AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Rampant Sex Selection is Skewing the World's Gender Balance
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Quote:How sex selection of babies has led to a huge
surplus of men and why that’s bad for all of us


FLUENT IN CHINESE and Spanish, Mara
Hvistendahl is a Beijing-based correspondent
for Science magazine and a former journalism
professor at Fudan University in
Shanghai. She is the author of Unnatural
Selection, about how and why rampant sexselective
abortion in Asia is skewing the entire
world’s gender balance.

Q: The natural sex ratio at birth, resulting in
equal numbers of men and women, is 105 males
to 100 females. But in Asia, that ratio has been
skewed for a generation, and demographers
calculate there are now over 163 million women
“missing” from the continent’s population.
Which countries have been most affected?

A: The areas most affected are eastern China
and northwest India—the most developed
parts of those nations—as well as South Korea,
Taiwan and northern Vietnam. The important
thing is that it’s beginning to appear in
other parts of India and China.

Q: Lately it’s come to Asian immigrant communities
in North America, and nations where
it was not expected, like in Eastern Europe.

A: That’s right. Very few people anticipated
that you’d see sex selection in Albania and
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia.

Q: Is the ratio in the Chinese port city of
Lianyungang, 163 boys to 100 girls among
children under five, the highest on record?

A: Yes, although I think there were periods
in the ’90s where some South Korean cities
had a ratio at birth of over 200. On record,
the worst areas are somewhere above 150.

Q: It’s clear what has to come together for this
to occur: rapid modernization, access to ultrasound
machines to determine fetal sex and access
to abortion, and an overall drop in fertility.

A: A drop in fertility, yes, absolutely necessary.
Across Asia it’s gone from 5.7 children
per woman to 2.3 in 40 years, but that figure
is for all of Asia: in the sex-selection hot
spots, the number of children a woman has
is between one and 1.5. The same for the
new areas. Armenians are at 1.3, Georgians
at 1.4, Azerbaijanis have fewer children than
Americans. Then you need access to ultrasound,
and that abortion be available. As
the birth rate falls in a country where a high
premium is placed on sons, there’s more
pressure on women to ensure that one of
those children is a son.

Q: Abortion as the normal birth control method
seems key, making it easier to consider ending
a pregnancy over gender. Do you agree?

A: It’s crucial that abortion is legal and available.
A Korean sociologist told me, “Look, if
Korea didn’t have the history it does of not
only abortion but other population control
methods being heavily encouraged and sometimes
forced on people, I don’t think that we
would have the same degree of sex-selective
abortion today.” But I would stop short of
saying that this is entirely about abortion.
My book is really a technological history, and
it’s a book about bioethics. We’re developing
new sex-selection technologies now and those
have nothing to do with abortion. Sex selection
during the in vitro fertilization is a Western
variation. I don’t think campaigns against
sex selection should turn into campaigns
against all abortion.

Q: Is that why you don’t use the emotionally
loaded terms that other people use about what’s
happening: gendercide, feticide?

A: As I was preparing this book I was struck
by how U.S. abortion politics had come to
bear on the issue, and it’s a loaded issue for
both the right and the left. I do believe in a
woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. And
while anti-abortion groups in the U.S. are
pushing through bans on sex-selective abortions,
their goal is not to increase the number
of women in the world, per se, but rather to
establish a precedent for the fetus being a
life. So it’s a difficult thing to talk about. The
right wing uses words like gendercide and
feticide, and the other extreme is people on
the left who don’t use the word abortion at
all, when what’s happening is abortion.

Q: I understand it is a difficult issue, especially
for pro-choice women.

A: Yeah, but what’s important to remember
is that the context surrounding abortion in
Asia is completely different from in the West.
In the U.S., a woman often has to brave picket
lines if she wants to get an abortion. Sometimes
there aren’t clinics in her town. In Asia,
in the countries where sex-selection occurs,
abortion is pervasive. In China, abortion clinics
advertise on prime-time television, and
it’s just very different.

Q: That’s the familiarity aspect of abortion.
But I want to ask about the cascading effect of
sex selection. How does that occur?

A: The marriage squeeze? There are two
dynamics at play. The Asian generations born
in the ’80s are much larger than those that
will come after, even while there are fewer
women in them, meaning fewer potential
mothers. One demographer I spoke with
called it a double whammy. That’s one challenge.
At the same time you have this marriage
squeeze—the first generation of surplus
men may marry women who are a few years
younger, because they have trouble finding
women their age. But the shortage trickles
down, so for later generations the situation
is much more dire, with single men competing
not just against their own generation but
against an existing surplus of older males.

Q: One possible end result is the South Korean
situation. There the natural ratio has been
restored because now couples’ number preference—
one child—overwhelms their gender preference.
Korea is like Japan, with equal numbers
of boys and girls but, really, no children.

A: The average Korean woman only has about
1.1 or 1.2 children. The preference for male
children remains after a first child, but for
the most part people are just having one.

Q: In terms of global social implications, you
note, scathingly, that some economists think
the value of women will rise with their relative
rarity. You’re not impressed?

A: That’s an idea that’s been put forth since
the ’80s. It seems like a way to wash your
hands of the issue: it will balance itself out,
we don’t have to do anything. Yes, a commodity
like oil, as it becomes scarce, the price
goes up and people fight over it, and that’s
what’s happening, in a crude way, with women.
But women don’t control that value.

Q: Implications for women are often dire?

A: From Taiwan and Korea, where we had sex
selection early and men now
can’t find wives, bachelors
go on marriage tours to Vietnam.
They pay $10,000 and
that covers the flight to Ho
Chi Minh City and room
and board. Once they arrive
they go to a hotel and the
women are basically village
women who are sold by their
parents and they’re lined up for the men to
pick from.

Q: In the couple you focus on, I was struck that
the Vietnamese bride was the ninth of 10 children,
a family number now unheard of in Taiwan,
as it is here. Among the many unexpected
consequences of the gender imbalance is that
this process may turn out to be so profitable in
areas like the Mekong Delta that there will be
a selective pressure to have girls—just another,
more lucrative, agricultural crop.

A: There is a globalization of marriage going
on. In the very poor parts of the world, people
now see an advantage in having daughters.
One island in the Mekong Delta has sent so
many women to Taiwan that it’s called Taiwan
Island. The families that send women
there are better off, and they have more appliances,
they have bigger homes, and the island
on the whole is doing very well. It’s, yeah, a
bit of a business.

Q: And if that is a business, about which we
could shrug our shoulders, we are also witnessing
increases in sex trafficking, in forced marriages
and even honour killings. That would
be examples of the new value of scarce women
going to men, not to the women themselves?

A: Right. One story I featured in the book is
of a 15-year-old girl in Vietnam who was chatting
with a boy on the Internet. When she
showed up to meet him in Hanoi she was
kidnapped, shoved across the border to China
and put to work in a brothel. I included that
because an increase in prostitution is one of
the effects of the gender imbalance. As for
forced marriages, there are stories of women
being forced to marry multiple brothers, of
girls being bought very young and families
who raise them until they’re old enough to
marry their sons.

Q: Then there’s the male response?

A: There will be millions of men, most of
them at the bottom of the social ladder, who
can’t find wives and most won’t be happy
about it. Compare high sex-ratio areas where
the men are now grown to low ratio areas,
and there’s higher crime and more violence.
If you look back at history, it was never great
to have a huge surplus of men. Look at the
Wild West in the U.S., or
the settlement of Australia—
areas racked by violence.
The modern world has never
seen an imbalance on this
level.

Q: And violence not just
between the men themselves
but to women, too.

A: Violence toward women,
that’s an important thing
to remember. A lot of sex crime. In India there
have been reports from the northwest, where
the sex-ratio imbalance is worse, of rape and
sex crime on the rise. The case has been made
in the past that this situation—say 20 million
single, angry and usually nationalistic young
men in China—is a security threat for the
West. A U.S. defence contractor told me the
Pentagon is keeping a close watch on China’s
surplus men. Time will tell, but we shouldn’t
focus on the supposed threat of China or
India attacking us, or people overwhelming
our shores. We should really care about the
gender imbalance because it’s a huge human
rights issue.


I read this article in McLeans magazine today and thought I would share it with you. The country that should be most worried about this gender imbalance is Russia because of its proximity to China. The Chinese army just might move north in search of Russian and Ukrainian beauties for its angry males. Pakistan doesn't have to worry because most of its women are uglier than sin.
All one had to do was just study the Inuit, and read about their earlier practice of female infanticide. This was a big subject in one of my ethnology courses. The male frustrations, and homicide rates among the male population are easy to predict.

Of course Collectivist tyrannies have a tendency to never bothering studying human nature. Fortunately the aggressive tendencies will be mostly directed within the society, and not outward. Most of the turmoil will be to Chinese society. Russia's main worry will still be it's abundance of natural resources and PRCs lack.
I find the idea of selecting one gender over the other to be totally absurd. like, who cares if the baby is a boy or a girl? yes, some parents hope for the baby to be a girl or a boy depending on which ones they feel they would be comfortable raising, but to go far as getting rid of it if it's not the gender they want? that's just crazy.

as John L and the article pointed out, it should had been obvious from the start that there would be massive imbalances in the dating scene later on if an whole nation was doing it. it's really hard to believe that some people could truly be that stupid.

I remember reading this article where some small Chinese villages were deliberately going against the grain and raising baby girls because they knew that their daughters would be in high demand one day, and they were right. They had a lot of suitors coming to their villages from nearby cities to court their girls.
Wonder what it is in the Chinese culture that causes this disdain for the female? Or is it more widespread than China? With modern technology it's easy to see the problem spinning out of control.

(06-13-2011, 05:20 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Wonder what it is in the Chinese culture that causes this disdain for the female? Or is it more widespread than China? With modern technology it's easy to see the problem spinning out of control.

It's far more widespread, all over the world. In patrilineal societies, the male posesses the inheritance and descent power. The female has no real power. Consequently, the males have more status, and families rely more on sons, who can take care of the parents in their old age, and also have higher status.

In matrilineal societies, that role is somewhat reversed. But partilineal societies are more prevalent. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be more matrilineal, and agricultural societies tend to be more patrilineal. In farming societies, the male is always present. in the H-G societies the males are usually gone out hunting, and have less input into how the family is run.

That is why there was an almost universal, and swift, shift to plains indians adopting a matrilineal society, once the horse appeared on the scene. Before these indians were farmers, but immediately became hunters of buffalo, and were gone a good deal of the time. Women immediately assumed more responsibility. Perhaps the only exception I can think of was the Iroquois nations, which remained a matrilineal society.

it might had made more sense in those times to go with which genders would be more "powerful" in society... but we no longer live in those times.

and countries like Europe and even china isn't a third world country... in fact, they're pretty much like us in the sense that we can choose to be BOTH an agricultural AND an hunting-gathering society, depending on areas of the country we live in. for example, some states are mostly farming states while others aren't really suited for farming... however they do make excellent hunting grounds. and thanks to technology we now have ensured that both women and men are able to uphold all kinds of roles equally. so to most parents in USA it wouldn't really matter if our yet to be born children were a girl or a boy, even if we at first hope it's the gender that we can identify with the most.

countries like China I can understand struggling to overcome a culture bias when they are trying to reconcile old traditions with the modern world where the old roles of women and men are no longer relevant.

Europe on the other hand? they were already on top of the modern world for a little bit there, so they have no excuse. oh wait, they're currently being overrun with Muslims. could that be it?
From this view then it would seem Chinese culture has undergone from the H&G era to now a reverse evolution to misogyny in a sense.
(06-12-2011, 08:37 PM)WarBicycle Wrote: [ -> ]Q: In terms of global social implications, you
note, scathingly, that some economists think
the value of women will rise with their relative
rarity. You’re not impressed?

A: That’s an idea that’s been put forth since
the ’80s. It seems like a way to wash your
hands of the issue: it will balance itself out,
we don’t have to do anything. Yes, a commodity
like oil, as it becomes scarce, the price
goes up and people fight over it, and that’s
what’s happening, in a crude way, with women.
But women don’t control that value.
Wow. Even if one were going to ignore the moral aspects of putting a price on women, there's no reason to think gender ratios follow a supply/demand function. I could easily suggest that a skewed sex ratio means women need more sex partners, which means their status in society will become even lower, as they are thought of (or actually become) whores, and the sex ratio therefore gets even worse in a feedback mechanism. So not only is that logic degrading, it's possibly wrong.
(06-13-2011, 08:22 PM)Aurora Moon Wrote: [ -> ]Europe on the other hand? they were already on top of the modern world for a little bit there, so they have no excuse. oh wait, they're currently being overrun with Muslims. could that be it?

if you mean the many european women who date or marry muslim men, you are quite right. i wonder what their motivation is? maybe there is a link to your statements in the medieval movies thread? european men of sound mind don't date muslim girls, we rather add to the asian problem by taking their women.
(06-14-2011, 01:22 AM)b5d Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2011, 08:37 PM)WarBicycle Wrote: [ -> ]Q: In terms of global social implications, you
note, scathingly, that some economists think
the value of women will rise with their relative
rarity. You’re not impressed?

A: That’s an idea that’s been put forth since
the ’80s. It seems like a way to wash your
hands of the issue: it will balance itself out,
we don’t have to do anything. Yes, a commodity
like oil, as it becomes scarce, the price
goes up and people fight over it, and that’s
what’s happening, in a crude way, with women.
But women don’t control that value.
Wow. Even if one were going to ignore the moral aspects of putting a price on women, there's no reason to think gender ratios follow a supply/demand function. I could easily suggest that a skewed sex ratio means women need more sex partners, which means their status in society will become even lower, as they are thought of (or actually become) whores, and the sex ratio therefore gets even worse in a feedback mechanism. So not only is that logic degrading, it's possibly wrong.

not to mention such a thing could lead to people going down the illegal "Russian brides" route by sex trafficking. women who look vaguely Asiatic or if the Korean/Chinese men weren't picky, other women of different nationalities could get trafficked over to the countries for the purposes of being a unwilling bride.

certainly a troubling thought.
(06-14-2011, 02:02 AM)quadrat Wrote: [ -> ]if you mean the many european women who date or marry muslim men, you are quite right. i wonder what their motivation is? maybe there is a link to your statements in the medieval movies thread? european men of sound mind don't date muslim girls, we rather add to the asian problem by taking their women.

Because European men are weak and women naturally shoot for the stronger male? Because Muslim men take the dominant position in a society as well as marriage family role and women want that? It would stand to reason why some All-American boy is a hit there because we still have a substantial population of men.

I know it may be upsetting to many, but I have to laugh at the age of feminism where women are gravitating to several screwing the same high status male as if we were in the times of tribal chieftains or gravitate to a traditional family role they wanted to liberate themselves from. S3 I often cannot take them too seriously.

The truth can be painful. As for European men, perhaps because Asian women are relatively undemanding when looking for manliness compared to everyone else.

As for China, it is now with modern technology that is allowing the flaws in their society and culture to become evident. There are reasons why some nations never really rise to true greatness. Suffice to say female infanticide or selecting against girls is one of them.
(06-14-2011, 09:07 AM)Gunnen4u Wrote: [ -> ]It would stand to reason why some All-American boy is a hit there because we still have a substantial population of men.

this might have been true when elvis had his greatest hits, but you have grown to all-american blobs of 400+ lbs since then. that's not sexy where not everybody is fat. do you believe you're doing better? do you think aurora's endless rants about rape and pedophily are designed to do something about that? i'm afraid not, they are there to make you feel guilty for no reason, and to give women more privileges on your expense.
b5d wrote:
Wow. Even if one were going to ignore the moral aspects of putting a price on women, there's no reason to think gender ratios follow a supply/demand function. I could easily suggest that a skewed sex ratio means women need more sex partners, which means their status in society will become even lower, as they are thought of (or actually become) whores, and the sex ratio therefore gets even worse in a feedback mechanism. So not only is that logic degrading, it's possibly wrong. "

Why do you think the supply demand relationship would be absent in this case? I infer that you think that all women are as lusty as the American women, for example those female high school teachers who seduce their students, or those US college students who practice hooking up? Perhaps Q can weigh in on this relative to the Thai women.

I just read an article in the Christian Science Monitor which said the prenatal choice of children (via abortion) was heavily favoring the birth of sons in India.

It is hard to see a "demand" for women for sex if the poor males in question cannot pay for it. The price would be too high and/or the morals in China and India would prohibit casual sex.
which is why they would go down the route of arranging for "russian brides" or whatever countries those brides comes from. there's a large market centering around that as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51627078/Marri...ion-Hughes

because hey, if you paid for her, it's basically for a lifetime or until you tire of her as a "wife". paying for a bride one time, no matter how pricey, still saves you money on having to go to hookers on a regular basis. not to mention it's somehow more "moral" to marry a woman that you paid for, regardless of whenever she really wanted to or not.
G4 Wrote:As for China, it is now with modern technology that is allowing the flaws in their society and culture to become evident. There are reasons why some nations never really rise to true greatness. Suffice to say female infanticide or selecting against girls is one of them.
bd5 Wrote:could easily suggest that a skewed sex ratio means women need more sex partners, which means their status in society will become even lower, as they are thought of (or actually become) whores, and the sex ratio therefore gets even worse in a feedback mechanism. So not only is that logic degrading, it's possibly wrong.
There are two ways to use new technologies: To your benefit or to your own degradation.
Chinese mix ancient stupidity with modern medical technology. It's going to hit them hard.

Since it's probably not their only insanity undermining their society, a quick destabilization of the region is possible, with war, criminality, epidemics, etc.

The stupidity is not to select males per se. In the result, yes it is, but the root is elsewhere. Their stupidity is to have this partiarcal society JohnL was talking about. They are no farmer anymore but the symbolic is still very strong overthere.
The boys are there to inherit while the girls are going to be given to another family. I don't know these societies very well, but perhaps they don't see girls as fit for inheritance or for high education. It could be even worse: purely symbolical since the male represent strenght, leadership and the continuation of the family name.

Anyway, another large part of the world sinking in moral degradation...
Hopefuly this will reverse their demographic balance: fewer women means also fewer children.
I wish I had been raised where there were 1000 girls to every guy. I'd have been Mr. "Good Looking". At 16 years of age, societal problems would have been far from my mind.
If there were 1000 girl for every boy when I was 16~18 I may have had a slight chance of dating before 20. S9

Back to China, in the meantime 3D porn Sex and Zen is making a blockbuster in HK.

zoopy.com Wrote:Bored of surfing the internet to watch low quality movies? Well Hong Kong has released the first 3D …porn movie! Yip, now you can really get a close look at the worst acting ever recorded!
The film entiteled"3-D Sex & Zen: Extreme Ecstasy" is being touted as the first 3-D erotic film.
First out of the gates, the soft porn Hong Kong film comes as the stricken industry, hit hard by free Internet porn in recent years, turns to 3-D as a potential money-spinner.
Based on a classic Chinese erotic text, "The Carnal Prayer Mat," the $3 million film follows a young man as he befriends a duke and enters a world of royal orgies and other sexual peccadilloes.
The producers are hoping the erotic period drama will prove a titillating hit with 3-D-glasses-wearing audiences and help develop a lucrative, niche film market. The director said he hopes it will run over a month, and, importantly, over the Easter holiday – what a great time to celebrate porn!
Adult entertainment firm Hustler is reportedly working on a three-dimensional porno-spoof of the lithe, blue aliens in "Avatar," – blue people have sex – eeuw!
Patrons watching the premier were allegedly given a pair of 3D glasses and a box of tissues as they entered the movie theatre. It’s still unclear exactly what the tissues were meant for as this wasn’t exactly a tear jerker…Gross!
link

IMO to reduce frustration they better promote gay fantasies. The only way out for them.
(06-16-2011, 05:43 PM)jt Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you think the supply demand relationship would be absent in this case? I infer that you think that all women are as lusty as the American women, for example those female high school teachers who seduce their students, or those US college students who practice hooking up? Perhaps Q can weigh in on this relative to the Thai women.

I just read an article in the Christian Science Monitor which said the prenatal choice of children (via abortion) was heavily favoring the birth of sons in India.

It is hard to see a "demand" for women for sex if the poor males in question cannot pay for it. The price would be too high and/or the morals in China and India would prohibit casual sex.
I wasn't asserting the absence of the supply-demand relationship, as much as just protesting economists' general tendency to think it solves every problem in the world, without necessarily thinking about the specific situation.

As for morals: they are in name only. Chinese are very practical people. I would imagine rural Indians would be as well. And morals can change according to the situation (i.e. people turn gay in prison, when they never would be outside.)

I'm sure if people can invest in marriage, they can at least pay for sex occasionally. Of course, in the poorer areas, the entire economy is cheaper.

(06-16-2011, 06:02 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]Chinese mix ancient stupidity with modern medical technology. It's going to hit them hard.
I think that's a trait of every civilization...

Quote:The stupidity is not to select males per se. In the result, yes it is, but the root is elsewhere. Their stupidity is to have this partiarcal society JohnL was talking about. They are no farmer anymore but the symbolic is still very strong overthere.
The boys are there to inherit while the girls are going to be given to another family. I don't know these societies very well, but perhaps they don't see girls as fit for inheritance or for high education. It could be even worse: purely symbolical since the male represent strenght, leadership and the continuation of the family name.
It's a combination. A large part of this part of the world is still farmers. On the other hand, Asians come to the US and still have more boys than girls, for a couple generations.

I have an anecdotal impression that, contrary to common sense, places with the fewest females have the most interesting females.

Consider:

Lots of females: Washington DC, NYC.

Lots of males: Alaska (think Palin!), Asia
(06-16-2011, 05:53 PM)Aurora Moon Wrote: [ -> ]which is why they would go down the route of arranging for "russian brides" or whatever countries those brides comes from. there's a large market centering around that as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51627078/Marri...ion-Hughes

because hey, if you paid for her, it's basically for a lifetime or until you tire of her as a "wife". paying for a bride one time, no matter how pricey, still saves you money on having to go to hookers on a regular basis. not to mention it's somehow more "moral" to marry a woman that you paid for, regardless of whenever she really wanted to or not.

are you aware there is a wonderful new product on the market? say hello to the" rapex".

[Image: rapex-condom.jpg]

in your country, it might make sense to ask your lawyer first, litigation lurks everywhere.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5