Outflow of thai ladies
Eddoes
From Stickman this week:
From this week's Thai news, a most concerned announcer reported
that of all of the university students who commenced tertiary study
this year, 70% are female and just 30% male - though walking
through most universities, it feels that the split is even greater. The
announcer was most concerned that once educated, many of these
young Thai ladies would not be able to find a suitably educated Thai
man to marry. How sad! In the quest to marry an educated man, I
wonder what options that leaves them?
If this is true then the outflow of thai ladies will destabilize Thai
demographics.
Gulliver
"Eddoes" <e.oost...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3B1643EB...@chello.nl...
>
> From Stickman this week:
>
>
> From this week's Thai news, a most concerned announcer reported
> that of all of the university students who commenced tertiary study
> this year, 70% are female and just 30% male - though walking
> through most universities, it feels that the split is even greater. The
> announcer was most concerned that once educated, many of these
> young Thai ladies would not be able to find a suitably educated Thai
> man to marry. How sad! In the quest to marry an educated man, I
> wonder what options that leaves them?
Farrangs!
> If this is true then the outflow of thai ladies will destabilize Thai
> demographics.
No - it will increase a woman's power in the family.
Johpa Deumlaokeng
>From this week's Thai news, a most concerned announcer reported
>that of all of the university students who commenced tertiary study
>this year, 70% are female and just 30% male - though walking
>through most universities, it feels that the split is even greater. The
>announcer was most concerned that once educated, many of these
>young Thai ladies would not be able to find a suitably educated Thai
>man to marry. How sad! In the quest to marry an educated man, I
>wonder what options that leaves them?
When I was teaching at a Thai college years ago there were a number of women
professors who stayed single because they could not find what was considered a
socially appropriate husband. For some reason the women professors were
expected to marry a fellow professor yet the male professors could of course
marry whomever they pleased although there was a little bit of pressure to
marry someone with at least a high school education. This of course skewered
the pool of eligible singles so to speak and there were always these fantastic
women professors remaining single because of the social pressure not to marry
"below" themselves and not enough single guys to fill the needs.
Happy Trails
Johpa
Imba
"Eddoes" <e.oost...@chello.nl> wrote
A few weeks ago there was an interesting article re women studying in the
New Scientist.
The author : Joanna Marchant...
Unstoppable force of nature 05 May 01
We beat back disease, controlled fertility and thought evolution was dead.
But it's still shaping our future
WOMEN should forget their careers and stay at home having babies. That's not
a chauvinistic male talking-it's what our genes are telling us, according to
an international team of researchers. They have found that in industrialised
societies, nature is selecting genes for behavioural traits that encourage
women to have children earlier. Eventually, women's biological urge to have
children could become so strong, it might override their desire to have a
career.
The finding means humans are still evolving, because genes that boost the
number of children an individual has will tend to increase in frequency with
each generation. This goes against the prevailing view that human
populations are genetically stable. "There is this assumption that because
we are all living healthy, happy lives and we can have as many children as
we want, then evolution must have come to a stop," says evolutionary
biologist Christopher Wills of the University of California in San Diego.
Ian Owens from Imperial College in London and his colleagues used data about
the lives of 2710 female twins in Australia to calculate the evolutionary
"fitness" of each woman-a measure of the number of descendants her lineage
would leave. The number of children they had, and when they had them, were
crucial to the calculation.
Cultural factors had a big impact on the women's fitness. More education
reduced their fitness, whereas Catholicism increased it-but these factors
couldn't explain everything. "If you remove everything that's cultural,
there's still an enormous difference between women," says Owens. He
estimates that 50 to 60 per cent of fitness is environmentally determined,
but 40 to 50 per cent is genetic.
To find out which kinds of genes were inherited, the researchers looked for
traits that affected fitness in identical twins, who have all their DNA in
common, and non-identical twins, who on average share half of it.
Religion and education had virtually no genetic component. But in all social
groups, there was a strong genetic influence on the age at which women had
their first child. The earlier a woman had her first child, the fitter she
was in evolutionary terms, as she has had more time to have more children.
The researchers say that the genes involved probably determine psychological
or behavioural traits that make women more likely to have children younger.
"You'd think it was to do with your career, or what happens one particular
evening," says Owens. "But genes affect behaviour, and behaviour partly
determines when you will have kids and how many you will have."
To investigate further, the researchers looked at the results of personality
tests that the twins took. Their unpublished results suggest that
psychological traits such as extroversion and neuroticism affected the
"fitness" score of women. And some "social attitude dimensions" such as
family values and militarism boosted fitness. "These personality traits are
about 50 per cent heritable and could contribute quite a lot of the genetic
variance in fitness," says team leader Nick Martin of the Queensland
Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane. Another possibility is that genes
that cause a stronger biological urge to have children are being selected
for.
One of the driving forces of human evolution was infant mortality, which
weeded out genes for disease susceptibility in childhood, for example. But
in rich societies, modern medicine means that this has only a minor effect.
More recently, contraception has also enabled women to choose how many
children they have and when. The new research implies that controlling such
forces doesn't mean evolution is no longer happening. Instead, new traits
are being selected for.
"What makes you fit now is whether you have more babies than the next
person," says team member Simon Blomberg from the University of Wisconsin in
Madison. "But that's not necessarily to do with health any more. It is more
to do with the decisions we make."
But natural selection of this sort could have worrying implications. "If our
results are correct, one would predict steady selective pressure toward
earlier reproduction," says Martin, "and selection against women who delay
childbearing, and the traits that currently drive women to professional
success".
So as society encourages women to have children later, the biological urge
to have kids early could discourage them from having careers. "The genes are
pushing in the other direction," says Owens. "There's a fierce conflict
between a career and wanting to reproduce."
Imba
ro...@invalid.domain.com
> A few weeks ago there was an interesting article re women studying in the
> New Scientist.
> The author : Joanna Marchant...
> Unstoppable force of nature 05 May 01
> We beat back disease, controlled fertility and thought evolution was dead.
> But it's still shaping our future
[...]
> To find out which kinds of genes were inherited, the researchers looked for
> traits that affected fitness in identical twins, who have all their DNA in
> common, and non-identical twins, who on average share half of it.
does this statement imply then that non-identical twins only have half
their dna in common? we have a huge fraction in common with
chimpanzees!
it's hard to say anything from this article since it doesn't give any
details, but i'd be highly suspicious of statistical gene-finding
studies since time and again they've either been falsified or
irreproducable, even for "simple" behavioural traits like alcoholism
where actual dna markers were identified.
in my view, human evolution is all about our ability to perform
directed genetic engineering on ourselves (which we've had the raw
brain capacity to do for millenia but had to invent things like
language and dna sequencers, etc. to do it).
Imba
<ro...@invalid.domain.com> wrote
> Imba <Id...@want.spam> wrote:
>
> > A few weeks ago there was an interesting article re women studying in
the
> > New Scientist.
> > The author : Joanna Marchant...
>
> > Unstoppable force of nature 05 May 01
>
> > We beat back disease, controlled fertility and thought evolution was
dead.
> > But it's still shaping our future
>
> [...]
>
> > To find out which kinds of genes were inherited, the researchers looked
for
> > traits that affected fitness in identical twins, who have all their DNA
in
> > common, and non-identical twins, who on average share half of it.
>
> does this statement imply then that non-identical twins only have half
> their dna in common? we have a huge fraction in common with
> chimpanzees!
More in common with chimps and bonobos than they have in common with the
other great apes.
The confusion arises because of a difference in the use of "sharing, having
in common of DNA".
I can't blame you, it should have been written in a clearer and less
confusion way so not to cause misunderstandings.
I volunteer to spank Joanna in the most kinky way I can imagine..
Imba
Bababobo
countries, in which women will encounter the cultural difference of
choosing a man which has a lower educational level. Best example is
Singapore, in which the men marry foreign ladies in high extent,
simply because the "high-demanding (arrogant) ladies" are getting very
impopular. Soon lots of Burma ladies will enter Thailand as official
spouses.....