Gendercide: 100 million girls missing
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 02:22PM Although a pro-abortion publication, The Economist has published a cover story entitled “Gendercide: What happened to 100 million baby girls?” It examines the disproportionate number of baby girls aborted – especially in countries like China and India – saying “the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic.” In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an “unprecedented” 130 boys to 100 girls. Other populations with distorted sex ratios include Taiwan, Singapore, former Communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even Chinese and Japanese Americans.
Acquiring wealth and education does not stop the gendercide. “Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones.” In Asia, only South Korea, which had skewed sex ratios in the 1990s, was able to reverse the trend with female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings.
“China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men… as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity. It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide.”
The Economist concludes that “the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound screening and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus.” The prestigious newspaper argues that “China should scrap the one-child policy… [it] is no longer needed to reduce fertility (if it ever was: other East Asian countries reduced the pressure on population as much as China.)” In all countries daughters should be able to inherit property and engage in public life. –The Economist, March 6, 2010.
















Reader Comments