Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!chinet!rissa
From: rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish)
Newsgroups: net.med,soc.women
Subject: Re: Selecting the sex...
Message-ID: <607@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 00:45:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.607
Posted: Thu Oct  9 00:45:21 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 03:26:13 EDT
References: <1178@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish)
Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.med:5122 soc.women:288

In article <1178@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes:

>But as female babies and females became less numerous in the population, 
>the societies and families might discover that the numerous males were 
>always throwing themselves into wars and getting killed (I'm thinking of 
>Iran and Iraq), less able to procreate (by the numbers), and in general 
>being not-too-useful for one's declining years and for society. Then 
>female children would become, willy-nilly, more valuable and more valued. 
>
>And that would be a Good Thing.


Not necessarily.  I tend to think female children would definitely
become more valuable as potential brood mares.  And those poor unfortunates
that could not supply their quota of children would have no purpose or
value to society.  And we know what THAT means.

Yuck.

Trisha (and that would be a Bad Thing) O Tuama