion

Basically 3-5 years without summer, multi decade ice ages, massive drought, 150 million dead between India and Pakistan, massive global drought which leads to famine and the ice ages will lead to pandemic diseases and 2 billion dead worldwide.

 

[88m3]

Just to put in perspective what a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would entail for the world.

Nuclear Winter From an India-Pakistan War Could Kill 2 Billion

Basically 3-5 years without summer, multi decade ice ages, massive drought, 150 million dead between India and Pakistan, massive global drought which leads to famine and the ice ages will lead to pandemic diseases and 2 billion dead worldwide.

at face value that's really bad

 

[mastermind]

 

[DrBanneker]

Again there's a massive variation between the north, which as you say averages below 90 female births per 100 male births, and the south. The state I'm from has a ratio of 99.6 females to 100 males. But regardless the fertility rate is actually below replacement. In the north it's often in excess of 3, 3.5 children per woman.

The maths of it doesn't work out to me, how can you have such a high birth rate but such a low sex ratio?

The way the calculations for total fertility rate (children per woman work) is that they are calculated with respect to women in the current population, so 3-3.5 kids per child is amongst the women that exist, regardless of the sex ratio. The total fertility is less informative though if sex ratio is out of whack since less women having 3 kids each is probably the same as having 2.7 kids each for a balanced sex ratio. So the northern states will be below replacement fertility before they hit 2.1 because of the off sex ratio.

Now the crude birth rate, which is a different number, is the number of births per 1,000 people (male and female) and the sex ratio should lower this number but it is usually not reported widely since the age and sex ratio of the population makes the number hard to compare between populations.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

IndiaToday, one of the biggest newspapers in India, just posted this video of a police officer ranting about killing student activists and Muslim women and tagged it #IndiaFirst.




This is what she's saying:

Chauhan added that those who support human rights did not support the armed forces when Pulwama terror attack occurred and when jawans were killed in Chhattisgarh. "When anti-national slogans were raised in the JNU by an anti-national, then they stand with him." Chauhan said, in an apparent reference to former student leader Kanhaiya Kumar. Proclaiming herself to be the "daughter of India" and a member of the armed forces, she added, "I declare that we will enter houses from where people like Afzal (Guru) come and kill. We won't let wombs develop from which people like Afzal emerge." She also purportedly called upon people of the country to pierce Kanhaiya Kumar's chest with the national flag.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Wave of killings triggers memories of dark past in Kashmir