Options
Why do some cultures prefer male children
happygirl22
Posts: 409 Forum Member
✭
To the extent they would actively abort female babies?
I was reminded of this practice from a couple posts I read in this thread
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2092119&page=2
I thought it was a problem with poor people in some societies due to dowries. How do they know if they're having a girl or boy? Are scans free to everyone anywhere Does China have the dowry system as well as places like India?
Not picking on any country or culture but I can't imagine aborting for the sake of a child's gender
Apparently it happens in the UK too with what can be called as "comfortable" families so that makes me think there is more to it than any poverty need and I want to know what that need is, and please don't mention religion as there is no basis there from all I have read, it's cultural and I'm interested in the root of some of the ideas of any culture that puts male life above female life
I was reminded of this practice from a couple posts I read in this thread
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2092119&page=2
I thought it was a problem with poor people in some societies due to dowries. How do they know if they're having a girl or boy? Are scans free to everyone anywhere Does China have the dowry system as well as places like India?
Not picking on any country or culture but I can't imagine aborting for the sake of a child's gender
Apparently it happens in the UK too with what can be called as "comfortable" families so that makes me think there is more to it than any poverty need and I want to know what that need is, and please don't mention religion as there is no basis there from all I have read, it's cultural and I'm interested in the root of some of the ideas of any culture that puts male life above female life
0
Comments
In those cultures that practice this, female children are seen as a burden. From the religious angle, they are sometimes even seen as God's judgement on the father's masculinity. He is expected to produce a male heir. And it doesn't just happen foreign cultures, either.
Take Henry VIII for example. Catherine of Aragon gave him a daughter, Mary but miscarried several times without giving him a male heir. For this he divorced her and caused a massive religious schism between England and Rome which exists to this day. He married Anne Boleyn and she gave him a daughter, Elizabeth but miscarried a male foetus. For this he had her beheaded on (trumped up?) charges of adultery and incest.
This didn't happen in some primitive tribal regime... this was right here in post-Renaissance England, in the very highest social echelon of the land. If it can happen in those circumstances, it can happen anywhere. The fact that female infanticide continues to happen today is not only tragic, but a testament to the male dominance that persists despite all of womankind's attempts to civilise the world.
To such cultures, females are a burden. Apparently, we cannot hunt, we cannot work, we cannot create wealth. We have no value other than as potential future brides to be bartered for social position or financial gain and our bodies are mere baby making machines intended for the purpose of bringing more males into the world, and if a woman cannot do that properly then the blame for this 'failure' falls on her shoulders. That about sums it up in a nutshell.
Of course, Femicide is now a practice that is recognised for the appalling crime against humanity that it is and our legal framework quite rightly outlaws it. We have, at least, got that far. In the last few years we have seen the law of Primo Geniture adjusted..... the rule which dictated that a male heir to the throne would trump a female one in the line of succession has been subtly altered. Now, if Princess Charlotte had been born first, she would have ascended regardless of how many sons William and Kate subsequently had. It was not always so, but it is now. We are changing for the better. Slowly, 'tis true, but it's happening.
I doubt very much that there is any male poster on this site who would defend these abhorrent practices. Decent men recognise it for the wrong that it is. But there can be no denying that it does go on in this country. Worse still, the disgusting crime of female genital mutilation is still practiced.
Where - and more importantly when - will it all end..? I don't know. All we can do, as women, is keep speaking out.... keep campaigning.... keep lobbying the politicians for more resources to be dedicated to fighting this. Keep making a noise. Never quit. Never give in.
We owe it to ourselves.
Just to add a bit to Henry VIII's defence - he was born just after the War of the Roses - a very long, very damaging civil war caused by rows over succession. For a medeaval king not to leave a clear, strong heir would be risking his kingdom's future. At that time there had never been a Queen Regnant of England so he didn't want to risk not leaving a male heir.
(Actually we did sort of have Queen Matilda in the 12th Century though she was never fully recognised and the whole period was so tumultuous that it was referred to as "The Anarchy" by historians.)
Thank you for that Shrike and I agree your comments about Henry's position at the time of his reign. The weight of expectation on him was enormous but it should be pointed out that this was a consequence of the state of patriarchy that existed. Had there not been a requirement to produce a MALE heir then Mary would have been quite acceptable as a future queen and just imagine how things might have turned out:
There would have been no break with Rome, Mary would have been able to reign over Catholic England and would probably have never acquired her sobriquet of "Bloody Mary". Edward VI would never have lived, neither would Elizabeth I. There would have been no execution of Mary Queen of Scots and the Armada would never have threatened England.
Of course, Mary would have died childless anyway and therefore the House of Stuart, ruled over by Mary Queen of Scots, would have come to the throne earlier than it did and who knows where that might have led.
The course of English history might have been radically different..... and all for want of a male heir..!!
Incidentally, I take your point on Matilda. She should have been Queen and it was the reign of King Stephen which became known as The Anarchy. He was a king who reigned over a bloody feudal war but it is Matilda who has been saddled, historically with the label of "She Wolf." No justice, is there..?
E.g. If there was 1 man and 1000 women, then that man could have 1000 children.
But if there was 1 woman and 1000 men, then that woman could only have < 30 children in a lifetime with those men.
I fail to see the relevance of this. The discussion isn't about logistics, it's about the social, economic and political structures in any country that disenfranchises the female gender, or allows the practices of femicide or female genital mutilation.
As for your somewhat spurious - and irrelevant - point, I might suggest that if your scenario ever became in any way realistic, I envisage approximately 1000 headaches to be a regular occurrence.
All the info is there for you to see the relevance.
There is no real 'information' there at all, only an illogical and unreasonable scenario which doesn't bear any reality to the situation. It certainly doesn't justify anything
How does your scenario, for instance, justify the practice of aborting healthy female foetuses for the sole reason that they are female....?
If there were sort of validity to your scenario (which there isn't), it would seem more logical that male foetuses should be aborted because..... as you state.... only one is needed to fertilise many females.
Would you not mind as much if it were the male species they didn't like.
Speaking as a true believer in equality.
One would be as abhorrent as the other.
How could he have 1000 children if there weren't enough women to carry them?
You've got it the wrong way round. Think of a herd of cattle. For breeding purposes only one bull is needed to impregnate nany cows, therefore bullocks are surplus to requirements.
But because women are often more willing to bend and sacrifice to please men than likewise, you'll find women hoping for a boy to please their husband.
Just an idea, could be nonsense.
When I was in hospital having mine, there was an Asian girl who had a daughter. Nobody came to visit her because the baby was a girl. Her husband came to collect her when it was time - he didn't even look at the baby or speak to his wife,, just went staming off down the corridor leaving her trailing.
She didn't even speak English so couldn't get some company with the other mothers.
I never felt so sorry for anyone in my life.
We have a two year old granddaughter now and a four months old grandson.
My son and daughter in law,didn't even know what they were having,because it made no difference.Of course they are delighted to have one of each.As are we.My granddaughter is a live wire,an absolute pleasure.And little man is just starting to make himself known.
Absolutely disgusting but sadly not very surprising - why we continue to pander to backwards cultural attitudes like this is beyond me.
Mosuo, Minangkabou, Akan, Bribri, Garo & Nagovisi?
That's in terms of survival of the species but I'm talking in terms of the family line.
If you have loads of sons, you have more chance of loads of grandchildren, in comparison to having loads of daughters.
LOL
The facts are the facts you can't dismiss them just because you don't like them.
The fact is that a male can inseminate loads of women, where as women can only have one child a year.
FACT.
But in China, where the one-child policy has led to families choosing to abort baby girls, there is now a massive shortage of women. Most countries tend to naturally end up with a 50/50 in terms of boys and girls born in total. In China there are now over 40 million men with no chance of getting one woman, let alone the loads you are talking about. Some are now importing brides from other countries and that's not working out too well either as a lot of families would prefer someone from the same culture and reject a son's 'foreign bride'.
So, as far as China is concerned, the preference for male offspring has lead to a shortage of Chinese women who will bear children. Therefore, a man being able to inseminate loads makes no difference whatsoever in this scenario. He's never going to get one. There are loads of virgin bachelors in China with no hope whatsoever of spreading their seed. At some point you would think that families would have realised this and been delighted to have a girl to improve their chances of having descendants.
Chinese brides are now highly prized.
Yes and again in terms of family line, it is the family line that breeds that matters. Not those who can't get a woman to breed with.