Skip to main content

View Diary: China's One Child Policy (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some people in this comment section (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diana in NoVa, Pandoras Box

    seem to be largely in favor of China's policy. Yeah, as long as population growth is curbed, mass female infanticide doesn't matter, amirite? Women in an already misogynistic world who are living in an entirely male-dominated country bear another cross just for daring to exist. It's not only the mass sex-selective abortions, nor the staggering amounts of babies left behind to die right after childbirth.

    It's the fact that those who survive are treated with even more cultural, systemic abuse than they would in other countries. It not only perpetuates misogyny, it outright fuels it. So many girls grow up thinking rampant physical, sexual and verbal abuse and/or horrible neglect is normal. Many don't make it to their teens or adulthood because medical care is too precious to waste on a girl. Women routinely grow up seeing their personhood devalued until they believe they're not even worthy of the dust they have to grovel in to please their elders (aka their father). It's like dowry - the first thing parents think of when they have a girl is the fact that it's going to cost them a fortune to be able to sell their daughter to a reasonable guy and his family so she won't be a drain on her own family longer than needed.

    It is barbaric.

    •  Build your own tub to thump. Write your own diary. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zwoof, trumpeter, 6ZONite

      You began your comment with a lie:

      Some people in this comment section seem to be largely in favor of China's policy.
      No one in the thread has praised China's policy. You spun your opening lie into an invention whereby the historical
      So many girls grow up thinking rampant physical, sexual and verbal abuse and/or horrible neglect is normal. Many don't make it to their teens or adulthood because medical care is too precious to waste on a girl. Women routinely grow up seeing their personhood devalued until they believe they're not even worthy of the dust they have to grovel in to please their elders (aka their father).
      brutalization of women can be called "misogyny" so you can come out with this line,
      It's the fact that those who survive are treated with even more cultural, systemic abuse than they would in other countries. It not only perpetuates misogyny, it outright fuels it.
      without offering any evidence that what you wrote is true, and despite the evidence from the diary and comments that surviving Han Chinese women are more valued in their culture now than at any previous time in history.

      You are evidently so wrapped up in your own conclusions about everything that you have completely misunderstood or misinterpreted what little you ever heard about "dowry," an economic and cultural device that varies from culture to culture, tribe to tribe and class to class. Your ignorance on this subject is only surpassed by your assumptive arrogance about what the other commentors meant, because they dared to be factual instead of pejorative about China's policy.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:20:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dowry (0+ / 0-)

        Men pay the dowry. One of my students recently married and her husband paid 1,000,000 RMB ($160,000 US) and 2 Kilos of gold to her family.

        We all stand submissively before the global ATM machine network like trained chickens pecking the correct colored buttons to release our grains of corn. Joe Bageant

        by Zwoof on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:26:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Zwoof, not really. (0+ / 0-)

          From Wiki:

          A dowry is the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to a marriage. It contrasts with bride price, which is paid by the groom or his family to the bride's parents, and with dower, which is property given to the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage. The same culture may simultaneously practice both dowry and bride price. Dowry is an ancient custom, and its existence may well predate records of it. Dowries continue to be expected in some parts of the world, mainly South Asia.
          •  When I say "not really", I obviously don't mean (0+ / 0-)

            I'm talking about your student's hustband. I'm referring to the historical and cultural construct of "dowry" which David has taken upon himself to accuse me of not knowing.

            •  Semantics (0+ / 0-)

              In China, the man pays. I've been to a wedding where the bride's family decided the dowry, bride price, or whatever  was not enough. The groom and his friends took off to find more money, returning about 45 minutes later with the cash. The wedding then proceeded.

              We all stand submissively before the global ATM machine network like trained chickens pecking the correct colored buttons to release our grains of corn. Joe Bageant

              by Zwoof on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:48:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Semantically, dowry could mean both, yes. (0+ / 0-)

                Could.

                Doesn't mean they're historically used for the bride's family's benefit more than for the groom's, though. I could be talking more about Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian ideas of dowry more but to my understanding it's always been deeply rooted in people paying their husband-in-law's family a certain amount of money to either cover costs for the pair's first years couple of years together, as an incentive against mistreatment of said bride by the groom and his family (seeing that most of the time - which also counts for China - women go to live with their in-laws as soon as they are married off aka "patriolocality" because of patrilineal traditions) and/or for reasons like marrying a man from a higher class.

                Confucianism also included a tradition of bride price, which is why you may think dowry is gender-neutral or skews in the woman's family's favor. Bridewealth (or bride price) is what you're describing, and is generally the norm in traditional African societies but is rarely practiced in Asia compared to regular dowry agreements. An exception to the dowry customs in South-Asia is Bhutan.

      •  You know what, David? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm going to bet I know more intimately about dowry from "what little I ever heard about it" than you will ever care to learn. Of course dowry across South-East Asia or in any one of India's castes and China's one-child policy are not alike, any idiot can figure that out. They are, however, both cultural constructs that are born of and do at least perpetuate a cycle of paternalistic culture. Worse, it gives people (even supposedly enlightened ones) an excuse for active discrimination if not outright violations of human rights because it affects their family's prospects and little savings. Sociology is your friend. Spare me the kneejerk "YOU LIE!" silliness, please.

        comments that surviving Han Chinese women are more valued in their culture now than at any previous time in history.
        1) Surviving. The fact that you need to say that is enough.

        2) They are "treasured" more because population disparity literally does not allow men to marry women at the rate they used to before, that's how far this whole policy has lead the country. China is still incredibly homogenous. They're rare, aka they are valued more. If you're equating that with women's liberation or actual egalitarian values, you're sadly mistaken, friend.

        3) "[...] more valued than at any previous time in history". Same with women almost everywhere, including in the US. I guess that means we actually have true equality, then, if you're cheering that women in 2012 aren't generally treated like they lived in the 1500s?

        •  You are still using Ojibwa's diary tub, hijacking (0+ / 0-)

          its comment thread for your own political agenda. Unless you have also tutored students in both Cultural Anthropology and History you don't know more about dowry than I do, but at least you demonstrated you know how to find an answer on Wiki. That makes your original statement all the more appalling; you knew you were lying when you made it.

          On your point 2, only a non-thinker would equate valued (as one would a possession) with egalitarianism. We put women on pedestals to keep them prisoner. Naturally, like foot binding, men lie about the actual reason.

          On your point 3, 'Now that we have a black president you'll hear me cheering my true equality.' NOT. You might want to practice listening more and assuming less about what the others in a conversation are saying. Were you to do so, you wouldn't have begun your first comment with a readily demonstrable lie about some of the rest of us on this thread.

          On your point 1, I'm glad you noticed my very deliberate usage, but you seem to be irony challenged. You are correct; the fact that a woman or a black man has to use the word 'surviving' should be more than enough. Evidently, only you (in your imagination) are smart enough to grasp that. Lastly,

          Worse, it gives people (even supposedly enlightened ones) an excuse for active discrimination if not outright violations of human rights because it affects their family's prospects and little savings. Sociology is your friend.
          The first sentence in that quote is correct. Had I made it, I would have offered supporting evidence that I wasn't just making it up. I won't offer it here; it is your statement, proven or otherwise.

          And, "Sociology is your friend?" Pathetic. You bring in mind Gandalf's statement to Bilbo about Mr. Baggins' multi-meaning use of "Good day." You've called me your friend and then stated that Sociology is also my friend. Sociology and I were first introduced to each other over 60 years ago, by my grandmother. I have a deep personal knowledge of Sociology, but I don't recognize friendships with non-biological constructs. Even though I'm pretty sure you're biological, being a fellow kossak isn't enough for friendship, for me. YMMV, and appears to.

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:06:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how is discussing a different opinion (0+ / 0-)

            on one child policy hijacking a diary on one child policy?

          •  How did I know I was "lying" about anything? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pandoras Box

            Because I'm pretty sure I did not lie and especially not consciously. If you're still talking about dowry, then I have already explained that I compared them because they come into existence and are perpetuated in huge part by patriarchal, misogynist sentiments.

            As for assuming you know more about certain subjects, note that I said that I'm betting I know "more intimately". That makes quite the difference, IMO.

          •  Besides, (0+ / 0-)

            I find it funny that you're focusing so much on the word "friend" and taking it literally.

            I shouldn't have proven anything as obvious as:

            Worse, it gives people (even supposedly enlightened ones) an excuse for active discrimination if not outright violations of human rights because it affects their family's prospects and little savings.
            Or does it need quotations, annotations or links? "Sociology is your friend" refers to the fact that this is a generally accepted societal mechanism/chain of action and shouldn't be focused on like it's such a controversial thing for me to voice. Social constructs and the ensuing discrimination can be perpetuated and their effects deepened by them impacting families financially. If this needs sources for a professor/tutor in a casual conversation I don't know what to say, honestly.

            Also funny is your assumption that when you barge in, guns blazin', about how I'm lying and know nothing about dowry or anything else for that matter, I'm going to be very friendly to you. If someone says something to you along the lines of "I have to tell you, friend (or pal)" I hope you know that 99.9% of the time this is considered as ironic and not sympathetic at all, ergo I don't even see why you're making such a fuss of me using that word. Well, you're right about something: Sociology is your friend, I am not.

      •  here's a little proof for you (0+ / 0-)

        read this book:
        http://www.amazon.com/...

        •  Yet another reading comprehension challenged (0+ / 0-)

          kossak? Show me the sentence or phrase where I said I needed proof or believed the statement to be inaccurate. I said the kossak I replied to offered no proof of the accuracy of her statement. That is what we devilishly do, here at the Great Orange Satan. We offer corroborative evidence.

          Thanks, though, for the link. Bare Branches is already on my book shopping list because I want a copy in my living room. Your link reminded me to add Disposable Women and Price of Honor to my list because they belong on the same bookshelf when my nieces and nephews visit me.

          In answer to another reply from you, a comment about One Child Policy becomes a hijack of a diary on the One Child Policy when the comment's ostensible focus is used as a paper thin cover to falsely accuse other comment writers of being insufficiently pure on the subject. If she wants to rant about others being insufficiently pure and pejorative, she should write her own diary.

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:36:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are quite full of yourself (0+ / 0-)

            aren't you?

            •  Why attack David? (0+ / 0-)

              He isn't the one who attacked others by maliciously twisting their comments:

              Yeah, as long as population growth is curbed, mass female infanticide doesn't matter, amirite?
              I financially support women's rights organizations as well as environmental causes that include population concerns. I appreciate FloraLine's point, but her style has room for improvement.
              •  me attack him? did you read his comments (0+ / 0-)

                directed at me? he basically called me stupid. very nice

                since WHEN on this blog can we not have differences of opinion on ONE subject without being accused of hijacking a diary?

                •  Agreed - not very nice (0+ / 0-)

                  and, I am in no way concerned about diary hijacking by FloraLine, but I do take offense to being falsely thrown into the misogynist camp by someone who tinkers with the truth of details just to make a point. A separate diary by FloraLine, with clear intent of her agenda, would offer some valuable insight and would be well received by me.

                  •  as a person who has read a good bit about this (0+ / 0-)

                    subject, and as a woman, please allow me to offer my views. i have a feeling that FloraLine may be on the same page with me.

                    i found this diary to be incredibly dispassionate about a subject which is at the very source of passion for many - our children: our very ability to have them (or not), the world-wide cultural preference for sons (which translates into death for daughters).

                    The misogyny which drives this is very deep, and though it expresses itself most often through men, it is not limited to the male of the species by any means.

                    I also find it incredibly troubling.  It is essentially femicide.  30 to 50 MILLION women NOT born because of son preference (depending on the sources one reads). That's just in China.

                    There are other consequences to severely imbalanced sex ratios.  It is very culturally destabilizing, and does NOT necessarily result in women being held in high esteem.  It is just as likely to result in them being treated as possessions and trafficked or hidden away - unable to lead a fully expressed life.

                    I am not a fool.  I know perfectly well (better than many) that overpopulation is at the very heart of the world's problems.  I don't have the answer for this.

                    I have only a questions: how is it that the status of women fell so low that it doesn't even matter if millions fewer of them are born - even a culture which holds marriage and children in such high esteem?  Who are the men to marry? who is to have their children?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site