Skip to main content

In 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), a mathematician and a Christian minister, published An Essay on the Principle of Population.  He insisted that the power of the population is indefinitely greater than the power of the Earth to produce subsistence. Therefore, there is a natural law which states that the population would inevitably exhaust food supplies. While his ideas were a fairly accurate description of pre-industrial societies, his predictions of disaster did not materialize. Instead new methods of farming enabled food production to stay ahead of population growth.

In the 1960s, scientists again began to look seriously at some of Malthus’s ideas. Books such as The Population Bomb (1968) by Paul Ehrlich called for public policies to limit population growth. Like Malthus, these Neo-Malthusians predicted a population doomsday unless countries began to implement some population controls. By 1979 it was apparent that China’s population, estimated at 972 million, was growing at a rate which could not be sustained. In order to slow this population growth, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping sought to temporarily limit his country’s population growth with a One Child Policy.

The One Child Policy applies primarily to the Han Chinese, the largest ethnic group in China. While there are over 50 ethnic groups in China, the Han make up about 91% of the population. The One Child Policy provides some reward to families with only one child: higher wages, better schooling, better employment, and preferential treatment in obtaining government assistance and loans. On the other hand, for families who violate the One Child Policy there are sanctions, including fines, employment termination, and difficulty in obtaining government assistance.

At the present time, over half of China’s population (51%) lives in cities. Among the rural Han, a family can apply to have a second child if their first child is a girl. If a family’s first child is born with birth defects or major health problems, the couple is usually permitted to have a second child.

An interesting exception to the One Child Policy applies when two singleton children (the only offspring of their parents) marry. In this case, the couple is allowed to have two children.

When couples are permitted to have a second child, they usually have to wait from three to four years before conceiving their second child.

In a normal population, there are about 107 boys born for every 100 girls. Girls are biologically stronger than boys and are more likely to survive to adulthood. In China, however, the One Child Policy seems to have resulted in a ratio of 113 boys for every 100 girls. There appears to be sex-selective abortion, neglect, abandonment, and even infanticide of females due to some strong cultural preferences for male children.

China, the most populous country in the world, currently has a population of about 1.343 billion, which represents a growth rate of 138% since the One Child Policy was adopted. In comparison, the world’s second most populous country, India, currently has a population of 1.205 billion, which represents a growth rate of 180% since 1979. Most demographers project that India will pass China to become the most populous country in the world by 2027 or perhaps earlier.

China’s population is projected to reach a peak of 1.46 billion people by 2030 and then fall to 1.3 billion by 2050. It is anticipated that China will achieve zero population growth by 2025 and by 2050, China’s population growth rate will be -0.5%.

One of the population indicators used by demographers is the total fertility rate (TFR): the average number of children a woman will have during her lifetime. By 1967, the Chinese TFR was 5.91 and by 1978 it had declined to 2.91. At the present time, it is 1.55. A population is stable when the TFR is 2.1. In comparison, Japan currently has a TFR of 1.2, the countries of the European Union 1.5, Canada 1.6, and the United States 2.1.

Originally posted to Ojibwa on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:09 AM PST.

Also republished by History for Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's my understanding (10+ / 0-)

    that it is the minority population who is keeping the US birth rate at its current level.  Otherwise it would be more like Canada's.
    Thanks for the diary, it was a good read.  It would be interesting to know what the affect has been on China of the sex ratio disparity.

  •  One of the worst effects of 1 child is divorce (10+ / 0-)

    If  a couple has a girl, often the male will divorce and seek another bride to provide him with a male heir.

    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 09:30:47 AM PST

  •  If they had called it the 2 child policy.. (6+ / 0-)

    most of their problems would have been avoided. The problem with China at that time was that difficult policy choices were dictated by politicians with little expertise.

    It's now obvious that if you want to end up at a steady state and then declining (but not catastrophically declining) population, the right number is 2 (replace mom and dad). China had ideologues who wanted to do things quickly, regardless of predictable consequences.

    Mao actually favored big families, but Deng reversed him and initiated one child. Deng, who was usually a sophisticated economic thinker, got this one spectacularly wrong.

  •  Interesting -Sex Selection has led to making (11+ / 0-)

    ethnic Chinese women in great demand.  Equality comes at a price, but interestingly having less girls has caused them to have greater influence.

    Sexual revolution has come to China.  I hope they are ready for it.

    "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

    by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:34:21 AM PST

    •  It has actually made a difference for women (5+ / 0-)

      in China.

      First off, most of the sex selection happens in rural areas.  (not all, mind you)  I'm guessing if you divided up the 113 to 100 births between urban & rural, you'd be closer to the normal 107:100 average for urban Chinese, while probably closer to 115 or more:100 for rural.  I'm guessing the urban rate is still higher than 107:100, though.

      Also, in the past, if a family had 10 children and 5 were boys and 5 were girls, the boys would be the ones that got almost the entirety of the family resources in terms of money for schooling.  Now that most families have one child, with some having two, the families will put their monetary resources into helping that one child succeed educationally, be it a boy or a girl.

      I'm not endorsing the policy, but it has helped out women in China in terms of equality of opportunity - after the child is born and makes it to her first birthday.

      (And, just from my experience having been to China several times and knowing many Chinese here in the US, you'll find the younger generation of married men in the more urban eastern China doing a majority of the housework.  Ask somebody from China if it's true that men in Shanghai do all the housework, and most Chinese will respond that it's true.)

      "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

      by newjeffct on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:34:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  as someone who benefits from this policy (10+ / 0-)

    I have to say, it has worked well for China's development. There were orphanages and abandoned babies long before the policy, as you mention, due to a strong cultural preference for males. In China, the eldest son is required to look after the parents, so with no Social Security and political upheaval, making a choice of "keep a daughter who will marry and look after her inlaws, or a son who will make sure we don't starve in our later years" is not anti-female, but about survival. My family adopted a healthy male baby, who could have gotten a high price on the black market, so I am grateful he was taken to an orphanage where we were able to adopt him. We learned through sources that his mother was young and single, and such a woman would not have had the choice to keep a baby.

    George W. Bush: the worst Republican president SO FAR.

    by Chun Yang on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:36:19 AM PST

    •  My daughter and her husband benefitted, too (6+ / 0-)

      but for the opposite reason.  They adopted a little girl from China last fall.  My granddaughter was found abandoned by the road at birth.  She has albinism which may have factored into her being abandoned. She was 2 and a quarter years old when my daughter and son-in-law adopted her.  So far, she done quite well without any signs of reactive attachment disorder.

      A really good book on adopted Chinese girls and the problem of abandoned Chinese girls is The Lost Daughters of China by Karin Evans, the mother of two adopted Chinese daughters.

  •  Before praising.... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, Ojibwa, ozsea1, docmidwest, Lujane

    ......the Chinese government for the solution (this diarist doesn't, but some do), we should note that the government, or more specifically Mao Zedong, was a major factor in creating it. At the end of the Second World War, a century of utter disaster had brought the population of China to its lowest level in modern times. Mao was told in the early 1950s that a two-child policy would stabilize the Chinese population at under a billion people, possibly as low as 850 million. Unfortunately, Mao was a classical Confucian when it came to population growth, seeing it as an unmitigated good (economics is not Confucianism's strong suit, to put it mildly). Mao's reputed remark remark rejecting population control, "Every stomach comes with two hands attached" testifies to his Confucian habits of thought on this matter. He also thought that the more people China had, the easier it would be to survive a nuclear war.

    "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

    by sagesource on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:38:35 AM PST

    •  another thing with Mao (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, Ojibwa

      I think that he followed the standard communistic theory that more workers were better, and encouraged big families. The Russians did the same.

      I don't want to defend the policy in its entirety, and especially the draconian ways it was enforced, except that I am married to a demographer so my view is differently informed. Most every country that develops lowers its birth rate.The way people begin to have economic stability is through women being able to control and space births. China did this in a more forceful way, but then, more starvation would not have been a compassion way to limit population, either(if they did not have food to feed people.) I think that the end result of Chinese being more thoughtful in planning families is positive, and despite tradition, girls are plenty valued in the cities where an educated daughter can be seen to be as close as a son. I still see a lot of places where children are not planned and where their outcome is not good.

      George W. Bush: the worst Republican president SO FAR.

      by Chun Yang on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:54:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A good post on an interesting subject (8+ / 0-)

    and it happened to be a subject I was discussing with a friend just yesterday.

    And, being familiar with some Asian families I'm very aware of preferences for boys sometimes just because they are boys. A brother in law recently wanted to disown his daughter, and abort the baby when she became pregnant. Now the baby is a boy and he wants it. Crazy.

    I like both varieties and wouldn't wish for anything but one of each.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:59:58 AM PST

  •  Ah Malthusians (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ojibwa, lovelyivy, HamdenRice, trumpeter

    Perfect track record, having called 11 of the last 0 global calamities.

    You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Pierce

    by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:17:47 AM PST

    •  They only have to be right once (6+ / 0-)

      Growth has a limit.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:42:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is not rocket science to see it cannot go on (5+ / 0-)

        forever.  If anything, we might simply be ensuring a larger disaster when we hit the limit.  After all, what do you think was going through the minds of the Polynesians when they chopped down the last tree on Easter Island?

        My guess is it was something like: "Oh F$%^!, what do we do now!?"

        and their contempt for the Latin schools was applauded by Theodoric himself, who gratified their prejudices, or his own, by declaring that the child who had trembled at a rod would never dare to look upon a sword.

        by ban48 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:53:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The problem isn't calamity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6ZONite, Ojibwa

      The big problem is, as Kurt Vonnegut pointed out, dignity.

      The mid-range UN estimate is that world population will be 10 billion people. There will be 3 billion more people on earth than there are now, and they will all expect the same amount of dignity as we currently enjoy. We can't even take care of the 7 billion who are here now, how the hell is that going to work?

      Small varmints, if you will.

      by aztecraingod on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:21:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are there rewards & incentives to have no kids? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ojibwa, 6ZONite, lovelyivy

    Because that's a system I could really support.

  •  I can't believe you all are ENDORSING this policy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloraLine, Diana in NoVa

    What the fuck?

    I thought we were progressives here.

    1) Do you believe the government should be able to tell you how many children you can have?  

    This after fighting tooth and nail to make it so you can CHOOSE who you marry.

    2) Do you believe that people making sex selection decisions based on govt policy is not OK?

    Because it isn't.  We're all pro-choice, but the abortion decision is between a woman and her doctor/belief system, not government.  Bottom line, if you want more than 2 kids, you should not have to be penalized or be forced into an abortion - that is just as wrong as not allowing abortions at all - because it violates the principle of choice.

    Wow.

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

    by jgkojak on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:37:51 AM PST

    •  Diarist didnt praise the policy (8+ / 0-)

      This diary just seemed to explain the policy and lay out what the results have been thus far, and what the projected effects on China's population may be. YMMV, but I didn't read this as an endorsement.

    •  I am not defending the one-child policy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6ZONite, davidincleveland

      However, it must be noted that the children you are choosing to have may take food out of the mouths of other children in the future.

      Every person who cannot provide for themselves economically is a drain on those who can or do. Too much population on not enough of a resource base means misery for all or most.

      So, you believe in the absolute right to have as many children as you want? Do you also believe that people who have more children than they can handle have the right to demand that other people give up their resources and dreams to pay for them?

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:58:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your comment illuminates the disease that explains (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6ZONite, Chun Yang

      my sig. Homo sapiens (sarcasm intended with the underline) has concluded that individual desire trumps species and planetary survival. Over 50 years ago as a teenager I recognized that the 2100 AD of my sig was inevitable because the overwhelming majority of our supposedly intelligent species think like you.

      No. The right to individual multiplication at the expense of all other life, including one's own offspring is not a progressive value. It is not sapient, and may not even be sentient. It is the philosophy of Pond Scum --give those algae sunlight and nutrients and they'll choke out everything else. When the nutrients stop the big die-off begins. This time the stench of our fatal choices will be planetary. Praise the universe that our species will never infest another world.

      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 12:08:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, our way has worked "so well" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, 6ZONite

        It is a progressive value to believe in autonomy, but not to make choices that harm society. The Chinese would see our ability to allow teenagers to have babies and keep and raise them, at a cost to society, to their own education and goals, etc. and not think much of our "freedom." Do we really want people's individual choices to strain our social fabric? In our system, we allow it but I think we progressives promote policies that give more opportunity and a chance to think about others.
        When these policies came into play, much, much more was regulated in an average person's life in China. My friends in their 40s and older were told what to study, when they could try to conceive, etc.  I don't agree with that system, but I do agree that being proactive about population growth was a correct direction.

        George W. Bush: the worst Republican president SO FAR.

        by Chun Yang on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:07:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I remember the shock on my students' faces (6+ / 0-)

    when I showed an exponential population graph and explained that if parents had more children than the two that would replace them, population inevitably grew. Many of them had not thought about population growth in such personal terms, and were shocked by the idea - when they realized it was true. It's interesting to think about the choice faced by the Chinese leadership - inflict the pain of extreme restrictions on birth now, or inflict the pain of extreme overpopulation on later generations. It's a rotten choice, either way, but a more courageous one to act sooner rather than sweeping the problem down the road. I wonder if there would have been a more humane way of handling it.

    We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.
    Julian Castro, DNC 4 Sept 2012

    by pixxer on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:42:20 AM PST

    •  if only they had immediately started working (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pixxer

      on providing some kind of social security and making an effort to raise the status of females, they might not be facing such a severe sex ratio imbalance now - estimates at about fifty MILLION "missing" women.

  •  The concept of sharing (5+ / 0-)

    I had Thanksgiving dinner with a Chinese couple. Both were only children, and they said that one consequence of the One Child Policy is that only kids aren't having to learn how to share with siblings. It apparently oftentimes causes problems when couples first live together, and they said they really struggled with it themselves. I think we see that on an individual basis here, but I hadn't considered this unintended consequence and the effect not learning to share may have on their society as a whole.

  •  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?

  •  That's 1.38%/year and 1.80%/year, not 138% etc./nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    6ZONite, Ojibwa

    Michael Weissman UID 197542

    by docmidwest on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:48:15 AM PST

  •  Very interesting, Ojibwa. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ojibwa

    I did not realize that China's one child policy was so recent.  I had somehow assumed it started long before Mao Zedong died, closer to the time of the 1959-1961 famine.  

  •  When I read in "Half the Sky" about the Indian (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ojibwa

    woman who killed her daughter because "girls are unlucky," I felt so ill I could not finish the book.  I had read newspaper accounts of how little girls in India are given poisoned fruit juice so their brothers can get most of the family resources.

    Our family has a copy of the old Pears Encyclopedia.  When I read in it that unwanted girl babies in China were fed to pigs, I also felt violently ill.  I despise patriarchy as it is, but these facts make loathe both China and India.  Murder is murder.

    The USA is not an ideal place to be female--you can be fired if you're too pretty (like the woman in Iowa), fired for being "too smart," like my friend in Florida), but it's MILES better than India or China.

    My little granddaughter, going on four, is half-Chinese.  Her mother told us she never wants to live in China again, although she would visit it to see her father and friends. I can't imagine how anyone would harm such a beautiful, bright child as my granddaughter. Thank GODDESS we live here in the States!

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:24:46 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site