World War III - 100 million casualties of gendercide

[Louis VI the Fat]

When Zhang Mengqian announced that she was looking for a boyfriend on a "wish wall" at her university in south-west China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china), she must have been hoping that she'd get a few eligible responses.
All potential suitors had to do, her message said, was turn up outside her dorm building on a certain date and time and shout her name.


Imagine her surprise then, when she looked down from her window at the appointed hour:

https://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1189/hordesofpotentialsuito0.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/mar/12/china-student-boyfriend-advert





The worldwide war on baby girlsTechnology, declining fertility and ancient prejudice are combining to unbalance societies



In January 2010 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) showed what can happen to a country when girl babies don’t count. Within ten years, the academy said, one in five young men would be unable to find a bride because of the dearth of young women—a figure unprecedented in a country at peace.



The number is based on the sexual discrepancy among people aged 19 and below. According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women. For comparison, there are 23m boys below the age of 20 in Germany, France and Britain combined and around 40m American boys and young men. So within ten years, China faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe’s three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage, untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide.


Gendercide—to borrow the title of a 1985 book by Mary Anne Warren—is often seen as an unintended consequence of China’s one-child policy, or as a product of poverty or ignorance. But that cannot be the whole story. The surplus of bachelors—called in China guanggun, or “bare branches”— seems to have accelerated between 1990 and 2005, in ways not obviously linked to the one-child policy, which was introduced in 1979. And, as is becoming clear, the war against baby girls is not confined to China.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231


Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.



The real cause, argues Nick Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, is not any country’s particular policy but “the fateful collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility.” These are global trends. And the selective destruction of baby girls is global, too.


Boys are slightly more likely to die in infancy than girls. To compensate, more boys are born than girls so there will be equal numbers of young men and women at puberty. In all societies that record births, between 103 and 106 boys are normally born for every 100 girls. The ratio has been so stable over time that it appears to be the natural order of things.
That order has changed fundamentally in the past 25 years. 100 million girls are 'missing'. And the imbalance seems to increase, rather than decrease.

[Lemur]

Man, there was a hilarious article about how China's gender-imbalance was going to (inevitably) lead to global rape gangs and the breakdown of civilization. The kind of ravings that make Glenn Beck look reasonable and nuanced. I knew I shoulda bookmarked that thing! Oh well, if I ever find it again, I'll repost.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sadly its happening in places where its not so easily dismissed as a state policy or illiteracy etc etc very sad. Apparently happens in the more western countries among varous etnic groups that prise male children above girls.

Future investor tip for members of the org make sure you have lots of girls and then watch as the desperate Chinese wealthy middle class beat a path to your door around 2150 the dowrys will be to the daughters family by then instead of the older way ha ha I knew there was a reason we emancipated women.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, basically, when you improve these peoples' situation they use the affluence to dispose of unwanted children?

Charming.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Man, there was a hilarious article about how China's gender-imbalance was going to (inevitably) lead to global rape gangs and the breakdown of civilization. The kind of ravings that make Glenn Beck look reasonable and nuanced. I knew I shoulda bookmarked that thing! Oh well, if I ever find it again, I'll repost.You'd be surprised. Never underestimate the unsettling power of gender imbalance.

If I were a male American bachelor, I'd head for New York and take my pick. The odds are very much in your favour. (Not unlike what I guess is the personal story of Mr. and Mrs. Lemur.)

If you are a woman, head for the rural areas - desperate eligable men for the picking.


In Southern Europe, foreign immigration consists of women migrating to service industries in urban areas. As is internal migration. In the rural areas its the reverse - the native men stay behind, and are joined by high numbers of foreign male immigration. This creates a lot of tension in both the urban and rural areas, with heavily imbalanced gender ratios. It is no wonder that race riots in Italy are mostly rural, instead of being the more usual city phenomenon in the North.

In Northwest Europe, foreign immigration is skewed more towards foreign men migrating to the urban areas. In the cities native and foreign men vie for too few women, greatly exacerbated by many immigrants being of a culture where it is not allowed for young women to go out clubbing or dating. The disastrous result can be seen in any club: two makles for every female, with all the ensuing tension this creates.
Meanwhile, there are still a lot of desperate men in the rural areas who can't find eligable women either.

[Furunculus]

on the other hand, we might get to witness the peaceful rise of the first gay superpower......... since Sparta:
http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/03/peaceful-rise-of-the-first-gay-superpower-since-sparta/comment-page-1/

[Strike For The South]

Young men with no hope for a family. I dont forsee any problems

[Idaho]

So, basically, when you improve these peoples' situation they use the affluence to dispose of unwanted children?

Charming.

'These people'? Could you clarify what you mean?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

'These people'? Could you clarify what you mean?

The people so barbaric that they value women so little they abort healthy pregnancies over matters of perference and kill babes as soon as they see they are girls?

Any who does this should be steralised, manually.

[aimlesswanderer]

Well, thanks to a combination of

- the wonders of traditional Confucian preference for boys. After all, they "carry on the family line (name)" and all that, while women only cost money (food, pesky dowries), didn't traditionally work and contribute economically, and when they marry, they marry out of your family and into their husband's family. Grandpa's mentality is still like this (he is 95 though, but still).

- The CCP decided that there were way too many people and that such a massive and fast growing population was going to hinder development. From memory, they got a bit of a shock when they did a census and found that there were over a hundred million "extra" people than they thought. And so the One Child Policy came into effect about 30 years ago. There were vast numbers of forced abortions, sterilisations, and heavy coercion and penalties used to limit births. I think a 2 child policy would have been a much better idea, both demographically and socially. Replacement level, ie a stable population, is better than a shrinking one in the long term. As demographers say, demography is destiny, and if the population is shrinking... The imbalance is really coming to a head now because those now of age to marry and have kid are finding things difficult (especially if you don't have much money or some real estate).

- Economic development has meant that more sophisticated medical equipment was available, and more people could afford to pay to use it, so, if you're limited to just 1 child, better it's a boy than a girl...

Did the CCP think ahead and worry about the consequences? Who knows, though it was not exactly hard to see where it would go. But the Party members are not likely to be left single (bonus mistresses too), so not so much of a personal worry for them.

Now instead of a fast growing population, the CCP is grappling with issues like child trafficking (if you can't have a boy of your own, get someone elses), women/wife trafficking (both internal and external sources), a rapidly aging population which is going to shrink the workforce and be a massive burden on the fewer workers, and of course vast numbers of young men who can't find a wife. Will they turn to crime? Will the traditional family unit survive? Will they want to declare war on someone to carry off their women? Hello North Korea? I hear things are pretty crap there... You can bet the CCP is belatedly aware that it is a big potential source of unrest.

But at least the CCP has decided to do some things (though the horse has fled the stable, the farm and the country) to try and alleviate the problem, like banning female abortions, free education for girls, allowing some couples to have a 2nd child if the first is a girl, etc.

This sad phenomenon also occurs in South Korea (similar Confucian reasons) and India (similar cultural preference for boys, ironically most prevalent among those who can best afford to raise children). Sad, very sad, hopefully things will change, sooner rather than later.

On the up side however, women now know that they have real choice, and men can't act so much like cave men and expect to get married. However, this has also meant that many women have strict height and income requirements...

Will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

[a completely inoffensive name]

China will be the best example of how a culture must advance with world standards along with it's economy if it is to be stable in the long run without total 1984 style control.

[Fragony]

Story is hilarious but the China has a major problem.

[KukriKhan]

Mothers are a biological necessity; fathers are a social invention.

What an odd convergence then; just as the male population is "blooming", his necessity to the biological process of re-population is on the wane.


Using sophisticated techniques not yet available, they think sperm and eggs will be created from skin cells and then combined to make embryos. from: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/women-may-soon-give-birth-at-100-thanks-to-ivf-advances-re-issue_10073813.html

I, for one, welcome our new Matriarchal Overlords, and beg their indulgence to continue to live as a Man - if only for their amusement.

[Cute Wolf]

well, maybe this is the right time to import ugly half-chinese girls back to china...... *looking at certain friends nearby*

NB: No offense, I was Chineese descendants too

[Tellos Athenaios]

Fathers are as much a biological necessity as mothers are. That is the direct consequence of being a species in which both parents take part in raising the young.

[KukriKhan]

Fathers are as much a biological necessity as mothers are. That is the direct consequence of being a species in which both parents take part in raising the young.

Based on my own life experience, I agree with that assertion, and its assumptions. But I must hasten to point out that it is an assertion, not a fact. And it is based on assumptions that may or may not hold up to scientific scrutiny. In other words: I think that's right, but it might not be.

Studies comparing mother-only families, father-only families, mother-father families, parentless families, have not been adequately, scientifically, performed (and may not be able to be performed) to sustain the notion that xx & xy chromosome 20-, 30- or 40-year pairings are necessary for the most fruitful offspring result. Such studies seem futile to biotech researchers because the parameters are so moveable - so immeasureable. And the results so undefineable. Because of that "un-ness", the biotech guys instead seek to master the mechanics of procreation, the simplest of which is the (current) minimal male contribution: active sperm. Experiments being performed a mere 20 miles away from my real-life location, try to find some way around that obstacle. I don't think they INTEND to replace the male contribution at its most basic level; rather, they intend to find something else. But the result of that search-and-research might be the elimination of the need for any male contribution at all. And that seems, to these old tired eyes, the direction we are headed.

Or maybe it's just cuz I'm pushing 60, and the brain changes over time, and gets more clinging to "the old ways" and suspicious of "teh new"...

[bobbin]

Fathers are as much a biological necessity as mothers are. That is the direct consequence of being a species in which both parents take part in raising the young.

They are definitely a necessity but they are not as important, as least biologically speaking.