90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Gender Selection In A World Of Too Many Men

Choosing boys over girls in the womb. Globally, on a grand scale. We’ll look at how, and what it’s going to mean.

Sex selection is happening in China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Albania, Azerbaijan, Georgia. So many parents now select for boys that they have skewed the sex ratio at birth of the entire world. (AP)

Sex selection happens in countries including China, India, South Korea, Albania, and Azerbaijan. The practice has skewed the sex ratio at birth of the entire world. (AP)

Nature knows how to balance men and women, males and females, boy and girl babies, and has done it well for eons.

But these days, humans are intervening on a large scale –- and tipping the gender balance sharply to males.

In China and India, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Vietnam and more, pregnancies that would make girl babies are being aborted. Young boys are sharply, unnaturally, outnumbering girls.

It’s an ethical issue. Moral issue. And a looming social issue.

What will these male-heavy societies be like one day?

This hour On Point: societies, skewing male.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests:

Mara Hvistendahl, Beijing-based correspondent for Science Magazine and author of “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men”.

Christophe Guilmoto, Senior Fellow in Demography at the Institute of Development Research and a member of the Center for Population and Development. He is the author of several books, including “Sex Ratio at Birth: Imbalances in Vietnam” and “Watering the Neighbor’s Garden: The Growing Female Deficit in Asia”.

Excerpt
“Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men”
By Mara Hvistendahl

For as long as they have counted births, demographers have noted that on average 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This is our natural sex ratio at birth. The ratio can vary slightly in certain conditions and from one geographic region to the next. More boys are born after wars. More girls are born around the equator, for reasons we don’t yet understand. But in general the sex ratio at birth hovers around 105.

So is our population male-dominated from the start? To the contrary: that more boys are born is itself a form of balance, neatly making up for the fact that males are more likely to die young. That extra 5 percent of boy babies compensates, as the German statistician Johann Peter Süssmilch observed in 1741, “for the higher male losses due to the recklessness of boys, to exhaustion, to dangerous tasks, to war, to sailing and emigration, thus maintaining the balance between the sexes so that everyone can find a spouse at the appropriate time of marriage.” While today males are less likely to die from sailing, exhaustion, or migration, they still account for the majority of soldiers throughout the world. They also disproportionately expose themselves to threats like smoking—a man’s pursuit in many countries—or riding motorcycles without wearing a helmet. Boys outnumber girls at birth because men outnumber women in early deaths.

Süssmilch, who was also a priest, was an early proponent of intelligent design; he concluded this natural check was the work of a meticulous creator. (The book in which he put forth his theory was titled The Divine Order as Derived from Demography.)3When Charles Darwin looked into the sex ratio at birth a century later, he intuited that a balanced number of males and females instead connected somehow to evolution. Trends in human populations, Darwin noted, paralleled those found in the animal world. But that raised a question: What then was the purpose of the intense battles for mates among many species? To witness “two males fighting for the possession of the female, or several male birds displaying their gorgeous plumage, and performing strange antics before an assembled body of females,” as Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man, it was clear that a fierce evolutionary competition was at work. This competition was perhaps most evident in the peacock’s feathers: the colorful plumes would make sense if, as a rule, the sex ratio were skewed. If peahens were generally scarce, the male birds’ adornment would be a feature they had developed over generations to boost their chances of passing on their genes. A balanced sex ratio meant even the ugliest and most pitiful peacock had hope of finding a peahen.

But after extensive correspondence with farmers, shepherds, and biologists—Darwin even dutifully tallied sex ratios among English racehorses—the naturalist determined most species were in fact balanced. “After investigating, as far as possible, the numerical proportion of the sexes,” he wrote, “I do not believe that any great inequality in number commonly exists.”

Darwin went back and forth on exactly how a balanced sex ratio could be reconciled with his theory of natural selection, coming very close to a solution in the first edition of The Descent of Man and then retracting it in the second edition. “I now see that the whole problem is so intricate that it is safer to leave its solution for the future,” he wrote. And yet the naturalist surmised that balanced sex ratios were somehow critical to species survival.

In 1930 the English scientist Ronald A. Fisher arrived at the explanation that had eluded Darwin. Fisher’s theory works like this in humans: if male births become less common, men have better mating prospects than women. People with an assumed genetic disposition to have boys then have an advantage in passing on their genes. Put more simply, parents of sons have more grandchildren than parents of daughters. As the overall sex ratio approaches equilibrium, however, the advantage of producing sons disappears, and the sex ratio at birth balances out. (Unfortunately, this mechanism does not work on skewed sex ratios of the sort seen in Asia today.) Fisher was also an enthusiastic eugenicist who believed in sterilizing the “unfit.” With John Maynard Keynes, he was among the founding members of the Cambridge University Eugenics Society. But he enshrined in evolutionary biology the notion that sex ratios are naturally balanced. Today a 1:1 sex ratio is called “Fisherian.”

Reprinted by arrangement with PublicAffairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2011.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Brians

    Well the good news is that there’s evidence that as the country becomes more and more developed, gender selection biases tend to go away. South Korea is the best (and only?) example of this.

    • Frodolivesinnyc

      Having lived in Korea for the past 4 years, I can attest that the gender selection bias has not gone away yet.  Change is slow.  Even when it was the law, a couple of years ago, for doctors not to reveal the sex of the baby during pregnancy, many would say it indirectly, “your baby will be good at soccer,” or “your baby will be sweet and pretty”.   

  • Ed

    There are many good reasons why sex-selected abortion, as all abortion, is morally repugnant, but one is what we see in China: many men who can’t find a wife.

  • Amy

    Sexism destroys.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      HILLARIOUS AMY, think about it!  Many of those that would choose the gender of their children are the SELF-RIGHTEOUS, BIBLE-THUMPERS, and INSECURE males, that know they wouldn’t produce male progeny, (without help!).  They will be manufacturing a generation with a much higher rate of HOMOSEXUAL MALES, for a host of reasons.  Check out the results of China’s one child policy, where males were chosen far more than females.  You are right, for reasons that you probably didn’t think of!  It will destroy the basis of the VERY people that will choose it.  ( By the way, I’m a heterosexual male, in his high-fifties, who just enjoys it when HYPOCRACY shoots itself in its privates)

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Wow, I forgot the higher rate of prostitution, and sex-related crimes, that would result, from the “Moral Majority’s” sanctimonious decision to ‘provide the superior gender’, to continue the family Name line. 
             What are the ratios in areas with Matriarchial Societies, such as some Native American tribes?  Has this been researched? 
         
        Terry, in Brewstertown, Tenn.

      • Steve

        Bible thumpers by definition cannot be self-righteous

  • Yar

    I look forward to this discussion.  I just bought the book.
    I believe war is partially driven as a way to increase mate selection among men.  Older men send young men off to war.  The story of King David teaches us that not all the spoils of war are taken from the enemy.  Why is it our country only requires men to register for selective service? Are we a gender biased society?Is it possible the world is headed for another world war?  Echoes of pendulum swings from World Wars I and II.    I believe the basic unit of society is the family not the individual, too many males in a society creates free radicals who don’t belong to a family unit.  From gangs to suicide bombers male dominated sexually unbalanced societies are usually destructive.  We look at China and say they have a problem, yet in our own country the economy is such that marriage is being delayed, people are unable to attract suitable mates and as the author points out in her prologue to this book she, was raised in a two female family without an adult male.  Does the US have surplus males?  Why are so many black men in prison?   The hormonal drive to belong to a societal unit is strong.  We like to think we have free will yet we most often do what our hormones tell us to do.  What happens when we don’t have access to fulfill our hormonal desires? Without going into gender preference it is easier for a woman to have a family without a resident male, it is much more difficult for a male to belong to a family unit without a female.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I believe in the Middle Ages, particularly in the era of the Black Plague, which wiped out a huge percent of Europe’s population, there came to be a lot of orphans, cartloads of orphans, and they were tended by individuals who were not part of a “family unit.”  In fact there were institutions for those without family units.  Monasteries, that sort of thing.
          Forcing people to have ONLY the choice of a traditional family unit in order to participate fully in society has its fallouts.   But if there is enough imbalance, we may get back to ashrams or the like.

    • Steve

      citing the family as the basic unit of society is something I agree with and therefore I think, integral to finding a solution to not only cultural gender bias but also to other types of inequality.

  • Tcavastani

    It’s going to mean more wars when all those boys are single, angry and poor 20-somethings. It’s a statistical inevitability.

  • N.

    Oh dear. Is this the root of the attacks on school children in China, generally by a twenty something or middle age male?

  • Swisw

    It would be interesting to contrast this discussion with some of the ideas in “The End of Men”—Hanna Rosin’s provocative article in the Atlantic Monthly last summer.  I hope someone brings it up….

  • Parisi_margie

    The Chinese men should look east for wives – Russia.  There are plenty of women there.  What a great way to ease border disputes.

    • Steve

      Russia has many poplulation balance problems of their own…

  • Mogl

    It will make women a permanent political minority with few rights and legal protections.

  • Tayler

    those countries will have an aggressive army in the future when all those frustrated men have no wives. 

  • Ed

    It can’t be enforced. Why aren’t the feminists speaking out against abortion in order to protect women? China has already outlawed brothers and sisters.

  • Ed

    It can’t be enforced. Why aren’t the feminists speaking out against abortion in order to protect women? China has already outlawed brothers and sisters.

  • Ed

    It can’t be enforced. Why aren’t the feminists speaking out against abortion in order to protect women? China has already outlawed brothers and sisters.

    • Steve

      and why are not more Christians in the West defending the poor, fatherless, widows…

      you may find the same answer to both questions.

  • Mogl

    I resent the fact that in these conversations, women are valued heavily (if not exclusively) for their ability to sexually service (including reproduction) men.  

    • Steve

      As opposed to the US and Western Europe where we would never think to objectify women…

  • Michiganjf

    The high cost of dowries is one of the great incentives for female infanticide in many of these countries, especially in India.

  • Lara

    My biggest concern is how the women who are not being aborted will be treated.  With young girls and women being used for sex slavery, I wonder if they will be hunted in a more predatorial way than they already are…in fact, I am concerned about them taking the women and placing them in a brothel so that they can service the need that many more men have. Also, being a woman, I feel scared around large and small groups of men, due to having had a friend gang raped by many of our male friends in high school.  More men cannot be a good thing.  

    • Lara

      I also see a huge backlash in regards to women’s rights and certain war.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Wouldn’t a scarcity of women tend to increase their value rather than decrease it?  To be sure there is a tendency to try to steal what is scarce, but there are stringent social constraints that evolve as well.  I’m thinking of sharia law, but I don’t know what the balance was in the origin and expansion of Islam.

        • Maryanna

          No, Ellen –you start with the premise say men are more important than women.  Just the mere fact that there are fewer of them may make them more “valuable,” but not in a good way.  We don’t value women for being women and what they can contribute to science and art and technology and humanity, but to what they can contribute to men — wives.

          • Ellen Dibble

            I think the mothers propagate/perpetrate this idea that females are only important as wives and mothers.  And I think they do it in part to sort of justify their own lives.   “You have to live the same life I live, so you’ll understand the cat’s-cradle of knots that keep me all tied up like this.”  “I don’t want you to blame me, so I want you to be situated where you are equally to blame” (for whatever kinds of dysfunctions become part of traditions in that particular culture and family).   You wouldn’t want someone to escape and prove it is possible to proceed outside of all those strictures.  And you certainly wouldn’t want to ever be forced to acknowledge that anything worthwhile was achieved thereby.  So you take a very firm stand.  If this means that some females end up being trafficked and abused, so it goes.   It’s the cost of doing business; I mean, it’s the price you pay for making sure that women hold traditional roles and stay subservient.  Something like that.
                 

          • Steve

            Can we value women as wives and mothers AND doctors, lawyers, scientists, friends, fellow workers….

          • Anonymous

            I believe that is what most women wish

        • Lara

          Any research on Human sex-trafficking and how the victims are becoming younger and younger and much more prevalent might help you to understand why I took the position that I took which is that more females will be extorted for sex. I think your point that their value would be increased, is an important one, but, I believe the evidence in sex-trafficking to reflect where that value and energy will be directed which is why I think this will be a problem, in particular for young girls and women. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

    This skewing towards a preference for boys has everything to do with the apportioning of value to human lives.
    Traditionally, more boys meant more heavy laborers on the farm and less dowry fees paid out to marry off a daughter. These traditions are nearly extinct, now,yet the higher value is still pegged on males. Why?

    • Ellen Dibble

      In China, the woman goes to her husband’s family, and she gets to take care of THOSE elders.  So if you want “social security” in that society, you want a son who will bring in a daughter-in-law to take care of you later.
          Never mind the warped personalities of the “little prince,” in whom all is invested, with no pesky siblings to tame him.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

        Correct. Honestly, I see my Chinese neighbors practicing this spoiling of the boys while cracking down on girls all the time. It is still a free country, right?

    • Steve

      who gets to decide the value of a little girl’s life….
      or a little boy’s life….
      or a human life….

  • Cassie

    Why these countries in particular?

  • Maryanna

     Think of this from a different perspective:  what does this devaluing of women do to women, and to humankind??

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      It lowers the potential for humanity to evolve into a less aggressive species. That is the danger of tampering with natural selection, in my view. 

      • Steve

        I believe you missed the point of Maryanna’s post but I hope she will return and respond to you herself…

    • Steve

      Thank you…
      I will now stop the flurry of posts…

      It diminishes us all.

  • Pat

    Oh for crying out loud… this is not anything new…Back when I was born, my fraternal grandmother berated my Dad for him having a daughter….then my sister was born 4 years later and it occurred again. Of course 50 + years ago, Grammy Kennedy did not know that the male was the decider with the XX or XY, it was simply to have a male heir. She likely would not have believed it anyway.It always was a bone of contention for my parents.
    As far as I can see, it has always been an issue and will continue to be an unspoken wish. Sure men love their daughters, but show me one red-blooded male who deep down in their heart of hearts,, doesn’t secretly yearn for a little guy to call his son, and I will reconsider!
    Furthemore- if a female child is what is not wanted, will that child truly be treated with love and respect? One can never make a parent love, respect or cherish a child. Particularly if it is a second choice in the sex….
    I think a healthy girl child vs an unhealthy boy child is preferable. I also see that if a child is not wanted, perhaps aborting is the kinder way for the parents to go.

    • BHA in Vermont

      “show me one red-blooded male … ”

      Here I am Pat. I have 2 teen age daughters, have zero desire to have more children, did not have a burning desire to have boys (what comes out comes out) and have never EVER wished one of my girls had been a boy.

      Not every man thinks that their ‘heritage’ depends on creating male heirs. 

      • Pat

        Good for you! I am happy that you replied.
        I truly wish my Dad,(and perhaps my Mom too,)would have felt that way.
        Each child has their own gifts. I am very glad that you appreciate yours!

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Pat,  As a former millitary man, and construction worker for nearly 35 years, I have met many red-blooded males that were VERY pleased that they fathered girls.  I have sons, so all I can say is I was pleased that they were healthy, and would not have cared if they were girls.  My son and I were VERY happy with my first grandchild being a girl, and they weren’t sure they were going to try for more children, for five years.  Not sure they were trying, then.      Not all of us males are of only one sort, no more than women are all alike!  Please admit that ALL of you aren’t like Amelia Earhart, Christie McCauliff, or Rosie O’Donnell, oops, I proved my own point.  Diversity, in gender or otherwise , is usually pretty good!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

    I will confess: I did a research paper on this for a Women’s Studies course at U-Mass, Boston in 2003. After interviewing many women from China and India, asking specifically about female abortions/infanticides, the answer was always: “To please the husband and his family.”
    Very disappointing.  I only got a B+.

  • Tayler

    eventually it will lead to a decline in population when there are less people having kids because of the lack of women.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Wishful thinking. The decline in population will come from wars fought over the newly scarce resource: fecund females. Has mankind ever behaved any differently?  Think back to the British Isles, for example, once rich with native timber. The islands were deforested and the men went elsewhere to conquer more land.
      Etc.,etc…….

  • Ellen Dibble

    It seems to me males in China are indoctrinated to trend towards domestic violence.  This is corroborated by a few stories of immigrants here.  The male is entitled.  Think of the tradition of bound feet.  It was a sign your wife was a peasant and had to work in the fields if she had the capacity to walk around with ease.  Now, the woman is also supposed to be second-string, from the perspective of the man, it seems to me.  But the women are coming out of their chrysalis and trying to take charge of their own lives, but not wanting to disconnect from the whole tradition of male superiority, and the involvement with grandparents and all the rest.  There are a lot of books about this.

  • Tobin

    I cannot believe how casually your expert glosses over the infanticide
    issue an “insignificant”.  What if only 1,000 of China’s 600,000+
    terminated female babies were allowed to die at birth, does this qualify
    as “insignificant?”  I am amazed at how our culture can focus so little
    on our most innocent and vulnerable humans.  The same practices done to
    our pets would alarm us more than your expert expresses concern over
    these babies.  A sad statement of our cultural focus.

    Tobin

  • Michiganjf

    No one has even brought up the point of dowries bankrupting families and resulting in a desire not to have female children.

    From what I understand, this is a strong incentive for infanticide in India especially.

    I’d like to hear at least something about this please.

  • BHA in Vermont

    I find it interesting that cultures with the technological ability to determine the gender of a fetus and abort those that they do  not want are at the same time incapable of ridding themselves of the ancient and no longer pertinent social structures such a ‘the boy takes care of the family’ and having to pay a dowry to marry the girls off.

    • Steev

      One would think that women, as a scarce commodity in demand, would become highly valued, and that instead of parents having to pay dowries to marry off their daughters, men will have to compete to compensate families to get the limited number of marriageable women.

      • Pat

        Excellent idea! What a progressive thought!

    • Steve

      People, left to their own devices are selfish and venal…

  • Kate

    If women continue to occupy a place of second class citizenship (due to laws and religious values across the world) it will naturally follow that they will be less valued by their parents. Womens’ rights movements must focus on equality…when women have equal property and educational rights they won’t be seen as a burden to their families in certain parts of the world.

    • Steve

      women’s rights cannot be distinguished from the “rights of man”.
      I think this is where the “Women’s Rights Movements” have lost their way…..

    • Guest-22

      If the women were the religious leaders, of course they would not be second-class citizens any longer. As in many Native American groups/tribes.  Once we have a female Pope and female cardinals and bishops, can the value of women go anywhere but up? You may laugh at the idea as fanciful, but I am dead serious. Male-dominated religions have created the denigration of girls and women. Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist–all have traditions of dismissiveness toward women and girls.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        One explaination for this is presented in Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code” .   Best explaination that I have run across.  I always wondered why our culture ‘put women on a pedestal, until we married them”.  As a late-fifties male, I encourage women and girls.  I also question the male-superiority mantra, as I question white-superiority, or ethnic, or any other  false superiority, not based on ability.

  • Freeman

    Tom;
           Social engineering ? Would you like an example of the diasterous affects of: look no futher than the United States.Survival of the fittest ? Than the women will lose. A christian nation ? Than feminism is destructive. We live in a “natural” environment. How many time have I heard in life “let nature take its course”. Humbly adjust accordingly.

  • Charlie mc

             Abortion is a hell of a method of gender selection, not in principle differing from infanticide. There is a “natural” method of influencing which of the two kinds of sperm fertilize the ovum.
             Androsperm (male producers) are faster swimmers, twice the number, smaller and more affected by a hostile medium than the Gynosperm (female producers).
             Acidic media cause sperm to die, with the weaker (androsperm) dying off first and the hardier (gynosperm) living longer after ejaculation.
    The uterus of the woman is an alkaline medium in which all sperm live longer, while the vagina of the female is normally acidic except on specific occasions such as:
                  1. When the female is ovulating, generating an egg, a mucous secretion of alkalinity flows into the vagina. The female at this condition often has a heightened disire for sexual intercourse.
                  2. When the female experiences an orgasm, a similar secretion into the vagina occurs.
                  3. If the woman employs a slightly alkaline douche prior to intercourse, the vagina becomes alkaline thereby.
         ———————————————————
         Thus, since alkalinity in the vagina favors the survival of ALL sperm,
    then the androsperm, being twice as many and faster swimmers, are the more likely to survive the long journey to the waiting ovum in the fallopian tube. Add to this the fact that a male ejaculating as deeply into the vagina and near the cervix of the woman will in addition have a shorter distance to travel to the aklkaline uterus.
         So, to produce a male child:
                   1. The couple should have sex at the woman’s desire.
                   2. The woman should use an alkaline douche
                   3. The male should delay his ejaculation until the female
                       reaches orgasm.
                   4. The male should ejaculate as deeply as possible.
         To have a baby girl:
                   1. The couple should have sexual intercourse at the man’s
                       desire and as often as possible (with the male ejaculating
                       into the still acidic vagina prior to female ovulation, but
                       close enough to it that the gynosperm will be   
                       the chief survivors.
                   2. The female should employ a slightly acidic douche.
                   3. The male should ejaculate before the female reaches
                       orgasm.
                   4. The male should ejaculate with shallow penetration.
                ——————————————————
          These methods would be “natural”, Church acceptable,  and definitely preferable to killing the child of the “wrong” sex.

    • Guest-22

      Sounds like the good ol’ rhythm method to me.  Rhythm method is not reliable and ALSO still doesn’t get around the problem of choosing more boys’ births than girls’.  Guess the Church needs priests. And more boys’ choirs. Wonder why that is? Let’s think. . . . .

  • OrientalGal

    In China, esp. in rural areas, males are expected to care for and live with their parents when they get old… Females are not supposed to live with their parents once married…
     

  • BHA in Vermont

    Tom asked if the current birth ratio of boys to girls in China is sustainable. The answer depends on your definition of ‘sustainable’.

    With over 1.3 billion people in China, they are not exactly in danger of becoming an extinct as a people or country in the next thousand years when the birth ratio is 5 boys to every 4 girls.

    • Steve

      “thank heaven for little girls”…
      little boys w/o little girls are a quite angry lot

  • Ellen Dibble

    What is the idea behind a dowry?  Doesn’t the man get free housekeeping, child-bearing, child-care for life?  Isn’t it backwards?

    • Michiganjf

      Historically, women in these societies are prevented from having much of what is considered valuable, such as earning power, inheritance, a voice in local affairs, etc…

      So if you’re a family that has conceived no male children, and you want to secure care for your old age, “buying” into a male son-in-law may be your only option… this creates a cultural prescedent that is hard to break.

      • Michiganjf

        precedent, that is

    • BHA in Vermont

      I would agree with you but I suspect the origin from ancient times (and still true in some cultures that think women have no value outside the bedroom and kitchen) is:

      Boys do work that brings in money, girls must be fed and clothed (which decreases net income) but do not bring in money so you want to get them out of the house as soon as possible. What better way than to pay someone to take them away. After the first guy was paid to take a girl off some poor farmer’s hands, word got around that you could demand a bribe and thus the tradition of dowry was born.

      OK, no historic fact checking was done, but it seems plausible. :)

      By the way, we don’t demand cows, sheep, gold or whatever in the USA but the majority of weddings are still paid for by the girl’s parents. Not a lot different, only that the girl’s parents are paying for a party rather than sending goods of value to her marriage. Maybe dowrys aren’t such a bad idea after all ;)

      • Ellen Dibble

        The documentaries I’ve been seeing lately about the back country in India shows girls dropping out of school before completing it because their labor is needed.  They are needed in the fields.  If the family is a large one, the older girls are important in maintaining the home, care for the young ones, as well as bringing in more money.
            And then there are the documentaries showing that a family in India, when hitting hard times, will sell the daughter.  They can’t wait to select a bridegroom (and I suppose to pay for the privilege of having selected such), but instead have to sell the daughter to the highest bidder, or the soonest bidder.  The fire-sale daughter.
            But that’s quite different from not seeing her as a source of revenue.
            I think the arguments about women  not being able to own property, not being able to vote, that sort of thing, are more significant.  It’s not that the woman and her contributions do not equal the cost of feeding her and clothing her.  It’s that the woman brings no property as such to the marriage because of laws.
             Something like that.  If the man brings a presumed inheritance somewhere down the line, the female’s family might have to prove that they are of the same caste, so to speak.  Or maybe they offer property as dowry, which would never come to her through inheritance, so it has to be by gift.  The law would guarantee the son’s contribution sometime in the future, but for the woman, the legacy has to be a gift because it cannot be an inheritance.
            That makes sense to me.  It seems to get meaningless when land/property is not part of both families’ wherewithal.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UDPAECSLZDCM5UVA4WI5GOHL3M bobzeechemist

    From a purely selfish and Malthusian point of view, I think this may be a good thing – with fewer wives available, there will inevitably be fewer children in precisely the areas that need to have the birthrate reduced. Additionally, in those areas, economically well-off men will be more likely to have families, so some type of Darwinian selection should occur as well.

    • BC

      I agree that the birthrate will be reduced, but as for Darwinian selection, there is no evidence that the economically well-off are genetically superior.

      • Steve

        but they eat better….

      • Guest

        Actually, there is evidence and you can find it on BBC or NPR.

  • Deanna Hesse

    You seem to be focusing so much on China & India which according to The Economist have a sex ratio in 2010 of 107.9 males to 100 females, 10th in the world. While 8 of the top 10 countries are middle eastern! Qatar 306.9 to 100 females, United Arab Emirates 203.6 to 100 females. Ver interesting to note the ungoing political & social unrest that’s going on right now all over the middle east?

    • Steve

      look at the culture….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UDPAECSLZDCM5UVA4WI5GOHL3M bobzeechemist

    From a purely selfish and Malthusian point of view, I think this may be a mixed blessing. Birth rates will go down, populations will shrink. Hopefully, the social system will be more like Alaska than the wild west.

  • Steev

    While surplus men will create real problems, the dearth of women will in the future also help to slow rapid population growth. That will mitigate other severe problems relating to population pressure on the environment, food shortages, etc.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

       Only if males can transcend their testosterone and learn to cooperate with one another rather than instinctively compete for everything. Women are a tempering influence on cultures. Without females this world would be like  “Lord of the Flies” (the horror…)

      • Steve

        Assuming that intercourse is most often a voluntary act, does it not follow that testosterone is not the only variable in the equation?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

          Rape of young females is the weapon of choice when young  men feel put-upon by the older men who have raped them.

          Different consequences ensue. Men rape boys. No problem? Those boys grow up to rape whatever they can.
          Look around.

           

          • Steve

            OK, now consider those of us who have not suffered rape (both men and women)

            This is faulty reasoning…cite anecdotes and assume it to be the rule.

      • Steve

        I apologize for yesterday’s rant through this column.  The aborting of girls in China is a subject that I know something of and object strongly to – less than perfect children are also commonly aborted there.

        Is there a conversation that you, and I can have without resorting to gender bashing?

      • Jmatt0715

        Can all you do is praise girls and put down guys? Get off your high horse lady! Men have contributed a lot more to civilized society than females have by far. You seem like a very butthurt feminist man-hater. 

    • Steve

      I believe that in the late 70′s,
      Paul Erhlich wrote a book advocating among other things family planning, abortion and forced sterilization.

      How far are you willing to go to slow rapid population growth?

  • ebw343

    I’m curious how dowries can be going up – don’t the rules of supply-and-demand mean that a shortage of young women would drive dowries down to the point of nonexistence with families merely being grateful that their son is one of the lucky ones?

    • esuzy

      I have the same question – why isn’t this happening?

      • Jmatt0715

        Because the more females that are born means that there’s less money for a particular family. Every mouth has to be fed and females are not able to pull their own weight and produce enough food or money for their family. This means they are considered “dead weight” and a drain on the rest. Females are swamping the boat so they are kicked off so that the other may survive. Dowries go up because of this not down. If females were as equal as males at providing food and protection for families then this wouldn’t be happening and nobody would care which gender their child was. But in these poorer countries that depend on food to survive, they need males that can do the work and pull their own weight. Not a male that has to pull for himself and HER. Also, China is WAY overpopulated. Men can not reproduce without a female so they are trying to reduce their population by having less child birth. One man can knock up millions of women whereas a women can only reproduce one baby at a time. If you have a society that is mostly female then there’s more women for men to knock up and more child birth and even more overpopulation. This is the MOST HUMANE thing these people can do. They don’t allow females to even be born so they don’t know any better and eventually this will lead to less hunger and starvation for all those who get to live.  Populations need to start downsizing! And by downsizing there will be less war as money and raw good will become plentiful for all. 

  • BC

    We might get some clues about the consequences of this skewed sex ratio by looking at polygynous societies, of which there have been many. Polygyny also results in some proportion of males, usually the less wealthy, being unable to marry.

  • Heidi Willis

    This is an interesting trend.  If you consider the health of the planet from Earth’s point of view, human beings are out of balance and overpopulated.   My belief is that when things are out of equilibrium, then events and trends arise which seek to re-establish equalibrium.  Humans are subject to the laws of nature and balance, like any other species.  HIV,  new E.coli strains and diseases,  and perhaps this population trend are an attempt by the natural systems of Earth to get back to a sustainable balance.       Heidi Willis, Salisbury  Vermont

    • Steve

      Nature does not understand you point of view…

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Steve, Evidently Steve does not understand several points of view. I am having a lot of trouble figuring your point of view out. 

        • Steve

          Deliberately Terry, it is not me desire to tell others what to think, only to have them deeply consider the ramifications of their choices.

          You would most likely be quite surprised by my private opinions.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Steve,   Likely surprised=likely interested.  I usually consider all points of view, whether I agree or not.  Since one Steve replied that there are many Steves on here, may I suggest spelling change, or other method to differentiate?

          • Steve

            Have had friends in China since 1990.

            Have Chinese daughter who was left on the street at one week old.

            Have been in China on two extended visits, including voluntary work in private orphange and tours of State run ophanages

  • KT

    Perhaps the only possible good outcome of this practice is the slowing of population growth in the next generation.

    • Steve

      Do you support war and genocide as well?

  • dianne swain

    MALES HAVE  AND CONTINUE TO SCREW UP THE EARTH

    • Steve

      and I thought that I had seen my last fish on a bicycle years ago….
      evidently at least four have been spotted recently.

      • Anonymous

        I believe you have posted this before

        • Steve

          Lots of Steves on this board

          • Anonymous

            no it was you  – I looked at your profile 

          • Steve

            Now reply to the statement

    • Jmatt0715

      You say that males have and continue to screw up the Earth… Hmm, with female supremacist attitudes like that its no wonder men want to rid the world of as many females as they can. It’s only been feminists that have threatened to rid the world of men in the past or control the number of males through selective nature tampering. In most cases in these Asian countries, WOMEN are killing off their daughters because they know that females are not as productive as male children. That means less food for her and her husband and her other children. Enough with the blame men for the woes of women! Your feminist man-hating trash is finally being addressed. People are sick of females constantly blaming males for the actions of females. Men don’t dress women up, so enough with the whole “men just view women as sex objects’ when it’s WOMEN that are dressing themselves up in slut suits! 

  • Ed

    In religion you have to distinguish between peoples practice and the teaching of different religions. I think it’s ironic that the women’s movement, in pushing abortion, led to the killing of women. Hmm. It makes one wonder what it will take to turn people against abortion.

    • Vbtherapist

      The women’s movement supports, among other things, the right of women to have the same control over their bodies and health that men do. Women do not like having abortions but abortions need to be available as a medical procedure just like vasectomy is available to men. The dreadful practice of gender selective abortions will continue as long as men demand dowries, have higher salaries, are top heavy in management and generally have more opportunities than women. In these countries, it’s the fathers who control the family’s finances and naturally they prefer when their offspring are financially sound, successful in their careers and can support their parents in old age. When opportunities for the advancement of women are not there due to the vicious spiral of inequality, these societies can’t afford to change because many middle class families can be bankrupted by dowries. Abortions will always be the solution to the female “problem” in ignorant societies.

      • Steve

        and abortion is enlightened because?

        • Kcmiller4

          Where does Vbtherapist say abortion is enlightened. I doubt anyone would say that, but it is reality for some who choose it. Just because women can have children does not means they should and sometimes the worst choice is to continue a pregnancy.

    • Anonymous

      Geez, what an argument. The women’s movement doesn’t push abortion. It encourages woman to make decisions based on what is best for them and supports them when they do so.

      So women were better off in the days that pregnancy was a signal of a woman’s “sin” and being forced to go through a pregnancy was a punishment?

      How about the thought that empowering woman to make their own personal choices instead of being chattel will make the whole world a better place.  

      • Steve

        empowering women and men….

      • guest56787

        Here is an idea. If a woman doesn’t want children then she shouldn’t have sex. For the majority of abortions the woman has been having sex willingly, therefore making it her choice to begin with.

        • Anonymous

          Exactly who is she having sex with – A MAN – who doesn’t seem to be penalized in any way when she “gets herself” pregnant but she gets to bear the burden for their mutal decision. Just like you are hiding behind your “guest” status, many men cajole, plead, beg, browbeat, or FORCE women to have sex and then just hide from their actions and walk away. Maybe men should take a look at themselves first before instantly casting the woman as the villan here. She can’t do it by herself, can she??

  • KR

    The societies that have practiced/allowed sex selection have shot themselves in the foot. Instead of working on gender/equalities issues they have decided to go another route. Another short sighted human plan. Men and women are different for a reason. There will be less caregivers, caretakers at the least. Women are the ones that have the male babies for goodness sakes! This will take a dramatic toll on family life. There will be less support for families, more human trafficking, more women getting married younger? I am thinking the excess men may be a very unhappy lot. 

    I heard one good outcome would be men studying more and working more. What about educating more women and having more women with advanced degrees helping out with the economy?

    The bottom line is whenever we play with nature we play with fire. In the past, it has usually led to dire circumstances.

    • Steve

      the limits of women and men?

    • Guest-22

      Can’t men become caregivers and caretakers? Another part of this discussion should be homophobia by men. They are so afraid of doing women’s work and losing face as a man in a society like India’s and China’s.

      It’s been known for a long time that as soon as a woman is able to bring in extra income, the man demands fewer (male) children. Microloans to women for animal husbandry, sale of market-desired vegetables and other crops, sewing co-ops, etc. help the family’s income without the need for more children.

      The extra income also enables some women to leave abusive relationships. Women who stop servicing their husband sexually soon find themselves dead or replaced. Yes, killing your wife in a “kitchen fire” still occurs in India, at least, and probably elsewhere.  Police look the other way, as they used to in the US, too.

  • Parisi_margie

    What is really interesting is the Western strong interest in girls.  I adopted two girls from another country.  The coordinator in that country complain that all we (Americans, Europeans, Australia) wanted was “girls, girls, girls -in our country we want boys.”  This really confused her.  

    Most people when calling up adoption agencies want a girl. 

    • Steve

      East-West dichotomy.
      Compare and contrast?

  • Nancy Knoll

    Thank you so much for airing this subject today. I actually made a request at NPR.org just two weeks ago that they air a story about this very problem.  I have two articles on my dest at this very moment, one titled: “Up to 12 million girls aborted in India over last 30 years: study,” and another entitled “Despite economic growth, India lets its girls die.” I was horrified when I read these articles, and I am horrified that the abortion AND infanticide of girl children is happening. India is virtually starving little girls to death. Obviously the caste system in India needs to change. I know this problem persists in many other third-world countries and developing nations, but also in many of the more established industrialized countries. It is a serious moral issue. The world has become so unbalanced in many ways… this is just another terrible example of it. The world cannot sustain such if we hope to remain a viable planet. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR PRESENTING THIS SUBJECT TO THE LISTENERS OF NPR AND ON POINT.

    • Steve

      a glimmer of hope…
      the recognition of a moral problem.

  • Vbtherapist

    In Europe after WW2, the governments introduced a “Family Allowance” or “Children’s Allowance” to encourage the regrowth of families. It is still in existence today. For example, in Ireland 2 children will net a family 300 Euro. 
    This is what should be introduced in India, Armenia and China then the parents could invest that money for those horrible dowries that men demand. Here’s the Wikipedia link to the allowances.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

    • Steve

      should?

    • B. Albright

      Just a note – it’s the family (and really custom) that requires a dowery, not just the men. 

  • Jerry Brown

    I feel very lucky to have one of each  — a blue-eyed girl and a brown-eyed girl.

    • MacRoni

      What a nice thing to say.

  • jim

    If you closely observe an Indian family in the US, you will notice there will rarely have a female girl in it besides the mother. I just notice it since i have Indian colleagues with all boys… no girls.

    • Steve

      and…

    • Nancy Knoll

      Hi, Jim,

      I saw two Indian mothers a few weeks ago when I was walking by an apartment complex in my little town in the South, and they both were carrying girl babies. I really wanted to go up to them and ask them about what is happening in India with girl children. But I didn’t… I thought they might not speak English or that they would be affronted by my questions. But I was gratified to see them with girl children. Also, at my local Kroger, new employees there include both a boy from India and a girl. They both looked educated, I thought.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

        Ask them next time. Please. You lose nothing. Women want to talk about this but are forbidden by customs, monetary and other.
        If money decides who has value and who is forsaken, then all the teachings of humankind is lost. We enter a Dark Age of hyper-masculinity which dims all hope of survival for the humans & native animals on this Earth.

      • B. Albright

        One thing to bear in mind about many Asian cultures is that girls cost money – in the form of a dowery. Boys bring that dowery money into the family. When I was in India in the 80′s, I heard a person say that if a man has 4 daughters, he can legally declare bankruptcy. I don’t think that was true, but it illustrates a point. 

  • Nancy Knoll

    I just wanted to add, while reading all the comment threads that are coming into my inbox this afternoon, that for people who seem to think this is an okay solution to overpopulation, I do believe that you can still find the two articles in the Yahoo archives, from May (Reuters, May 24, and Associated Press, May 4) that I cited in my other comment. The bottom line is: How would you like to be one of these little girls that is being starved to death slowly? How would YOU like to be a child that is intentionally deprived of food every day of their lives? There are even little boys subjected to this. It depends on whether families can afford to feed their children. (And we can thank George W. Bush for his stance against federal monies helping Planned Parenthood and other organizations trying to educate families around the world about family planning.) I am not pro-abortion or pro-choice… I am pro being careful in one’s sexual practices. (And I AM a Democrat, just for the record.)

  • Stillin

    Lots of reasons to be concerned, but here’s 2 things. I teach kids aged 10-20 ( yes there are 20 yr old students) and the GIRLS all want baby boys. High school Middle school girls call about their BOY babies, why? Because that is THEIRS. It’s the absent dad, the missing dad and boyfriend all rolled into one. One they can make themselves. Second, somewhere I read or heard that the more daughters you have, the less the chances are you will end up in a nursing home…that alone is the determining factor. hmmm.

  • http://twitter.com/moriahwood moriah wood

    I’m worried about the mental health and safety of girls because of this population dynamic.  I could see myself very worried about my daughter and wanting to get her OUT of that environment–wanting her to have a “normal” (whatever normal is) adolescence, the experience of dating and flirting, and would want her to know that she has a choice and that courtship is a pretty low-pressure thing that should be enjoyed! Even if a family is happy to have a girl, I can’t see them feeling good about raising her in such a society (if they had the choice and resources to get out).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

    Mathematicians take note: 1 female may have unlimited children as long as the male has only ONE. That means men may have ONE child to correct the imbalance.  They do not get to choose the gender.  How stupid  is the man who seeks to replace himself, alone, uselessly?
    He will never succeed. The man up and dies. No matter what. Leave one piece of your genome (kindly) and get off my planet. please.

  • Pam in China

    I live in China now and have lived here for 7 years. 
    The reason that families want boys is that traditionally girls are alienated from their families (struck off the family register) when they marry.  AND there is no social security system for elders.  Traditionally the elders go to live with their sons.  In the absence of pensions, old people’s homes, medicare, etc. the sons are the ONLY system.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      This was done in the Americas, too. Indians – those who lived here before Europeans- practiced care of the elders. Money don’t like that.  Are you moneyed, Pam?

      • Pam in China

        no, I am not monied, I was unemployed and that brought me to china in my mid-fifties.  Interesting place.  Not to mention the number of unwanted Chinese girls who are adopted out to rich americans….

    • mate

      as well as the fact that in a agriculture dominant society, males are more valued than females.  Consequently, many countries that still rely heavily on agriculture often times will have more skewed ratios

  • Pam in China

    Living in China  for 7 years I also see new drains on young women.  Many young women, having been educated, are chosing not to marry at all.  With the opening of China many young women are seeking foreigners as spouses for the financial advantages, and for the possiblity of immigration.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Yup. They’re here alright. A nail salon and a massage parlor on every corner. The City of Happy Endings.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IXXNRRCSDWQZZ6AEJF3JR7L4HI Tyler

    Generally don’t like the “reverse sexism” card, but…doesn’t anyone want to mention what an awful thing this is for the men in these societies. There will be millions of lonely guys living desperate lives of abstinence, without possibility of having a family or even a girlfriend. 

    Yes there will be terrible effects for some women as sexual slavery will undoubtedly increase, and that’s tragic and important to discuss, but I’m sure that those numbers will be much smaller than the number of disaffected and alienated men, who are actual people too. 

    The frequent mention of the negatives here to women are described as tragic. The mentions of the downsides to men (loneliness, isolation) are mentioned only in their relevance to societal (non-personal) effects, such as increased violence and war.

    And yes, the gender disparity is the result of sexism against women, and that’s bad and is indicative of a serious problem in those cultures, but the story and comments seems to indicate the opposite with this culture–that only women’s problems matter.

    • Nancy Knoll

      Yes, Tyler, you are absolutely right. The responders here, including myself, seem to be focusing only on girl children and women in general. Men do matter, of course. So sorry for overlooking this important point. I guess it is just easy to feel hostile and resentful because so much tragedy seems to be happening to girls. I know that so many situations in this world have treated both boys and girls horrifically… during the Holocaust, during the Khmer Rouge killing fields, probably during the Crusades, during genocides…on and on thru history. What boggles my mind is that God has not stepped in by now and just done away with Man as a general rule–as a destructive species. I feel for all children who are treated abusively. I know that men are human too and have feelings. I certainly do know that. Thank you for pointing this out to all of us.

    • Saraimay75

      I agree in the end it is the men who will lose out along with the women. To carry on the family name you need someone to marry.

    • Vreek

      The men may be lonely, but the girls are dead – ie, never born. I don’t think it is comparable. 

  • Mary Beckman

    How is this “unnatural” selection? People are part of nature, some might say a force of nature. Just because this has occurred due to our social systems doesn’t make it any less natural. It will be fascinating to see what effects this evolutionary force has socially and biologically.

    • Nancy Knoll

      Hi, Mary, You must have a cold, “scientific” mind… I suppose war is okay with you also? That is certainly not “natural selection” either! I suppose the only facet of “natural selection” that applies to human beings, to my way of thinking, would be miscarriages or children born with so many birth defects they cannot possibly live anything but in a vegetative state. Killing little children by starving them or aborting them is in no way, shape or form “natural selection”. Human beings have slipped so far down the ladder on the morality and compassion scale it is pathetic. The order of the earth, seeing how far we have slipped, seems to be busy doing away with so many of us right now. Is there a Universal Force or Higher Being involved in this demise of the human race?  Quite possibly, quite possibly…

  • Pingback: @Tisiwoota Listening to your cousin on @onpointradio http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/08/gender-selection | Gender Selectin Online

  • Yankee

    As a citizen in a capitalistic country, I imagine that this problem may be self correcting.  The law of supply and demand dictate that scarcity of a “commodity” will increase its value.  Skew the gender balance too far in one direction, and you will have horny young men saying, “SCREW THE DOWRY.  I WANNA GET MARRIED!!!”  Thus dismantling the societal tradition that brought about the imbalance in the first place.

  • Jessb6

    Thank you for the longer excerpt. Will we ever see ONpoint Transcripts??

  • Michele

    This whole discussion is disgusting.  Women are not commodities.  Restrict abortion (i.e. restrict a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body), punish women for the value that societies place on them.  You will reproduce, you will not abort, you will not think, you will obey society.  This about the value of human beings and a whole gender!!! All of this worrying about men not having wives.  Not about what women can contribute to society – how different any country could be with more women in charge, not warring, focused on social issues, economic issues, etc. What about valuing the women that are here now, alive now, on the planet now? Why is this an issue for feminists?  This is a basic moral issue not a feminine issue.

    I am appalled at the tenor of most of the comments posted and the way this discussion has been framed.

  • Sahand

    If women can choose to abort any child, why can’t they chose whom to abort whom not to abort? If pregnancy is her bussiness, then whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy is her bussiness. No matter what the baby’s sex is, her choice is her choice. Sex selected abortion is a social force, true, but so are abortions done because of poverty.

  • Frank D’Agosto

    I would like to live in a society where women outnumbered men by at least 25%. 

  • Rick The Explorer

    Women only have sex with 30% of men on the planet. Only 30% of men are six feet or taller, and they get thrown sex all the time, while 70% of men(under six feet tall) are lucky to ever have sex with the human female, in their lifetime. Look at the guy who is 5″5, and has a pretty girlfriend.

     Give it 2 months. She is not having sex, rather swapping spit fully clothed with him, because her vaginal properties are telling her not to have sex. After 2 months, she has found one of his taller friends more attractive.

      A woman despises men under 6 feet tall, biologically, especially during certian parts of their menstrual cycle, every month. A woman is the only female in nature with a clitorus, a organ that grants a pleasure reward, if the male she has chosen is of good genetics. Sounds magical huh?

     You may dissagree with all that I have said here, but it’s common knowledge if you check my source, “short and male” documentary on youtube. The info is out there. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but so far, no documented cases.

       A short man can obsessively beg for sex in a relentless fervor, pay for sex, or luck out, and be given sex in great numbers, but won’t find a lasting relationship. This needs to be taught in every school! This is sex ed 101.

    The human female is driven to seek out the best male genes, i.e. height.

  • Rick The Explorer

    Also, one of my sorces is “Curiosity:Why is sex fun”, hosted by Maggie Gyllenhaal  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtFp_wSlWbI

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GZ7V77SUVM2OYUVY3RP2Z3KMUA Ken

    I do not know why anyone would abort girls just because they are girls. I would want a baby that would live a long healthy life.  Girls are far more likely to do this than are males.  My wife and I have stated that if we had a dozen babies, we would wantg all girls and not one male.  We know males are the weaker sex by a long shot  Out of the top 15 deadly diseases, 13 kill far more males then women.  Males die from accidents far more and women oftens survive accidents that would kill most males.  I have heard ER doctors tell families that their loved one had a better chance of pulling through because they were  female.  They have indicated to the staff however, that someone was not likely to pull through because they were male and males do not survive as well as women.  Mother nature has even shown that males are the weak sex.  That along with hundreds of other things show that the ideal that males were the superior sex  has been a con game since the start of history and that in fact women have been superior over males and now that women  are getting an equal chance, they have been leaving males in the dust.  Why would anyone want to settle for 2nd best when they can get the best.  No MALES for us, we only want daughters

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/SIWKSHO23KM2ZXXMPI4XUTPLOE Green

      Why you ask?

      Because the one child policy flies in the face of the way the culture works in China (culture that is at least a thousand years old.) To put it simply, China has no SS. It doesn’t provide for the aging populous. A Chinese couple will pick a boy over a girl because that boy will take care of them when they’re old. Girls are married into the new family and, thus, the parents really get nothing out of it. Would it make you pause if you knew that by having a girl, you’d probably die in abject poverty, unable to fend for yourself?

      India has several reasons. The one most bring up is dowry. While this is illegal, it still plays a huge role in Indian society. It’s an incredible amount of money and gifts. On the other hand, if they have a boy, then they’re the ones getting all that fun stuff. Also, due to their caste system, gendercide has always been practiced by the very top because their families don’t want to marry their daughters off to lower castes.

      Your point about women is mute if said women aren’t allow to fill those shoes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jake.macgapay Jake Macgapay

      Males want girls to be aborted and females die more from accidents than males do and a lot of deadly diseases kill women more often compared to men. Females do not survive as well as males do and therefore males are superior to females. Males survive better at birth too.

      And everywhere around the world, not just in China but also in the USA, couples will always pick boys over girls.

      @d9527eb73dbd3487e45155e62c5d5f23:disqusRick The Explorer-Women will only have sex with over 75% of men in the planet.
      Sorry to say this Frank D’Agosto, men still outnumber women by more than 25-75% which is why we have more men running things, including government and military because men are meant to be smarter leaders.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 31, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin heads the Cabinet meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, July 30, 2014.  (AP)

The US and Europe face off against Russia. Are we looking at Cold War II? Something hotter?

Jul 31, 2014
A comical sign suggest the modern workplace is anything but collegial . (KW Reinsch / Flickr)

When the boss is a bad apple. How some pretty dark traits can push some to the top.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 30, 2014
Janitta Swain, Writer/Exec. Producer/Co-Director Dinesh D'Souza, John Koopman, Caroline Granger and Don Taylor seen at the World Premiere of 'America: Imagine The World Without Her' at Regal Cinemas LA Live on Monday, June 30, 2014, in Los Angeles, CA. (AP)

Conservative firebrand Dinesh D’Souza says he wants an America without apologies. He’s also facing jail time. We’ll hear him out.

 
Jul 30, 2014
Smoke and fire from the explosion of an Israeli strike rises over Gaza City, Tuesday, July 29, 2014. Israel escalated its military campaign against Hamas on Tuesday, striking symbols of the group's control in Gaza and firing tank shells that shut down the strip's only power plant in the heaviest bombardment in the fighting so far. (AP)

Social media is changing how the world sees and talks about Israel and Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians. We’ll look at the impact.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Criticism, Conservatism And Dinesh D’Souza
Thursday, Jul 31, 2014

Best-selling conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and On Point host Tom Ashbrook disagree about what makes America great…or do they?

More »
1 Comment
 
This 15-Year-Old Caller Is Really Disappointed With Congress
Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014

In which a 15-year-old caller from Nashville expertly and elegantly analyzes our bickering, mostly ineffective 113th Congress.

More »
6 Comments
 
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment