> Michael Lorrey <email@example.com> writes:
> > What I really worry about is 30 years down the road.
> > The population control program in China is having the effect of a much
> > larger percentage of the population being born as males. Sociologists have
> > commented in the past on the relative levels of agression of societies with
> > balanced versus imbalanced populations of genders.
> What sociologists and what societies? As far as I know, there have not
> been that many societies with imbalanced populations of genders
> (possibly in some of the smaller arabian states: I have read somewhere
> that a significant fraction of the girls were in the harem at some
> points in history; this might be apocryphal though).
I'm not sure exactly. I've heard this several times in the past (so I'm sure its
true ;) ) but I'll have to check up on it. I think some of it was to do with some
african societies having gender imbalances that caused eras of increased tribal
> > I wonding if having so many frustrated males in the population 20-30
> > years from now will wind up with a much more militarist regieme
> > coming to power.
> Is frustrated males a significant factor in militarism? Could they not
> also be a source for subversion or major-scale sublimation?
That is the mechanism. For the establishment to respond effectively to the
threat, they must institute a harsh regeime, with heavy nationalist/militarist
tones to it to keep the subversive forces in check.. (Japan 1880-1945 comes to
mind as an example, as well as possibly the whole samurai era.)