The Global War Against Baby Girls
Mar 16, 2011
Joe Carter
If you were asked to name the technologies whose proliferation inadvertently threatens the human race, what would you include? Landmines? Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads?
Add this one to your list: the sonogram machine.
The widespread use of sonogram technology—coupled with liberal abortion laws—has made it easier than ever for women to identify the sex of their child so that those without a Y chromosome can be killed before they’re even born. In a speech before the United Nations, demographer Nicholas Eberstadt revealed the details of this frightening trend:
Over the past five years the American public has received regular updates on what we have come to call “the global war on terror”. A no-less significant global war—a war, indeed, against nature, civilization, and in fact humanity itself has also been underway in recent years. This latter war, however, has attracted much less attention and comment, despite its immense consequence. This world-wide struggle might be called” The Global War Against Baby Girls”.
The effects of this war on girls can be clearly seen in the changes in sex ratios at birth. Eberstadt explains that there is a “slight but constant and almost unvarying excess of baby boys over baby girls born in any population.” The number of baby boys born for every hundred baby girls, which is so constant that it can “qualify as a rule of nature,” falls along an extremely narrow range along the order of 103, 104, or 105. On rare occasions it even hovers around 106.
These sex ratios vary slightly based on ethnicity. For example, rates in the U.S. in 1984 the rates were as follows: White: 105.4; Black: 103.1; American Indian: 101.4; Chinese: 104.6; and Japanese 102.6. Such variations, however, remain small and fairly stable over time.
But Eberstadt finds that during the last generation, the sex ratio at birth in some parts of the world have become “completely unhinged.” Consider this graph he provides, showing the provinces in China in 2000:
The red lines indicate where the rates should be based on what is naturally, biologically possible. Yet in a number of Chinese provinces—with populations of tens of millions of people—the reported sex ratio at birth ranges from 120 boys for every 100 girls to over 130.
Eberstadt notes that this is “a phenomenon utterly without natural precedent in human history.”
China is not alone in the war against baby girls. In India the ratios are almost as disconcerting. For example, in 2001, 927 girls were born for every 1,000 boys, significantly below the natural birth rate of about 952 girls for every 1,000 boys. By 2004, the New Delhi-based magazine Outlook reported that the sex ratios in the capital had plummeted to 818 girls for every 1,000 boys, and that in 2005 they had dropped to 814.
In fact, biologically impossible ratios have been found in various countries around the world, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, El Salvador, Egypt, Georgia, Greece, Hong Kong, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Tunisia, Yugoslavia, and Venezuela. There are also numerous countries around the world where the “death rates for little girls, on an episodic or on a regular basis, are higher than those for little boys.”*
This threat to baby girls, however, is not just a phenomenon found abroad. In the United States sex ratios at birth for the Chinese-American population, the Japanese-American population, and the Filipino-American population, and for the Asian-American population as a whole are out of kilter, as this graph shows:
In 2007 the British medical journal Lancet estimated the male-female gap stood at 43 million, with 100 million “missing girls” who should have been born but were not. Fifty million would have been Chinese and 43 million would have been Indian. The rest would have been born in Afghanistan, South Korea, Pakistan, and Nepal. (Keep in mind that this figure doesn’t include the “missing girls” of the other seventeen countries with impossible birth ratios.)
What is fueling this crisis? Eberstadt credits the “freakish” ratios to the “fateful collision” between, first, an overwhelming preference for sons, second, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex determination technology coupled with gender-based abortion, and, third, the low or dramatically declining fertility levels.
Even if we set aside the moral horror of a world that is killing its daughters, this oft-ignored trend of female feticide could pose a greater threat than many of the high-profile concerns that are touted by the media. Recent analysis by the Canadian Medical Association Journal confirms that in large parts of China and India, there will be a 10 to 20 percent excess of young men because of sex selection—and that this imbalance will have societal repercussions.
Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, or never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage. Think about the level of anger and frustration this will generate. Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million.
Will we have the sense and the fortitude to act, both domestically and internationally, to avert this disaster? Or will we let our inviolable right to abort baby girls trump our very survival?
The West constantly frets about the alarming levels of global CO2 emissions. But we should be even more concerned about the imbalance in the level of global testosterone. As we will soon realize, changes in our global climate are a minor threat compared to the havoc that will result from the changes in global demographics.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Nicholas Eberstadt, The Global War Against Baby Girls
Science News, The Impact of Sex Selection and Abortion in China, India and South Korea
* Those countries are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Mexico, Benin Gabon, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana Gambia, Brunei, Burkina Baso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Columbia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoir, Cyprus, Dem. Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Equatorial New Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Israel (non-Jewish pop), Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Peru, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Rwanda, Sabah, Sao Tome, Sarawak, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Yemen, Uruguay, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Comments:
3.16.2011 | 9:53am
patricksarsfield says:
Pr. Dan misses the point when he writes:
"So, a society in which men outnumber women will not be without some beneficial aspects. It may encourage men to greater responsibility and higher morality."
He seems gullible enough to believe that in women-deprived societies like jails, men don't find alternatives to women and to the degree they find sexual outlets adopt a higher morality.
"So, a society in which men outnumber women will not be without some beneficial aspects. It may encourage men to greater responsibility and higher morality."
He seems gullible enough to believe that in women-deprived societies like jails, men don't find alternatives to women and to the degree they find sexual outlets adopt a higher morality.
3.16.2011 | 10:00am
Michael PS says:
Surprised to see Luxembourg and Norway on the list of those countries with higher death-rates for boys
3.16.2011 | 10:19am
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
A "shortage" of women in a population is an entirely different situation from a total absence of women in a prison. If we're going to do social science in the total absence of any studies or data, I would say prostitution is a much more likely outcome of this kind of gender imbalance than homosexuality. Heterosexuality (among heterosexuals) is not so feeble a force as many seem to fear.
A "shortage" of women in a population is an entirely different situation from a total absence of women in a prison. If we're going to do social science in the total absence of any studies or data, I would say prostitution is a much more likely outcome of this kind of gender imbalance than homosexuality. Heterosexuality (among heterosexuals) is not so feeble a force as many seem to fear.
3.16.2011 | 10:57am
Macy says:
Actually Pr. Dan has it backwards. The reason these girls are being killed in utero is not because of liberal abortion laws, but because women are not as valued in those cultures - they are seen as inferior, intellectually, physically, etc. They do not carry on the family name, they are seen as being needed as wives and caretakers rather than as people capable of having careers and contributing to society in the ways men are expected to. They are "lesser than" (although it's justified by saying that they are "designed for different roles").
In the even of a lower female to male ratio in these countries, you will not see women treated better. Rather, you will see a massive increase in the already horrifically high rates of sex slavery and human trafficking. You can already see this happening in China, and it will only get worse. Women's lives will become even more controlled.
The global war is not against baby girls, it is against women, and has been going on for thousands of years. It's just now the technology has become more refined.
In the even of a lower female to male ratio in these countries, you will not see women treated better. Rather, you will see a massive increase in the already horrifically high rates of sex slavery and human trafficking. You can already see this happening in China, and it will only get worse. Women's lives will become even more controlled.
The global war is not against baby girls, it is against women, and has been going on for thousands of years. It's just now the technology has become more refined.
3.16.2011 | 11:00am
Pastor Spomer says:
Quoting Pr. Dan Biles
“As women look for a prospective husband, they will be much more discriminating in their choice of a man to be their husband and father of their children.”
Alas, and they shall discriminate primarily on the bases of income, making men, as a group, more competitive, resentful, and envious. We were made male and female and as we distance our acts and attitudes from this providential anthropology we generate trouble.
“As women look for a prospective husband, they will be much more discriminating in their choice of a man to be their husband and father of their children.”
Alas, and they shall discriminate primarily on the bases of income, making men, as a group, more competitive, resentful, and envious. We were made male and female and as we distance our acts and attitudes from this providential anthropology we generate trouble.
3.16.2011 | 11:44am
Brian English says:
"If these trends hold and there is an outcome of a higher ratio of men to women, we can expect an upsurge in values like faithfulness, accomplishment, responsibilty, and dedication to work among men."
But a society with a large surplus of unattached young men might also be more prone to be militarily aggressive.
But a society with a large surplus of unattached young men might also be more prone to be militarily aggressive.
3.16.2011 | 12:09pm
Publius says:
@ David Nickol,
patricksarsfield's comment was no more speculative than Dan Biles. Nor was it altogether without evidence. There is some historical evidence as to what happens here. Most historians think that the male-female ratio was wildly out of kilter in ancient Sparta. And the ratio imbalance seems to have gone with rampant pedophilia--there are stories of women grooming and dressing as boys in order to get their husbands to sleep with them--and also with excessive militarism. As Alexander Hamilton says, correctly assessing the historical evidence on this count, the entire polis of Sparta was little better than a well regulated military camp. To suggest that the Chinese imbalance will likely have no significant negative consequences, as Dan Bile does, seems to this social scientist to be utterly naive. Thomas Hobbes comes to mind--what is it that happens when two or more men desire an object or good (that satisfies desire) that they both cannot have--either a state of war obtains between them or they are overawed by the terror of the mortal leviathan. To keep this many competing males in line--the mortal leviathan will have to be terrible/brutal indeed. Honoring the design of nature (the existence of which Hobbes more or less denies) is the only way to avert catastrophes of anarchy, on the one hand, or the most tyrannical, sovereign absolutism on the other.
patricksarsfield's comment was no more speculative than Dan Biles. Nor was it altogether without evidence. There is some historical evidence as to what happens here. Most historians think that the male-female ratio was wildly out of kilter in ancient Sparta. And the ratio imbalance seems to have gone with rampant pedophilia--there are stories of women grooming and dressing as boys in order to get their husbands to sleep with them--and also with excessive militarism. As Alexander Hamilton says, correctly assessing the historical evidence on this count, the entire polis of Sparta was little better than a well regulated military camp. To suggest that the Chinese imbalance will likely have no significant negative consequences, as Dan Bile does, seems to this social scientist to be utterly naive. Thomas Hobbes comes to mind--what is it that happens when two or more men desire an object or good (that satisfies desire) that they both cannot have--either a state of war obtains between them or they are overawed by the terror of the mortal leviathan. To keep this many competing males in line--the mortal leviathan will have to be terrible/brutal indeed. Honoring the design of nature (the existence of which Hobbes more or less denies) is the only way to avert catastrophes of anarchy, on the one hand, or the most tyrannical, sovereign absolutism on the other.
3.16.2011 | 12:15pm
Publius says:
Macy is partly right, but also partly wrong. The preference for boys is a cultural artifact. But abortion and in utero gender detection is also what gives allows the preference to be displayed in this cruel way. Consider the instance of Nazi genocide. Genocide as such isn't anti-Semitic. It is the Nazi animosity towards Jews that gives Nazi genocide its sickening form. But we would be wrong to infer that the problem was only anti-semitism and not genocide. Genocide is part of the problem--a big part of the problem, perhaps the worst part of the problem. Likewise, here abortion is a big part of the problem. Without abortion, the cultural prejudice would not through the ratio out its natural balance. Without abortion, the cultural prejudice would be wrong, but it would not have this deleterious effect.
3.16.2011 | 12:24pm
RL says:
Women in wealthier societies in a "buyer's market" for husbands might also be led to embrace promiscuity, on the theory that their potential future husbands will be in such competition with one another that they will be unable to be choosy about such matters as their potential future wives' premarital (and marital) chastity. (It's in some ways the flip side of Macy's point about women being forced into prostitution in China and other poorer countries.) One could argue that we see this happening around us in Europe and North America, and one could further argue that we are not seeing a corresponding uptick in male displays of the virtues of fidelity and industrious breadwinning, but rather a general lowering of moral standards.
3.16.2011 | 12:51pm
Brad says:
This is satan's retribution against Her who crushed his head.
Ave, Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
Ave, Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
3.16.2011 | 1:58pm
Peter Small says:
I see several problems with the types of arguments which both Joe and Professor Dan Biles make.
First, any number of scenarios could play out on a regional, national or global level as a result of these unnatural imbalances in the numbers of men and women. The variables that could affect the outcomes are simply too many to account for. Past is not necessarily prequel.
Second, these different prognostications each form the basis for a utilitarian argument over whether the cumulative effect of these individual actions will prove to be better or worse for society or the world as a whole. I think it's a trap to give in to the temptation to rely on utilitarian arguments of this type to make an argument against abortion. Inevitably, someone will come up with an opposing or mitigating argument based on the same set of facts, as Prof biles has done here, and then the argument shifts to one over who has made the best argument and shifts away from the more fundamental questions of the value and purpose of human existence.
It's been clear for a long time now that gender selection abortion is common in certain parts of the world and in certain cultures due to the types of beliefs and pressures that Macy points out in her (?) post. This by itself should be enough to give the lie to the argument that "choice" is a force for the liberation of women.
First, any number of scenarios could play out on a regional, national or global level as a result of these unnatural imbalances in the numbers of men and women. The variables that could affect the outcomes are simply too many to account for. Past is not necessarily prequel.
Second, these different prognostications each form the basis for a utilitarian argument over whether the cumulative effect of these individual actions will prove to be better or worse for society or the world as a whole. I think it's a trap to give in to the temptation to rely on utilitarian arguments of this type to make an argument against abortion. Inevitably, someone will come up with an opposing or mitigating argument based on the same set of facts, as Prof biles has done here, and then the argument shifts to one over who has made the best argument and shifts away from the more fundamental questions of the value and purpose of human existence.
It's been clear for a long time now that gender selection abortion is common in certain parts of the world and in certain cultures due to the types of beliefs and pressures that Macy points out in her (?) post. This by itself should be enough to give the lie to the argument that "choice" is a force for the liberation of women.
3.16.2011 | 2:18pm
Bop says:
Macy:
“They are "lesser than" (although it's justified by saying that they are "designed for different roles").”
I wonder if the trend has anything to do with the fact that these Asian countries are emerging into a new way of life whose cultural ethos is decidedly western in bias, a bias that in the economic realm favours the masculine over the feminine to the extent that women in the West are obliged to be more expressively masculine than their nature would otherwise incline them to be? Given that couples can now readily determine the sex of children born to them, it would be interesting to know what people would think the more likely answer to the following questions to couples would be: if you could only have one child, what sex would you choose for that child? or, if you were planning a family what sex would you choose for your first child?
I suspect that most people in the West and elsewhere would think the most likely answer to both questions would be male. And that’s because we no longer value the feminine as feminine and mistakenly, and tragically, try to rectify this failure by redefining the feminine in terms of the masculine.
What I am trying to say, Macy, and failing miserably in the attempt, is that men and women are in fact “designed for different roles” and this does not amount simply to an excuse for treating one as “lesser than” the other. The tragedy is that believing that it amounts to treating one as lesser than the other leads to an abasement of both by sublating the one in the other.
“They are "lesser than" (although it's justified by saying that they are "designed for different roles").”
I wonder if the trend has anything to do with the fact that these Asian countries are emerging into a new way of life whose cultural ethos is decidedly western in bias, a bias that in the economic realm favours the masculine over the feminine to the extent that women in the West are obliged to be more expressively masculine than their nature would otherwise incline them to be? Given that couples can now readily determine the sex of children born to them, it would be interesting to know what people would think the more likely answer to the following questions to couples would be: if you could only have one child, what sex would you choose for that child? or, if you were planning a family what sex would you choose for your first child?
I suspect that most people in the West and elsewhere would think the most likely answer to both questions would be male. And that’s because we no longer value the feminine as feminine and mistakenly, and tragically, try to rectify this failure by redefining the feminine in terms of the masculine.
What I am trying to say, Macy, and failing miserably in the attempt, is that men and women are in fact “designed for different roles” and this does not amount simply to an excuse for treating one as “lesser than” the other. The tragedy is that believing that it amounts to treating one as lesser than the other leads to an abasement of both by sublating the one in the other.
3.16.2011 | 2:19pm
Karen says:
I agree with Macy, and I'll even go so far as to say that it's better that those little girls never be born, than be born into cultures that despise them. If you want to stop this problem, then empower women. I'm willing to bet large amounts of money that the mothers in those provinces who've aborted their daughters would love to be in a world that treats women better anyway. Still, so long as women are "born for different roles," then this is the inevitable result.
3.16.2011 | 2:49pm
Bop says:
Karen:
“If you want to stop this problem, then empower women”
No. Just the opposite. Empower the feminine. Stop pressuring women to behave like men.
“If you want to stop this problem, then empower women”
No. Just the opposite. Empower the feminine. Stop pressuring women to behave like men.
3.16.2011 | 2:50pm
Mike Linton says:
Wow Karen, seriously wow. "I'll even go so far as to say that it's better that those little girls never be born. . . . " I don't have that wide an experience but I think that I've met several thousand people in my nearly sixty years. Although a couple have tragically committed suicide, I've yet to hear someone say that they wished they had never been born. Perhaps they felt that there was no use going on and they ended their lives being in despair, but wishing that they had never once experienced life? Any of life? No, I've never met that person. Not even close. I guess you have. Tens of thousands of persons like that. Millions of them. And you know their greatest wish is never to have existed at all. And you are so experienced and so wise that you know that something is "inevitable." And you're even self-effacing, veiled behind a fictional or partial name. Wow Karen. Seriously wow.
3.16.2011 | 3:01pm
Karen Cox says:
So, Mike Linton, you have vast experience of what it's like to be the despised daughter of a family that sold you as a slave to buy a television? That happens in Asian villages, where girls of any age are sold as sex slaves for the Bangkok market. Read Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "Mother Nature" to see what an actual anthropologist who lived in rural India before sonograms could detect sex early in a pregnancy and learn what happened to baby girls then. There are entire brahmin caste clans that have no female members at all - brides are bought from lower classes -- because all daughters are killed, as are mothers who foolishly give birth to more than one baby girl. So yes, I do think it's better no to live at all than to live in that kind of misery.
Bop, what precisely does "empower the feminine" mean? How do you empower a trait instead of people? From the reading I've done in Hrdy, among others, those cultures that kill baby girls enforce rigid feminine roles on the few women they allow to live, in that the women have no agency in their societies at all. Women are made to be as submissive as humanly possible -- see the bit about brahmins only marrying lower-caste women. "Empowering" femininity would eliminate it, which I see as no bad thing since being a doormat is nothing any human should want.
Bop, what precisely does "empower the feminine" mean? How do you empower a trait instead of people? From the reading I've done in Hrdy, among others, those cultures that kill baby girls enforce rigid feminine roles on the few women they allow to live, in that the women have no agency in their societies at all. Women are made to be as submissive as humanly possible -- see the bit about brahmins only marrying lower-caste women. "Empowering" femininity would eliminate it, which I see as no bad thing since being a doormat is nothing any human should want.
3.16.2011 | 4:09pm
Bop says:
Karen:
“Bop, what precisely does "empower the feminine" mean? How do you empower a trait instead of people?”
By recognizing, valuing and cultivating the distinctly feminine whose characteristic itself is to recognize value and to nurture, conserve and cultivate that value. A society where people treat others as doormats is one where the feminine is no longer empowered, because no longer valued. The empowerment of women in the West has often meant no more than women appropriating the masculine. People there are still treated as doormats by others if they manage not to be aborted first.
“Bop, what precisely does "empower the feminine" mean? How do you empower a trait instead of people?”
By recognizing, valuing and cultivating the distinctly feminine whose characteristic itself is to recognize value and to nurture, conserve and cultivate that value. A society where people treat others as doormats is one where the feminine is no longer empowered, because no longer valued. The empowerment of women in the West has often meant no more than women appropriating the masculine. People there are still treated as doormats by others if they manage not to be aborted first.
3.16.2011 | 4:35pm
Macy says:
@Bop - I understand what you are trying to say, and while I very seriously doubt your motivations are malicious in any sense, I would be remiss if I did not point out that your arguments and thought process are not so very different than the sort of fundamental misconceptions about humanity that cause the very thing we are talking about.
To put it in a shorter way, dividing people into "masculine and feminine" is a false dichotomy. And there has never been a time or place where that has been done, that the "feminine half" hasn't suffered for it.
To put it in a shorter way, dividing people into "masculine and feminine" is a false dichotomy. And there has never been a time or place where that has been done, that the "feminine half" hasn't suffered for it.
3.16.2011 | 5:19pm
Bop says:
Macy:
“To put it in a shorter way, dividing people into "masculine and feminine" is a false dichotomy. And there has never been a time or place where that has been done, that the "feminine half" hasn't suffered for it.”
In my family growing there was a father and a mother, and there were three girls and two boys. And as I understood it the father and the boys expressed themselves in what we were pleased to call their masculine nature, and the mother and girls expressed themselves in what we called their feminine nature, and we would all have been puzzled to have been told that in fact we were not after all distinctly feminine and masculine beings but just beings with indistinguishable natures. And we would have been indeed puzzled and upset to be told that the mother and girls suffered for possessing feminine natures. But then again, I have only had intimate experience of one family at one time and place. And I cannot speak for all other times and all other places. I will tell you though, Macy, what you say makes me very sad. I have always felt that the harmony between the masculine and the feminine was the most satisfying sort of harmony that there was.
“To put it in a shorter way, dividing people into "masculine and feminine" is a false dichotomy. And there has never been a time or place where that has been done, that the "feminine half" hasn't suffered for it.”
In my family growing there was a father and a mother, and there were three girls and two boys. And as I understood it the father and the boys expressed themselves in what we were pleased to call their masculine nature, and the mother and girls expressed themselves in what we called their feminine nature, and we would all have been puzzled to have been told that in fact we were not after all distinctly feminine and masculine beings but just beings with indistinguishable natures. And we would have been indeed puzzled and upset to be told that the mother and girls suffered for possessing feminine natures. But then again, I have only had intimate experience of one family at one time and place. And I cannot speak for all other times and all other places. I will tell you though, Macy, what you say makes me very sad. I have always felt that the harmony between the masculine and the feminine was the most satisfying sort of harmony that there was.
3.16.2011 | 7:14pm
Steve M says:
Mike Linton -- Be not dismayed. Most of us understood exactly what you were saying. Money quote "...wishing that they never once had experienced life? Any of life? No, I've never met that person."
Yes, "life is a veil of tears," but is not without its joys in the worst of depravity.
Yes, "life is a veil of tears," but is not without its joys in the worst of depravity.
3.16.2011 | 8:05pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickol writes:
"A "shortage" of women in a population is an entirely different situation from a total absence of women in a prison. If we're going to do social science in the total absence of any studies or data, I would say prostitution is a much more likely outcome of this kind of gender imbalance than homosexuality. Heterosexuality (among heterosexuals) is not so feeble a force as many seem to fear. "
I do not disagree with this analysis. My point is that Pr. Dan was gullible for thinking that a shortage of women would make for more moral men. For even if a potential sexual partne rhas market power, the highest bid might come from someone other than a "good guy." In fact, it well could turn out that, in a world of not enough women, the "good guys" would finish last.
"A "shortage" of women in a population is an entirely different situation from a total absence of women in a prison. If we're going to do social science in the total absence of any studies or data, I would say prostitution is a much more likely outcome of this kind of gender imbalance than homosexuality. Heterosexuality (among heterosexuals) is not so feeble a force as many seem to fear. "
I do not disagree with this analysis. My point is that Pr. Dan was gullible for thinking that a shortage of women would make for more moral men. For even if a potential sexual partne rhas market power, the highest bid might come from someone other than a "good guy." In fact, it well could turn out that, in a world of not enough women, the "good guys" would finish last.
3.16.2011 | 9:00pm
Macy says:
@Bop
I grew up in a family of individuals, rather than templates. I think we would indeed be puzzled and upset if we were told that our personal natures, and expressions there-of, were not falling into the "correct" boxes. How very odd for you.
I grew up in a family of individuals, rather than templates. I think we would indeed be puzzled and upset if we were told that our personal natures, and expressions there-of, were not falling into the "correct" boxes. How very odd for you.
3.16.2011 | 9:19pm
DBP says:
With our fifth child due in June, we'd be very surprised to hear the obstetrician announce "Congratulations! You have a baby individual!"
3.16.2011 | 9:56pm
Bop says:
Macy:
Oh don’t put words into my mouth. Ours was a family of individuals too. We each had our own individual personalities, but I would like to think that our personalities didn’t betray our created natures, but tried to fulfill them.
“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”
I suppose the difference between the modern notion of the self and the Christian notion is that the latter seeks to conform to their true nature while the former seeks to determine their own nature to be as it suits them. But now I am putting words in your mouth.
Oh don’t put words into my mouth. Ours was a family of individuals too. We each had our own individual personalities, but I would like to think that our personalities didn’t betray our created natures, but tried to fulfill them.
“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”
I suppose the difference between the modern notion of the self and the Christian notion is that the latter seeks to conform to their true nature while the former seeks to determine their own nature to be as it suits them. But now I am putting words in your mouth.
3.16.2011 | 11:34pm
Karen Cox says:
Bop, et alia -- Please define "feminine" and "masculine." The reason I always wince at phrases like "in accordance with our created nature" is that men always get the interesting and engaging parts of human nature and women get to do laundry, scrub toilets, and change diapers. So, would someone please make a list of what women are allowed to do and the reasons for what I assume is going to be a short list of really boring and smelly activities.
3.17.2011 | 1:01am
Gian says:
I do not understand, why are feminists and pro-abortion people agitated on abortion of
female fetuses. For them, it is not as if a baby girl that is killed, but discarding of fetal tissue.
How come they even speak of a baby?.
female fetuses. For them, it is not as if a baby girl that is killed, but discarding of fetal tissue.
How come they even speak of a baby?.
3.17.2011 | 1:07am
Lewis says:
Wow, boys, seriously, wow. Are you boys—namely, Bop, Mike “Last Name” Linton, Steve “Initial” M, DBP—completely unaware of what Macy and Karen are being patient enough to explain?
Let me spell it out. Men are, on average, bigger and more violent than women. Our strength and ruthlessness has made us more willing to take what we want. And we’ve been pretty good at persuading women to go along. We’ve told them pretty stories about fertility goddesses or the Virgin Mary so that they know that we respect them really, really a lot, and then we put them to work.
Sure, we’ve taken the dangerous jobs and died in battle, but when we’re home, we’re lazy, our day ends, and when we conquer we rape and when we die they have to figure out how to get help raising the kids we left behind.
Four of my neighbors’ girls have gone into the Peace Corps. One came home within months because a man assaulted her and she stabbed him with a knife. Another came home after a year because she was exhausted by the comments men made when they thought she was out of earshot. A third returned after the principal of her school broke into her house. The fourth completed her tour but only because the village never finished her house and she had to live in a convent instead.
You can pretend that life for women was sweeter here in these United States before women got all uppity and left the secure haven of their male-protected home and tried to become men themselves, but you’d have to ignore a whole lot of history and maybe a little common sense. Ask some young women what it is like to get ogled in the street, groped in a hall, teased on a playground. Ask your grandmother about the bad girls she knew and then ask why exactly it was the girls who were considered bad and not the boys.
And cut through some of your own rationalization-induced fog and recall some of the ways you treated girls when you were young and dumb. Did you treat them that way because women aren’t respected in our society or because boys will be boys?
Listen to people like Macy and Karen for a change. Maybe you’ll learn something.
Let me spell it out. Men are, on average, bigger and more violent than women. Our strength and ruthlessness has made us more willing to take what we want. And we’ve been pretty good at persuading women to go along. We’ve told them pretty stories about fertility goddesses or the Virgin Mary so that they know that we respect them really, really a lot, and then we put them to work.
Sure, we’ve taken the dangerous jobs and died in battle, but when we’re home, we’re lazy, our day ends, and when we conquer we rape and when we die they have to figure out how to get help raising the kids we left behind.
Four of my neighbors’ girls have gone into the Peace Corps. One came home within months because a man assaulted her and she stabbed him with a knife. Another came home after a year because she was exhausted by the comments men made when they thought she was out of earshot. A third returned after the principal of her school broke into her house. The fourth completed her tour but only because the village never finished her house and she had to live in a convent instead.
You can pretend that life for women was sweeter here in these United States before women got all uppity and left the secure haven of their male-protected home and tried to become men themselves, but you’d have to ignore a whole lot of history and maybe a little common sense. Ask some young women what it is like to get ogled in the street, groped in a hall, teased on a playground. Ask your grandmother about the bad girls she knew and then ask why exactly it was the girls who were considered bad and not the boys.
And cut through some of your own rationalization-induced fog and recall some of the ways you treated girls when you were young and dumb. Did you treat them that way because women aren’t respected in our society or because boys will be boys?
Listen to people like Macy and Karen for a change. Maybe you’ll learn something.
3.17.2011 | 2:11am
Don Roberto says:
"Abortion" is utterly dispicable: human sacrifice to the gods of narcissism, etc. What would a person who could rend their own child to pieces *not* do to satisfy their depraved lust? We must beg God constantly to withhold His just wrath. (And as we can see from the comments, even materialists can see the more obvious evils that this terrible sin begets.)
†
†
3.17.2011 | 5:59am
edmond says:
Shortage of men? shortage of women? Who in heaven's name decreed that both
should be in equal amounts? Ten years ago, the ratio was five females to one male, planning included. In the poor communities, we have experienced that the women
are the leaders but not because they are empowered and all that buzz, but because they are more diligent and because the men are lazy. In fact the upscale manufacturing
firms here have turned their focus on hiring women for production lines because of
their natural proclivity for detail and patience. In other words, what is the ratio of
men who knit compared to women who knit enjoyably? Nothing to do with empowerment but the change in the way things are done. Micro-circuit assembly demands this kind of almost joyful obsession for intricate detail and a fine hand to manuever. Nowadays, it's not girls that are being sold in the slave trade, boys are also being traded.
As for the women who supposedly wish they've never been born or want to die because the culture is too tough on them, perhaps these are in the few. Most girls from the poor areas who do not even have time to recognize gender equality dream otherwise, they are obsessed with being singing idols. They dream about becoming dancers and singers in the local "idols" tv contests. Whatever pain or resentment they feel from being dirt poor is anesthesized by their hope of one day becoming the superstar who owns many cars, condos and throws many parties in a day....
The intellectual battle of the sexes that you speak of is nothing novel in a really poor community, something nice to talk about when you have the luxury of time to talk about it with peers who have the luxury of time to listen.
should be in equal amounts? Ten years ago, the ratio was five females to one male, planning included. In the poor communities, we have experienced that the women
are the leaders but not because they are empowered and all that buzz, but because they are more diligent and because the men are lazy. In fact the upscale manufacturing
firms here have turned their focus on hiring women for production lines because of
their natural proclivity for detail and patience. In other words, what is the ratio of
men who knit compared to women who knit enjoyably? Nothing to do with empowerment but the change in the way things are done. Micro-circuit assembly demands this kind of almost joyful obsession for intricate detail and a fine hand to manuever. Nowadays, it's not girls that are being sold in the slave trade, boys are also being traded.
As for the women who supposedly wish they've never been born or want to die because the culture is too tough on them, perhaps these are in the few. Most girls from the poor areas who do not even have time to recognize gender equality dream otherwise, they are obsessed with being singing idols. They dream about becoming dancers and singers in the local "idols" tv contests. Whatever pain or resentment they feel from being dirt poor is anesthesized by their hope of one day becoming the superstar who owns many cars, condos and throws many parties in a day....
The intellectual battle of the sexes that you speak of is nothing novel in a really poor community, something nice to talk about when you have the luxury of time to talk about it with peers who have the luxury of time to listen.
3.17.2011 | 8:46am
patricksarsfield says:
After all is said and done, Don Roberto has spoken the clear truth. Abortion is even more horrible than most other types of murder because of the utter helplessness of the victim. Even savage murderers of adults face the possibility of resistance. The mother murdering her child, though, faces no consequences. Indeed, many in the World applaud her choice.
3.17.2011 | 8:56am
Caste-away says:
'Bare Branches: the security implications of Asia's surplus male population', by Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, 2004. Or, if you're 'man' enough: 'Death by Fire: sati [bride burning], dowry death and female infanticide in India', by Mala Sen, 2001. Read these and weep for the 'I' and the 'C' in that 'BRIC' miracle.
3.17.2011 | 9:23am
Michael PS says:
Mike Linton
"Enough, we live!--and if a life,
With large results so little rife,
Though bearable, seem hardly worth
This pomp of worlds, this pain of birth..."
seems to sum up a very common reflection on the human condition.
"Enough, we live!--and if a life,
With large results so little rife,
Though bearable, seem hardly worth
This pomp of worlds, this pain of birth..."
seems to sum up a very common reflection on the human condition.
3.17.2011 | 10:42am
Bop says:
@Karen Cox:
I cannot define masculine and feminine, I can only point to them in the same way that I cannot define but only point to grace and decency. But you, if you like, could please try to define interesting and engaging occupations for me. Are we talking about the sort of work done by farmers, labourers, miners, seamen, grocers, dustmen, mailmen, butchers, fishermen, factory machine workers, etc.? Most men and women in history had neither the leisure nor the ability to read the works of women anthropologists like you do, Karen. Most men and women in history have had to get on with occupations that were neither particularly interesting and engaging nor easy. So don’t you make me cringe with your pampered, 21st century self-servingly careless view about how men always had it interesting and engaging while women always had nothing but boring and smelly lives. It simply isn’t true.
Besides, all this has nothing to do with the point I’ve been trying to make. My point is that there are such things as feminine and masculine natures and that increasingly women are adopting, contrary to their nature, a more masculine outlook and behavior, and that we are all the worse off for it because culturally there is a loss of balance. I’m sorry it makes you cringe when someone talks about the need to conform to our created nature, but I suspect that that propensity to cringe is itself indicative of a loss of feminine value. Today many people believe, as Macy puts it above, that we only have personal, individual natures and that we do not have any shared, created nature to which we are obliged to conform. In such a view there cannot be any natural, objective norm that binds us, so that an empowered woman who chooses to abort her unborn girl cannot be condemned on any grounds and can only be commended for expressing her own personal nature. That’s a real betrayal of the feminine.
I cannot define masculine and feminine, I can only point to them in the same way that I cannot define but only point to grace and decency. But you, if you like, could please try to define interesting and engaging occupations for me. Are we talking about the sort of work done by farmers, labourers, miners, seamen, grocers, dustmen, mailmen, butchers, fishermen, factory machine workers, etc.? Most men and women in history had neither the leisure nor the ability to read the works of women anthropologists like you do, Karen. Most men and women in history have had to get on with occupations that were neither particularly interesting and engaging nor easy. So don’t you make me cringe with your pampered, 21st century self-servingly careless view about how men always had it interesting and engaging while women always had nothing but boring and smelly lives. It simply isn’t true.
Besides, all this has nothing to do with the point I’ve been trying to make. My point is that there are such things as feminine and masculine natures and that increasingly women are adopting, contrary to their nature, a more masculine outlook and behavior, and that we are all the worse off for it because culturally there is a loss of balance. I’m sorry it makes you cringe when someone talks about the need to conform to our created nature, but I suspect that that propensity to cringe is itself indicative of a loss of feminine value. Today many people believe, as Macy puts it above, that we only have personal, individual natures and that we do not have any shared, created nature to which we are obliged to conform. In such a view there cannot be any natural, objective norm that binds us, so that an empowered woman who chooses to abort her unborn girl cannot be condemned on any grounds and can only be commended for expressing her own personal nature. That’s a real betrayal of the feminine.
3.17.2011 | 11:03am
Karen Cox says:
Bop, in the first sentence of your most recent comment you state that you cannot define masculine and feminine, yet in the last sentence you state that masculine and feminine are a "natural, objective norm." If these traits are natural and objective, then they can be described. Please do so.
3.17.2011 | 11:33am
michael Currie says:
Barbara Tuchman in her book "The distant Mirror" at one point suggested that in the 14th century there was a problem regarding many unattached young men roaming the French countryside raising havoc. Simplifying for brevities sake, the solution was to organize them into an army and point them towards other places and send them on their way to wreak havoc there.
3.17.2011 | 11:49am
Lewis says:
“increasingly women are adopting, contrary to their nature, a more masculine outlook and behavior, and that we are all the worse off for it because culturally there is a loss of balance.”
Is the culture off balance because my boss is a woman or because her outlook and behavior is masculine? And what would make her outlook and behavior masculine anyway? She’s just doing her job well.
“the need to conform to our created nature”
“an empowered woman who chooses to abort her unborn girl cannot be condemned on any grounds and can only be commended for expressing her own personal nature”
So let me get this straight. A woman is not conforming to her feminine nature when she aborts but is instead adopting a masculine outlook and behavior. Does that mean that the man who knocks her up and pays for the abortion is conforming to his masculine nature?
Is the culture off balance because my boss is a woman or because her outlook and behavior is masculine? And what would make her outlook and behavior masculine anyway? She’s just doing her job well.
“the need to conform to our created nature”
“an empowered woman who chooses to abort her unborn girl cannot be condemned on any grounds and can only be commended for expressing her own personal nature”
So let me get this straight. A woman is not conforming to her feminine nature when she aborts but is instead adopting a masculine outlook and behavior. Does that mean that the man who knocks her up and pays for the abortion is conforming to his masculine nature?
3.17.2011 | 1:22pm
Bop says:
@Karen Cox:
“Bop, in the first sentence of your most recent comment you state that you cannot define masculine and feminine, yet in the last sentence you state that masculine and feminine are a "natural, objective norm." If these traits are natural and objective, then they can be described. Please do so.”
Karen, I also said that I was unable to define grace and decency, yet I believe that both describe objective realities, that is, states of affairs, events and behaviours that are what they are, graceful or decent, quite independently of what any individual determines. In other words, graceful or decent action is graceful or decent not because you or I say it is but by virtue of the nature of our reality. And this nature is not something humans invent or manufacture, but that to which we are created.
Now look at what I actually said and what you say I say. You say that I said that the “masculine and feminine are a ‘natural, objective norm.’” In fact I did not say this. What I said was that if one is of the view that we only possess natures that are individually, personally determined (that is subjectively determined) and do not believe that we possess shared, created natures (that is natures that are objectively determined), then “in such a view there cannot be any natural, objective norm that binds us.”
And this I believe is correct. In our society we encounter norms of behaviour all the time which are founded on our natural sense and acknowledgment of grace and decency. And I also believe that it is a imbalance of the masculine over the feminine in our culture that results in the reductionist tendency of people to always demand a definition of the content and value of any insight or understanding, as though all insights and understandings were things like job descriptions.
“Bop, in the first sentence of your most recent comment you state that you cannot define masculine and feminine, yet in the last sentence you state that masculine and feminine are a "natural, objective norm." If these traits are natural and objective, then they can be described. Please do so.”
Karen, I also said that I was unable to define grace and decency, yet I believe that both describe objective realities, that is, states of affairs, events and behaviours that are what they are, graceful or decent, quite independently of what any individual determines. In other words, graceful or decent action is graceful or decent not because you or I say it is but by virtue of the nature of our reality. And this nature is not something humans invent or manufacture, but that to which we are created.
Now look at what I actually said and what you say I say. You say that I said that the “masculine and feminine are a ‘natural, objective norm.’” In fact I did not say this. What I said was that if one is of the view that we only possess natures that are individually, personally determined (that is subjectively determined) and do not believe that we possess shared, created natures (that is natures that are objectively determined), then “in such a view there cannot be any natural, objective norm that binds us.”
And this I believe is correct. In our society we encounter norms of behaviour all the time which are founded on our natural sense and acknowledgment of grace and decency. And I also believe that it is a imbalance of the masculine over the feminine in our culture that results in the reductionist tendency of people to always demand a definition of the content and value of any insight or understanding, as though all insights and understandings were things like job descriptions.
3.18.2011 | 3:44pm
Steve M says:
Dear Lewis
Whether my name be Stephanie or Mike Linton's be Michelle, and whether the birth rate be so horrendously skewed towards female births rather than male has no bearing on the message that Mr. Linton conveyed. His message was that he disagreed with Karen's contention "...it's better those little girls never be born..." He's met those who despaired their condition -- even to the point of suicide -- but no one who wished they had never experienced life with its joys and agonies despite the ratios of joy to agony. Mr. Linton, an occasional writer for First Things, submitted comments more in line with this forum than some of the sex/gender battle anecdotes that seem to disregard the fact that the "boys" responding are not saying that this murderous gender bias is not despicable. What the "boys" are saying is that murder of innocents is despicable no matter what reason (sex, race, health status, etc.) because all human life has value and IS BETTER OFF BORN.
Whether my name be Stephanie or Mike Linton's be Michelle, and whether the birth rate be so horrendously skewed towards female births rather than male has no bearing on the message that Mr. Linton conveyed. His message was that he disagreed with Karen's contention "...it's better those little girls never be born..." He's met those who despaired their condition -- even to the point of suicide -- but no one who wished they had never experienced life with its joys and agonies despite the ratios of joy to agony. Mr. Linton, an occasional writer for First Things, submitted comments more in line with this forum than some of the sex/gender battle anecdotes that seem to disregard the fact that the "boys" responding are not saying that this murderous gender bias is not despicable. What the "boys" are saying is that murder of innocents is despicable no matter what reason (sex, race, health status, etc.) because all human life has value and IS BETTER OFF BORN.
3.18.2011 | 4:33pm
M. Love says:
It's best not to argue with those who pretend to believe that "masculine" and "feminine" are no more than cultural conventions, or that history can be reduced to one long war on women. They wish to entangle you in (literally) incredible nonsense in order to derail the argument onto their preferred terrain of ridiculous abstractions, so that we might forget that we were discussing the willful murder of unborn female human beings.
As the author John C. Wright observes:
“Ideas easy to defend on the basis of abstraction[sic] reasoning are disproportionately favored and celebrated by intellectuals, who like philosophical 'systems' or models with clear axioms and clean, unambiguous conclusions, even if wildly disconnected from the real world. Ideas difficult to defend on the basis of abstract reasoning, such as the accumulated wisdom we call the common sense, on the other hand are disproportionately disfavored and scorned by intellectuals. …. Philosophers moored to the common sense of tradition avoid this perversity; intellectuals delighted with the airy cloudscapes of fickle fads delight in it.”
As the author John C. Wright observes:
“Ideas easy to defend on the basis of abstraction[sic] reasoning are disproportionately favored and celebrated by intellectuals, who like philosophical 'systems' or models with clear axioms and clean, unambiguous conclusions, even if wildly disconnected from the real world. Ideas difficult to defend on the basis of abstract reasoning, such as the accumulated wisdom we call the common sense, on the other hand are disproportionately disfavored and scorned by intellectuals. …. Philosophers moored to the common sense of tradition avoid this perversity; intellectuals delighted with the airy cloudscapes of fickle fads delight in it.”
3.18.2011 | 5:51pm
Lewis says:
“His message was that he disagreed with Karen's contention "...it's better those little girls never be born..."”
As if that were the meat of Karen’s statement. Carter’s raising the question of why so many girls are getting aborted, and Karen is giving the serious answer that sexist gender roles, not liberalism, are the driving force. But Linton wants to pick on Karen’s over-the-top statement and her decision not to sign her last name. Very relevant.
Meanwhile, Bop, who doesn’t get chastised for his signature, wants to reminisce about his idyllic childhood when boys were boys and girls were girls. It’s clear who’s serious about thinking through Carter’s article and who’s not.
By the way, it’s “vale” of tears, not “veil.” A vale is a valley. A veil is a thing that cultures that devalue women by valuing them so highly use to hide a woman’s face. So maybe you’re right, life is a “veil of tears.”
As if that were the meat of Karen’s statement. Carter’s raising the question of why so many girls are getting aborted, and Karen is giving the serious answer that sexist gender roles, not liberalism, are the driving force. But Linton wants to pick on Karen’s over-the-top statement and her decision not to sign her last name. Very relevant.
Meanwhile, Bop, who doesn’t get chastised for his signature, wants to reminisce about his idyllic childhood when boys were boys and girls were girls. It’s clear who’s serious about thinking through Carter’s article and who’s not.
By the way, it’s “vale” of tears, not “veil.” A vale is a valley. A veil is a thing that cultures that devalue women by valuing them so highly use to hide a woman’s face. So maybe you’re right, life is a “veil of tears.”
3.18.2011 | 8:48pm
Karen Cox says:
Thanks, Lewis. That was exactly my point -- that complaining about abortion in India and China doesn't address the problem. Girls are aborted because women in those cultures aren't respected. If people want to stop sex selection abortion, then they need to change their views of sex roles.
Also, I liked your comments regarding "veil" and "vale."
Also, I liked your comments regarding "veil" and "vale."
3.18.2011 | 11:26pm
Lewis says:
Karen,
You're welcome. There's some smart people who write for the magazine and even in the comments, but most of them get stupid when "women's issues" come up. For one thing, they think 'women's issues' are actually about women!
You're welcome. There's some smart people who write for the magazine and even in the comments, but most of them get stupid when "women's issues" come up. For one thing, they think 'women's issues' are actually about women!
3.18.2011 | 11:58pm
Lewis says:
“derail the argument … so that we might forget that we were discussing the willful murder of unborn female human beings”
Wrong. Macy and Karen were on topic explaining why more girls are getting killed than boys. It was Bop who derailed the conversation into “ridiculous” abstractions like masculinity and femininity.
“those who pretend to believe that "masculine" and "feminine" are no more than cultural conventions”
Wrong again. NO ONE has said that gender is merely conventional. Some of us have agreed with Macy, who said that women have traditionally been “seen as inferior, intellectually, physically, etc.” There’s a difference between those two statements. Think about it.
“history can be reduced to one long war on women”
Let’s just trade one reduction for another, shall we? Let’s reduce everything about abortion right down to the “willful murder of the unborn.” That way we don’t have to do any more complex thinking than, say, why more girls are killed than boys, or why Americans kill their babies than people in countries with single-payer health care do. Most Americans who have abortions already have at least one child. Having experienced the miracle of birth, they say no this time. Either these women are murderous and debased, or…never mind. It just got too complex to think about. Let’s just reduce the issue again to the “willful murder of the unborn.” Whew. That feels better now.
Wrong. Macy and Karen were on topic explaining why more girls are getting killed than boys. It was Bop who derailed the conversation into “ridiculous” abstractions like masculinity and femininity.
“those who pretend to believe that "masculine" and "feminine" are no more than cultural conventions”
Wrong again. NO ONE has said that gender is merely conventional. Some of us have agreed with Macy, who said that women have traditionally been “seen as inferior, intellectually, physically, etc.” There’s a difference between those two statements. Think about it.
“history can be reduced to one long war on women”
Let’s just trade one reduction for another, shall we? Let’s reduce everything about abortion right down to the “willful murder of the unborn.” That way we don’t have to do any more complex thinking than, say, why more girls are killed than boys, or why Americans kill their babies than people in countries with single-payer health care do. Most Americans who have abortions already have at least one child. Having experienced the miracle of birth, they say no this time. Either these women are murderous and debased, or…never mind. It just got too complex to think about. Let’s just reduce the issue again to the “willful murder of the unborn.” Whew. That feels better now.
3.19.2011 | 12:28am
Colin says:
Oh Gawd
What, pray tell, is the difference between an assault rifle and a normal rifle?
It's color? The pistol grip? Is it somehow more frightening?
What, pray tell, is the difference between an assault rifle and a normal rifle?
It's color? The pistol grip? Is it somehow more frightening?
3.22.2011 | 9:06pm
Elizabeth says:
"If people want to stop sex selection abortion, then they need to change their views of sex roles."
No. If people want to stop sex selection abortion they need to change their views about women and roles that have traditionally been reserved for women. There is nothing demeaning about cooking, cleaning changing diapers and serving others. They are all very necessary work and if you study the lives of "great" men and women their moral outlook has often been influenced by the mothers who took care of them in childhood, and also I may add by the way these women were treated by the men in their lives, and the dignity with which these women regarded themselves. The Christian message is the dignity and worth of every human being from conception to death, and if that was more widely understood and taught the world would be a better place and abortion would be relatively rare. Also psychologists will tell you that male and female psychology are very different.
No. If people want to stop sex selection abortion they need to change their views about women and roles that have traditionally been reserved for women. There is nothing demeaning about cooking, cleaning changing diapers and serving others. They are all very necessary work and if you study the lives of "great" men and women their moral outlook has often been influenced by the mothers who took care of them in childhood, and also I may add by the way these women were treated by the men in their lives, and the dignity with which these women regarded themselves. The Christian message is the dignity and worth of every human being from conception to death, and if that was more widely understood and taught the world would be a better place and abortion would be relatively rare. Also psychologists will tell you that male and female psychology are very different.
3.22.2011 | 11:42pm
Lewis says:
"If people want to stop sex selection abortion they need to change their views about women and roles that have traditionally been reserved for women."
Wrong. Most of the cultures this article describes already believe there is "nothing demeaning about cooking, cleaning changing diapers and serving others." They just don't think women's lives are as valuable as men's. It's true that Christianity preaches the worth of all humans, but many of the nations in this study aren't Christian. In others, Christianity hasn't been fully preached. Still, there are some that are surprising, Catholic nations such as El Salvador and Venezuela are killing their girls despite their nation's veneration of the Virgin.
Wrong. Most of the cultures this article describes already believe there is "nothing demeaning about cooking, cleaning changing diapers and serving others." They just don't think women's lives are as valuable as men's. It's true that Christianity preaches the worth of all humans, but many of the nations in this study aren't Christian. In others, Christianity hasn't been fully preached. Still, there are some that are surprising, Catholic nations such as El Salvador and Venezuela are killing their girls despite their nation's veneration of the Virgin.
4.5.2011 | 3:12pm
Linda Brown says:
Can the western Christian world make it easier and cost less to adopt female Asian babies??..Can there be a safe place for the Asian family to come to discuss their needs without being judged?? This act of sex selection is,horrific and reminiscent of the treatment of the Jews during the war and in Biblical times when all the male babies were killed..Its an evil that needs to be stopped..How is it that we need to be so careful in saving the lives of the unborn... Each life is woven very carfully by God in His or Her mother's womb..
No matter who you are you have a porpose a God given gift to share...
No matter who you are you have a porpose a God given gift to share...
4.7.2011 | 3:40pm
Peter S. says:
Lewis, the promiscuous woman who aborts her child is not conforming to a 'masculine' nature (as if the nature of men and women were two competing good/evil forces in a Manichean duality) but without doubt she is less of a woman and a human being than if she had acted rightly. Similarly, the promiscuous male who is perhaps the father of her child and who encourages or pays her to abort her child is less of a man and a human being by his actions, than if he had chosen to act virtuously. Virtue is acting in conformity with our rightly-ordered, of which our sex is an integral and inseparable part.
4.13.2011 | 10:58am
Marion says:
The answer here is not to restrict abortions and sonograms. The answer here is to support global feminist efforts to raise the status of women and girls so that the thought of favoring male babies over female babies will one day become unthinkable all over the world. Supporting pro-democracy movements in China so that this issue can be openly debated there would help too.
6.26.2011 | 6:34am
Jenna Bloomstrand says:
"If these trends hold and there is an outcome of a higher ratio of men to women, we can expect an upsurge in values like faithfulness, accomplishment, responsibilty, and dedication to work among men." Meanwhile, Bop, who doesnt get chastised for his signature, wants to reminisce about his idyllic childhood when boys were boys and girls were girls. Its clear whos serious about thinking through Carters article and whos not.
Conversely, a higher ratio of women to men produces the reverse effect: men who are less responsible, less invested in their families. A prime example of this is Russia, where I have done extensive travel and work. Stalin's purges and WW2 left Russia in 1946 with a huge surplus of women to men. Many women realized they would never have a husband. But they wanted children - 1 or 2 to care for them in old age and from maternal instinct. So many women had children out of marriage and never married. A whole culture of women raising children by themselves, without men, developed. Today, over 50% of the mothers in Russia are single. Men, realizing they were in a buyer's market, became less invested and involved with their children, interested in career accomplishment, more prone to the "Russian tradition" (as a student of mine put it) of alcoholism.
So, a society in which men outnumber women will not be without some beneficial aspects. It may encourage men to greater responsibility and higher morality.
This is not, of course, in any way an argument that abortion can produce social benefits. It is and will remain an evil that Christians must always oppose.