MN randomguy Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Well, this thread got me thinking about what percentage of people end up dying without getting married. The stats aren't that bad, tbh. Some of us might be lagging behind the curve a bit, but the probability of finding someone at some point before you die is WAY higher than the probability of never finding someone at all. Like, by a ridiculous margin. http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/percentage-of-w.html Thanks, nice to have some solid referenced info in a forum. I like the guy's comments on this web page. Comments My dad has complained that after my mom died, there was some social pressure to remarry immediately to whatever was available. I won't mention the unflattering terms he used for whatever was available. A few decades ago, a widower with two children probably would have had to remarry immediately, or the whole family would starve. Nowadays, it's a lot easier to feed and clothe a family. People of both genders have a lot easier time getting by alone nowadays. So, there's less incentive to compromise. And as I've said before, increasing diversity makes it a lot less likely to find someone you can get along with imtimately. As was said before. There's a difference between married and happily married. Interesting comment on diversity, never thought of that. Maybe I need to find a different place to live and work that isn't so diverse.
Trialbyfire Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Actually, that's not completely accurate. Many of the British women met servicemen from different countries and became war brides. My exes great-aunt was one such war bride, married to my exes great-uncle who enlisted in the RAF.
MN randomguy Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Actually, that's not completely accurate. Many of the British women met servicemen from different countries and became war brides. My exes great-aunt was one such war bride, married to my exes great-uncle who enlisted in the RAF. Which would statistically leave a shortage of available men in that country along with the fact that that country too may have had significant casualties. Your exes great-aunt may have also been working class. They did not suffer as many casualties. If you believe in natural selection you have to believe that when there's a shortage of one gender the least desirable of the other gender go without mates.
Trialbyfire Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Which would statistically leave a shortage of available men in that country along with the fact that that country too may have had significant casualties. Your exes great-aunt may have also been working class. They did not suffer as many casualties. If you believe in natural selection you have to believe that when there's a shortage of one gender the least desirable of the other gender go without mates. Not necessarily. This happened in different countries, with different countries. In looking at the British war brides, the servicemen came from Canada, the U.S., South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. And no, she was upperclass. Her father was an international banker. Previous to the war, they lived abroad, in the French Riviera.
Isolde Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Not necessarily. This happened in different countries, with different countries. In looking at the British war brides, the servicemen came from Canada, the U.S., South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. And no, she was upperclass. Her father was an international banker. Previous to the war, they lived abroad, in the French Riviera. Is it really true that most upper class women at the time NEVER MARRIED? I find this somewhat difficult to believe.
Trialbyfire Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Is it really true that most upper class women at the time NEVER MARRIED? I find this somewhat difficult to believe. So do I...
carhill Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Halfway there. Still have another 50 to get it right. God, I hope the equipment keeps working
MN randomguy Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Which would statistically leave a shortage of available men in that country along with the fact that that country too may have had significant casualties. Not necessarily. This happened in different countries, with different countries. In looking at the British war brides, the servicemen came from Canada, the U.S., South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. OK, so lets say that that generation in Canada was 50/50 male/female before the war. 5% of men die in the war. Now, its 52.6% female 47.4% male by my calculations. For every 94.8 couples there's 5.2 women that have no-one to marry. Then, of course, for every British girl who comes over and snags herself a Canadian guy, there's a local girl left out in the cold. I'm trying to research, wish I could find the original show. I found this: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A03E7D61F3FE13ABC4F51DFB7678382609EDE kinda funny.
MN randomguy Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 This looks somewhat familiar: http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1675139.0.war_spinsters_and_the_debt_we_owe_them.php
Trialbyfire Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 OK, so lets say that that generation in Canada was 50/50 male/female before the war. 5% of men die in the war. Now, its 52.6% female 47.4% male by my calculations. For every 94.8 couples there's 5.2 women that have no-one to marry. Then, of course, for every British girl who comes over and snags herself a Canadian guy, there's a local girl left out in the cold. I'm trying to research, wish I could find the original show. I found this: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A03E7D61F3FE13ABC4F51DFB7678382609EDE kinda funny. Hard facts MN randomguy: Canada lost 1.8% of its male population, a drop in the bucket. Britain lost 3.9% of its male population where tens of thousands of war brides shipped overseas. France lost 7.06% of its male population, hence your linked article. United States lost 0.25% of its male population. Australia lost 2.75% of its male population. New Zealand lost 3.28% of its male population. Overall, not the massive impact you made it out to be, except for France. Not every man is destined for marriage, just like not every woman is destined for marriage, war or no war.
Trialbyfire Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Just a couple more hard facts. Only 1.45% of the entire male population of the countries in the Allied forces in WW1, died in the military. This is equivalent to 0.72% of the entire population of the Allied forces countries. Note I added a few more statistics in my previous post. Also, can you find the article that states that pretty much the entire upperclass males were wiped out in Britain?
marlena Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Personally, I think that if a person is willing to settle for much less, finding a partner isn't too difficult. It's the people who can not settle who usually wind up alone in their golden years. Or the people who have made, as someone pointed out, a series of bad choices in their life. Or the right person never came along. Or if he/she did, you just didn't see him/her. Anyway, there are a lot worse things that can happen in life to a person than being alone.
purgatori Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 The problem isn't finding people who fit this profile, but finding people who fit it, are single AND attracted to you. Let's say you're physically unattractive. What's the chance somebody who fits those criteria would feel the same way about you, especially when they have these positive traits that make them desirable to others? For all these reasons and more, the chances of me finding someone are vanishingly small -- even if I live to be 200!
Isolde Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Wow I didn't know France had such heavy losses in WWI. I guess I learned something from LS today.
Isolde Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 Anyway, there are a lot worse things that can happen in life to a person than being alone. Sure, but spending your life single is definitely NOT a trifle.
MN randomguy Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Overall, not the massive impact you made it out to be, except for France. Not every man is destined for marriage, just like not every woman is destined for marriage, war or no war. You've made some good points. Tue it isn't as massive as I thought and I might have heard France and thought England. I realize my memory isn't perfect. I just remember hearing about the second article I'd posted or something similar to that. These articles of course, are one person's perception of it. I personally wasn't around then, so that's the only perspective I had of it. In defense of the author, remember that 7% is a lot bigger when you remember that it is almost exclusively from the young males pool. It might be better to know what the casualty % was for each military.
FlowersForMedusa Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 ...and then you die without ever having met the right person, then does it mean the cliche is BS? of course... the cliche is a damn lie. Nothing in this world surprises me anymore, so someone who never found a companion or stuck with one would not surprise me in the least either.
Author Disillusioned Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 Anyway, there are a lot worse things that can happen in life to a person than being alone. I guess you're right... being a vegetable quradriplegic sure would suck.
MN randomguy Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 Just checked this thread. Thought I'd spread more cheer after the war death info. Our generation has a lot more Chinese men than women. this means some of us guys are losing out this generation.
Recommended Posts