This past week The Economist ran a story about gendercide and the declining rate of female births worldwide, more specifically in China and India. I found this story intriguing because its ideologies I have seen within my own family.
My maternal grandparents so badly wanted a boy that they were willing to have four children at the expense of their savings account and my grandmother's health to attain that dream. The saddest thing had to be the day that my youngest aunt was born; my mother said that when she came home from school everyone acted like it was a funeral and no one actually celebrated her sister's birth.
Now these ideas may be cast aside as old fashioned, or perhaps even as a different generation, but as the article points out, that is just not the case. Education and increased money have actually perpetuated this gender preference, instead of negating it. What drives that? My theory rests with cultural stereotypes runnign deep, especially in Asian countries (and yes, India does count as Asia.). As much as education and affluence can do pull the people out of penury and despair, it can also give rise to attaining aspirations that were previously unachievable (such as having that male son/heir). Ultrasounds are only $12; abortions happen dime a dozen. One never has to see their daughter if they don't want to.
Cultural ideologies and community relationships are intertwined in these societies, so to combat them you have to attack the main problem, the reasoning behind it. My aunt thinks its because there is an obscure religious text where it says that fathers of male children will attain Nirvana. Others keep a more paternalistic outlook, seeing the male child as the heir and perpetuation of the family name. Male children don't have dowries and can keep property in their name. But why, in this time when females have increased educational and ownership opportunities, would these things matter anymore?
While The Economist did not posit any suggestions for this, I believe that these concerns may fall further along class lines. Two generations back, the majority of Indians (85%) lived in villages, with less education and growth opportunities than their city counterparts. But as India has progressed from colonial times to the modern age, so have its citizens, heading in droves to cities, occupying slums and various other ramshackle apartments. Their pursuits are of little concern, but their numbers are outstanding, with only 70% of Indians choosing to live in villages in 1991. Those numbers are growing, and with increased opportunities, there is a growing middle class as well. This middle class is only one (less for some) generation removed from the village outlook and mentality.
It is truly unfortunate that children are manipulated this way, but studies show that female Indian children are still better off than their Chinese equivalents, who are often unceremoniously killed upon arrival. The one child policy has left China worse off for the future, featuring staggering statistics of 123 males to 100 female births. Social unrest is imminent, with increasing males and less options for creating families (who will be their brides?), dissatisfied males will look to something to keep them occupied. Maybe China knows this and is excellent at keeping down rebellions (read: Tinamen Square) or they have not considered a future with frustrated young males itching to break out. The possibilities are endless, but all eyes are on China in twenty years.
As for India, the next generation may hold the key to gender stability. Yet, as more people move from villages to the city, there may be periodic pendulum swings in gender ratios as well. Sometimes you can take the person out of the village, but you just can't take the village out of the person.
"Gendercide: The Worldwide War on Baby Girls." The Economist 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15636231&source=hptextfeature>
