Attack on Women

alex73

Driving back from Gym on Newstalk they were talking about abortion, They presenter said that for example in china birth rates are 130 male babies to 100 female. Women are aborting based on sex. Chinese government has banned this, however the numbers of male babies being born show that reality is males a preferred.

Is this an attack on women? Displacing the balance in Society. Presenter also said similar occurs in India.

Stheno

alex73 wrote: »

Driving back from Gym on Newstalk they were talking about abortion, They presenter said that for example in china birth rates are 130 male babies to 100 female. Women are aborting based on sex. Chinese government has banned this, however the numbers of male babies being born show that reality is males a preferred.

Is this an attack on women? Displacing the balance in Society. Presenter also said similar occurs in India.

I'd not think of it as being an attack on women, I'd put it down more to those particular societies placing a higher value on male children, and China's one child policy.

There's been plenty published about this, including how in years to come, there will be a marked shortage of women for these male babies to marry.

alex73

Stheno wrote: »

I'd not think of it as being an attack on women, I'd put it down more to those particular societies placing a higher value on male children, and China's one child policy.

There's been plenty published about this, including how in years to come, there will be a marked shortage of women for these male babies to marry.

So what should China do?

Ickle Magoo

Ultimately it's an attack on men - who will end up alone and childless when the fewer women have their pick of the men that outnumber them - and that in turn will put a higher value on the women.

Morag

it used to be new born baby girls were left on the side of the street in china to die.
This has changed with wealthy families buying baby girls leaving those parents to try again and then rearing her in the household to be the wife of their son. While it sounds like a good idea they are often treated as servants and have horrid lives.

the_syco

With many families, the name must live on. The only way to do this is to have a male child. And as they can only legally have one child, female children are sometimes abandoned, in the hope of getting a male child.

If you were a state official, or paid the "baby tax", you could have a second child.

alex73

Sharrow wrote: »

it used to be new born baby girls were left on the side of the street in china to die.
This has changed with wealthy families buying baby girls leaving those parents to try again and then rearing her in the household to be the wife of their son. While it sounds like a good idea they are often treated as servants and have horrid lives.

Leaving them to Die, Giving them away or aborting them. In my eyes it under values the women, Am I the only one who sees this as an attack on the dignity and respect a women should have?

sambuka41

Sharrow wrote: »

This has changed with wealthy families buying baby girls leaving those parents to try again and then rearing her in the household to be the wife of their son.

Thats so creepy!! Sorry not adding much there but gross!!!

Would the girls not grow up feeling like family? would the not end up seeing the boys as their brothers? (actually that's probably a very western outlook on the situation!!)

Ickle Magoo

Boys are considered superior to girls in lots of cultures & situations, look at the different religions and the role they give women in their hierarchy - and it's cultures that decide what dignity and respect each person is afforded.

Population imbalances affect the whole society and it gives the baby girls no more dignity and respect than it does the men who will never have the financial means or education to attract a woman in a society where men are grossly outnumbered.

alex73

the_syco wrote: »

With many families, the name must live on. The only way to do this is to have a male child. And as they can only legally have one child, female children are sometimes abandoned, in the hope of getting a male child.

If you were a state official, or paid the "baby tax", you could have a second child.

but in India I don't think they have the 1 child policy.. yet Millions of Female babies are aborted.

India's Missing Daughters

Ayla

Yes, that is an incredibly shortsighted western view of this situation. As Sharrow said, the girls would be raised just slightly higher in status than a house servant. Having a family is an economic/business transaction in some societies, not the cushy based-on-love situation we are lucky enough to have here.

the_syco

If china reversed the surname part so that only women could carry on the names apart from government officials (or it would never be passed), I'm sure females would be popular again, but I can't see that happening.

alex73

the_syco wrote: »

If china reversed the surname part so that only women could carry on the names apart from government officials (or it would never be passed), I'm sure females would be popular again, but I can't see that happening.

In Brasil its the Mother surname that follows to the children, not the males. They also don't have abortion on demand.

Mary28

There is already a shortage of women in China. Women are sometimes kidnapped there to be wives and basically held captive, some commit suicide. I read a book a while back on this.
It's not an attack on women. There is a one child policy in China due to over population, a male baby will grow up and provide for his parents when they are old whereas a female will leave and get married. The gov need to change the policy. As far as I remember you can have more than one child but you are penalised for doing so. Is it any worse than aborting a child for any other reason?

Ayla

And let's not forget those societies where doweries are still common. In those nations a poor family cannot pay a dowry (or will sacrifice literally everything to try to put one together). Their daughter would then remain unmarried for the entirety of her life, which would be a disgrace beyond all measure.

Yes, I agree, these nations need to do something - but what? Revoke all historical traditions (passing of surnames, giving of doweries), or stop the taxing of families with more than one child (and thus have a massive overpopulation catastrophe)? What's the answer to this very human problem?

alex73

Ayla wrote: »

And let's not forget those societies where doweries are still common. In those nations a poor family cannot pay a dowry (or will sacrifice literally everything to try to put one together). Their daughter would then remain unmarried for the entirety of her life, which would be a disgrace beyond all measure.

Yes, I agree, these nations need to do something - but what? Revoke all historical traditions (passing of surnames, giving of doweries), or stop the taxing of families with more than one child (and thus have a massive overpopulation catastrophe)? What's the answer to this very human problem?

these nations... What about our next door neighbour. There for example 90% of Babies with downs are aborted. Be it Baby girls in China or Special needs in England, doesn't it devalue the child?

WindSock

Sharrow wrote: »

it used to be new born baby girls were left on the side of the street in china to die.
This has changed with wealthy families buying baby girls leaving those parents to try again and then rearing her in the household to be the wife of their son. While it sounds like a good idea they are often treated as servants and have horrid lives.

Women in China are going to be a highly prized commodity in a few years. Their families will probably auction them off to the highest bidders, I can imagine it is financially better to have a girl than a boy. There sure are going to be a hell of a lot of sexually frustrated young males hanging about.

Ayla

alex73 wrote: »

these nations... What about our next door neighbour. There for example 90% of Babies with downs are aborted. Be it Baby girls in China or Special needs in England, doesn't it devalue the child?

If you want to argue about the right/wrong of abortions, it's here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056316116

I'm just pointing out there is a clear cut economic factor behind why female children may be aborted more frequently then male. It doesn't make the parents cold-hearted sexists, it's frequently a case of survival.

Ickle Magoo

alex73 wrote: »

these nations... What about our next door neighbour. There for example 90% of Babies with downs are aborted. Be it Baby girls in China or Special needs in England, doesn't it devalue the child?

That's got nothing to do with baby girls or attacks on women...

Such were women and girls revered here, there were laundries to incarcerate women for the crime of having children out of wedlock until 1996. I don't think any country is without a dark past when it comes to the treatment of women.

alex73

Ayla wrote: »

If you want to argue about the right/wrong of abortions, it's here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056316116

I'm just pointing out there is a clear cut economic factor behind why female children may be aborted more frequently then male. It doesn't make the parents cold-hearted sexists, it's frequently a case of survival.

So on the 1800's when Ireland was poorer that China today did we do the same?

Teyla Emmagan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ultimately it's an attack on men - who will end up alone and childless when the fewer women have their pick of the men that outnumber them - and that in turn will put a higher value on the women.

Sadly it doesn't work like this. You would think it does, but not a hope. I saw this documentary on TV last year that was really awful, on a load of levels. It was somewhere in Pakistan I think, anyway, there there were these whole villages full of men between 20 and 50 with barely a wife between them. They just spent all day sitting around watching MTV and going home alone/to their Mam's. All the older guys who finally had the money to buy themselves a girl literally paid a gigantic dowry for a 14 year old, who they then treated like slaves. So these 14 year olds were married to 65/70 year olds who treated them like sex slaves/chattel. There wasn't an ounce of respect going on, or any inclination/understanding that maybe when women are in short supply they would become a more valuable commodity.

Really depressing, both for all those men who will never have a wife/girlfriend, and for all those girls who are still treated like slaves or dogs, because that's about how thrilled their husbands seemed to be to finally own one. Awful stuff.

Ben Hadad

alex73 wrote: »

these nations... What about our next door neighbour. There for example 90% of Babies with downs are aborted. Be it Baby girls in China or Special needs in England, doesn't it devalue the child?

I think you are being quite naive. In India and China a variety of cultural and historical reasons have caused both societies to place a greater value on men rather than women. This does not devalue them, they have already been devalued. You can throw your hands in the air all you like, but there are 1.2 billion people living in India and another billion or so in China both with widespread poverty and a multitude of far more pressing concerns than the rights of unborn children. I'm not being heartless, I'm just trying to tell it like it is.

Personally I do agree that in western societies aborting Down Syndrome fetus's is morally repulsive, and to be honest I didn't realise that people do this. It's pretty disgusting, but again it would appear that parents are making an economic decision. I don't agree with them but I can understand why they do it.

alex73

Ben Hadad wrote: »

I think you are being quite naive. In India and China a variety of cultural and historical reasons have caused both societies to place a greater value on men rather than women. This does not devalue them, they have already been devalued. You can throw your hands in the air all you like, but there are 1.2 billion people living in India and another billion or so in China both with widespread poverty and a multitude of far more pressing concerns than the rights of unborn children. I'm not being heartless, I'm just trying to tell it like it is.

Personally I do agree that in western societies aborting Down Syndrome fetus's is morally repulsive, and to be honest I didn't realise that people do this. It's pretty disgusting, but again it would appear that parents are making an economic decision. I don't agree with them but I can understand why they do it.

Its just that women's rights to abortion seem to be in the media these days. When should women have this right? If you are wealthy westerner or a poor chinese who can't afford a 2nd child?

Either way, people make choices which send the wrong message. All children should be valued..

Of course I do believe its morally right that there be abortion in the cases of principle of double effect, When the aim is not to abort the baby but to save the women's life which could lead to death of baby. But technically this is not abortion because if treatment had not been given to mother neither would survive (usually)

the_syco

alex73 wrote: »

In Brasil its the Mother surname that follows to the children, not the males. They also don't have abortion on demand.

Do they have a one child policy which is strictly enforced?

alex73 wrote: »

So on the 1800's when Ireland was poorer that China today did we do the same?

You seem to be great at side stepping the "one child policy" which occurs within a single party communist regime.

WindSock

A little off topic but there is an interesting doco on rte now about a marriage free Chinese ethnic group.

Ayla

alex73 wrote: »

So on the 1800's when Ireland was poorer that China today did we do the same?

You can't rightly compare the two...scans & abortion clinics were not around in the 1800s.

Hypothetically, if families back then - facing the very real prospect of starving through the winter - had the facilities available, and they had the one single opportunity for a child and were given a choice of a male (ie: field/labour help) or female (ie: domestic help) child, guess which one they'd choose?

Obviously the entire situation is repulsive - imagine being a parent having to make that decision! But that doesn't mean any high & mighty moralist from a comparitively cushy western nation needs to look down their noses.

You want to solve the problem? Fix the poverty trap. Fix the overpopulation crisis. Clean up the healthcare system & erradicate the historical traditions of dowry and arranged marriage. No point going on about the rights & value of unborn children if they'll be born into abject poverty with no hope or real future.

Gone Drinking

Whats the big deal?

Women have their own insurance companies and women only gyms..

Never hear them complaining about those!

Count Duckula

I was reading an article about a young Chinese man who lives in a basement on a camp bed. Not because he is poor, but because the only possible way he can attract a future wife is by owning a house - and so he spends no money now in the hope of saving up for a deposit on a house in Beijing, where prices are astronomical (take Celtic Tiger prices and treble them).

China no longer officially has a one-child policy, as they realised the state the country was getting into, but society has been skewed as such that they might as well. Male babies are still more prevalent, because female babies are getting aborted. To those with no access to abortion, this either leads to dangerous procedures on the part of the mother, or the girl child is born and left to die.

What this means is that neighbouring countries like Vietnam and North Korea are actually seeing their women kidnapped in order to marry to the wealthier, single males.

It is the female children and kidnap victims who suffer most in Chinese society, but society as a whole (and that includes men) is greatly damaged.

Ickle Magoo

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Whats the big deal?

Women have their own insurance companies and women only gyms..

Never hear them complaining about those!

A certain standard of posting is expected on this forum; posting just to jeer at other posters that their points or discussion is no big deal and indulging in a spot of whataboutery is falling a long way short of that.

Could you read the charter here before posting on this forum again.

As per site policy, if you have an issue with any moderator instruction or request please contact me or one of my co-mods by PM

LittleBook

Count Duckula wrote: »

What this means is that neighbouring countries like Vietnam and North Korea are actually seeing their women kidnapped in order to marry to the wealthier, single males.

It is the female children and kidnap victims who suffer most in Chinese society, but society as a whole (and that includes men) is greatly damaged.

It's a little unsettling if you look into the origins of some wedding traditions which endure to this day.

- The "bridal party" was the group of people who helped the groom capture and keep his bride.

- The father gave away his daughter (for a price).

- The veil was used to cover the daughter's face so the groom (who'd usually never met her) wouldn't run out if he didn't like the look of her. This is also the origin of the whole "bad luck to see the bride before the wedding" tradition.

- The bride stands to the groom's left, leaving his sword hand free in case of attack.

- Carrying over the threshold, obviously a reference to kidnapping and carrying off the bride.

- Shoes tied to the car comes from the father handing over the bride's shoes to the groom as a symbol of the transfer of authority over her.

- Even the honeymoon is believed to date back to the period where the kidnapper would hide the bride from her relatives for a month, by which time she would be pregnant and unable to return.

As recently as 1965 it was still happening in Europe (albeit Italy) : Franca Viola

I shudder to think that in this day and age bride kidnapping still goes on and may even be on the increase.

ztoical

alex73 wrote: »

but in India I don't think they have the 1 child policy.. yet Millions of Female babies are aborted.

Because girls will cost money to the family. Arranged marraiges are still common and it's the girls family that must give a dowery and when she marries she becomes part of the husbands family. This means she will look after her husbands parents when they reach old age. It's common in South Asian countries to have several generations living in one house so parents expect to be looked after by their childrens families when they become older. It's no surprise then that the countries that are most likely to have sex selective abortions are countries in South Asia.

Improved health care has been a catch 22 for countries like India because by offering scans during pregnancy to improve health for both baby and mother you can also find out the sex of a baby. Many doctors try not to tell certain patients but if they find out they try and have an abortion.

alex73 wrote: »

When should women have this right? If you are wealthy westerner or a poor chinese who can't afford a 2nd child?

It's not that they can't afford the 2nd child, they are not allowed have more then one child [depending on what part of the country they live in] As I already said in alot of these countries children are expected to take care of their parents when they age. It is not common for Asian families to put elderly people into homes, they come live with their childrens familes but the culture states that when a woman marries she becomes part of her husbands family therefore she will look after his parents not her own. So a poor couple who only have a daughter will have no one to look after them when they are retired. Womens rights are also not as advanced in many of these countries with things like inheritance laws stopping alot of women from interiting their parents houses/land etc So a poor farming family might see their farm sold or taken from them when they can no longer work it and their daughter is bared from interiting it.

You seem to be focusing on abortion as being the cause rather then just a tool that's being wrongly exploited. It's a clash of old and new. If you want to blame something blame ultrasounds as women could ingest all sorts of herbs to cause miscarraiges long before medical abortions came along [usually at great risk to their own health but then child birth before improvements in health care was already a huge risk] but as they couldn't tell the sex of their child till it was born most women wouldn't risk it for fear they were having a boy. Countries were sex selective abortions are common are also countries that were practicing female infanticide long before abortions came along. By improving health care without improving education and women rights in general in poorer countries that are still structured around a patriarcal family system you have abuses happening.

premierlass

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

alex73 wrote:

these nations... What about our next door neighbour. There for example 90% of Babies with downs are aborted. Be it Baby girls in China or Special needs in England, doesn't it devalue the child?

That's got nothing to do with baby girls or attacks on women...

Why not? It seems to me the rationale is similar.

ztoical wrote:

So a poor couple who only have a daughter will have no one to look after them when they are retired. Womens rights are also not as advanced in many of these countries with things like inheritance laws stopping alot of women from interiting their parents houses/land etc So a poor farming family might see their farm sold or taken from them when they can no longer work it and their daughter is bared from interiting it.

Babies with Down's Syndrome are less desirable from an economic point of view as they more will have to be spent on care and education. Their earning power will be severely reduced and they will cost more in time, care and effort. This is an age when family sizes are reduced and image is paramount. While society (US/UK in this instance) promotes equal rights for the disabled, Down's babies are nevertheless aborted for the most part.

So in some ways technology perhaps increases the risk to groups that are historically given less value in society.

Stheno

alex73 wrote: »

these nations... What about our next door neighbour. There for example 90% of Babies with downs are aborted. Be it Baby girls in China or Special needs in England, doesn't it devalue the child?

Have you a verifiable source for that please?

premierlass

Stheno wrote: »

Have you a verifiable source for that please?

Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review.

The aims of this systematic literature review are to estimate termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of one of five conditions: Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes, and to determine the extent to which rates vary across conditions and with year of publication. Papers were included if they reported (i) numbers of prenatally diagnosed conditions that were terminated, (ii) at least five cases diagnosed with one of the five specified conditions, and (iii) were published between 1980 and 1998. 20 papers were found which met the inclusion criteria. Termination rates varied across conditions. They were highest following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (92 per cent; CI: 91 per cent to 93 per cent) and lowest following diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome (58 per cent; CI: 50 per cent to 66 per cent). Where comparisons could be made, termination rates were similar in the 1990s to those reported in the 1980s.

ztoical

premierlass wrote: »

Babies with Down's Syndrome are less desirable from an economic point of view as they more will have to be spent on care and education. Their earning power will be severely reduced and they will cost more in time, care and effort. This is an age when family sizes are reduced and image is paramount. While society (US/UK in this instance) promotes equal rights for the disabled, Down's babies are nevertheless aborted for the most part.

So in some ways technology perhaps increases the risk to groups that are historically given less value in society.

I wouldn't judge anyone who opted to abort a fetus that would have resulted in a child with sever genetic disabilities, I'm not a parent and can't even begin to image how hard a choice that has to be for parents, it's not some easy choice that people make, they aren't looking at a scan and being told your baby will have blonde hair not black do you still want it. Conditions like downs syndrome or Reyes syndrome or a host of other conditions are genetic illnesses that require a huge amount of time and effort from parents both mentality, physically and emotionally and I seriously doubt a parent makes the choice to abort a fetus due to a genetic illness because to what it might do to their image. There are a number of genetic conditions that are screened for because they are truly horrific conditions were children are in a massive amounts of pain and have very short life expectancies....no parents wants to see their child in pain and suffering.

The risk of conditions such as downs are higher for older parents and they have to face the reality that they are likely to not be able to care for a disabled adult when they themselves will be so much older. Yes there are plenty of parents who do it but No one has the right to judge someone for having to make such hard choices. Aborting fetuses with serious genetic illnesses is not the same as aborting healthy babies based purely on their gender.

premierlass

I'm sorry to imply that Down's Syndrome babies are aborted purely for image purposes. I'm sure that's not the case for many, though I believe it's a factor for some. But most of the reasons you give for aborting a child with Down's Syndrome are pragmatic or based on economics. An older Chinese couple decides that a girl would be a financial burden and would not able to look after them in their declining years. An older US couple decides a Down's Syndrome baby would be too burdensome. Should either be judged for aborting the unwanted baby?

Overheal

alex73 wrote: »

Driving back from Gym on Newstalk they were talking about abortion, They presenter said that for example in china birth rates are 130 male babies to 100 female. Women are aborting based on sex. Chinese government has banned this, however the numbers of male babies being born show that reality is males a preferred.

Is this an attack on women? Displacing the balance in Society. Presenter also said similar occurs in India.

Thats been the case as long as I've known. It's been an element on films for many years anyway. It really comes down to overpopulation concerns within China, the one child policy, and the biological fact that males don't birth more children themselves. 2 men and 20 women could easily birth 20 children in a year; 2 women and 20 men would birth 2/year (excluding twins etc).