Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
lincolnmullen.com
Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#2One scary sentence from the linked blog post:
"Since the 1990s, the map shows isolated, lightly populated counties with heavily male populations: those are the counties with prisons."
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#3One scary sentence from the linked blog post: "Since the 1990s, the map shows isolated, lightly populated counties with heavily male populations: those are the counties with prisons."
Prisoners are included within normal population figures? Interesting.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#4One scary sentence from the linked blog post: "Since the 1990s, the map shows isolated, lightly populated counties with heavily male populations: those are the counties with prisons."
The 2010 data shows Pulaski Country, Georgia to have a high women population. This is also due to prison population since there is a women's prison there.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#5National flip from predominantly male to female happened around 1950, just after WW2.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#6One scary sentence from the linked blog post: "Since the 1990s, the map shows isolated, lightly populated counties with heavily male populations: those are the counties with prisons."
Prisoners are included within normal population figures? Interesting.
Prisoners are people.
Prisoners live in a geographical location.
Seems kind of obvious that prisoners living within the bounds of a geographic area would be included in counts of people living in that geographic area.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#7One scary sentence from the linked blog post: "Since the 1990s, the map shows isolated, lightly populated counties with heavily male populations: those are the counties with prisons."
I imagine northern Alaska is predominately male still due to the 'wild frontier hard life' aspects more than a prison in the current data, as the probably exception to this analysis.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prisoners are included within normal population figures? Interesting.
Prisoners are people. Prisoners live in a geographical location. Seems kind of obvious that prisoners living within the bounds of a geographic area would be included in counts of people living in that geographic area.
They do not live there by choice and they are very isolated from the rest of the population. It is different enough I would like to see numbers with and without.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#9One scary sentence from the linked blog post: "Since the 1990s, the map shows isolated, lightly populated counties with heavily male populations: those are the counties with prisons."
Prisoners are included within normal population figures? Interesting.
It's something of a controversy about whether the Census should count prisoners as living in the place where they are imprisoned or in the place where they formerly lived. The policy of counting them as living in the place where they are imprisoned diverts federal and state monies away from the places that they came from.
Re: Divergence in U.S. Sex Ratios by County, 1820–2010
#10Women live longer than men.
I wonder how of the divergences not explained by prisons are explained by the age of the population.