The San Jose Mercury News has an article highlighting some soon-to-be-published findings by economists at both Columbia University and the University of Texas who were studying Asian immigrant communities. The findings indicate that the practice of sex selection among Asian immigrants does not stop at American shores as many of us would like to believe:
Researchers are finding the first evidence that some Asian immigrant families are using U.S. medical technology to have sons instead of daughters, apparently acting on an age-old cultural prejudice that has led to high ratios of boys to girls in parts of China and India.
The new research, produced by independent teams of economists who arrived at similar conclusions, focused on Indian, Chinese and Korean families who first had girls and then used modern technology to have a son…For some South Asian couples, having a boy is a “status symbol,” said Deepka Lalwani of Milpitas, the founder and president of Indian Business & Professional Women, a nonprofit business support network. “If a woman has male children, she feels in her family, certainly with her in-laws, that her status will go up because now she is the mother of a male child…”
Such cultural pressures may explain the recent findings. A Columbia University study suggests that Chinese, Indian and Korean immigrants have been using medical technology, most likely including abortion, to assure their later children were boys. And a soon-to-be published analysis of birth records by a University of Texas economist estimates there were 2,000 “missing girls” between 1991 and 2004 among immigrant families from China and India living in the U.S. — children never born because their parents chose to have sons instead. [Link]
Perhaps I’ve just been very naive but I was quite surprised by this finding. Given that the prime reason for preferring sons in Asian countries is that sons serve as a social security net, I just assumed the practice would be swept aside in America given that there are alternate means of obtaining social security and that women here have a greater ability to rise up the socio-economic ladder and support the family. I guess I did not put enough importance in the desire some of these families have to preserve their names through a male heir.
Among Indian families in Santa Clara County in the 1990s, Texas economist Jason Abrevaya found a 58 percent chance of having a son among families that first had two girls — significantly higher than the natural 51 percent chance of having a boy.
The teams found no comparable bias toward boys among white, black and Japanese-American families that first had girls…<
p>Abrevaya found evidence that female infanticide, a practice documented in India and China, is not happening in the U.S. The economists’ data indicates only that some couples have manipulated the natural odds of having a son or daughter; it does not identify the means they used to do it.
“If gender-selective abortion is the cause for the unusual Asian Indian boy birth ratios, then the abortion rate would be 20 to 25 percent of female fetuses who otherwise would have been the family’s third or fourth child,” Abrevaya said… [Link]
One of the main techniques that parents are using to boost the odds of having a male child is something called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In this technique the doctor harvests fertilized embryos after identifying their sex and then implants them into the womb.
Some who study the Indian diaspora say son-selection may not die out, even in the U.S. Abrevaya, who found much stronger evidence for son-selection among Indians than among Chinese living in the U.S., worries that as PGD becomes less expensive, more people will use it. [Link]
That was the other fact the surprised me. Indian immigrants are more likely to hang on this practice than Chinese immigrants.
Preeti Shekar, a Berkeley-based journalist and activist who believes there are “sexist and racist consequences” to medical technologies like PGD, has urged a petition campaign to stop the ethnic media from running ads [for PGD]
One San Jose doctor received angry letters after he ran ads in India Currents magazine promoting “sex preselection” services.
Dr. Suresh Nayak uses a technique that selects sperm before conception to greatly increase the odds of having a child of the chosen gender. Nayak did not respond to telephone calls from the San Jose Mercury News, but highlights those services on his Web site. [Link]
<
p>Nayak’s logic for offering this technique doesn’t pass the ethical sniff test for me:
“Being in the obstetrics-gynecology field, I see a fair number of couples terminating pregnancies of the ‘undesired sex’ after doing ultrasounds and amniocentesis,” Nayak wrote. “There would be fewer couples doing that if these same couples used the Ericsson method of sex selection…” [Link]
Even though Abrevaya’s paper isn’t out yet I did find a previous paper by him
on the same topic in case anyone is interested in the data.
100 · Patanjali said
C’mon, Prema! Surely, for such an experienced exponent of exaggeration and hyperbole, the minor rhetorical upgrade from infanticide to foeticide shouldn’t have to merit an amendment?
If Only they could make a movie, like Kandahar for instance,which has solved the problem of widows in Afghanistan! The Taliban loved that movie! Prema, please talk to Hollywood/Bollywood. My personal anecdote by the way, is to show, don’t f-ing sterotype my Hindu culture – by revealing your stupid exagerations and often times outright lies, doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring India’s or other cultures problems – but to understand a problem you have to see it truthfully. And again, whereas in many other countries are legally made unequal, the culture of India has created a form of govt in which women are legally equal – big difference. We’ll talk more Prema/Valmiki/Slumdog,etc later….
And again, whereas in many other countries are legally made unequal
Meant to say “And again, whereas in many other countries women are legally made unequal”
102 · PS said
Lie after stupid lie. It wasn’t hindu culture that created the modern secular constitution of India. The constitution was aped from India’s colonial rulers. India’s western inspired govt can pass law after law to appease western sensibilities but the misogynist and casteist culture remains strongly entrenched because the will to enforce the modern enlightened laws is just not there.
India has many laws but very little enforcement. Laws are enforced depending on the situation – not too different from other parts of the world…….
104 · Patanjali said
So are “intolerant or anti-secular comments” only bad if they’re not directed at Hindus?
what?? those muslims secretly usurped our constitution too? we need a historical investigation into this matter, pronto. and a saffron rewriting of the constitution! paging koenraad elst!
104 · Patanjali said
prema, you gots to give credit where it’s due. are we indians great at reverse engineering or what?
104 · Patanjali said
i have to admit that sometimes when prema says rah-rah china, it is often warranted. now look at how original the chinese constitution is:
now we, who have “aped” western constitutions, still foolishly a democracy precludes a dictatorship. but the innovative chinese have come beat us yet again and come up with this entirely new modern of governance: “democratic dictatorship.” prema, you’re truly ahead of our times. what an eye for trend-spotting!
I wonder to what extent infaticide was prevelent during Guru Nanak’s time and if he addressed the issue at all?
For religions like Islam and Sikhi that have only one holy book and small number of revered prophets, saints and gurus, it seems like such a problem could be easily brought under control for the devout by explicit declarations of forbiddeness from their prophet/guru and/or holy book. I think that is why desi Muslims have healthier gender ratios. The act was explicitly forbidden by their prophet.
That of course does not excuse any of the other misogynist traits of the religion, but at least we can acknowledge this step in the right direction.
Personally I feel the best places on Earth for desi Hindu and Muslim women to live are countries where Islam and Hinduism are NOT the majority. The ideal place is a town where Hindus and Muslims are present, but are in the minority. A place where 1, maximum 2, mosques and mandirs are present so that we women can get our religious fix on the weekends but live our lives without the prying eyes and pressures of a large community of culture obsessed desi (or arab) Muslims and Hindus.
This is why my mom would only let me go to Hare Krishna temples when I was little and wanted to experience “my mom’s religion”. After leaving India she wanted nothing to do with the same cultural crap thousands of miles across the 7 seas and she didn’t want her daughter exposed to all those idiosyncrises. Unfortunately at some point she objected to my involvement at the Hare Krishan temple as well and we had a parting of ways when I turned 18 and took my first trip “home”. I begged her to accompany me and re-unite with her family but she had not desire. I still go to India every few years and she has still yet to accompany me. The only think she held onto from India was her particular brand of Hinduism. And she held onto it alone, without the help of any mandir or cultural events, aside from the Hare Krishna temple, which at some point she distanced herself from because even that became “too Indianized and sexist”.
I have a hard time believing that without any input from outside, India would be moving anywhere near a state of equal rights.
The laws are intact but then what’s the excuse for this?
Temple purified after dalit government minister enters
You can take the priest out of the caste but you can’t take the caste out of the priest….
@Divya, 71. So since choice is an individual decision and we should, like good little liberals, give sex-selecting, abortion-seeking South Asians the ‘choice’ of aborting female foetuses, why not extend this moral relativity, ‘choice is king’ bullshit and condone rapists and murderers, cause, aren’t they entitled to ‘choice’ too? Sorry for the inelegantly worded response, but, sex-selective abortion isn’t just some marginal phenomenon, some quaint eccentricity, it has far reaching consequences on gender equality, political stability and social progress. Have you lived in India anytime? Live in a moffusil town like Burhanpur and then talk about women’s rights and choice being relative terms. Most choices are not made in a vacuum and the society has an obligation to curtail the freedom of those who seek to make socially irresponsible choices.
That said, its completely pointless to try and link the pro-choice debate in the West to the tragedy of sex-selective abortions in India. Both are utterly disimilar in cultural context and social ramifications. AND its possible to be pro-choice and be opposed to sex-selective abortions. Its a valid moral and ethical position, for me at least
Preeti said: >>society has an obligation to curtail the freedom of those who seek to make socially irresponsible choices.
Good. Then let society handle it. Leave the Government out of this issue.
M. Nam
112 · MoorNam said
Keep in mind though. When the government is incapable of and unwilling to maintain law and order “society” ends up being policed by the guys who beat up pub-goers and throw fits over decals. There are appropriate ways of imposing social mores and inappropriate ways but the line between the two is barely visible when the government doesn’t have the police point it out.