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.
35 · MoorNam said
MoorNam, I wasn’t expecting that from you of all people. With respect, who are you to tell the economists what their priorities should be and how they should spend their time? Aren’t they themselves the best judges of how to prioritize their own time and resources? Why the sudden uncharacteristic control-freaky behavior?
pingpong,
I have no problem if people talk about matters outside the scope of their core competency – in their own time (isn’t that what I am doing as well?). As a part of a paid job, people are better off in their own disciplines. It’s good for themselves, the university as well as everyone else. I have every right to be judgemental about others’ work. It is after all, public knowledge and open to criticism.
M. Nam
51 · pingpong said
Truth be told, economics is a pretty imperialistic profession. They tend to think their models are the be-all-and-end-all of social sciences. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that social scientists in softer fields find their incursions disrespectful and often wrong-headed.
51 · pingpong said
it ain’t sudden, you just haven’t been paying enough attention when uncle expresses his desire for good old societal roles around the chai flask. And women will go back to giving their body only to the man who will provide for them for the rest of their life.
37 · baingadabhartha said
Very true…women are women’s worst enemy sometimes.
Not true..as according to this study/book – Bare Branches
The Settlers – the movie’s called Matrubhoomi. Great watch, especially if you want to be depressed all weekend. Seriously though, it’s an eye-opener and I recommend it.
I think that people will eventually realize the folly of this when they can’t get their sons (or sons’ sons) married and the pendulum will swing back the other way. Or maybe a pro-gay movement will really take hold in India over the next hundred years or so, and the straight boys will get married, leaving the gay ones to not have to go into sham marriages. I try to see the good in every bad situation. But history moves slow. How to raise awareness over such issues? And even if awareness is raised, will people really listen? I think that people in general have to see the fruits of their actions.
As a woman’s rights folk, I can say it won’t intersect at all. basic human rights are not culturally relative and freedom of choice is not contingent on people choosing the right thing, short of a compelling state interest–like national security concerns–being at stake. the constitution is not a suicide pact, after all. we don’t suspend freedom of the press if people choose to read mein kampf, the communist manifesto, pass the roti, or the bell curve. that’s what natural rights are all about.
no, we attack the bigots without any regard to their precious cultural context. we treat them just like we would treat bigoted whites in the antebellum south. anything less is racist.
The natural gender ratio is 105 boys for 100 girls. Among Muslim Indians, it is 106 boys for 100 girls. This is similar to the gender ratios found among Christian Indians.
When it comes to HINDU Indians, however, the ratio becomes 113 boys for 100 girls.
Gender ratios in Muslim nations like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia, as well as Arab nations all follow natural trends.
Over a million Hindu and Sikh female fetuses are believed to be aborted every year. Time to look in the mirror.
When it comes to HINDU Indians, however, the ratio becomes 113 boys for 100 girls.
Ven, Please post a reference to the statistic you quoted.
The link in 46 above has 931 girls per 1000 boys for Hindus in India and 936 for Muslims, but there are significant differences in the urban sex ratio and sex ratios for children between 0-6 years.
Ven wrote:
Over a million Hindu and Sikh female fetuses are believed to be aborted every year. Time to look in the mirror.
Smallpress wrote:
the preference for male children and the murder of women and female children connected to this idea is NOT an all-India phenomena (note the comment to surrey, canada) and so we need to stop characterizing it that way as well.
Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon-General — a victory for all brown people. A statistic showing a deep hatred of women before they are even born — it’s just dem folks over dere.
Here’s some news — sexism, patriarchy, and woman-hatred span the subcontinent. Smallpress, if you want to point fingers at certain ethnicities, go ahead and express you bigotry openly. No need to hide. And do you seriously think that desi women, of any liguistic background, that choose to abort their girls are making free and unfettered personal choices? Are you completely clueless about Desi culture?
Ven — If you think sex ratios are the sole measure of sexism in a society, you are an idiot. Why not look at male-female literacy rates by religion in India? Or, better yet, why not stop using this depressing sexist situation to advance some sort of deluded idea of Muslim superiority.
All the best.
Totally agree with this sentiment. If there is a strong case to be made about sex-selection, it can surely be made without resorting to demonization. Holier-than-thou-ness seldom results in anything good. As some commenters have noted, there are reverse trends happening in various places in the world already. I’m willing to bet this wasn’t because of any sound reasoning or moral reprimands but simply a change in the trend or mindset. I do not regard this to mean that people have now become more enlightened, simply that they manifest their stupidities in other ways.
I agree with the poster who suggests outing these perps. They should be shamed into fessing up. And naturalized folks trying to get this thing done back in desh, should be screened out and denied a visa to India, or have their PIO status revoked. Aggressive policing works very well. It has in TN where all-women police stations have made life harder for wife-beaters and greedy in-laws. The campaign against baby-girl-murder too is seeing some success. Getting community specific, Salem, the gorund zero of baby-girl-murder in TN, is dominated by a certain community that is given to this abominable practice. But the practice is not known among wealthier members of the community. The fear of public shame may be a deterrent. As always there is no silver bullet; sama-dana,bheda,danda try everything.
Ikram, have you noticed the details of the study that make the conclusions of sex discrimination problematic? It has already been pointed out be several commenters that you don’t notice any disparity until the third kid.
As for the religious disparity in sex ratios I’d wager the religion is acting as a proxy for urban poor vs. rural poor and education levels. Christians are statistically better educated (mostly due to Kerela pulling the average up and having a high Christian population) and the Muslim poor are disproportionately urban relative to the Hindu poor (although there are plenty of both, when you’re trying to draw conclusions on India-wide statistics it would be wise to look deeper than whatever surface level communal wankery one might want to imply.)
Naravara wrote:
Ikram, have you noticed the details of the study that make the conclusions of sex discrimination problematic? It has already been pointed out be several commenters that you don’t notice any disparity until the third kid.
Really? Abhi pointed out that the study has not yet been published. I’m interested to know by what psychic process you, or other SM commentors, were able to discover the ‘details’ and interpret the conclusions. And also, could you tell me what next week’s winning lottery numbers are?
Abreyava has written an earlier paper, linked above, and you may want to look at the second last paragraph of page 28, the table on page 31, the last sentence in section 4.3 and the last paragraph of section 4.4.. Here are the conclusions from the earlier paper:
This study has provided empirical evidence consistent with gender selection at later births within the United States. For Chinese and Indian parents, the likelihood of having a son is significantly higher for third-born and fourth-born children as compared to first-born children … The evidence from the California natality data is particularly striking for Indian births: second-born children are 0.9 percentage points more likely to be boys, third-born children 6.5 percentage points more likely, and fourth-born children 10.0 percentage points more likely
This article, or any article, is one data point. I’ve posted, above, data on sex ratios among Canadian communities of South Asian origin. Feel free to peruse them. The preponderance of evidence suggests that South Asians in North America disproportionately engage in anti-woman sex-selective abortions.
NaraVara, I am curious as to how you explain sex-selective abortions, even for 2nd, 3rd, adn 4th children, as being making conclusions of sex discrimination problematic.
21 · Ponniyin Selvan said
brilliant comment. because we can equate all aborted embryos of both sexes from a far vaster population with aborted female embryos from a small demographic. i understand that people should be free to abort unwanted children. so maybe it’s okay for these girls not to be born to misogynistic parents. but the statistical and moral equivalence that statement makes it absolutely devoid of sense and logic. for instance, a high schooler aborting is very different from a family ready to have kids financially and emotionally, except in the case that the offsping is female. i’m not saying that the latter should not be allowed to abort, but im not going to be applaud them either. they have shitty values and priorities. and ain’t no one gonna convince me otherwise.
57 · Manju said
hear, hear. some of are just amoral, and i don’t think it’s holier-than-thou to criticize them. it’s not a matter of just mind p’s and q’s or being charitable or attending church on sunday. it’s an entire set of values that i am morally and intellectually opposed to. if that strikes some people as holier-than-thou, well, i’ll just have to risk that. of course, some people may have to agree to female foeticide because of family pressure or because dowry is something they will not be able to escape, then of course, they’re not entirely morally blameworthy or at least their complicity is mitigated.
my aunt has 8 kids – because the first 5 were girls. “thankfully”, the sixth was a boy. but she still tried, and ended up with two more boys. after that, my uncle had a vasectomy. to this day, she still treats her daughters like shit. and she cried – cried – when i told her my brother cooks some of his own meals.
i’m amazed that this continues in these days when the concept upon which this stereotype is based – that women are a burden and incapable of adding to the wealth to the family, only subtracting from it – exists to a much lesser extent, esp. in the states. perhaps it is an exception or not very reflective of desis in the US as a whole, but our social circle has mostly daughters, and all are equally, if not more, settled in their careers as the sons of the group.
also, one of my cousins in india once told me that i wasn’t really my grandfather’s grandchild since i was related to him through his daughter, rather than his son. apparently, this is the reasoning behind allowing the children of opposite siblings marry, but not children of same-sex siblings (at least in TN)- i.e. that son only take their genes from their fathers, and daughters only from their mothers (i know – wtf). can anybody comment on this (the social angle, not the medical one)?
Because if it only manifests after the first birth and the effect only becomes statistically significant after the third or fourth (and even that at only 7%) then it isn’t likely that they’re terminating their pregnancies or skewing sex ratios, it just means they’re more likely to stop having kids if they have a son.
On top of that it is well documented that the probability of bearing a male child increases with the age of the mother and with each successive pregnancy. It is theorized that this is due to changes in the viscosity of the cervical fluids. Here is one study to support it, there are plenty more but you’ll have to find those yourself: http://www.theallineed.com/biology/06012731.htm That study suggests that each successive year added to the time it took for conception is associated with a 4% increase in the probability of a male birth. That is not quite the same measure as an increase in successive births but it’s not far off.
In any event, there is very little evidence to support the claim that there is some epidemic of selective abortions. It is much more likely a combination of natural biology (which favors the birth of boys since boys tend to do stupid crap that gets them killed or maimed) and an expectation to have at least one son. The abortions are more likely done by more marginal families that can’t afford to support a non-producing member of the family or are worried about the D-word.
As for your data on the Canada statistics, first one panel does not make an argument. Second you posted up raw numbers without any statistical analysis. I see the sex ratio, but what’s the p-value? Is this number significantly different from the mean in a statistical sense? If it is different how many standard deviations above the mean is it? Do you have any evidence as to why your explanation of sex-selective abortions would cause this alleged difference that other possible explanations (some of which I have already mentioned) cannot explain just as well? You’re using the numbers to shore up a point you’ve already settled on. That’s an ass-backwards method for drawing conclusions.
Criticism is definitely called for. But the other side cannot be demonized is what I’m saying. Otherwise it begins to sound like the anti-abortionists or the anti-cigarattes brigade (hence the holier-than-thou comment).
Since you cited human rights and choice (and one can debate all night long if these are valid concepts), from a human perspective what exactly do you think is going on with this sex selection thing? Is it based on fear? pride? materialist instincts? or what? Clearly some of us came readymade in being opposed to the idea of sex selection. We were never bound by the same fears or obsessions. I cannot see this as an intellectual or moral achievement on anyone’s part. So if you got something for free why be vicious towards those who are mired in this mess? Unless you don’t actually believe in rights and choice. Anyway, I basically agree this whole thing is wrong but so is the demonization – and if I had to choose, I would go with giving people the leeway to be as stupid as they want rather than making one law after another which has not achieved anything.
68 · ak said
ak, with all due respect, certainly your aunt doesn’t seem very economically savvy 🙂 unless she is rabri devi! btw, a new novel by a precocious desi: family planning, by karan mahajan features a family with thirteen siblings.
By siblings I assume you mean cousins right? I never really took to anthropology so I’m really talking out of my ass here. But I’d guess it has to do with inheriting property and the vestiges of caste-lineage.
But I’d also advise against you taking anything your cousin says as an indication of what Indians think about these things. Your cousin in just one person and for all you know he picked up some stupid idea from some crazy person. People in general are pretty good at coming up with post hoc explanations when they have no clue what they’re talking about (see my anthropology comment above.)
70 · Divya said
i did not demonize them (pointed to mitigating circumstances @67), and i asserted the right of such people to make a choice (@66). yes, we acquire moral attitudes as we grow, but many individuals do it through effort. sometimes one has to unlearn prejudice, and especially when we reach adulthood, we have to start take responsibility of our actions and our moral development. again, these people may not be ‘demons,’ but their actions do leave them open to harsh criticism. i suspect a lot of parents (esp. well-educated immigrants) who go down this route know they’re making the wrong choice. in desh, you’ll find all manner of public posturing for keeping and cherishing daughters. so it’s not as if these people are entirely unaware of the significance of female foeticide. i believe that the moral significance of an affluent immigrant family choosing to abort is different from a poor farming family aborting in a dowry-taking community in rural or small-town india.
a story comes to mind: i think yuddhishthira, thought be the embodiment of justice on earth, punishes a brahmin more harshly than a sudra for an identical transgression. when asked why he responds that a brahmin has greater resources and circumstances for moral development as compared to a sudra. therefore, a brahmin can see the consequences and significance of his deeds. thus, he deserves harsher punishment. obv. i am not in total agreement with dharmaraj generally (what with him gambling his wife away and such) but his argument about mitigating punishment or asymmetric blame is quite compelling.
But to do that we’d need a caste system to differentiate who we’re going to hold up to higher standards!
But in the case of judging people for a culturally determined action it’s still a bit presumptuous. I don’t like the idea of abortion generally so whether it’s a boy or a girl I find it equally regrettable. But I’m still willing to grant leeway to people to make their own moral decisions on the matter and not judge the entire lot based on my preconceived stereotypes about what kind of people they are. It really is pretty holier-than-thou. You don’t know these people. You don’t know what’s motivating them to make the decisions they made individually. You’re just casting judgment on the whole group. It is possible to think that the general social trend is a bad thing and to agree that certain behaviors need to be discouraged without mounting the high horse and insulting a large and diverse group of individuals.
Naravara wrote:
Because if it only manifests after the first birth and the effect only becomes statistically significant after the third or fourth (and even that at only 7%) then it isn’t likely that they’re terminating their pregnancies or skewing sex ratios, it just means they’re more likely to stop having kids if they have a son.
That’s not what Abreyava’s earlier study shows. It’s not just that Indians are more likely to stop having kids if they have a son.. It’s that subsequent pregnancies are more likely to be boys for Indians than for non-Indians.
On top of that it is well documented that the probability of bearing a male child increases with the age of the mother and with each successive pregnancy
First, your link does not say what you think it says. It says women who take longer to get pregnant (naturally) have a higher probability of having a boy, not “older” women. See here for a more recent study.) Do you have a better link that actually supports your contention?
Second, assuming you can find a better link, it still would not support your alternative hypothesis. The data show that the probability of having a subsequent male child increases more for Indians than any other ethic group. Your alternative explanation does not sufficiently explain the published results.
As for the Canadian data, you are correct in saying that I have not done the statistical legwork. I offer ti as an additional data point suggesting that South Asians, more than other North American ethnicities, engage in sex-selective abortions. I am open to considering whatever data you may have, Canadian or American, but you have not suggested anything yet. Nor have you come up with an alternative hypothesis that can account for the data.
prot – no offense taken. of all my aunts and uncles on that side, she was already the least well-off. besides the social status issue,i think she thought that it would bring her wealth as well. obviously, that logic was off. and thanks for the novel 😉
no, i meant siblings. but i was talking about their children, i.e. cousins. the issue is why its taboo for cousins whose parents are same sex siblings (i.e. sister-sister and brother-brother) to marry, but not so if their parents are a brother and sister. yes, my family IS more than a bit crazy. however, the only reason i thought others would think that way is because he was discussing the whole genealogy issue in the context of cousin marriage – and in TN, that same taboo exists across most families who believe in cousins marrying each other.
port, you know i meant you…
I agree. But speaking for myself personally, I didn’t have to unlearn any prejudices in this particular case. My whole point is that all those crying out about this on SM are probably in the same boat. I find it hard to give anyone points just for in effect saying “OMG, look what kind of people there are in this world”, without offering any clue as to exactly what moral and intellectual hurdles they overcame and how. Good luck is not the same as moral fiber.
No idea about this as I don’t personally know “these” sort of people or have noticed any posturing.
The Yudhishter story does not apply here for me because I do not see abortion as a moral issue. You’ve got to be American for that 🙂 Needless to say, I don’t agree with your comment above. Btw, I am speaking of the demonization in general and the whole chest-beating approach to this issue, and not your comments in particular.
Question to all: Is there any desi guy in this forum who would volunteer not to give their sons (especially) and daughter their last name ? For example give a last name just like you give a first name ? I bet there would be none or a barely a handful. This is one of the the reasons that this heinous crime is being continued. This pride of last name also exists in the wealthy families in the west as Razib pointed out earlier
However, there is a trend in people in Bihar and UP (of all castes) to not pass the family name but create both the first and the last name or just to have only one name. This is to bypass any caste scrutiny. But the preference of boy in this community exists as well, which perhaps stem from economic reasons or from awful past practices.
Another reason is improper translation of sanskrit scriptures which attributes many sacred rites (including last rites for parents) to ‘Putra’. But in early sanskrit ‘putra’ implied son as well as daughter; but with passage of time we also have the word ‘putri’ for daughter. This leads to the misunderstanding that all sacred rites must be performed by the son only.
79 · Zee said
I would, gladly. I never had a “last” name till I had to apply for my passport in 3rd year of college (grew up in India). Besides my current last name (and my first name) and fairly long, so I would probably pick short names for my kids.
I had no idea this name business took such an ugly turn.
–Here’s some news — sexism, patriarchy, and woman-hatred span the subcontinent. Smallpress, if you want to point fingers at certain ethnicities, go ahead and express you bigotry openly. No need to hide. And do you seriously think that desi women, of any liguistic background, that choose to abort their girls are making free and unfettered personal choices? Are you completely clueless about Desi culture?–
i was born, raised, and am part of desi culture. i just might think through this differently from you. the women who make abortion decision may be making it for any number of reasons. it is not for you, or anyone else, to decide if their choice is free or not.
the rate of sex selected abortions is only the symptom of deep malady in the community – whichever one it is. let’s fix that – with legislation, awareness, education, public discourse, raising literacy, opportunity and empowerment of women, educating them about their rights. prosecute murder and abuse and battering of women to the maximum. stop hiding behind cultural practices as an excuse for abominable practices that harm women and children.
yelling about sex selective abortion does not fix any of the sickness that causes it. it only erodes abortion rights that already are under jeopardy and make women even more powerless.
I don’t know if you’re female bodied, but I think this is a debate for women to have. I honestly think most of these issues would be best resolved if (writ large) all the biomales just left the room annd let women decide.
That said, I will now chime in as a biomale- I don’t think you’re wrong, but how is this an either/or? It’s hard to organize women if they’re not allowed to be born because people with patriarchal ideas think that it’s best to have men. With the end result that you get a skewed sex ratio in society and weird gender politics.
83 · Dr Amonymous said
the problem here is that the most vulnerable minority is the indivdual, and under your advice individual women are still liable to get thrown under the bus, though arguable less so since men are excluded from the convo. this is why group rights aren’t recognized in our regime.
very clever. and black feminists who don’t call themselves feminsits often have a very different view of aobrtion rights b/c of context (margaret sanger and eugenics, for example). but that to do? does a groups desire for representation mean they get to control the body of an individual?
84 · Manju said
<
blockquote>83 · Dr Amonymous said
The whole thing I wrote kind of goes together as an argument, so taking individual lines from it won’t work. It’s not inherently an issue of group rights vs. individual rights – that’s only one way to frame it. the point is that whether on abortion or sex selection the focus needs to be women’s rights (both individual and group) and the questions need to be how these are secured – and my answer is – by giving women qua women power which entails ideologically opposing patriarchy and gender hierarchy in general in your policy choices and personal behavior to the extent that you’re able. I kind of suck at this, but this is what needs to happen on these two issues and on a much broader set of issues and ways of mobilizing as well.
You know, as a desi female who was born and partially raised in India, all I have to ask to all the comfy desi males here in denial is; how come when a woman in India has absolutely no control over any other decision in her life, often including the decision to marry whom and when she wants, where to live and what to do with her time, we are all of a sudden supposed to believe that having an abortion is HER FREE CHOICE?!?!
Are you frikkin serious?
Sex selection abortions have been going on for a LONG TIME in India. Before the advent of sonagrams people were killing their baby girls with their own hands.
Here’s a piece from as far back as the 19th century explaining some of the “logic” behind this way of thinking and acting INDIAN INFANTICIDE: IT’S ORIGINS
It’s been documented from at least the 1800s. And that’s just the documentation. I hate to think for how many centuries before that it’s been going on.
You think acts were carried out by independent women unbeknownst to anyone else?
They were carried out by in-laws and husbands. If the mother did kill her child with her own hands then it was at the behest of someone else.
It is indeed a cultural thing. Desi culture for a very long time, maybe since it’s inception, has devalued the female and continues to do so today.
There is so much psychological and physical pressure on desi females to conform to whatever the husbands family wants of her. Why do you think my mother left? She left to escape that pressure and give me a life free from it.
She left to experience what it was like to live life as a single divorced mother of one daughter and not be stigmatized for either one. She left to thrive as a woman.
And now I’m supposed to believe that in India women are thriving and abortions are due to Indian feminism which gives Indian women the “freedom of choice” on par with the victory of ROE VS WADE?????
Yeah, and that’s not an insult to my intelligence now is it?
Sex selective abortion is a HUGE issue in India and has been for years. Before sonagrams and access to abortions, people were killing, with their own hands, their own baby girls!!!
It is real. It has existed for along time. And it still exists now. It is because of the culture, which for a long time (maybe since it’s inception) as devalued the famle to an extreme level.
I’m probably repeating myself here but I am typing in a fury. I just can’t believe the level of denial some desi men are willing to indulge in.
There was no feminist movement in India fighting to give women the right to an abortion. Abortion was not opposed by the greater society, certainly not opposed by men. Abortion was never a moral issue or a woman’s issue in India. The technology was seen as just another way to carry on with the age old prejudice against birthing baby girls with a traditional desi marriage and extended family mileu. It had nothing to do with single, independent and sexually liberated desi women. NOTHING. What is so hard about that to understand?
Now the same people are doing it outside of India. Is it a feminist issue for them? A woman’s issue? A moral issue? Not even close.
While this anti baby girl syndrome spreads and increases over the plains and hills of India, across the shores into the US, Canada and UK, some Desis in the West will protest Prince Harry calling one of his Pakistani mates a, guess what, a Paki!
Priorities much?
Honestly I cannot believe some of the comments I read above.
Forget political correctness. I have a question; are we to believe that all cultures are equal and all cultures have the same problems to the same degrees? Why are we to believe that?
Yes, this blog touched a nerve with me. Why? Because it hits very close to home. It saddens me greatly to think that my country, my culture, a place that I love so much and that is such a major part of who I am and what I do, has this anti female pathology has one of it’s components and I am just supposed to pretend it does not exist, that it is some sort of phenomena found around the world in all cultures, and that because India has such an ancient and advanced culture that I’m supposed to shut up about anything bad within that same culture. That it’s not pathological, that it’s not widespread, that it’s an aberration or the product of Western feminism and therefore good.
I’ll stop here but there is more….
There are several videos on the internet interviewing Indian mothers who were pressured into abortions and/or killing their infant females with their own hands (it’s believe by some that if the mother does it there is no sin attached). You can google for those if you want to learn the truth behind all of this.
Thank you Femidesi for speaking the truth on both this post and the R.I.P whitey post.
While this anti baby girl syndrome spreads and increases over the plains and hills of India, across the shores into the US, Canada and UK, some Desis in the West will protest Prince Harry calling one of his Pakistani mates a, guess what, a Paki!
The anti baby girl syndrome is huge problem in Vancouver,Canada among the huge desi community. Yet the so-called community leaders will not touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. Yet anytime some minor racial comment is said all hell brakes lose and the community leaders go crazy.
Forget one thing in my passion fury of writing all of the above…
I am willing to bet that most of us here commenting on Sepia have at least one person in our family tree, even if it is 5 generations ago, that has either aborted a female fetus or resorted to other means of getting rid of “the problem”. Why do I say such a thing? Because the mentality is rampant in Desh and spans back centuries. If you read the link I linked to above, it’s interesting to note that in the very introduction “punjabis” were brought to light, and then in the first chapter “rajasthanis”. Punjab and Rajasthan are very near to each other.
Even if we were to suppose that this phenomena was isolated to these areas in the central west of India, how do we account from the prevelance of it in Tamil Nadu today (South India)???
I’ll tell you how, it started in some place at some point in time and spread from there. I am willing to bet that there is not a single desi family not affected by this at some point in their family tree history. Of course, who would know? Who would talk about it?
Something to think about.
(PS: for those who come back crying that the 19th century report was writtin by a gora and therfore biased, to his credit he acknowledges infanticide as something that was far reaching across the globe at one point in history, due to different cultural factors. He then goes on to relay what the cultural factors were in India at the time that led to baby gynocide. And, as far as I have experience, those factors are still at large in the INDIA SHINING of today.
Go on and read what Whitey has to say. Read it and weep, like I did.
I am willing to bet that most of us here commenting on Sepia have at least one person in our family tree, even if it is 5 generations ago, that has either aborted a female fetus or resorted to other means of getting rid of “the problem”.
I know of few distance relatives who have done this in the past few years
femidesi = Pardesi Gori?
I am so, so sick of the assertion that comes up on SM frequently that EVERY desi family has a history of domestic abuse, female feoticide, blah blah blah. Yes it is a problem, but there is no need to generalize and tell me that it must affect my family, just because we’re Indian, when I know FOR A FACT that it doesn’t. You don’t know my family; sorry that yours sucks and that you or your sister were devalued while growing up. BTW trying to victimize people who aren’t victims only works well on convincing young people and emotionally unstable people–not people you want supporting your cause. So get your facts straight, and try to use sources other than a nineteenth-century colonial-era Englishman whom you read and then ‘wept’ about. Instead of weeping and lamenting how Indians are such awful, awful people, DO something.
And femidesi, you’re deluded if you don’t think that even the women who have these abortions prefer sons, and choose to do this. It’s not always an issue of coercion. I can buy that it’s coercion if the woman doesn’t want an abortion because she doesn’t want to damage her uterus, but other than that, women do prefer sons. As you said, Indians are SUCH BAD PEOPLE, and that would include the horrible, horrible women for preferring sons, right?
Of course many women in India want to abort female fetuses. They have been perfectly programmed to do so;
Carter G. Woodson, from The Miseducation of the Negro
61 · Ikram said
I made no comments at all about which religion is superior and which is not. It is your hindu (fundo) mind that is having a brain fart over the possibility that Hindus might treat their women like shit. I didn’t even say anything about measure of sexism in society. Your assumptions are saying more about how you hold Hindus superior to Muslims than anything I said, pal.
I will reiterate that if you take the gender ratios of similar cultures–Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh–the gender gap ratio in India shows that Hindus are killing their girls at a much higher rate. This is especially apparent when on considers the fact that Pakistan and Bangladesh (similar cultures but dominantly Muslim) have natural gender ratios.
While trashing Muslims and Arabs for their treatment of women is the fashion of the day, and acting all incensed over hijabs and purdahs is fun and all, the fact that Hindus treat women worse than crap is hard to swallow. More Hindu women are doused in kerosene and set on fire for not bringing in adequate dowry than Muslim women are shot by a honor killing father, but the former is not going to be publicized because India is the place of mysticism and beauty and Muslim Asia is the place of barbarians.
I mention the difference because it amuses me to see Indians talking about how Saudis treat women, when the lives of women in India are worth less than the dirt they subsist on. Almost 450 million Indians live in abject poverty, with WOMEN (and children–especially girls) suffering the brunt of it.
I just think phrasing this as a “desi” problem is disingenuous. Sexism and gender inequality is a desi problem (and a world wide problem), but the killing of girl fetuses is a much more sub-desi phenomenon.
Instead of calling me an idiot, consider what is making you so defensive.
If you want more information on disparity due to religion, go to your local university library and check their academic databases.
In other news, http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=7&issueid=43&articleid=542&action=article
Ven is right in the last comment. For all the problems with sexism among muslims, female foeticide is not one of them. The worst religous groups for this is sikh’s where this is a problem in both Punjab and among punjabi sikh’s in the west. I don’t know the fact about Hindu’s but I could see this being more of north/south thing.
Femidesi: my whole (and extended) family, by quirk of fate has no male heirs. The present generation are all females (and have max one more sibling or a lone child). And all the females are alive and never been aborted, so please do not generalize about all families. But I understand that this issue struck a chord.
Ven, wow you are quite an Hindu-hater !
While trashing Muslims and Arabs for their treatment of women is the fashion of the day, and acting all incensed over hijabs and purdahs is fun and all, the fact that Hindus treat women worse than crap is hard to swallow. More Hindu women are doused in kerosene and set on fire for not bringing in adequate dowry than Muslim women are shot by a honor killing father, but the former is not going to be publicized because India is the place of mysticism and beauty and Muslim Asia is the place of barbarians.
We have a lot to do in India to improve the status of women, no doubt. I’m from Kerala, and as a Hindu, I never felt any preference for my parents to want a women – instead we were all expected to do our best in school and all become doctors…although my sisters did that, I didn’t but it would be shameful if I couldn’t support myself especially since I”m not married. So there was an attitude (though there is still for me sexism in the ideas my parents have about me getting married, but that’s a different story) that we should be able to stand on our own feet. Female infanticide is not a problem in Kerala, nor is dowry burning, though I’m sure it happens (as far as I know). I also come from an area, that frowns on dowry. I grew up with a perspective (and I’m not saying this is true) but that the Muslims in Kerala do not actively pursue education for their women, which is one reason their community lags behind socioeconomically, which is unheard of for me…so you see I come from a Hindu background that views dowry burning, female infanticide, purdah, etc as barbaric.
What goes on in South Asia,with kerosene, and female infanticide, can be seen in poorer Muslim countries like Afghanistan. Kerosene it seems, is the misogynist tool of poor people.
Hindus in India are a varied lot. The big difference between India and a country like Saudi, in women’s oppression, is that Indian law (derived from our long history of hinduism, buddhism, and islam) holds women equal…in the law you it’s illegal to kill a women for say infidelity. Legally dowry is illegal.
Changing people’s attitude (and that’s some people) will take time, but I respect the fact that both my countries (US and India) have codified the equality of women, even when there are breaches of this law. Sharia law (and I don’t know about how India deals with Muslim specific laws) is on the rise unfortunately in many Mid-East countries, and we don’t know actually how many women are killed in many of these countries, b/c a lot is censored.
So that’s a huge and important difference for me. In India I know the laws and constitution holds me as equal but in many Mid East countries, such as Saudi, women are treated like shit, legally.
I never felt any preference for my parents to want a women –
I meant to say “I never felt any preference for my parents to want a boy”
93 · Suki Dillon said
I am no fan of Mohammed or his religion but you have to give him the credit for making the pagan arab practice of female foeticide a sin and a crime. And also for treating widows with respect, unlike in brahminism which makes widows pariahs. While it is true that Mohammad set a bad example by consummating his marriage with 9 year old Ayesha (he was in his 50s then) it is also true that he set a good example for his followers by marrying a couple of aged widows as well.
have to give him the credit for making the pagan arab practice of female foeticide a sin and a crime. And also for treating widows with respect, unlike in brahminism which makes widows pariahs.
This is a crime in India now, deriving from some of the country’s Hindu and Buddhist past. I don’t know what the status of widow is in many Muslim countries is now. I do know that my grandmother, widowed some 35 years is treated with utmost respect. I’m not Brahmin, but I also know that my parents brahmin friends children (their grandparents) are also treated with respect – growing up as ABDs we would exchange stories of seeing our amamas.
It’s a very important distinction to me, that Indian society, a confluence of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity (with the Brits and earlier) created a democracy that legally holds women equal. This is not the case in Mid East or other Muslim countries.
98 · PS said
It is sheer stupidity to think that such personal anecdotes somehow contradict the charge that indian culture is the most misogynist in the world. India has an undeniably shameful record: female foeticide and infanticide; child marriage; child prostitution; bride burning; widow burning (it took non-hindus to ban this evil custom); feeding girls less than boys; rampant rapes and molestations of maids etc etc.
Trying to defend or excuse these evils makes you part of the problem.
Correction: it was female infanticide not foeticide that Mohammad banned. No technology to determine the sex of fetuses then.