what is misogyny?

[cacian]

I am not sure I have ever come cross one and so wondered whether it does actually exist.
Is it a phobia rather then a hatred?
The other thing I was thinking is what is its equivalent for men?

[Zaza]

Misandry, but I think it's fairly rare. Misogyny, on the other hand, is not at all rare.

[cacian]

Misandry, but I think it's fairly rare. Misogyny, on the other hand, is not at all rare.
Hey thank you Zaza :)
It is Interesting. I wonder why misogyny is more popular then misandry.

[Lokasenna]

Misandry, but I think it's fairly rare.

I don't know, I consider myself a feminist - but more than a few times I've been told by female commentators that I'm not allowed to be one simply because I'm a man. Though, to be fair, I think they are very much in the minority.

[cacian]

I don't know, I consider myself a feminist - but more than a few times I've been told by female commentators that I'm not allowed to be one simply because I'm a man. Though, to be fair, I think they are very much in the minority.

Hi Lokasenna that is an interesting comment. Did she explain why you were not allowed to be a feminist?
I still think feelings of dislikes towards the opposite sex just because of their gender does not make much sense.

[Calidore]

Misogyny is just another form of bigotry, like prejudice against different races, or homophobia. They all have the same root--weak people who need to be somehow "superior" to others using any difference as an excuse.

[Charles Darnay]

misos = Greek for hatred. Guné (not sure how else to represent an eta in Latin characters) = woman. So it literally means hatred of women.

Misandry is hatred of men (and no, it is not rare - maybe less prevalent on paper)

Misanthropy is hatred of people in general.

[Sancho]

The Lil' Rascals codified it with their "He-Man Woman-Haters Club."

[cacian]

Indeed however the next question that comes to mind is the following:
Is mysogyny a hatred/phobia from men to women only? or women to women too? Does it include both genders to dislike women?

[Sancho]

I'm no expert, but I don't see why not. I mean, if Loka can be a feminist, I suppose a woman has every right to be a misogynist.

[JBI]

It's the fact that in some age brackets there are 130 males to 100 females in China simply because of infanticide. Whether or not a man says something that can be interpreted as a bit sexist in North America is rarely even mentionable in the grand scheme of the world. Most North American Women do not even know what misogyny truly is. How many people are greeted with an kill it, it's a girl, when they are born in North America?

[Nightshade]

It's the fact that in some age brackets there are 130 males to 100 females in China simply because of infanticide. Whether or not a man says something that can be interpreted as a bit sexist in North America is rarely even mentionable in the grand scheme of the world. Most North American Women do not even know what misogyny truly is. How many people are greeted with an kill it, it's a girl, when they are born in North America?
I think taking only the extreme example of misogyny as a definition is misleading in the extreme. Unless you take misogony to be the active hatred of women, ad by that I mean that you openly acknowledge you hate and truthfully I do think that is rare.

Misogyny is more ( I think) devaluing of women comparatively to men. And it comes across in a whole ream of ways that are more subtle than that.

misos = Greek for hatred. Guné (not sure how else to represent an eta in Latin characters) = woman. So it literally means hatred of women.

Misandry is hatred of men (and no, it is not rare - maybe less prevalent on paper)


I don't suppose we know who coined the word and its original usage? And I agree with you misandry is not very rare at all I think it just goes against the popular (patriarchal) narrative that society tells which is "Poor helpless women oppressed (and hated) by men and there is very little they do about it" but if women start hating men then there is more grey to the story right?

Anyway from personal experience I say Patriarchal society, views and values breed misogyny which in turn breed misandry and everyone hates everyone and noone is happy.

[cacian]

It's the fact that in some age brackets there are 130 males to 100 females in China simply because of infanticide. Whether or not a man says something that can be interpreted as a bit sexist in North America is rarely even mentionable in the grand scheme of the world. Most North American Women do not even know what misogyny truly is. How many people are greeted with an kill it, it's a girl, when they are born in North America?

There is this same believes or attitudes towards girls in India too. In Bangladesh it is certainly very present.

[Lokasenna]

I'm no expert, but I don't see why not. I mean, if Loka can be a feminist, I suppose a woman has every right to be a misogynist.

One does every so often meet women who think that men are their rightful masters, and they are happy to spend their lives in the kitchen and the birthing-bed. Fortunately, they do seem to be a very tiny minority.


Hi Lokasenna that is an interesting comment. Did she explain why you were not allowed to be a feminist?
I still think feelings of dislikes towards the opposite sex just because of their gender does not make much sense.

The implication seemed to be that, just because I happen to have a penis, I am incapable of fully empathising with or understanding centuries of cultural oppression and domestic servitude. Alas, to some of the more rabid fringe, any man is the enemy.

[prendrelemick]

I agree that there has been centuries of oppression and domestic servitude imposed on women. But not through mysogeny, more through a held view that they were the weaker sex, and needed protecting and shielding from the uncouth world of men and for reasons of practicality - they bore and suckled the kids, so they might as well stay at home to do it, untill they either died in childbirth or reared all twelve of them.

Nowadays I think women are gaining the upper hand in society, and would be right on top but for the annoying fact of childbirth and the way it disrupts careers.

[osho]

In the context of my country, I want to reserve judgment in other countries’ situations, women of late are getting upper hand. They are more ambition driven, sexier, and more aggressive as if they want to be paid for their lost years. Feminism, activism, gender issues have been catchwords, kind of clichés and it seems they will lose steam soon. Men are shadowed in family and even parents give more attention to their daughters. I do not know whether this trend is good or bad. Let the women of this country think

[Babyguile]

One does every so often meet women who think that men are their rightful masters, and they are happy to spend their lives in the kitchen and the birthing-bed. Fortunately, they do seem to be a very tiny minority.



The implication seemed to be that, just because I happen to have a penis, I am incapable of fully empathising with or understanding centuries of cultural oppression and domestic servitude. Alas, to some of the more rabid fringe, any man is the enemy.

It's borne out of a suspician towards men. You may have good intentions Lokasenna, but you cannot change your nature. Many women believe, and indeed there is an academic sphere peddling the idea, that all heterosexual men possess a predatory male gaze and a discriminating lust, amongst other behaviours and tendencies which they cannot easily control. Your presence at feminist gatherings may be seen as a threat.

The plain truth is that feminism needs men on board. They are half the world's population, and the half that control the vast majority of the power.

[cacian]

I agree that there has been centuries of oppression and domestic servitude imposed on women. But not through mysogeny, more through a held view that they were the weaker sex, and needed protecting and shielding from the uncouth world of men and for reasons of practicality - they bore and suckled the kids, so they might as well stay at home to do it, untill they either died in childbirth or reared all twelve of them.

Nowadays I think women are gaining the upper hand in society, and would be right on top but for the annoying fact of childbirth and the way it disrupts careers.
Well I am not sure the word 'annoying '' is suitable there haha. I think it is most women's dreams to have children. We can tell by the amount of science technology involved in ivf and other means of making conception happen. This leads me to believe that women enjoy the idea of having children. On the other hand we cannot have our cakes and eat it.Men can't have children so have other things to conceive of their own to make up for it. I am not sure what exactly they consider conception of their own but I am sure they will tell us about it when knowing haha.
In the meantime men or women are perfectly capable of anything if they put their mind to it. Hatred or depreciation of any gender is yes cultural but mainly is as a result of ignorance and lack of emancipation. Those who believe anyone is inferior to them have serious mental inferiority issues that are deep seated within them and around them.

[stlukesguild]

Many women believe, and indeed there is an academic sphere peddling the idea, that all heterosexual men possess a predatory male gaze and a discriminating lust, amongst other behaviours and tendencies which they cannot easily control.

And of course women are wholly above such lusts and predatory behaviors.

Now haven't we had this discussion before?

[liza]

.. this word is for men who are homosexual .. but they don't want to admit it .. so they keep saying they hate women .. and they found a word for this.

[stlukesguild]

There are plenty of heterosexual men who dislike and disrespect women and plenty of homosexual men who like and respect women.

[liza]

There are plenty of heterosexual men who dislike and disrespect women and plenty of homosexual men who like and respect women.

really .. yes I know that .. but how could someone hate and disrespect all women .. I think in greek language you can make thousands of words like this .. Ancient greeks made this word .. because they liked men more ..

[cafolini]

really .. yes I know that .. but how could someone hate and disrespect all women .. I think in greek language you can make thousands of words like this .. Ancient greeks made this word .. because they liked men more ..

Generalizing the Greek will not take you anywhere constructively. Aphrodite and Athena were very powerful females. They wouldn't have been in Olympus if that were not the case. You are missing the point. What about Gaea and other female titans?

[JBI]

really .. yes I know that .. but how could someone hate and disrespect all women .. I think in greek language you can make thousands of words like this .. Ancient greeks made this word .. because they liked men more ..

See, look at our European/American perspective in context. Since after the Mongol invasion of China, there was a common practice in the South to have a bucket of water stationed at the birthing bed, in case it came out the wrong gender. It's one thing to hate the neighbor's daughter, but your own? well, now that is just crazy.

The central idea of Confucianism, that which has become the symbol of Chinese propaganda in the past 30 years or so, is women are good at cleaning, cooking, sewing, birthing and educating kids, and are deferential to first their fathers, then husbands, then children. In traditional China, proper women would not be allowed outside of their chambers - in a big house, that meant they couldn't even go to all areas of the house they were living in.

Add to that most women, especially wealthy ones, had their feet bound so they could be married off at a better price (better money and connections for their father), we see a truer picture. The literary landscape of such a culture, from what I can see, originates in the works of Sima Xiangru, who wrote this long poem about a woman abandoned to a tall building and left to rot and sulk because her owner, the emperor, was bored of her. The collection of poems, Poems from the Jade Terrace, was written supposedly for women confined to their rooms, and abandoned by their owners. As C. T. Hsia put it, it is a dark irony that one should think abandoned imprisoned women would be amused by poems written about other abandoned, depressed women. Whats more, when their husband/owner died, it was regarded as only acceptable for them to never remarry regardless of if they were 12 when married, and their husband 70. It was shown as heroic even, to an extent, to kill oneself at one's husbands death.

The development of such a culture only shows more progress toward gender inequality. Even today such inequality is shown on every level of society. I teach about 1000 students, 980 or so are female. They are studying to become teachers, because society has told them that if they go to any other subject, they will never be hired, and no man will ever want them. They have also been told that if they pursue graduate studies, they will be ineligible for marriage because nobody wants a wife who is well educated. The term for this is 剩女 in Chinese, which literally translates to discarded woman, and is a common term.

As a realistic feminist in the 21st century, I cannot help but feel that the wealthy, educated, urban white women of the US should quit their complaining about trivial things. In the grand scheme of things, they haven't put up with any of the crap that their counterparts anywhere else in the world have.

In such a respect, our perspective has been jaded by our corrupt socialized education. Someone like Dorthy Ko can write a book about how we are prejudiced against footbinding, because it acted to build a female community, as was part of some form of "women's culture." (and their feet weren't that small anyway). Others have written apologetic works for other cultures because of some sort of lie of cultural relativity (female genital mutilation is permissible as a "cultural heritage" or some nonsense). What then of the 14 year old girl who was burned to death in Pakistan by acid by her parents for turning her head to look at her neighbor as he walked by? In that scheme, do we call that also culture?

Here is my point, the basic nonsense of this is a little sexist or whatever is inconsequential. It is detracting from the real issues of actual hatred, which are far more present in the world than people tend to notice. Most people don't even know what it is.

As history tells us, Confucius' father was most likely 70 when his 13 year old mother gave birth to him. This is never once remarked upon in the entire Confucian tradition as backward and disgusting, though it would be understood as pedophilia by any Western person today. In fact, the Confucian tradition not only doesn't despair at such culture, but encourages it! having a male heir is the central objective, and if your wife dies in childbirth, or cannot bear one, get another one, or two, or five. The younger the better.

I hear India has similar problems, except with more dire consequences. There is an abortion problem which allows gender selection, particularly amongst the middle class. There is intense violence to women, leading to massive imbalanced sex ratios in many places. That is what we call misogyny and should be viewed on par with what we now call genocide.

But no, our idea of feminism is merely a discourse on leaving the seat up in a public washroom.

[cacian]

Generalizing the Greek will not take you anywhere constructively. Aphrodite and Athena were very powerful females. They wouldn't have been in Olympus if that were not the case. You are missing the point. What about Gaea and other female titans?

I am guessing the reasons why they had to unleash their forces and be what they were was because they knew their counterpart the opposite sex did not look up to them. So their adverse reaction was to be powerful and act like men to be accepted amongst men. This is my two cents on it.


.. this word is for men who are homosexual .. but they don't want to admit it .. so they keep saying they hate women .. and they found a word for this.

Hi liza just curious... what has it go to do with one's sexuality? I am not sure I take to that that gay people dislike women. May be there is another interpretation.

[Gorki]

If you'd heard the recent Julia Gillard's speech on misogyny in Aussie politics, let me inform you that the Macquarie dictionary has altered the modern day meaning of the term as "entrenched prejudice against women".

[prendrelemick]

^That is a better definition of what we are discussing. There is also predjudice against Men, Teens, Northerners, Southerners, Westerners, Black, White, Liberal, Catholic, those from the next street, and so on. To discriminate is to make a choice between one thing and another, something we do all the time every day and we rely on our predjudices to do so. That's not hatred.

[cacian]

If you'd heard the recent Julia Gillard's speech on misogyny in Aussie politics, let me inform you that the Macquarie dictionary has altered the modern day meaning of the term as "entrenched prejudice against women".

Indeed/ That from a point of view from a woman. I would be interested to hear the point of view from man and a point of view from those who are not misogynist and what do they think it means.
I personally have no feelings of such towards neither of the sexes and so I feel that perhaps misogyny is over looked. It may well have deep seated issues within an individual. I see it as a phobia of some sort.

[Gorki]

Indeed/ That from a point of view from a woman. I would be interested to hear the point of view from man and a point of view from those who are not misogynist and what do they think it means.
I personally have no feelings of such towards neither of the sexes and so I feel that perhaps misogyny is over looked. It may well have deep seated issues within an individual. I see it as a phobia of some sort.

Phobia of what? Females? And does that mean that almost every man fears women?

[cacian]

Phobia of what? Females? And does that mean that almost every man fears women?

I am not sure one fears one another more like one fears oneself thus fearing others.
What I mean is that to label something and to make a job of others to take it one is like distributing tasks around people.
I mean take the word 'chauvinist'. What does it actually entail? I am sure that lots of women's characteristics are similar to men only they get away with it they are seen to be the weaker sex. Liking and disliking is a taste. To hate is to loath and so with a vengeance. A vengeance for what?
There is a reason why things start to happen. One must trace it back form within.
Phobia sounds like the right word to describe misogynist because then it can explain the psychological trauma behind it.

[cafolini]

^That is a better definition of what we are discussing. There is also predjudice against Men, Teens, Northerners, Southerners, Westerners, Black, White, Liberal, Catholic, those from the next street, and so on. To discriminate is to make a choice between one thing and another, something we do all the time every day and we rely on our predjudices to do so. That's not hatred.

I agree, because we must choose a way to act and must use prejudice to decide. Prejudices are always present in human development, and in the progress, they can only be overcome with more meaningful ones. No doubt.

[liza]

I like homosexual men .. really I don't hate them .. Ricky Martin is my favorite .. I find him very very attractive .. I can't understand why he is gay .. :) also I don't know many things about ancient Greece and Greeks .. and I don't care very much .. I imagine them sitting in big chairs in Acropoli looking at the sun and drinking wine :)

But I hate this word misogyny .. is useless .. it doesn't exist in real world .. I don't know any misogyny man .. is this an attitude ..

[Ecurb]

It's the fact that in some age brackets there are 130 males to 100 females in China simply because of infanticide. Whether or not a man says something that can be interpreted as a bit sexist in North America is rarely even mentionable in the grand scheme of the world. Most North American Women do not even know what misogyny truly is. How many people are greeted with an kill it, it's a girl, when they are born in North America?

This ratio is even higher in many simpler societies. Among warlike societies anthropologists have studied in New Guinea and in South America, the boy / girl ratio at age 5 is sometimes as high as 3:1 or more. Nobody knows the exact reason, but the only reasonable alternatives are infanticide and selective neglect (in societies with very high infant and child mortality rates, selective neglect can be a big factor). Of course in some warlike groups, the mortality rate for young men is also very high. I went to a lecture by Wade Davis the other day in which he said that more than 50% of deaths among the South American group he studied (I can’t remember their name) were battle casualties (spearings).

What’s the connection? First, primitive warfare creates macho societies that value the male virtues of ferocity and strength. Therefore, men are valued more than women and boys more than girls (which can lead to female infanticide or selective neglect). Second, young men are often killed in battle. So by age 25 or so, the sex ratios are more balanced. Anthropologist Marvin Harris offers a complicated neo-Marxist (economic) explanation for all this in his entertaining (although flawed) book, “Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches”.

In any event, misogyny is hardly harmless.

[JBI]

This ratio is even higher in many simpler societies. Among warlike societies anthropologists have studied in New Guinea and in South America, the boy / girl ratio at age 5 is sometimes as high as 3:1 or more. Nobody knows the exact reason, but the only reasonable alternatives are infanticide and selective neglect (in societies with very high infant and child mortality rates, selective neglect can be a big factor). Of course in some warlike groups, the mortality rate for young men is also very high. I went to a lecture by Wade Davis the other day in which he said that more than 50% of deaths among the South American group he studied (I can’t remember their name) were battle casualties (spearings).

What’s the connection? First, primitive warfare creates macho societies that value the male virtues of ferocity and strength. Therefore, men are valued more than women and boys more than girls (which can lead to female infanticide or selective neglect). Second, young men are often killed in battle. So by age 25 or so, the sex ratios are more balanced. Anthropologist Marvin Harris offers a complicated neo-Marxist (economic) explanation for all this in his entertaining (although flawed) book, “Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches”.

In any event, misogyny is hardly harmless.
If such is the case, we are heading to WW3

[cacian]

I like homosexual men .. really I don't hate them .. Ricky Martin is my favorite .. I find him very very attractive .. I can't understand why he is gay .. :) also I don't know many things about ancient Greece and Greeks .. and I don't care very much .. I imagine them sitting in big chairs in Acropoli looking at the sun and drinking wine :)

But I hate this word misogyny .. is useless .. it doesn't exist in real world .. I don't know any misogyny man .. is this an attitude ..

how do you mean you cannot understand why he is gay? haha.

[Sancho]

No doubt about it, a large group of young men with no access to young women is a dangerous situation. Both verbs start with F. So if he can't fornicate with somebody, he's probably going to fight somebody. Either way, somebody's going to get F'ed.

[osho]

No doubt about it, a large group of young men with no access to young women is a dangerous situation. Both verbs start with F. So if he can't fornicate with somebody, he's probably going to fight somebody. Either way, somebody's going to get F'ed.


This is a fatal situation and particularly when one cannot fornicate with somebody, and fornication it self is an issue demanding illumination. We have religious documents at issue. People have over epochs consecrated matrimony and somebody advocating for something outside the system is a renegade. I do not want to give my judgment over this issue or make allowance or disallowance for something that has been called into questions over centuries.

Fornication maybe something to reinvent our natures which might have down the ages might have been layered by heaps of philosophy, religion, culture and the like. It is going back into our original, prehistoric natures or tendencies.

Let us compare the modernman with the caveman. Both want fulfillments through sexual acts wherein both male and female get involved. But there is a chain on the modern man but the caveman is free of it

[Sancho]

I agree: through much of known human history, philosophical and religious thought as well as cultural norms have tried mightily to deal with this primal force of nature - and have had varying degrees of success, but also have had a whole boatload of unintended consequences.

The Chinese situation is no different. And while there may be misogynistic tendencies within the culture, I think the infanticide of little baby girls was largely an unintended consequence of governmental intervention with the aim of controlling population growth. The other unintended consequence (if JBI is right) will be WWIII.

[cacian]

No doubt about it, a large group of young men with no access to young women is a dangerous situation. Both verbs start with F. So if he can't fornicate with somebody, he's probably going to fight somebody. Either way, somebody's going to get F'ed.

LOL oh my LOL nice to see humour is alive and well haha

[osho]

I agree: through much of known human history, philosophical and religious thought as well as cultural norms have tried mightily to deal with this primal force of nature - and have had varying degrees of success, but also have had a whole boatload of unintended consequences.

The Chinese situation is no different. And while there may be misogynistic tendencies within the culture, I think the infanticide of little baby girls was largely an unintended consequence of governmental intervention with the aim of controlling population growth. The other unintended consequence (if JBI is right) will be WWIII.
Consequences are always there whether we want or not of our actions. With that said we can not remain in inaction. This is a philosophical proposition. Non action is an endangering thing. The Chinese decision to compulsorily to reduce parents to a single child has both social and economic reasons. Of course the death of unborn children is a painfully gruesome story but given Chinese social and economic reasons some bold steps were taken

[Ecurb]

If such is the case, we are heading to WW3

Of course simpler societies in general are disappearing, and some of the ethnographic evidence about these warlike societies is 50 years old. However, Wade Davis (the lecturer I heard) did his Souith American field work in the 1990s.

[qimissung]

I agree: through much of known human history, philosophical and religious thought as well as cultural norms have tried mightily to deal with this primal force of nature - and have had varying degrees of success, but also have had a whole boatload of unintended consequences.

The Chinese situation is no different. And while there may be misogynistic tendencies within the culture, I think the infanticide of little baby girls was largely an unintended consequence of governmental intervention with the aim of controlling population growth. The other unintended consequence (if JBI is right) will be WWIII.

Something I find worrisome is that in the United States many women are now, after having given birth to boys, actively trying to have a daughter. They will go to great lengths and spend large sums of money to do so. Fortunately, they have not yet killed any baby boys in their misguided pursuit. I just wonder what the unintended consequences of that will be?

As for misogyny and it's sister (or brother) prejudice, I think it's unlikely that we will ever be able to completely rid ourselves of our feelings of fear and dislike of the "other," who will always be with us in some form or another. In order to keep from annihilating ourselves because of the dark side of our nature, what should we do?

Also, concerning feminism gone wild, I always think of Ted Hughes and the intensely scornful treatment he got from a number of women after Sylvia Plath killed herself. Crazy. :D

[cacian]

Something I find worrisome is that in the United States many women are now, after having given birth to boys, actively trying to have a daughter. They will go to great lengths and spend large sums of money to do so. Fortunately, they have not yet killed any baby boys in their misguided pursuit. I just wonder what the unintended consequences of that will be?

As for misogyny and it's sister (or brother) prejudice, I think it's unlikely that we will ever be able to completely rid ourselves of our feelings of fear and dislike of the "other," who will always be with us in some form or another. In order to keep from annihilating ourselves because of the dark side of our nature, what should we do?

Also, concerning feminism gone wild, I always think of Ted Hughes and the intensely scornful treatment he got from a number of women after Sylvia Plath killed herself. Crazy. :D
true about not liking others but that is only because we do not like ourselves. I do not buy to the idea that it is natural and we must resign ourselves to it. I personally have no ill feelings towards anybody. I am aware that someone else is just another me only different. I guess i look at one and i see some of me in them. I like them even more for that. those who dislike people regardless must see themselves in them and it must remind them of how much they dislike themselves and so they go on hating what they see and that unfortunately is the people themselves. catch22 or so they say.

[Sancho]

Consequences are always there whether we want or not of our actions. With that said we can not remain in inaction. This is a philosophical proposition. Non action is an endangering thing. The Chinese decision to compulsorily to reduce parents to a single child has both social and economic reasons. Of course the death of unborn children is a painfully gruesome story but given Chinese social and economic reasons some bold steps were taken

Well we're straying slightly off topic.

I suppose there is danger in inaction, but there's also a danger in action - whether it's the wrong action or, as we mentioned, the unintended consequences of a well-meaning action. I'm reminded that any action needs to be watched closely because the main intention is rarely the only result. For a good legislator, once the law is on the books the job isn't over; it's just begun.

The situation in China isn't the only example, but it is a good example of a well-meaning policy with poor follow-through:

* the population is getting out of hand and we should do something about it
** hey, I know, let's limit couples to one baby.
** good idea, but we'd better watch what happens
*** good lord, those idiots are killing little baby girls
**** that ain't right, that just ain't right
** okay, back to the drawing board

There's no shortage of examples, and so as I don't just pick on governments or the Chinese, I'll move next to one of the oldest institutions in the world: the Catholic Church. As recent as the 1980s, largely due to influence of the church, you couldn't legally buy a condom in Ireland, or for that matter, any form of contraception. A young girl who found herself in the family way could only get an abortion in a state-regulated clinic by hopping on a boat and sailing to England. And unwed mothers in Ireland were outcasts, guaranteed a life of poverty, screwed, so to speak. Now I understand the ethic involved, and I'm sure the policy was well intended by the church, but what wound up happening really shouldn't have surprised anyone. Kids are going to hook up. I know it, you know it, and the church certainly knew it. Without contraception a lot of young women wound up preggo. And faced with a bleak future and not enough money to take the ferry to England, a lot of them wound up in a back-alley, getting a "coat hanger" abortion. And that's where a fair number of them bled out. No telling how many.

Here's another example of unintended consequences, this one from the state of New York: Back in the 90s there were a rash of badly botched open-heart surgeries in New York. Several patients, who should've had easy surgeries, died on the operating table. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the surgeons involved had horrible success rates, and if the patients had known about their surgeon's relative level of quackery, they'd have never gone under the knife with that Doc. So state legislators decided patients should have access to this information and they created a web-based cardiologist "report card". Anybody looking for a heart surgeon in New York could look at the success rate of all the board-certified surgeons in the state. The unintended consequence was - the best heart surgeons in New York would only take the easiest cases, the cases with the highest probability of success. If you happened to be the poor bastard who needed a quintuple bypass, you were probably going to get an intern (or drive to Jersey).

^Not sure what all that has to do with misogyny, though.

[JBI]

I agree: through much of known human history, philosophical and religious thought as well as cultural norms have tried mightily to deal with this primal force of nature - and have had varying degrees of success, but also have had a whole boatload of unintended consequences.

The Chinese situation is no different. And while there may be misogynistic tendencies within the culture, I think the infanticide of little baby girls was largely an unintended consequence of governmental intervention with the aim of controlling population growth. The other unintended consequence (if JBI is right) will be WWIII.


That you are wrong. They have been killing women at birth on record since as early as the Song. This was particularly common for people of the upper classes. Patricia Ebery has written a very famous essay on the subject, and there have already been several full length studies.

If anything the one child policy has encouraged a better balance in gender relations. As rearing a single child gets more expensive, parents have noted that men have a much more expensive time starting life (they need to buy their wife a house and car in many of chinese people's eyes), as such, the urban elite are now more interested in birthing girls, who can be sold off with less worry. As for how that determines future birth rates, well, the cities will move from an imbalance to a natural balance (ultrasounds that tell of gender are illegal in this country) so the major cities will have a birth rate of slightly more males than women (as is natural in the wild). The countryside situation, however, will only get worse.

This is not some crazy new idea that came as a product of maoist China. Coincidentally, Maoist rule in China put the development of feminism in 1970s china far ahead of any Western culture. The problem is old habits die hard, especially when you have a government run completely by men, who, like their grandfathers, seem to love leching around. The opening up of China has been noted for its renunciation of almost all the feminist development under Mao.

The old habits, then, we can say, die hard. Misogyny is an old habit, anywhere in the world. With rather uninterrupted development in gender relations since the 1970s, the majority of Western countries have made a progress toward a virtual equality. Some places, like Latin America, seem to have their own developed senses of feminism. Traditional European Judaism also can be interpreted as a sort of matriarchal culture.

Where the habits are oldest and the most backward, like China, India, and elsewhere, it is impossible to cure the disease of hatred very easily. Mao tried, and failed, and he certainly was far more powerful than any modern political figure in any country in the world currently. It is almost unheard of for a country that is misogynist and run completely by men to turn around one day and say, lets spend money and reformat so we have a sort of equality.

[Sancho]

That you are wrong...


Nice essay, JBI, and thanks for setting me straight.

Except that I'm not wrong. You're not wrong either. I'm not sure who you were debating there, but it wasn't me. So we can both be right since we were talking about different things.

Female infanticide spiked in the 80s in China after the government's "one-child policy" was put into effect in 1979. But since you seem to want to talk about Mao Zedong, I'll mention that I'm pretty sure he died in '76. Mao believed a strong population made for a strong People's Republic. So yes, disparity between male and female babies decreased in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And yet most scholars believe, and the US State Department, the British Parliament, and Amnesty International are all on record saying that China's 1979 one-child policy contributes to infanticide.

[osho]

Nice essay, JBI, and thanks for setting me straight.

Except that I'm not wrong. You're not wrong either. I'm not sure who you were debating there, but it wasn't me. So we can both be right since we were talking about different things.

Female infanticide spiked in the 80s in China after the government's "one-child policy" was put into effect in 1979. But since you seem to want to talk about Mao Zedong, I'll mention that I'm pretty sure he died in '76. Mao believed a strong population made for a strong People's Republic. So yes, disparity between male and female babies decreased in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And yet most scholars believe, and the US State Department, the British Parliament, and Amnesty International are all on record saying that China's 1979 one-child policy contributes to infanticide.

You are right, absolutely right about the facts about China. In the regime of Mao there was no one child policy in China and population was considered a positive signal for whatsoever reason. Male children are preferred in the east whether it is in China or in India. In India girls are still considered a great burden to their parents for a variety of region. Hindu religion consider girls or ladies incomplete humans. Or women in themselves half-humans and only together with men they find their full manifestations. That is why infanticide is common even now.

[Sancho]

osho, I'm getting the sense that you're from the east. One thing I've always liked about this website is the diversity of people who visit it. Us Litnetters dot the big blue ball, eh?

I've never been to China, but I've been to quite a few other Asian countries, and I've made several trips to Mumbai. I certainly sensed a difference in the way men and women treat each other between east and west. In some ways it was quite shocking to me - I've got a long line of mean and aggressive red-haired women in my family, you see.

Somebody once told me that there are two languages in Japan: one for the women and one for the men. The men speak directly and in declarative sentences while the women speak in passive voice. Therefore if a western man goes to Japan and strikes up a romance with a Japanese women and then learns the language from her, he has difficulty speaking to Japanese men - they don't take him seriously because he talks like a woman.

[cacian]

osho, I'm getting the sense that you're from the east. One thing I've always liked about this website is the diversity of people who visit it. Us Litnetters dot the big blue ball, eh?

I've never been to China, but I've been to quite a few other Asian countries, and I've made several trips to Mumbai. I certainly sensed a difference in the way men and women treat each other between east and west. In some ways it was quite shocking to me - I've got a long line of mean and aggressive red-haired women in my family, you see.

Somebody once told me that there are two languages in Japan: one for the women and one for the men. The men speak directly and in declarative sentences while the women speak in passive voice. Therefore if a western man goes to Japan and strikes up a romance with a Japanese women and then learns the language from her, he has difficulty speaking to Japanese men - they don't take him seriously because he talks like a woman.

Hey Sancho good stuff about Japan but I have a slight inch about the western man talking like a woman. If the Japanese lady is passive how is the western men ever to learn anything from her. He is most likely to learn in class and so I am not so sure I believe it. I Just wanted to say it haha. :)

[Sancho]

Haha. Good point, C.

And from what I know about Japanese businessmen, I'm pretty sure they'd frown on a western man using pillow talk during a board meeting.

[cacian]

Haha. Good point, C.

And from what I know about Japanese businessmen, I'm pretty sure they'd frown on a western man using pillow talk during a board meeting.
I think they'll frown at anything that is not Japanese. I wonder what they think of the west in general?

[Bleeding Pawn]

As some one just said here, the word misogyny does exist, well not in its original sense but more related to sexual gratification of women today.It is confusing since it is the nature of humans to avoid or rather abstain from the things or beings that he hates, but it seems men are more obsessed with women nowadays. The softer sex has weathered many a storms and endured as much hardship since time immemorial. The traditional victimization began when in christian beliefs ( 100 years after Jesus) Eve was condemned for tempting Adam to take the Forbidden Fruit, hence labelled the as the devil in human form and the reason behind Original Sin and since the backlash has never stopped sometimes going as far as claiming the natural urges of man as the work of Devil who usually collaborates with this favourite accomplice Women( she was was also seen as the root of all evil). In the medieval Europe during the Inquisition, majority of those who were convicted of heresy and witch-craft were women and were burned alive.It seems Women were subjected to discriminated before the advent of Jesus. In the pagan era, when human sacrifice was the norm and which mainly involved pre-pubescent girls or women whose chastity was still intact, to have a long life and healthy body and sometimes Virility too. This Practice is still prevalent, not as much as in the southeast asia comprising of Philippines, India ,Bangladesh and Pakistan. In Phillipines, many kabayans have told that incest in rife there mainly in the rural area and slums, to achieve long life manhood and the easier targets are their own immediate female members like sisters and daughters. In pre-colonial India, the citizens used to practiced an ancient ritual called sati, the victim women, who were often forcefully thrown on the funeral pyre of her dead husband if she did not comply by immolating herself, even though this practice is banned many a times. In Pakistan there is actually a law called Hudood Ordinance which was enacted to give justice to victims (women) of rape, incest and or gang rape, instead this law incarcerates and sometimes( mostly) subjects them to capital punishment, this in the case if they do muster up the courage to register the atrocity but pronounced by the court as adulterer.The only familiar in these atrocities is , yes women and Women.

[JBI]

Nice essay, JBI, and thanks for setting me straight.

Except that I'm not wrong. You're not wrong either. I'm not sure who you were debating there, but it wasn't me. So we can both be right since we were talking about different things.

Female infanticide spiked in the 80s in China after the government's "one-child policy" was put into effect in 1979. But since you seem to want to talk about Mao Zedong, I'll mention that I'm pretty sure he died in '76. Mao believed a strong population made for a strong People's Republic. So yes, disparity between male and female babies decreased in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And yet most scholars believe, and the US State Department, the British Parliament, and Amnesty International are all on record saying that China's 1979 one-child policy contributes to infanticide.

The culture of infanticide did not spike, that is my point. The end of the Imperial period had probably as high a female infanticide rate, and certainly a higher one than right now.

Your assertion that there is a cause and effect is what I am pointing out as a misreading of history. If there is a long history of something, with a brief pause for 40 years, there is nothing to suggest that its resuming is a direct cause.

Lets put it in perspective - China, by all accounts, has a long history of female infanticide. By all accounts, gender imbalances improved during Mao's tenure. By all accounts, things went right down during Mao. That does not mean upon his death, when things resume, things turn out better.

The infanticide of women in China has more to do with the cost of rearing a female than to do with the one child policy. Almost all specialists on the subject have demonstrated that in the areas with greatest gender imbalances, the one child policy is less strictly enforced (usually due to remoteness and unenforcability). The rural classes are virtually uncontrolled, and the Urban classes have been shown to be more partial toward female children.

Then how do we understand this phenomenon? In a sense, I would understand it in part that women are just not wanted - whether on the register or off the register. Does the one child policy contribute to it? no more than the failing economy of the early republican party did.

The one child policy if anything has been doing the opposite. For the rural classes, having another kid is already an option - their dislike of their daughter stems from a simple fact that they just do not think it is worth the time and money to raise one. Not from them getting the wrong gender.

If you wish to discuss gender history in China, especially in the Maoist era, I recommend looking into many of the communist-feminist works of the time. You will notice an almost overwhelming presence of females in the ranks of Red guards throughout the cultural revolution, and you will also notice the remolding of gender issues through the times.

A culture that has killed women for generations does not need a one child policy to continue killing them. as you put it, the one-child policy in china contributes to infanticide, that is true. However, does it contribute to gender discrepancies, or are those just the related by-product of a past system - there are at least several historical collections and works I have on the subject by western scholars dealing with the older tradition as it goes back to ancient times. There are also several studies I can produce that suggest female labor is more mobile than male labor (as seen in Latin American demographics as well).

What has caused this infanticide of females, as you put it can hardly be called a one-child policy, as such a policy is not inherently misogynist. It's merely a grid that says one kid - which is perhaps unfair, but not gender biased.


So what are we saying? if we put a one child policy in the United States it would lead to a gender discrepancy? of course we could not say that with certainty. In fact, I somehow doubt that such a thing would happen. Japan has a lower birth rate than China, and it lacks such a gender discrepancy.

You get my point - you have a self-defeating argument.

It is not the system of family planning that has played any role in the execution of female babies, but merely the traditional misogynist values held by the culture upon which the system has been enforced. Such a tradition has a long history in China, and the one-child policy has not contributed to its explosion as a behavior. It was there from the beginning.

So typical of such an organization as Amnesty International to deride the one child policy as leading to a gender inequality, yet not make the bigger comment of why such a system would make such an impression. Ok, they didn't get their pick so they recast their dice - fine. However, we should, arguably, primarily look at why they are so set on getting their pick.

[OrphanPip]

Recent studies done in Toronto have also found that female sex is frequently cited as a reason for abortion among people of Indian and East Asian descent. There is no one child policy in Canada and the problem persists here, to the extent that some people are considering bans on revealing the sex of a fetus prior to a certain date. There is a less pronounced, but still present, gender disparity among children born to immigrants in Canada.

[Sancho]

I see what you're saying, JBI. If you look at the disparity between reported male and female births in China from, say, 1950 to the present, there appears to be a spike right around the enactment of the 1979 one-child policy. But then if you pan out to a thousand years instead of fifty years, the spike starts to look more like the norm, with Mao's years appearing as a dip.

Statistically then you are faced with a conundrum: what is the norm? Is it 50 years or is it 5000 years? Is it Yao to Mao, or Mao to now? Can you look at China as a whole, or do you have to look at the coastal areas differently than the interior, the farms differently than the mountains, Shanghai differently than Beijing? Or do you perhaps have to find a mean for the entire human species? I'd say somebody who is trying to define the norm for this particular situation is traveling down a very slippery slope. In the end, the norm becomes what the researcher has defined it to be, and it becomes the baseline for his or her particular study.

Naturally the two governmental organizations and the NGO I named are looking at tighter picture time-wise than the researchers you named. Incidentally, they all stated the one-child policy as a causal factor for increased levels of infanticide in China, not the tragedy within a tragedy of female infanticide. So who's right and who's wrong? That question becomes irrelevant when each group has defined the problem with a different set of parameters. Amnesty International is concerned with human rights in the here and now, and what can be done to prevent abuses. An academic research project, by contrast, is looking at ... well, whatever is its stated question, its hypothesis, and its method for testing the hypothesis.

At any rate, I'd like to float another idea that may or may not have any bearing on this argument. We've both agreed that Mao's policies suppressed infanticide as well as gender-based birth discrepancies in China during his time. Others of Mao's policies, namely the Great Leap, were contributing factors to the Great Famine. Could it be that the famine (late 50s I think) was more a factor in the dip in infanticide in China than the policies of the Chinese Communist Party?

It is a complex problem with many variables. Reducing it to: this researcher is right but this organization is wrong is, in my opinion, too reductive.

[JBI]

Just look at Korean statistics in the 90s, and Taiwanese statistics up until the 90s. They show a similar (if not as pronounced) imbalance. The real gender selection on the mainland occurs generally with the second child (as if you have a girl, you can try for a second child in most cases). On the second one sex selective biases are more present.

Now, as for the one-child policy being the cause - that is merely a fallacy. As I told you, they did not need a one-child policy to kill girls in the past, and they don't have a similar policy in Taiwan and Korea, where such practices were common until recently. It is the inherent misogynist culture that has dictated such a custom, and being culture rather than government system, it is almost impossible for international communities seeking to change policy to deal with.

When we talk about the government system of infanticide in China, we are not talking about a gender selective system. We are talking about the fact that if a woman is impregnated for the second time, she will perhaps have the thing forcibly aborted. Or the kid will be off the register, at which time it may be discarded or sold as a slave. Such things exist, and are not as gender restricted as one may suggest.

As for how Mao's policy effected birthing practices in the Great Leap forward, I sincerely doubt those particularly effected (meaning in rural places) were having kids during those tough famine years. After and before, and during in the case of more developed areas, the birth rate shot up, with government assistance and planning structured on encouraging "heroine mothers" who would have tons of kids (mostly for the sake of cheaper labor and the possibility of more soldiers in case of war).

Still, if you look at Maoist era representations of Women, they are often portrayed in a very heroic light, and often are seen as an equal to their male counterparts. Just look at a cultural revolution poster, and you will see the big strong woman pioneer beside her male counterparts with a big we can do it together sort of attitude. Reading fiction from the era offers a similar message, and I personally think much of the appeal of Mao to females was the simple fact that he clearly was an improvement in most of their lives from the previous idea of femininity in the past.

Now, how does that work out in real numbers. Well, I suspect there was still much gender selection going on during the Maoist era, however, its dip naturally was caused by the encouragement of multiple children. If you get credit per child, chances are you won't get angry if you get a girl, who makes the same amount of money as a boy. With the 4 olds being downcast, you can see this girl in the light of a possible future - a link between mother and daughter that was forcibly broken by male ties during Chinese history.

Now with that in place, the tradition of selling your daughter off (usually with a dowry provided by yourself) to another family begins to melt, as a) nobody uses dowries, and b) the family coherency as women leaving the family disappears. Though still present, it has been tuned down during the maoist era, and from what I can gather almost all people in China were super-mobilized by Mao. As bad as Mao may have been, and whatever personal opinions he may have had, his tenure almost definitely can be seen as improving the status of women in China, if only under his tenure (as much of the biased policy and culture rebounded once he died). The idea of the female in the Republican era was merely as a birthing vessel for the male child. Such an understanding is apparent in numerous works during the era. Chiang Kai-shek himself was an awful womanizer and misogynist, who supposedly coerced a 16 year old girl to marry him, gave her gonorrhea and then abandoned her weeks later. Other major figures of the period are no better.

In fact in Hongkong, polygamy was only finally outlawed in the 70s, leading people in Macao, such as the tycoon Stanley Ho, to have something like 4 legal wives before the banning (and countless mistresses since).

As for the culture then, well, the cycle of misogyny has also continued in other Chinese-influenced areas of the world. I highly suspect one could find interesting statistics looking into birth rates amongst Chinese people in Thailand, or Indonesia.

[Sancho]

Good discussion. And hats off to Stanley Ho - I've got my hands full with one of 'em. She's a pistol, Mmm-Hmm.

What I was getting at by floating the idea of the Great Famine as a factor, was exactly as you said. Couples weren't having many babies during the lean years. Therefore infanticide rates went down. Are we now giving Mao credit for a decrease in the baby killing when credit should go to the hard-times instead? Nobody would need to kill babies if they were dying of starvation on their own, or if they were born still, or if people just didn't have the zip to conceive in the first place.

And that line of thought begs a question in my mind. In which case is human suffering worse? A famine where 11 million people starve to death? Or a place populated by over a billion people where an unknowable number of infants are killed each year? I'm not sure. It's a question for a philosopher. But it was obviously a question the Chinese government asked. It was also a question Amnesty International asked. As I noted, it was a question the American and the British governments asked. And as you noted, it was a question several really smart researchers asked. The big difference between all of those agents is perspective. A human rights organization has a laser focus on the problem at hand and wants it fixed. A researcher from an academic institution tries to explain why it happened by looking for casual factors in the past. The Chinese government struggles to come up with policies to deal with it in the future. And other governments, well, I like to think they are primarily concerned with the well-being of the people in question.

So, do you stand by and do nothing while a Malthusian catastrophe is happening right in front of your eyes? This was a different case, but do you vaccinate everybody when science comes up with a small pox vaccination, knowing the population will explode and the food supply will quickly run out? Or do you just leave everything to Mother Nature? Because with that b*tch, it's never going to be easy. (Was that last sentence misogynistic?)

[JBI]

Good discussion. And hats off to Stanley Ho - I've got my hands full with one of 'em. She's a pistol, Mmm-Hmm.

What I was getting at by floating the idea of the Great Famine as a factor, was exactly as you said. Couples weren't having many babies during the lean years. Therefore infanticide rates went down. Are we now giving Mao credit for a decrease in the baby killing when credit should go to the hard-times instead? Nobody would need to kill babies if they were dying of starvation on their own, or if they were born still, or if people just didn't have the zip to conceive in the first place.

And that line of thought begs a question in my mind. In which case is human suffering worse? A famine where 11 million people starve to death? Or a place populated by over a billion people where an unknowable number of infants are killed each year? I'm not sure. It's a question for a philosopher. But it was obviously a question the Chinese government asked. It was also a question Amnesty International asked. As I noted, it was a question the American and the British governments asked. And as you noted, it was a question several really smart researchers asked. The big difference between all of those agents is perspective. A human rights organization has a laser focus on the problem at hand and wants it fixed. A researcher from an academic institution tries to explain why it happened by looking for casual factors in the past. The Chinese government struggles to come up with policies to deal with it in the future. And other governments, well, I like to think they are primarily concerned with the well-being of the people in question.

So, do you stand by and do nothing while a Malthusian catastrophe is happening right in front of your eyes? This was a different case, but do you vaccinate everybody when science comes up with a small pox vaccination, knowing the population will explode and the food supply will quickly run out? Or do you just leave everything to Mother Nature? Because with that b*tch, it's never going to be easy. (Was that last sentence misogynistic?)

The famine was roughly a 2-3 year period. The population of China greatly shot up right after, and even during the cultural revolution. The overpopulation of China today, and the so called necessity for the One Child Policy at least in Chinese discourse is that the population increased so profoundly under Mao. If we look at the sex Ratios at birth from 1960 to 1980, we probably can articulate that there was more of a gender balance than afterward. The spike has little to do with the fact that people weren't having kids, as they were having more kids than ever, with the Malthusian equation mostly ignored, in that all works would, it would be argued, eat from the same pot.

In command economies with communist backgrounds, malthusian arguments are rather shaky. For instance, if the government is providing equal jobs and food to everybody (which the propaganda indicated) than as long as the giant state machine of collecting food and distributing it, and creating work did not crumble (which it didn't), then having more kids, to the family, had far fewer consequence than you can imagine. If the state will take charge of the kid, and you won't need to pay more, there is no reason to not have more, especially if it will lead to you being applauded as a heroic figure in society, and therefore get you a higher position within the system.

Statistics suggest roughly 700 million people in 1964, in contrast to over 1 billion in 1982 - that is a massive increase in an 18 year period, far Now, in the 15-65 age category, if statistics are to be believed, we have 1.08 males per females. we have 1.16 males per females younger than that, and for old people more females.

Now, I wish I had a graph from between 15-30. and also 30-65. I suspect the 30-65 would be relatively close to the human average, whereas the 15-30 would suggest an increase in missing females. Do we attribute it to the one child policy? That's another question - I am reluctant to, as according to the rules, those who birth a daughter are usually allowed to have a second child. Namely, I attribute it to selective choice of both first and second children - the most ideal is 1 boy and 1 girl, if one gets 1 boy they are finished, and nobody it would seem wants 2 girls. Therefore, the rigging of the system would tend to happen in the 2 child system - merely they get their first one, and it is a girl almost 50% of the time, so they go for their second, which they rig, and make more likely a boy - the result is that the 50 % average is upheld amongst first children in the family, but there is a massive imbalance in the second.

Or, another conjecture is that even first children who are female are not wanted, which is highly likely.

As for whether the policy creates this or not, I would have to say no. The policy merely says one kid, or two kids if you get a girl. It is the rigging of the system due to cultural prejudices against women that actually determines the gender imbalances. As such a tradition is 1000 years old already, we can safely argue that it is Chinese cultural traditions in themselves that are the culprit, not the legal system.

Don't get me wrong, liberty for fertility is an important human value, and I am not supportive of family planning. However, we cannot blame misogyny on a system that has nothing to do with it. The one child system may be bad, but it is not the culprit behind inherent cultural misogyny. That lies within a cultural tradition. As has been noted, such practices are displayed in some immigrant communities in Canada. There we have no limit on human fertility.

[prendrelemick]

Looking beyond the statistics for a moment...

You're poor, you have no pension plan, there is no Government welfare. Because of your culture, a son is your only hope. That alone will lead to female infanticide. Then along comes the Government and says you may have one child only. A desparate situation is made much worse, it must have an effect.

[cacian]

Looking beyond the statistics for a moment...

You're poor, you have no pension plan, there is no Government welfare. Because of your culture, a son is your only hope. That alone will lead to female infanticide. Then along comes the Government and says you may have one child only. A desparate situation is made much worse, it must have an effect.

Yep mysoginist have not got a brain. They think they are to live forever by restricting the number of females. Where is the foetus going to gestate?
It is severely worrying.

[JBI]

Yep mysoginist have not got a brain. They think they are to live forever by restricting the number of females. Where is the foetus going to gestate?
It is severely worrying.

Problem double solved, except that just betrays a lack of understanding of how the Chinese one-child system works. In truth, female labor is more mobile in China than male (right now, poorer provinces have a larger gap in sex ratio because female labor is so mobile). Also, a girl means you can have two kids in most cases. If you are an only child and your spouse is an only child, you can also have two kids.

In general the places hit hardest by the one-child rule are cities, not the poor countryside. In the countryside, it comes down to misogyny mostly.

Now, if we say that women cannot earn as much money, or are a bigger burden on their families, is that also not part of the misogynist background of the issue - women cannot get equal paying jobs, therefore women are somehow less desirable? You are blaming a basic system without discrimination for the gender bias of those underneath it. Chances are, if you had no money, you wouldn't raise any kid, regardless of gender. Such is the trend in Japan at any rate.

[Sancho]

At the end of the day, I'm still not prepared to commit to the position that the female infanticide problem in China is caused solely by the deeply ingrained misogynistic attitudes of the Chinese people. The problem is too complex with too many players and too many other variables to say it's all one thing and none of the other. Through this discussion I've come around to believing that the misogynistic tendency within Chinese culture is more of a casual factor than I previously thought, but I haven't come around to believing it's the only factor. Additionally, a theory that says, this is how these people think and they have thought that way for a thousand years and that is the cause of the problem, is a theory I am very uncomfortable with. People change, attitudes change, cultures change - even the Chinese. My people have calmed down considerably in the past 1000 years. Back then we were still wearing horned helmets and animal skins, riding long boats, and using a bear-grease-based hair treatment.

Now I'm no expert on this stuff, which means I'll generally defer to authority. Hence, when I read something, I make a judgment about the validity of its source. In this case, I can go with judgement of a well-respected NGO and the state departments of two relatively open nations, or I can take the word of some dude on the Internet.

At any rate, JBI, what surprises me the most about this discussion is the tenacity with which you hold a position. You seem to live in more of a deterministic universe than I do. Keeping an open mind should be a cornerstone for a young guy embarking on an academic career. A dogged certainty about something while steadily refusing to entertain new ideas, I would think, is the domain of tenured University Dons in their 70s - guys who have staked their careers and reputations on theories of their own devising.

Cacian, I wouldn't worry too much about the Japanese if I were you. I've spent a fair amount of time in Japan in my life and I have never met a more cordial group of people. They are much more racially homogenous than the Chinese, which probably leads to a certain cultural arrogance, but, like everybody else, they are changing and becoming less isolated. A year or so ago I was standing in a customs line at Sao Paulo's airport behind a JAL flight crew. The cockpit crew was in front and the stew's (all women) were behind. The girls were dressed to the nines, impeccable uniforms, every hair in place, the same makeup, old timey hats, very traditional. Naturally I tried to chat them up, but they'd just put their hands in front of their faces and giggle. What fun. Anyhow, we all wound up at the same hotel and everybody changed clothes and came down for the breakfast buffet. Talk about a change. These ladies went from traditional Japanese Geisha Girls to slutty punk-rock chicks in no time.

Yes, well, so anyway, although I've always been treated well by the Japanese, I've never felt strictly at home there. The Koreans, by contrast, took me in and made feel as though they would accepted me as one of their own. The Japanese were cordial, but the Koreans were warm. Those were just my impressions of those two cultures while living in each of those countries during the late 80s and early 90s.

[cacian]

Problem double solved, except that just betrays a lack of understanding of how the Chinese one-child system works. In truth, female labor is more mobile in China than male (right now, poorer provinces have a larger gap in sex ratio because female labor is so mobile). Also, a girl means you can have two kids in most cases. If you are an only child and your spouse is an only child, you can also have two kids.

In general the places hit hardest by the one-child rule are cities, not the poor countryside. In the countryside, it comes down to misogyny mostly.

Now, if we say that women cannot earn as much money, or are a bigger burden on their families, is that also not part of the misogynist background of the issue - women cannot get equal paying jobs, therefore women are somehow less desirable? You are blaming a basic system without discrimination for the gender bias of those underneath it. Chances are, if you had no money, you wouldn't raise any kid, regardless of gender. Such is the trend in Japan at any rate.

Ah well if that is Japan that says it all. Their way of life will come back to haunt them there has be to flawed in any restriction. Standing in the way is nature is eventually unforgiving. Money is not really an issue but I am guessing for this is regimentation and power control. Japan I suspect has worldly plan. Extension is one of them. They do say calm water underneath the bridge wroughters.

[rakhiandedunom]

Misogyny means hatred of women, but is sometimes used to mean despising women or considering them to be less than men - or even less than human.