The worldwide war on baby girls

Technology, declining fertility and ancient prejudice are combining to unbalance societies

See article

Readers' comments



Not only do China's official policies limit the number of children people can have, the people's prejudice ensures that the majority of those born can't have babies.

Perhaps the rest of us should be grateful to them for acting so ruthlessly to control unsustainable population growth despite the frowning of their neighbors who have neither the sense or stomach to do it for themselves.


The worldwide war on baby girls. Its very sad indeed but Id hardly say its worldwide. INSTEAD THERE SEEMS TO BE A WAR ON BOYS, FATHERS AND HUSBANDS (ALL MALE RIGHTS ARE BEING DEBASED AND UNDERMINED) IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD OF THE WEST: EUROPE, CANADA, US, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, ETC. Boys are left behind in school were they mature slower like reading, writing, speaking and socialization while girls are promoted in areas where they mature slower such as athletics, math and sciences. This puts boys on the path, particularly low income and minority boys, on the path of video games, truancy, dropping out, jail, the last 30 years boys graduating grammer schoo, high school, associates, bachelors, masters and PHDs are all declining and all below graduation rates for girls/women. Female Gender clubs are allowed to remain unisex while boys/men's clubs are targeted for open door integration for both sexes. Boys/men speach and assertiveness is continously promoted by feminists as hate speech, as politically incorrect, as abuse and harrassment etc in female judge dominated family courts. Even employment women have managed to declare themselves minorities worthy of affirmative action even though they dominate graduation rates and dominate particular high flexibility and high stable jobs in government and healthcare.


While the developing world is pursuing its own war on girls.


Mahagwa: You have some good points here!

It's about time for western feminists to relocate their area of activities to those parts of the world where they stil have lots of real work to do.

Instead of continue to bash the already frightened Western hetero men, they could help women in Third World countries to empower themselves agianst the archaic patriarchic culture that -very different from the West- still survives there.

Empowerment of women in the affected societies will be the only way to get stop this horrible practice of gender-specified infanticide.

As most people generally only look at their own small short-term self-interest, it would be too naive to hope for men in those countries realising that they are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing baby girls to be killed.

By the time they realise that they created hell for themselves and their own sons - by making them live in a society with too many men and to few women (that's MY notion of hell, too!), it will be too late.

And, indeed, daughters are great!
they are a real source of happiness.

Let's hope that most families in China, India etc, especially the men there, realise this in time.

mahagwa it now becomes evident that society "VALUES MEN MORE THAN WOMEN" on the surface.
But it is truly MEN who value MEN more than WOMEN. And a lot of women have been confused into buying into this false dogma.
I am a man living in a world where women (esp beuatiful women) can get ANYTHING THEY want by simply flashing a smile, or God forbid, lifting their skirt slightly up their leg. I live in a society where men compete for the affection of women -- buying them things, taking them out, etc. In this society, most things men do are intended to appease women (the nice job with the big salary so they can buy a fancy car and live in a nice neighborhood and wear nice clothes -- all to gain the attention of women). I live in a society where if you (as a man) happen to be attractive to a lot of women (especially from all races), you become an object of intense envy (from other men). I live in a society where women are now the majority of workers, where women are billionaires, where women are CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies, where women are more educated than men.

This is the REALITY OF SOCIETY..that women are not less valuable than men... but reality is not always reflected in societal dogma.
So, what is the real driver? Well, first of all, men dominate society (for now), and women (for now) defer to men.
But what is the true end result? The author talks of violent crime..I don't think that will be the case. I grew up in the ghetto, where violence is as natural as a breath of air...we did not have a shortage of women..just a FU%K*D up environment to live in.

NO, shortage of women will lead to the following:
a. An increase in homosexuality (as it stands, some women are fore-going the notion of "being with a man" to "be with a woman").. with so many men, and so few will witness more and more men (especially in those areas with the highest skews) turning to homosexuality
b. Decomposition of society -- as the level of marriage decreases, you will now witness an increase in out of wedlock births and hence a slow but accelerating degeneration of society (because a sound society is comprised of effective families at the core)
c. Violence against women will increase, as will the general disregard of women in soceity as a whole. As women make more money, and attain greater liberties, they will see less and less of a need to marry, or if they do, they can be more selective...this will leave a lot of men with bad tastes in their mouth. Add to that the vastly greater number of men than women, and the competition for the few women intensifies. In the end, any minor slight from a woman will be magnified, and men will begin retaliating against women for "perceived slights" will not be pretty

We need more baby girls. I am a man and I love women, and I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THERE ARE 20 - 30% MORE MEN THAN WOMEN...that would be a true living, my suggestions:
a. Women have the power, you have the money..stop waiting for men to pave your path, you no longer need us to do things for you, you can run your own games...step up and start making changes in this area...and not by bashing men, but by applying yourselves (as you do) with the intent to establish yourselves (independently) as viable members of society -- this alone with go a very long way in changing perceptions
b. Men...we need to wake up. A daughter is a beautiful thing. I have a lovely niece who taught me so much. True, the son holds the family name, but the daughter can also carry your legacy on through her DNA (which she got from you)


Isn't the really surprising issue that the Economist's journalist seems to take it for granted that the motives for the one child policy are benign?


I don't think it's hard to see the solution. Girls are more likely to do well in school, have more earning power, have possession of children (custody law favors mothers), and care for their parents than boys in most of the rich world. In most respects, girls are now the more valuable sex in the rich world. Given equal access to education, girls will thrive in a world where education matters most. If we assume that China and India will eventually follow rich world economic trends, the large proportion of men in the work force will have a negative effect on productivity, even without the cultural and law and order problems.


While the article is informative, it points to no steps or has no suggestions to tackle the issue.
So what is the solution?
1. Banning u/s machines is impossible they have other benefits
2. Tackle the deep rooted beliefs that are prevalent viz
a. Only males are carriers of lineage
b. A girl child is costly
This will have to be an educational drive carried out with missionary zeal. Customs such as dowries should be stigmatized. Female infanticide should be made a criminal offense with stern action being taken against medical practitioners.


The article implies that ethnic minorities in China is given preferentrial treatment under China' one child policy. If you take closer look, it is a misconception. Especially in Xinjiang, the rules for family planning is very strict. In urban areas of Xinjiang two child is the limit and in rural areas, the limit is three. However, people are not allowed to have second child within five years after having the first one. Voilators would be subjected to forced abortion or huge fine. The limit is strictly enforced.

The "relaxed family planning on minorities" is a misconception, because its implication for minorities goes far beyond invididual level.

This family planning policy on Uighurs in Xinjiang did not only create physical and mental pain individully, but also "mass national pain" among the Uighur nation. Nowhere in the world, a nation of 8 million is subject to mandatory family planning. It is "national pain" for Uighurs, because it increased their sense of being systematically exterminated by the state policy. For Uighurs it is not only a gendercide and but it is much broader than that. Uighurs don't understand why they should be responsible for China's overpopulation. And why Chinese governmet is telling them they should control their birth rate because there is not enough land for them in their homeland and on the other hand the government have been actively transfering millions of Han Chinese into their province.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

