I’ve seen this CNN story around the blogosphere, but I first caught wind of it at the Anti-Social Ladder. Read it here: China Faces 24 M Bride Shortage by 2020.
I’ve written about this before. It’s the same issue–the one-child policy has resulted in Chinese people undergoing sex-selective abortions, and the gender balance has been swinging towards males. Too many men, not enough women. Skewed male gender ratios results in increases in prostitution, kidnapping, forced marriages, and all other kinds of problems. If you want to read a great book on this issue, check out Den Boer and Hudson’s Bare Branches. Bad things happen when there are too many men and not enough women.
This is going to creep over into the U.S. One issue that I discussed earlier in another post is that many Asian American men, dealing with the dating race preferences in the U.S., avoid bachelorhood by going back to the motherland to “adopt” wives. It’s worked out so-so so far. Many of these imbalanced-power relationships are not ideal–I know at least a few Asian American dudes who boss their new immigrant wives around like servants–but at least they’re relationships, and I guess people eventually adapt. It’s going to be much harder if there aren’t as many women in China, Korea, or wherever. And with China’s economy rushing past everyone else’s, the appeal of that blue passport might not be what it used to be. Plus, Asian PUA techniques are not going to work because they know all the little tricks of sketch artists. This is going to happen less and less.
What’s an Asian American guy gonna do?
Okay, let me be serious for a bit. They really ought to end that one child policy. Prosperity, not government mandate, is the best way to reduce population size. As Den Boer and Hudson show, there are going to be major problems in the future coming from this misguided policy.
Related posts:
.
Meh, not really a big deal.
Imbalance is good. This is why the gap between rich and poor should never be a concern. Poor people should never feel any type of bitterness or animosity. It builds character. They should pull themselves up by their boot straps!
Personally, I see no reason why our bonus pool should be generating any type of animosity from Main Street even with rising unemployment.
I say we increase our bonus pool to 75% of our total profits!
There is an easy solution to this bride shortage in China: White Mail Order Brides!
I want to start seeing dating service ads promoting “Caucasian Wives,” “Date a White Woman,” and “White Women Wanted for Men in China.”
White Women–they love you long time!
“There is an easy solution to this bride shortage in China: White Mail Order Brides!”
HAhahaha! Now THAT’s funny!
This is going to creep over into the U.S.
Maybe I’m just a bit obtuse, but I don’t see how this is going to have a significant affect on Asian American men. For Chinese men living in China, yes, I can see this as having an adverse impact on society because the supply and demand pool is becoming increasingly lopsided. The one child policy might still work if they government gives tax credits for families that have a girl. Just a thought.
Btw, I have to disagree with your post about Asian PUAs as being innocuous and counterproductive to the advancement of our image. Asian American men ought to attack the system from every angle possible (without being downright unethical and illegal).
130 men to 100 women, it’s not as bad as the western medias portray it.
There’s a dramatic increase in marriage between CN men and RU women in Northeast China cause Russia got excess in females.
In Russia for every 110 women there are only 80 men
Right now Chinese are limiting the size of each family (heard it is changing though), whereas Russia is paying women to have more children, so there could be a natural match-up.
There’s also central Asia (Buryats, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tatars, etc. ), S.E. Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Philippine etc)… who knows where else, with the Chinese economy booming and along with the power shift to Asia.
“One feature of the Russian-Chinese relationship seemed especially telling: Cross-border marriages are overwhelmingly between Chinese men and Russian women. Much of this has to do with demographics—Russia has a surplus of women, while China has too many men. But as one Russian woman told me, “Chinese men are kinder and more attentive to their wives. And they usually have more money.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2239793/entry/2239797/
“In addition, as researches held by Olga Makhovskaya reveal, marriages between Chinese men and Russian women are also very successful. There are tens of thousands of such marriages in Russia’s Primorye region in the Far East. Chinese men are hard-working, they don’t abuse in alcohol drinking and bring their wages home. In a word, they have lots of advantages by contrast with Russian men.” It is sad, but the researches don’t mention for whom Russian men suit wonderfully.”
http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/29-04-2003/2688-family-0
“Recently Russian women are looking to marry Chinese men because of their trustworthiness and romanticism”
“Chinese migrant to Russia Ge Youjin and his Russian wife Tatiana had their third child recently. Tatiana said her husband is responsible. “He cherishes our love and doesn’t drink or spend a lot,” she said.
Ge too admires his wife. “She is hardworking and considerate like other Russian women, and she takes care of the family well.”
“Can you introduce some nice Chinese guys to me?” 25-year-old Russian Nadya asked her Chinese boss Zhao Hong, chairwoman of the local Chinese Association in Russia’s fifth largest city Krasnoyarsk, who often receives such requests.”
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-08/07/content_659034.htm
http://greenlea.ru/Articles_Directory/Village_Of_Russian_Brides_In_China.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200502/04/eng20050204_173006.html
http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com/2006/09/interracial-dating-disparity-russian.html
“Maybe I’m just a bit obtuse, but I don’t see how this is going to have a significant affect on Asian American men.”
Well, since the Asian-American population’s growth relies more on immigration than procreation, it matters if the places were immigrants come from start immigrating a lower percentage of Asian women.
“Right now Chinese are limiting the size of each family (heard it is changing though), whereas Russia is paying women to have more children, so there could be a natural match-up.”
Actually this is a good point. I have friends in the Russian-American community and the women complain bitterly about how the men are socialized to drink and be rather abusive. There are many articles to be found on the subject as well. And when you think of what Larry said about White mail order brides, in jest, then consider which county seems to export the most White mail order brides, in recent decades… might not be so far fetched.
Well, since the Asian-American population’s growth relies more on immigration than procreation, it matters if the places were immigrants come from start immigrating a lower percentage of Asian women.
This is outside the control of Asian-Americans. For the people actually residing in China, yes, but not for someone like me. Is this a fact that Asian-American population growth relies more on immigration? I haven’t seen this anywhere stated as fact but if you have the data please share it with us.
The AA population growth will only be in jeopardy if all the white guys start taking AA women which is impossible. There may be a lot of AA female sellouts who bash their male counterparts and loathe their ethnicity, but I don’t think its going to adversely affect the growth of our entire population here in the US unless AA guys start marrying outside of their race in larger numbers than the women. I know I sure won’t.
“Is this a fact that Asian-American population growth relies more on immigration? I haven’t seen this anywhere stated as fact but if you have the data please share it with us.”
Yeah, I got that from Wikipedia. I read this about the Chinese American population which is the largest immigrant factor of the Asian American immigrants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American#Demographics
“As a whole, Chinese American populations continue to grow at a rapid rate due to immigration. However, they also on average have birth rates lower than those of White Americans…”
I should have said “Chinese-American” but am overly used to talking about broader “Asian-American” issues.
“Prosperity, not government mandate, is the best way to reduce population size.”
Yes! But how do we bring about prosperity? Government mandate!
In all seriousness, this is basically a further left-wing version of our welfare system, and since they have no reason not to breed more feeders for their starving families, the population explodes out of control. In this case, why would we expect a heavy-handed government not to adopt a one-child program?
King:
“Actually this is a good point. I have friends in the Russian-American community and the women complain bitterly about how the men are socialized to drink and be rather abusive. There are many articles to be found on the subject as well. And when you think of what Larry said about White mail order brides, in jest, then consider which county seems to export the most White mail order brides, in recent decades… might not be so far fetched.”
Yeah? It is about as far fetched as you traveling aboard the Enterprise in 2431.
So the war is on! White guys vs Asian guys over Asian women. I hate that this about to go down, but that’s just the way things are sometimes.
There was an article a few years ago that talked about the sexual frustrations of Chinese men due to this huge imbalance. Since there’s going to be fewer women to “go around”, many men end up never having had sex. This forced repression caused intense sexual frustration that may promote violent tendencies. Therefore, becoming a public health/safety issue.
I know that my grandmother (paternal) urged my mom to give me up for adoption so that she could try for a son. My mother had always said she’d only have 2 children (back in the 70′s, Korean government was promoting “Just have two children and live happy” agenda for economic reasons) and I was the second daughter.
Sociologically speaking, this was a predictable outcome when you enforce “ONE child only” policy on a culture that does not value their girls. Same thing has been happening in Korea and Korean men have married non-Koreans… which has forced Koreans to address their prejudices toward mixed-marriages and multi-racial people.
I’m curious how almost none of the Asian American “community” sites have picked up on this report.
“Yeah? It is about as far fetched as you traveling aboard the Enterprise in 2431. So the war is on! White guys vs Asian guys over Asian women. I hate that this about to go down, but that’s just the way things are sometimes.”
Sieg, the issue was over Asian guys marrying White mail order brides because there is a shortage of Chinese women. You don’t seem to find White women attractive anyway, so what could possibly be the problem?
uRB4N,
Haha! We should have a talk about the “economics” of marriage. Can we put IR in all economic terms? Keynesian IR. Haha!
Larry,
King is right about Russia, but man, what a great way for us Americans to fight against the trade deficit!
MaSir,
I hear you, man. Let me just say this about PUAs and Asian male stereotypes. I think it’s better for Asian men to be portrayed as geeks than for us to be portrayed as slimy, conniving, sketch artists. I’m just not convinced that what they offer is better.
Eric,
Haha! I hate to say it, but in this case, I really DO believe that government mandate will at least allow an environment for prosperity to take place.
I agree with you somewhat on the welfare thing. People on welfare have no economic incentive to not have children, so they do. I don’t know what the answer is to that one, other than no welfare, but seeing people starving on the street is probably not the greatest thing either.
MN,
I agree with you 100%. It’s a total safety issue. Den Boer and Hudson call it a national security issue. Not just for China, but for any country that China could attack. Guys without sex do reckless things.
I sure hope they get rid of the one child policy soon.
Sieg,
Bring it on, baby! Just make sure that you drop in to say something ridiculous every so often. This blog only has one class clown, and it’s you!
@Jaehwan,
Looks like we will disagree on this point forever. LoL. I highly doubt women consider a guy who is good with socializing and womanizing a “slimy, conniving, sketch artist”. If I approach a girl with confidence, flirt with a her and show her a good time because I apply some PUA tactics, she isn’t going to think of me as a slimy dude. In fact, I’ve never had any woman call either of my friends or me such things. Quite the opposite.
I’ll tell you what’s worse.
A guy who is GEEKY AND LACKS THE BALLS to open up a conversation with a woman he finds attractive, because he is too self-conscious of looking stupid or worried that he might fail in front of people. This is the Asian guy who stares at a woman he is interested in but takes no initiative. This does not help us break the stereotype we’ve all become too familiar with.
I’m not advocating every Asian male go out and PUA-pimp the hell out of every hot girl. I’m just saying you can incorporate some of these concepts into your personality to improve your social skills with both women and men.
“I agree with you somewhat on the welfare thing. People on welfare have no economic incentive to not have children, so they do. I don’t know what the answer is to that one, other than no welfare, but seeing people starving on the street is probably not the greatest thing either.”
You’d have a good point, if only people weren’t starving on the street right now too. How do we deal with that? More money! More policy! But San Francisco spends more money per capita than any major city and we’ve got the worst results.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/
Maybe this one-child program can give you some clarity, that this stuff just doesn’t work. We’re taking a magic weight loss pill with side effects including glaucoma, nausea, depression, death, and eventually weight gain. We’ve been taking the pill for 90 years, and coming off it will feel like a heroine-laced train wreck. We’d rather take a new pill! You know this is unhealthy, you’ve just hinted at it!
You’re so close to coming to my side. I can feel it, Byron!
Based upon their summary on Amazon at least, Den Boer and Hudson’s “research” sound like reductionist–and to be frank–thinly disguised propaganda to pathologize China and India based upon male-female sex ratios.
Everything from domestic political systems to foreign policy and war are traced to this male-female ratio, it appears.
If war and violence are traceable to this gender ratio, I’d like to ask these “scientists” how they explain America–with its massive gun violence and its serial wars of aggression around the world.
In the past decade, the USA has thus attacked Yugoslavia, attacked Afghanistan, attacked Iraq, and is bombing Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc–ultimately resulting in the US murder of millions of people.
(But of course, Americans don’t think of these US wars as aggression. They are right and justified).
Domestically, “going postal” and workplace/school shootings are almost an American way of life with the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres being only the most famous examples.
Is this becuase of America’s skewed gender ratios?
I suspect that this “research” most likely reflects the insecurities of the American Empire and its imperial intellectual class over the rise of China and India more than anything else.
In fact, the fact this book is praised by assclowns like Francis “End of History” Fukuyama and elitist US “think tanks” suggests a lot about the warped ideological basis of their scholarship.
No wonder CNN and the American media have picked up on this work and are promoting it.
MaSir,
“I highly doubt women consider a guy who is good with socializing and womanizing a “slimy, conniving, sketch artist””
I don’t know about guys good at socializing, but for PUAs, that’s ALL I ever hear women say about these guys. You can see, for example, this thread here. Or something written by this woman here, who dated a PUA. Or this woman here, who also dated one. Or sk, who worked with Minority Militant on finding the truth about the movement.
I agree with you that I get annoyed by guys who lack balls. But what about guys who lie, misrepresent themselves, hide the truth, coerce women into sex, etc. Sorry, but I know guys who’ve been to boot camps. I know guys who teach this stuff. It’s not at all what some of these proponents say it is.
I guess I just think that both are bad.
Eric,
People are starving on the street right now, but it would be worse without welfare. Look what happened during the early 30′s.
I don’t know about becoming a libertarian, Eric, but if you ever start your own country, I’ll think of moving there for vacations only. When I need to go to the doctor though, I’ll have to fly back to get checked out by a government regulated doctor.
Larry,
Which summary? The one I saw had them winning all these awards for their good work. And the actual book didn’t say that everything was traced to the male-female ratio–it just said that everything is affected by it.
Look at our own Asian American system. With that huge IR balance, everything is affected by it.
If you talk about going postal, I think those examples actually support Den Boer and Hudson’s thesis. Most of these shooters aren’t partying like Wilt.
I think anyone who wants to know more about race relations absolutely needs to read Orientalism by Edward Said. It’s very high brow, incredibly academic, but revelationary if you give yourself time to digest it. To offer my interpretation in a paraphrased nutshell — 1) power disparities are safekept through bodies of knowledge 2) the western world produces the entire world’s body of knowledge according to its own representations 3) even when non-western people want to know about themselves, they tend to do so through the western world’s body of knowledge 4) this process both internalizes and perpetuates the western world’s representation of the rest of the world.
Basically, from my interpretation of Orientalism, the crux of the issue is that the limits of any conversation we have about “the orient” or “the other” have already been established, whether we are aware of it or not. Any new discourse or ideas proferred by any party are inherently defined by the extant body of knowledge. In other words, the more we talk, the deeper we sink into this orientalist construction. The key isn’t to keep it up — the key is to deconstruct it completely. How we do that, I have no idea.
But case in point, since people have already mentioned this in this thread, is the conversation about PUAs. From day one, my criticism of PUA is this — the very fact that it exists and caters specifically to an Asian American male audience implies that we have already internalized and are perpetuating external representations of us. In other words, we are nerdy, weak, and socially awkward, and we prove it to everybody else by admitting it to ourselves. I can understand why, upon first glance, it looks like the PUA movement is intended to improve the situation of Asian American males. However, I firmly believe that the existence of the movement and the conversation it inspires is dictated by the orientalist representations of Asian American males. Western society doesn’t even have to orientalize us any more, because we’re doing it on our own.
“People are starving on the street right now, but it would be worse without welfare. Look what happened during the early 30’s.”
Two things:
1. Welfare gives people a reason to collect welfare. I know you agree with this!
2. You played the 30s backwards. FDR kicked off what we now call welfare and crushed investor confidence in the 30s. Rather than achieving results, there was mass unemployment, cartels, and high prices at the END of the Great Depression, only to finally reach some semblance of stability when investor confidence was restored after WWII. There are obvious causes for these problems that you’ll discover yourself if you’d just follow the chain of logic that you started earlier, which you dropped as soon as your foundation started creaking. (To get to the root of this, you’ll also have to look up some of FDR’s policy decisions, which I’d be more than happy to help you with!! Just email me and we’ll do it together!!)
You have a bias that defies your own logic! Don’t let it happen, or you’ll find yourself running for public office!
Like jujubean mentioned, this isn’t going to be a big deal. Mainland Chinese men will simply find women in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.
The Western media is really making this into a bigger issue than it really is.
Eric,
Was there investor confidence back then for FDR to crush? If my history lessons are correct, there wasn’t much investment going on back in the early 30′s. The unemployment during the 30′s was already there.
Oi, I don’t think I’m any closer to libertarianism than I was when we started!
“Was there investor confidence back then for FDR to crush? If my history lessons are correct, there wasn’t much investment going on back in the early 30’s. The unemployment during the 30’s was already there.”
Yes there was confidence. It was called the Roaring 20s. During the Depression of 1920 (didn’t know there was one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321), the first year of which was worse than the first year of the Great Depression, Harding took office, and essentially did the opposite of what FDR would do later on. There were some social programs, but Harding cut government spending rather than boosting it. The depression ended quickly because investors knew pretty quickly where to put their money to foster economic growth in the market. The Federal Reserve was also relatively new and somewhat powerless at the time, so investor confidence throughout the 20s was pretty high. Then the Fed started tinkering again, and then in 1929 we had a stock bubble, followed by 10 years of policy tinkering by FDR.
If you can see the problems with a one-child policy, which is just another way a state regulates its citizens’ lives in order to further the general welfare, then you’re one step closer indeed.
Would you also be opposed to state-mandated diet and exercise? Mandatory health exams?
Eric,
I said, “Was there investor confidence back then for FDR to crush? If my history lessons are correct, there wasn’t much investment going on back in the early 30’s. The unemployment during the 30’s was already there.” And you responded: “Yes there was confidence. It was called the Roaring 20s.”
Sure, there was the roaring twenties, but FDR wasn’t the President during the Roaring 20′s. Much the same way Obama wasn’t President during our housing boom. Think about this–was the economy better or worse when comparing the economy before and after FDR? Okay, so he was there for a long time–better or worse between the time he started and eight years later?
I’ve always been against the one-child policy. Just because I’m against one form of regulation doesn’t mean I’m against ALL regulation.
I would definitely be opposed to state mandated diet and exercise. Especially if they made me give up my Chinese style fish.
“Which summary? The one I saw had them winning all these awards for their good work. And the actual book didn’t say that everything was traced to the male-female ratio–it just said that everything is affected by it.
Look at our own Asian American system. With that huge IR balance, everything is affected by it.
If you talk about going postal, I think those examples actually support Den Boer and Hudson’s thesis. Most of these shooters aren’t partying like Wilt.”
I was referring to the Amazon book summary of their research. As I said, I think for them to suggest that everything is affected by the male-female ratio is completely reductionist, if not absurd.
In society, there are many, many complex factors that influence a particular phenomenon, whether that is domestic policy issues violence (like workplace/school shootings) or foreign policy (like wars).
To suggest that one factor plays an overdetermining role in all of these issues is contrived. In terms of the “going postal” issue in America, this phenomenon does not support their research. Does the USA have an unbalanced male-female ratio? No.
So how does this explain mass shootings as a US national phenomena? The research that I have seen on this topic has suggested that they involve issues of class, alienation, and easy access to guns, among other things.
Hey Larry,
So I’m looking at this:
http://www.amazon.com/Bare-Branches-Implications-Population-International/dp/0262582643
Product Description
Winner in the category of Government & Political Science in the 2004 Professional/Scholarly Publishing Annual Awards Competition presented by the Association of American Publishers, Inc. and Winner of the 2004 Otis Dudley Duncan Award presented by the Sociology of Population section of the American Sociological Association (ASA)
What happens to a society that has too many men? In this provocative book, Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer argue that, historically, high male-to-female ratios often trigger domestic and international violence. Most violent crime is committed by young unmarried males who lack stable social bonds. Although there is not always a direct cause-and-effect relationship, these surplus men often play a crucial role in making violence prevalent within society…
I don’t think the description is saying that the book says it’s the only factor. It’s just saying that it’s a big factor, and that it affects everything. According to the book, it’s not even a lack of sex–it’s a lack of social bonds, as the description says.
The USA doesn’t have an imbalanced ratio as a country, but if you look at these mass killers, they didn’t have much going on in the way of female companionship. Cho was single and lonely, as was that dude who shot up the women’s gym, as was the guy who killed his extended family in Virginia just a couple days ago. As a country there’s no gender imbalance, but in Cho’s world, there certainly was.
Sure, access to guns probably affected them, as did alienation and probably America’s aggressive culture. But wouldn’t it be safe to say that their lack of social bonds probably also played a very large role?
Look at the PUAs. Maybe the part of the reason so many of them act like complete sexist jerks is that they have no grounding in society. Another example is the military. Could it be possible that part of the reason soldiers commit so much crime during their off hours is that there is either a lack of women? (I think Den Boer and Hudson actually talked about this latter example.)
I would have said most of what JuJu bean mentioned too.
In my opinion, I would say the primary motive of this article was to imply and frame the Chinese people as the oppressive male chauvanist society. Which is not accurate to say since China is no more chauvanist than any other society.
However also consider that Chinese culture how a man looks after his elderly, wife and children are integral with his moral/social esteem and virtue.
IT is part of his status in other words.
Despite what this articles claims especially with the big numbers in women shortage, the ratio is still not too large in gap.
Additionally, it has been reported that there is still a large number of single adults in China both Male and female who are not able to find love partners. Due to various social indicators and other factors (priority of love and career) neither sex is willing to lower their standards for their ideal partners. As a result China is left with many aged single people.
(sorry I have to find the articles but I don’t have time)
Which really throws these funny stats that the media that has used to mock us Chinese people. At any opportunity, they like to use stats to back their personal inaccurate biases about Chinese society.
We have to be careful how statistics are used and again the western media will continue to recycle the same old stories misrepresenting of the issue.
Why? because some westerners like to demonstrate their excessiveness of political self righteous white liberalism….
Realistically speaking there can never be a perfect distribution of gender in any country.
The gender bias is something of the past where men went out to work and women participated in household duties, men were in the top social positions and the women benefited from their statuses. This socio-economic factoring is probably 1000′s of years old and existed are the norms of feudal Chinese society.
Abortion and the 1 child policy has also been misrepresented by media, it did not come into effect for the reasons of deliberately favouring males in modern society. It is primarily used to curb overpopulation and resource strain.
Abortions itself is already considered shameful, immoral and illegal in China.
Any instances of where gender based abortion might even be partially considered would be situations of accidental pregnancy in a very poor rural society.
In this case any kind of additional individual would be additional strain under poverty and starvation (not as an excuse but in desperation). If s child was male then perhaps it might be an one factor amongst many to reconsider abortion as the possible advantages of physical labour.
So if you considered all these you would know that the ignorant standpoint of the western media taking the wrong view on that subject.
The media is more than likely to get away with these stories since there a few of use on this side of the planet is educated in Chinese history and does not understand the Chinese society.
That being said, I think there is very little responsibility in news quality and journalism.
No wonder why Asian kids grow up hating themselves and become disconnected from themselves and their people.
I don’t think the description is saying that the book says it’s the only factor. It’s just saying that it’s a big factor, and that it affects everything. According to the book, it’s not even a lack of sex–it’s a lack of social bonds, as the description says.
The USA doesn’t have an imbalanced ratio as a country, but if you look at these mass killers, they didn’t have much going on in the way of female companionship. Cho was single and lonely, as was that dude who shot up the women’s gym, as was the guy who killed his extended family in Virginia just a couple days ago. As a country there’s no gender imbalance, but in Cho’s world, there certainly was.
Sure, access to guns probably affected them, as did alienation and probably America’s aggressive culture. But wouldn’t it be safe to say that their lack of social bonds probably also played a very large role?
Look at the PUAs. Maybe the part of the reason so many of them act like complete sexist jerks is that they have no grounding in society. Another example is the military. Could it be possible that part of the reason soldiers commit so much crime during their off hours is that there is either a lack of women? (I think Den Boer and Hudson actually talked about this latter example.)”
If it’s not about sex or gender ratios (and primarily about social bonds), then America’s media spin of their “research” is completely disingenous, as it has emphasized the gender ratio issue.
Concerning America’s rampage killings, here is a link to one of the most extensive research studies done on this issue, a profile of 102 killer dating back 50 years or so. Not surprisingly, mental illness is a major factor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/09/us/they-threaten-seethe-and-unhinge-then-kill-in-quantity.html?pagewanted=print
A higher perscentage of male baby’s isn’t solely due the the one child policy or unique to china. Many other asian cultures, korean, india, etc., have traditionally valued male babies more. In fact, there was an article recently that sex detection and selection clinics in california are booming, and that the biggest customers are indian and korean.
This trend is also highly tied to wealth, in china a least. Many wealthier and developed regions have more enlightened ideas on sex preference. It’s the rural and poor regions that sex selection and preference is most prominent – and not surprisingly, the least educated. As china in general gets wealthier, I suspect the problem will go away or at least lessen to the point where it won’t cause the kind of doomsday chaos many western pundits fantasize about.
“Think about this–was the economy better or worse when comparing the economy before and after FDR? Okay, so he was there for a long time–better or worse between the time he started and eight years later?”
The economy for all of FDR’s terms was awful. High unemployment, low GDP, and zero investor confidence. If you can point to something we could blame for 16 years of a garbage economy that doesn’t eventually boil down to FDR, Hoover, or the Federal Reserve, then I’m all ears.
“I would definitely be opposed to state mandated diet and exercise. Especially if they made me give up my Chinese style fish.”
If the state raises tariffs on sugar imports and subsidizes national corn production, isn’t that also state mandated diet? You and I agree on this right?
And of course you’re opposed to the trans fat ban in California. That goes without saying… right?
afd,
Good points. I think one reason why the sex selection process is so popular in rural areas is that they need men to work with the heavy machinery. Hopefully the wealth will even this out. I think America, in general, prefers girls to boys. Maybe the cities of China will someday balance this out? I just wonder if they can do it with a one child policy. Raising kids is expensive, and I wonder if the preference for boys is great enough to selectively give birth if you can only have one.
Eric,
You didn’t answer the question–was it better or worse when he ended either his presidency or his second term? From what I understand, the Depression was pretty, darn bad. It would be hard to expect things to look like the Clinton years right after such a big free fall.
I’m against subsidizing corn production. It’s what’s contributing to our health problems–high fructose corn syrup is way out of control.
Now would I call this a state mandated diet? Hmm. I think that might be going a bit far. “Mandated” implies that it’s mandatory, and in this case, people can “opt out” by simply buying healthier foods. Of course, richer people will have an easier time with this.
Trans fat ban? I’m okay with it. Hey, that could cut down our healthcare costs, right? I guess that would be mandated since it would make trans fats unavailable. I’d agree with you there.
According to this study which is 10 years old, about 5000 Chinese babies annually, are adopted into the US, most of them girls.
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/international.html
I wonder how many female babies are adopted into the United States and other contries for adoption?
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these girst grow up and find themselves in a situation to marry man a from China.
I know it is a drop in the bucket, but I have been saying for years, that if I were a Chinese person, I would hope for a daughter. You are more likely to get a large curtsey for her.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-china-adopt24-2010jan24,0,5783351.story
“You didn’t answer the question–was it better or worse when he ended either his presidency or his second term?”
I misunderstood your question. FDR’s term ended after WWII, and we fell into another recession at that point. So, his 4-term-term began with a recession, turned into a depression, went back into a recession, and then he died. I’d argue that he accomplished mostly nothing.
“I’m against subsidizing corn production. It’s what’s contributing to our health problems–high fructose corn syrup is way out of control.”
Are you only opposed because it’s unhealthy? Would you support a subsidy on Splenda until it was proven unhealthy? Or is it safe to assume that you, like me, don’t support food subsidies as a whole? Cattle and eggs are subsidized too, and there are plenty of folks who see those as unhealthy as well. Even though I disagree with the health claims, I agree the subsidies should be gone. Don’t you?
““Mandated” implies that it’s mandatory, and in this case, people can “opt out” by simply buying healthier foods. Of course, richer people will have an easier time with this.”
Fair enough, but whether this is state mandate or not, we both see the problem with subsidized agriculture because it produces bad incentives to grow too much of that agriculture. So we’re both against that. Great.
We can see how corn-growing is basically a way to work the subsidy system. We all pay taxes that subsidize corn growth, but some entrepreneurial farmers decide they should produce corn in order to collect more than they pay in, and thereby make a semi-decent living. The excess corn isn’t profitable or healthy. It’s basically junk. If we were hired to fix this system, we’d eliminate the subsidy. It would be moronic to keep the subsidy and proceed to fine everyone who grows corn.
You also value the freedom of a couple to have children, probably without limit. That makes you very human and very not evil. We’re agreeing on everything so far.
The government subsidizes a percentage of each person through its welfare system. An entrepreneurial couple decides to work the system and produce as many children as needed to collect more subsidies than they pay out, just like our corn-growers. If we were hired to fix the system, what would we do?
To be fair, not all these people were having children in order to take advantage of the subsidies. Many couples have children for perfectly good reasons. And some people enjoy growing corn. However, the subsidy is still there, and if too many people are paid, what should the state do?
Lots of girls get adopted from China. MN, that’s a scary article. I guess that’s why societies need regulation (nudge, nudge, Eric Jacobus.).
Eric,
The Great Depression started in 1929 before FDR. He died as we were getting out of it. I think it’s hard to point fingers since there were so many other factors taking place at the time, but my point is that you can’t really say he made things worse.
In general, I don’t support food subsidies. I think there was a point in which farmers needed the money, but I think an accountant could show that farms could stay in business without them.
I think we’re in agreement on most of this.
EJ: the Depression started during Hoover’s term. Hoover was president from 1929-1933. Clearly not FDR. When FDR became President he brough record change and helped recover the economy which probably contributed to his landslide reelection and his four terms (almost) as President. When you think about it, he turned a depression around and started rebuilding the country. We were in pretty good shape by the time we were dragged into WWII. When he died in office, we were still at war. I think he did a pretty fine job as president.
Even thought Hoover is considered among the worst presidents in US History, he was instrumental in bringing forth and is the namesake for the Hoover Dam.
Why you got to hate on people who need welfare? Some people really need it and most people who need it do not stay on it. Think of ways to prevent abuse if you see it, not generalize a whole sector of people simply because they need help. Most of the people who use welfare use it temporarily. Haven’t we all at some point been the benefit of someone elses charity or good will? If we don’t help each other when we need it, what makes us any different from other primates?
American Girl,
You’re okay. I take back likening you to Jacobus at one point. You were right. That was a personal insult. Lol. Sorry.
Anyway, why are people indulging Jacobus who is a troll who’s obviously pushing one agenda on this site no matter what we’re discussing? Stick to acting and kung fu kicking Jacobus. Maybe one of your kicks will land hard on your own head, and you will become less of a dumb, brain washed douche.
“Sieg, the issue was over Asian guys marrying White mail order brides because there is a shortage of Chinese women. You don’t seem to find White women attractive anyway, so what could possibly be the problem?”
@King, I object using mail order white women as a problem solver because you can’t get along with women of your race. This is dead wrong! I’m sure other white men will find this disgusting too. It’s just plain not right!
“I object using mail order white women as a problem solver because you can’t get along with women of your race. This is dead wrong! “
But isn’t that exactly what you’ve been arguing all of these years? You dislike some of the attitudes of “White women” and extol the many virtues and exotic beauty of the Oriental Woman. Many White men, like minded to yourself, have been sending for mail order brides for years. Yet, you have been bewildered when Asian men have found THAT disgusting instead of “open minded.”
That’s what White Privilege is all about. You feel entitled to be disgusted by the things that you take for granted doing to other races with impunity.
Dude you’re right, what the hell am I doing on here…
You’re here because it’s useless crossing swords with people who already agree with your point of view.
Heh. Siegfried is a classic White hypocrite. Whenever some White people get a taste of their own medicine (or even the mere thought of this possibility), it is enough to send them into a whining hissy fit.
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
This principle is one that White people fear–as do most people with guilty consciences.