Letters to the Editor
-
This could be a good thing.
I think this policy could be a good thing for promoting the equal treatment of women or diversity or both. Pretty soon all those over-abundance of men for the fewer available women will have an effect. Either girls will start to become more valuable due to scarcity. Perhaps those girls in rural families will be able to "marry up". Or, women's position in society will change - she will no longer be required to leave home to join her husband's family. Or we'll start seeing true polygamy rather than just polygyny - we'll see WOMEN with multiple husbands, instead of the other way around. Or finally, Indian families will have to broaden their horizons and allow their husbands to marry women of other races.
Yeah, it's kinda sad. But I'm sure it will be self-correcting, eventually.
-
Why exactly is this a bad thing?
We're all pro-choice, right? If women want to do what they feel is best for them and for their potential female children (who will likely be mistreated and abused throughout their lives) and abort, who are we to say it's an unsavory practice? Why not spare their daughters the hardships of growing up female in a place where girls and women are routinely undernourished, undereducated, and undervalued? Or, in the case of the wealthy who have embraced the procedure, is it really so awful that the sex of a child determines whether or not it is wanted? Isn't the point to be able to end unwanted pregnancies regardless of the reason? I don't see anything wrong with preventing children from being born into a world where they will not be well-received. I have to wonder if people would be so up-in-arms if women were aborting their male fetuses in favor of increasing the number of daughters in a family.
-
U.S. society still doesn't think much of girls
In a country whose wealth is so great, we do little to support girls either. Universal health care for all children? Nope. Equal access to safe and good schools for all children? Nope. Affordable and safe housing? Nope. A country that has the resources but chooses not to use them for its children is far more "disturbing" to me than anything written in this article.
While I appreciate the attempt to discuss women and girls' status the world over, many of these articles come tinged with a feeling of "look how backwards these third world countries treat their girls and women." President Bush continues to use this same sentiment to justify going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
No female empowerment
Reducing the numbers of girls to the point of changing the ratios of male-female does NOT work to provide the fewer girls will more choices or power.
Take a look at China if you want to see the effects of aborting female fetuses or killing girl babies. The ratio has changed to the point that marriage aged young men are having difficulty finding an available woman, let along an available and willing woman. In rural areas, kidnapping and forcing a marriage, raping (then forcing a marriage due to dishoner), and some selling of girls is occuring.
It is one thing to be a 30 year old woman with an education and job and having a 10:1 male to female ratio - that might translate to a woman having some control/power/choice.
But girls and teens never have that kind of bargaining power - the adults do and in China - they are the ones doing the selling, the kidnapping and the forced marriages.
India will be no different - especially in the poor or rural areas.
-
Tragedy unfolding...
This is a tragedy, but it will only be clear how great when we sitting here writing and debating are very old, and probably dead. It's the next generations that will have to deal with -- for the first time in human history -- a population that is wildly out of whack in women vs. men.
The societies that are practicing this kind of abortion/infanticide to eliminate girl children are mostly the patriarchal, traditional third world countries such as India and China...and these are the most populous places on earth (1.8 billion and 2.2 billion, respectively). There is no doubt that we in the west will come to face the spectre of the results of this mass preference for boys over girls, and the deep cultural contempt for women that it reflects.
I'll bet very few of the westerners so happily adopting infant Chinese girl babies realize the long term damage they are doing to Chinese society, and eventually to OUR entire world.
It's amusing to contemplate a world where women are rare and in demand, rather than the present (Western) world where there appears to be as surplus of educated, decent women who cannot find husbands. However, I suspect the reality will not be one of women being ardently courted by hundreds of potential husbands...or that of women with 3-4 husbands waiting on them...but more likely a world of violence, rogue males, kidnapping, rape and increased sexual abuse of both women and children.
-
Is Sex selection legitimate
those of us on the pro-choice side of things should carefully examine what is happening with the sex-selection abortions in China and India. here in the US we assert that reproductive choice must be available without regard for subjective reason. we cannot logically make that assertion and then wring our hands about sex selection in foreign countries - fortunately sex selection is not an issue in our society - but is it any less legitimate than any other reason? you better believe that the "pro-life" forces on the Right are trumpeting this study as an example of the slippery slope of reproductive choice - if they accuse pro-choicers of hypocrisy, then what is our answer?
-
You may want to check those population figures.
Wikipedia estimates 1.1 billion for India (with a 2001 census figure at 800 million) and 1.3 billion for China. This is pretty much in-line with the CIA world factbook figures as well.
The CIA factbook pages are particularly interesting, though, as they do offer a population breakdown by sex as well. Both countries are showing a noticable male tilt in both the 0-14 and 15-64 brackets, but not to a point where the ratio is too much above 1.1:1. Still unbalanced enough to cause problems, though, I'm sure.