One of the most controversial policies in the last 30 years is China's one-child policy. Who hasn't heard of the grueling stories of women having to give children up for adoption when they are born the wrong gender? Controversial and sexist, China's one-child policy has caused an imbalance in the number of men verse women in China, as there is a preference to having male children. According to today's Times, they are a far from changing this law.
Mr. Zhang said that 200 million people would enter childbearing age during the next decade and that prematurely abandoning the one-child policy could add unwanted volatility to the birthrate.“Given such a large population base, there would be major fluctuations in population growth if we abandoned the one-child rule now,� he said. “It would cause serious problems and add extra pressure on social and economic development.�
China, with more than 1.3 billion people, is the world’s most populous nation. For nearly three decades, it has enforced one of the world’s strictest family planning policies. Most urban couples are limited to a single child, while farmers are often allowed to have two. Critics say the policy is coercive and has led to numerous abuses, including forced abortions, which continue in some areas.
Another one of the effects of the one-child policy has been an influx of young girls to China's underfunded, unsanitary and inept orphanages, where girls are growing up in abject poverty. This is something I remember reading about even 10-15 years ago and conditions haven't changed much.
Some are saying that the one child policy has prevented the potential birth of 250 million children. The problem is, when couples have girl children or are pregnant with girls, they are often forced to have abortions or to give the child up. The long term consequences of a society that is effectively wiping out girl children is yet to be seen, but I can't imagine it is pretty.
In light of the 2008 Olympics being in Beijing, the global spotlight will be on China. It will be interesting to see what comes of this much needed, but often misdirected, international attention.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: China continues the one-child policy.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7031
I used to work at a sewing place and the owner adopted two little girls from China. She travelled there with her husband and said it was really sad to see the conditions of these orphanages. At one, they hardly got anything to eat but maybe a bowl of rice a day, lucky if they ever got veggies or anything.
An interesting and related article on world babymaking is the one published in the NY Times yesterday about a new business venture for women in India: being paid to be surrogate mothers for Israeli couples. While I recognize that Indian women are receiving a lot of money for their surrogacy services, these two articles together make me question the ethics of fertilization technologies when there are so many children who are in dire need of loving parents. Are genetics *really* that important? And at whose expense?
"Who hasn't heard of the grueling stories of women having to give children up for adoption when they are born the wrong gender?"
Um... me. Maybe I just haven't read enough, but I've never heard of women "having" to or being forced to give up female babies. Maybe they're forced to by coercive families, since it's socially imposed, but I really don't see why they should give up a baby just because it's female. There isn't a law against having your one child be female.
Honestly, as sorry as I feel for women in these situations, I can't help but be a little pissed off that some of them perpetuate what's keeping them down, holding them back, and reducing them to second-class citizens.
Yeah, the global spotlight's on China, but nothing's happening. They aren't budging on Tibet, they aren't budging on Darfur, they aren't budging on spying on Olympics attendees and athletes, on the alleged medical experimentation on imprisoned Falun Gong members, and I doubt they'll budge on the one-child policy. Rather, they'll express "disgust" that people are sticking their noses into their "internal affairs." As if you can be a world power without some level of transparency. What has to happen in order to get the Chinese people, Han and ethnic minorities alike, some basic human rights?
I'm really bitter about China right now...fresh from YouTube wars about Bjork's outburst in Shanghai. (On the feminist tip, it's not-so-funny how the Chinese commenters usually resort to calling her "fat" or a "cow" or a "bitch" to cover up the real issue.) If you're offended...well, don't be. The Chinese people I met in Beijing last year were usually quite nice. (In Tibet, they were often rude and abusive, but whatever.) I'm furious with the government, not the individual people. (Although, as in America, the eagerness of some to defend the government's policies sickens me.)
Well, what would you have them do instead of the one child policy?
They're dangerously overpopulated, and please don't say "Better sex education!" because that's not a valid answer at this point.
Some are saying that the one child policy has prevented the potential birth of 250 million children. The problem is, when couples have girl children or are pregnant with girls, they are often forced to have abortions or to give the child up.
No offense, Samhita, but I'm not a fan of your phrasing here. The problem with the one-child policy, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's a disgusting infringement of basic human rights and reproductive autonomy. It's not as though the one-child policy and the way China implements it would be OK if it didn't disproportionately affect girls. It is not OK to force a woman to abort or not to have children against her will.
Also...I have to agree with a bit with Sayna. The one-child policy doesn't "force" women to give up girl babies. Internalized misogyny leads women to give up girl babies. I loathe both misogyny and the one-child policy.
While I agree whole-heartedly with the post's consciousness raising I feel it's important to distinguish two things; the Chinese government's "One Child" policy from the misogyny that characterizes 'traditional' chinese culture. Why are those orphanages so dilapidated? At least in part because of the belief that girl babies don't deserve the resources.
If chinese parents didn't irrationally prefer sons over daughters the 'One Child' policy would be gender neutral while freeing women from the responsibilities of being 'baby factories' (in addition to the policy's original goal which was putting a brake on population growth).
A better policy would take as it's objective changing the cultural attitudes towards women in China towards economic, legal and social equality. Achieving that would help enormously. But effecting such change would take generations (look how long it's taking in the liberal West). And the population crisis is -- arguably -- the most pressing problem in the modern world.
Anyway - the point of this comment is to attempt to place some critical weight where it surely belongs; on cultural misogyny.
"Are genetics *really* that important?"
They are until/unless the children inherit more than just the parents' favorite traits and the parents pressure them into dieting, bleaching, cosmetic surgery, etc...
"'Who hasn't heard of the grueling stories of women having to give children up for adoption when they are born the wrong gender?'
"Um... me."
Same here.
"Maybe I just haven't read enough, but I've never heard of women 'having' to or being forced to give up female babies. Maybe they're forced to by coercive families, since it's socially imposed, but I really don't see why they should give up a baby just because it's female. There isn't a law against having your one child be female."
Yeah, that's what I heard too. I've even heard of some couples getting permission to have a 2nd child because their 1st is a daughter:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/10/03/and_zoe_makes_three/?page=3
"...Actually, 'one child' is somewhat of a misnomer. In practical terms, the law -- it can impose substantial fines, forced sterilization, and other penalties on parents who violate its dictates -- promotes a 'one son or two child' policy, as noted by Karin Evans in her book _The Lost Daughters of China_. That means couples who have a girl first are often allowed to try for a son, and it also means, according to Kay Ann Johnson's _Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son_, that many of the girls in Chinese orphanages have an older sister whose parents wanted one more shot at a boy..."
"Honestly, as sorry as I feel for women in these situations, I can't help but be a little pissed off that some of them perpetuate what's keeping them down, holding them back, and reducing them to second-class citizens."
Indeed (and good point about "some of them" instead of just "them"!). No matter what gender/income/etc. one has, going 'it's awful here' then 'I want to bring more children into the world here' then 'it's awful for my children here' isn't very impressive...
EG -
You ask a provocative question.
You say (and I agree) that "It is not OK to force a woman to abort or not to have children against her will."
But what about the social and cultural pressures on women to keep having children until they produce one or two sons?
I see both kinds of force as equally problematic. The indirect approach -- elevating the status of women -- seems to me to be the best solution. But ... even with 30 years of the more direct "One Child" approach China is today skirting the edge of an ecological disaster.
It's a really tough situation. The options are all bad. I just don't know.
Ok, China's policy is pretty fucked up for various reasons already discussed.
But doesn't anyone else agree that drastically cutting down population growth is one of the only realistic ways we can sustain ourselves as a species for much longer?
Does the one-child policy mandate a preference for male children? Or is that a cultural thing? Yes, whatever the thing is that causes a preference for male children, that is sexist, but let's try to be accurate. I'm under the impression that the pressure to abort female fetuses or give up girl children is coming from family members, not from the government.
The policy itself is not sexist -- China has to do something to control population growth, and the way that you do that is limiting the number of babies born, period -- but it feeds into a horrible cultural bias against girls. This cultural bias is what needs to be changed, not the one-child policy.
This preference for boys is already starting to bite them in the butt. I seem to remember reading about areas where the ratio is reaching fourteen men to one woman. Obviously that makes it kind of difficult for men to find and form relationships with women. I wonder if those men have stopped to think about who is responsible for their predicament? Answer: their idiot parents and their idiot extended families, who in their zeal to bear a boy as a credit to their family name, gave no thought to that boy's life as a man, who, golly, might want to be able to spend his life with a woman, once he grew up.
Their foolishness is a perfect illustration of why balance must be achieved between the genders. Being out of balance is a recipe for disaster, one way or the other. But even given a perfect ratio match between men and women, China must still control its population growth somehow. The only way to do that is to limit the number of children born.
Two children might be a more sane number than one, since it represents zero growth. That would ease some of the pressure on having to choose between a girl and a boy, but it still does not eliminate the bias against girls.
One only needs to sit in on immigration court asylum hearings for a few days to hear this scenario over and over again. 9it is one of the most common reasons women from china get political asylum in the US). It is common practice for a woman's employer (family, government) to force her to have an abortion (remember in China your employer is usually determined by the Government). If a woman refuses she will lose her job (her husband will lose it too). Often times the woman has no choice of which child they will give up and when someone is making the decision for them-it is usually a female child). This situation is not just as simple as many of the above posts have made it out to be. Women in these situations are often times not in a position to be a part of the "decision making process" of when to have a forced abortion.
Thank you for the information, karasone. Wow.
This even includes first pregnancies? The family/government-sanctioned employer can force a woman to abort a first pregnancy if the fetus is female? Or can take a female first child if a second fetus is male?
One result is a substantial decrease in population. Too few women == much fewer babies.
Another possible result: women eventually become more valued as Chinese men have to compete for the few women around, and the realization on the part of Chinese society that no girls means no wives or mothers.
I think that China's policy is a good one. China, and the world, simply couldn't handle so much population growth, at least not sustainably. Of course it disgusts me that there is a cultural bias towards male babies, to the detriment of female babies, but I think that things are at least improving. And though restricting women's reproductive rights is always suspicious, what other solution does China have? And I wonder whether this has given women more access to education and jobs, because they're not necessarily stuck at home taking care of lots of children. Some things to think about.
"Does the one-child policy mandate a preference for male children? Or is that a cultural thing? Yes, whatever the thing is that causes a preference for male children, that is sexist, but let's try to be accurate. I'm under the impression that the pressure to abort female fetuses or give up girl children is coming from family members, not from the government."
Likewise, I've heard of similar pressures in some families living where the One Child Rule *doesn't* apply:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7123753.stm
"Obviously that makes it kind of difficult for men to find and form relationships with women. I wonder if those men have stopped to think about who is responsible for their predicament? Answer: their idiot parents and their idiot extended families."
OTOH, how often does one of these men stop to think about who is responsible for his predicament and conclude "*everyone else's* idiot parents and their idiot extended families. If I had a sister then I still couldn't get married, but if Mr. Chang down the street had a daughter..."?
Of course, there's one more step in doing the math (for example, some guy thinking: "...but if I had a sister then Ming could marry her instead of Lian and Lian could marry me instead of Ming..."). How many people reach *this* step?
Uh...wow...nice to see some victim-blaming going on here. I've heard and read of accounts of Chinese women being physically forced to have late-term abortions, often in unsanitary conditions. I think it's not just being "pressured" by family members. It's institutional and it's frightening, even if it's not "officially" on the books to take these actions.
My aunt has two daughters adopted from China. I plan on adopting one day, and I've really started questioning my personal beliefs as far as domestic vs. abroad goes. On the one hand, I know that my cousins will have a better life than living in an orphanage, but at the same time, I think of the birth parents and wonder what they must have gone through and how they may still be going through so much pain of having to give up their daughters.
God damn. Now that's some spin: "Government control of women's reproduction is a GOOD THING because it helps them be more free to work outside the home!" WTF?
"OTOH, how often does one of these men stop to think about who is responsible for his predicament and conclude "*everyone else's* idiot parents and their idiot extended families. If I had a sister then I still couldn't get married, but if Mr. Chang down the street had a daughter..."?"
Your grammatical parsing is well taken, but I was speaking of those men collectively, so we are effectively saying the same thing. "Our parents collectively are responsible for the predicament we collectively find ourselves in."
Your idea of breaking it down into individual transactions of which family has a girl so that which other family's boy could snatch her up as a wife smacks of wife bartering. I don't think anyone SHOULD view it in those terms.
I don't expect the men would view it in those terms anyway, for the simple reason that by the time the issue comes up, it's far too late for that line of thinking to make any difference. It's not like they can travel back in time and persuade a few of their neighbors to have girls.
One result is a substantial decrease in population. Too few women == much fewer babies.
If it's been 30 years and people are still complaining about China's overpopulation, then I don't think the "substantial decrease in population" will happen for a looooonnng time.
Another possible result: women eventually become more valued as Chinese men have to compete for the few women around, and the realization on the part of Chinese society that no girls means no wives or mothers.
I really doubt this one. If there's a shortage of women, then the guys with money will purchase foreign brides. The guys without money will be SOL. Look throughout history. A shortage of women didn't mean that the few women were treated better. The men just raided other civilizations and stole their women.
The Chinese government has made attempts to change the cultural bias towards male children. There are ongoing efforts to convince people, particularly in rural areas, that girl children can carry on the family name and support the parents in their old age, as well as boy children can. That's not to say that the Chinese government is blameless (not even close) but they are making an attempt to curb the bias for male children.
I think its also important to note that the skewed male:female ratio is predicted to cause even more problems for women down the line, including increased sex trafficking and higher rates of HIV and STDs. China is expected to have 30-40 million "surplus" men by 2020. That's a lot of extra men.
"Uh...wow...nice to see some victim-blaming going on here."
I got the impression that she's blaming the victims who proceed to victimize. You know, less "shame on you for being physically forced to have a late-term abortion" than "shame on you for physically forcing your daughter-in-law to have a late-term abortion 25 years after you were physically forced to have one yourself."
"On the one hand, I know that my cousins will have a better life than living in an orphanage, but at the same time, I think of the birth parents and wonder what they must have gone through and how they may still be going through so much pain of having to give up their daughters."
...and on the third hand, how much of that pain would be removed if their daughters were not adopted? How many girls would get to grow up with their first families if not adopted, how many would stay in orphanages or foster care, and how many would have some other result? I don't know.
"God damn. Now that's some spin: 'Government control of women's reproduction is a GOOD THING because it helps them be more free to work outside the home!' WTF?"
Yeah, it's as stupid as 'banning abortion is a GOOD THING because it helps women be more free to have children!' (which I've also seen now and then). o_O
Meanwhile, I've heard of even more exemptions than the "one son or two child" thing. Sometimes people going for the multiple-birth exemption give up a girl too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6694135.stm
"...She and her husband beat China's one-child policy by having quintuplets.
"But life has not been easy for them.
"Their small farm does not bring in much money.
"They have had to give Ying Ying to a relative because they cannot afford to raise all five children on their own..."
Then there's more coercion from relatives:
"...No-one here in Buffalo village wants to say it openly, but privately families admit they use fertility drugs to get round the one-child limit.
"One woman says her parents-in-law put the drugs into her food to make sure she would conceive twins..."
I'm going to echo a lot of people's already stated opinions here...yes it really really fucking sucks that girls in China are thrown aside-I hate that and it worries me. BUT China (and the rest of the world) have some major overpopulation issues. China is really big but a lot of the land is uninhabitable, especially for the long term. I am a staunch feminist but I also have an understanding of the calamities coming our way as a species if we don't practice better sustainability, so it's hard for me to know what to think here.
And as for the growing gender imbalance in China...we can fervently hope that it will lead to a better cultural attitude towards women. But the scary flipside to that is it can go the other way...men raping women, marrying younger and younger girls, incest, etc. In a culture that already denigrates women, it doesn't seem like too unlikely a possibility.
"Your grammatical parsing is well taken, but I was speaking of those men collectively, so we are effectively saying the same thing. 'Our parents collectively are responsible for the predicament we collectively find ourselves in.'"
Yeah, I was just wondering how many of the people involved would see it so collectively. How many would think "All of us should have..." or "Our parents should have had..." instead of stopping at "I want to have..." or "I'm not mad at *my* parents for having..."?
"Your idea of breaking it down into individual transactions of which family has a girl so that which other family's boy could snatch her up as a wife smacks of wife bartering. I don't think anyone SHOULD view it in those terms."
Right on. Daughters should be valued for who we are, not for whose wives we can be!
Meanwhile, when I see the "have daughters so your son can marry" argument used for societies that shun sib-sib marriage, it kinda does seem like the desired realization would be the wife-bartering view. :/
"I don't expect the men would view it in those terms anyway, for the simple reason that by the time the issue comes up, it's far too late for that line of thinking to make any difference. It's not like they can travel back in time and persuade a few of their neighbors to have girls."
True. It's also not like they can travel back in time and tell their parents and extended families "don't be idiots, have girls" either.
"If there's a shortage of women, then the guys with money will purchase foreign brides."
Some will. Some other guys with money could move to where the ratio is closer to 50/50 (even when his primary reason is work or study or whatever instead of sex) and possibly become foreign grooms.
Sheesh, is it just me or do Mina's posts often seem like she is trying to prove her superiority? I'm all for "food for thought" but not everything people say needs a rebuttal!
I too will have to echo some of the thoughts above. The one child policy in and of itself isn't inherently sexist. when its combined with China's culture then we see all the horrible results for female babies/children. For the one child policy itself, as asked above, what exactly was/is China supposed to do? Would all the growth China has had the last decade plus, and the mixed blessings that have come with it, have been possible if there were a few hundred million more people there? I really doubt it. Its a hard choice but one that can be made for defendable reasons and one that plays extremely well into China's culture, the good of the many over the good of the few or the one. If the one child policy hadn't been adopted, how many children would have died of starvation and how stagnant would their economy be now?
Interesting that there would be a post about the one-child policy. I have been studying China for the last six years and the criticism that the one-child policy is sexist surfaces time and time again.
While there is a legitimate criticism that more girls are aborted under this policy than boys and more girls are abandoned, the government does not force abortion of girls onto the couples. In fact, the government now does not allow ultrasounds because they are trying to prevent this from happening. It is the couple themselves that often prefer the boy.
The other VERY important point to make is that (despite the girls abandoned) the one-child policy has actually been really good for women's rights in China. It used to be that if you had a girl, you would then have a boy and devote all your resources to that boy. Now, if you have a girl (and have a heart to keep her) all your resources go to the girl because that's all you have. So the next generation of women attending college are doing better than men are, have just as much access to education as men do, and have so many more opportunities than their mothers. Think about the long term consequences of this. The next generation of women in China are going to be much more influential than their mothers. And I think this in part has to do with the one-child policy.
Sure, there are a lot of things really wrong with this policy. But we have to look at the nuances.
I can't support the one-child policy. The entire basis of this policy is flawed: it treats Chinese citizens as if they are mindless animals who, when left their own devices, will breed themselves into famine. I cannot and will not accept any government that dehumanizes its citizenry like this.
If you want to know why China is overpopulated, look no further than how they treat their women. Once it becomes socially acceptable for Chinese women to have a career, delay or even say no to marriage, and control their own reproductive options, you'll see the population stabilize. It's happen in most Western countries, and there is no reason why it wouldn't happen in China. In fact, if the men don't simultaneously liberalize their roles in raising a family, you'll probably see a drop in population, like in Italy and Japan.
Of course, all this would require the Chinese government to push through real economic and social reforms instead of passing draconian laws and papering over their problems. That won't happen anytime soon. The Chinese government doesn't seem to give a sh*t about anything except staying in power and saving face.
"The other VERY important point to make is that (despite the girls abandoned) the one-child policy has actually been really good for women's rights in China."
You forgot (and despite violating the reproductive rights of women who actually want 2+ pregnancies).
"The entire basis of this policy is flawed: it treats Chinese citizens as if they are mindless animals who, when left their own devices, will breed themselves into famine."
Indeed. Many people *don't* feel empowered and fulfilled by having more kids than they can care for...
DRC: The entire basis of this policy is flawed: it treats Chinese citizens as if they are mindless animals who, when left their own devices, will breed themselves into famine.
Umm, but that's exactly what they would have done, and that has historically been the norm. The only other way to correct the problem would have been to force major cultural shifts onto the population, but that would take much longer, and in any case would have been just as coercive as the one child policy.
There are only two "natural" methods of population control: starvation and westernization. The economic benefits of the one child policy will promote the sort of stable-or-declining-population culture found in many nations far better than the government could have hoped to directly.
I could not agree more, DRC!
Uh...wow...nice to see some victim-blaming going on here. I've heard and read of accounts of Chinese women being physically forced to have late-term abortions, often in unsanitary conditions. I think it's not just being "pressured" by family members. It's institutional and it's frightening, even if it's not "officially" on the books to take these actions.
I didn't mean to blame the victims, and I'm sorry if I made it seem like I do. I have heard the accounts of women being forced into aborting, and I'm sure that there are many more stories of women being forced by family to give female babies up for adoption. What is so frustrating, as Mina explained, is that some women are perpetuating this by forcing their daughters to give up their female babies or abort female fetuses. Or, perhaps, just by deciding not to have girls because they feel that girls and women are inferior. I know that it's hard to go against societal pressure, but I don't know why more women (and men) don't do it.
I cannot and will not accept any government that dehumanizes its citizenry like this...who, when left their own devices, will breed themselves into famine.
This reads to me like, "reality is unpleasant, so I think I'll choose to deny it, thanks." Haven't countless populations done just this?
When I look at what we're up against, all I can think is "huge population = danger ahead". There was a reader on Salon who posted on this article and put it better than I ever could have, and I'm going to crib a bit from that person here:
"I'm going to make the controversial statement that there is no downside to China's one-child policy.
Here's why. We are facing a species-survival level crisis as humanity. The fact that we in the U.S. absolutely refuse to acknowledge it does not make it any less urgent, nor true. We are faced with destruction of the life support systems that we rely on....Think women's rights are important? Try attempting to preserve them in a world of collapsing societies. Think poverty and human rights are important? Try fighting either when we have masses of migrating humanity due to global warming. Think discrimination against races is a problem? Can you imagine what is going to happen when we start running short on enough protein to make everyone happy?
I'm not recommending that everyone drop their pet causes and work solely on the looming environmental crisis. But it's time for everyone to diversify their portfolio and put about 30% of their activist time into this one. Because when the climate and the planet start to really unravel, none of the rest of it is going to matter. China, by keeping their one-child policy, even in the face of a society with rising standards of living, is doing an amazing thing."
the one-child policy has actually been really good for women's rights in China.
Sure, except women's rights to control over their own body and child-bearing and to reproductive autonomy. You know, no biggie. Just those rights that we find so very vital when we're talking about American women.
Jeff, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that perhaps you are not aware of the long, long, long history of leftists and progressives of all stripes telling feminists that hey, feminism is important and all, but what's really important is this other thing over here, so put your issues on the back burner and/or accept this particular indignity/infringement of your rights, because it's for the greater good. But now you know. It's insulting and obnoxious.
I find it disturbing how many people on this thread are willing to trade away women's rights. Tell me, what sort of environmental/labor market exigencies would make you consider the return of slavery as perhaps necessary?
Human rights are human rights. I don't support any abridgement of them. I agree that global warming is a serious problem, but I do not for one minute believe that the best way to combat it is to strip women of basic human rights. And before anybody asks, no, I don't have a plan outlined--I'm not an environmentalist. But I don't need to have a plan outlined in order to point out the great gaping flaws in this one.
"There are only two 'natural' methods of population control: starvation and westernization."
As if it's natural when a Western couple chooses to have fewer kids instead of starving any, and unnatural when a non-Western couple chooses that? WTF?
I don't think you can apply the same moral reasoning underlying the right to avoid or terminate a pregnancy to causing and carrying to term a pregnancy, because the former is strictly personal, but the later involves the creation of a person, and there could be legitimate state interests in it. The two situations might still be wrong by certain moral systems, but they'd have to be wrong for different reasons, or reasons far removed from feminism per se and more to do with the government's authority in general.
I do. In both situations, the government is seizing control of a woman's body against her will, forcing her to have an abortion, use contraception, or abstain from sex regardless of her wishes, plans, or desires.
Mina--that is weird. Westernization is a natural process?
Mina: As if it's natural when a Western couple chooses to have fewer kids instead of starving any, and unnatural when a non-Western couple chooses that? WTF?
You're reading "westernized" as "western" and "population control" as "individual reproductive judgments."
But anyway, using a particular culture in the context of what is natural was probably a mistake. I was simply thinking in terms of what correlates with declining birth rates in actual history, to my knowledge, but more generally speaking it would be better to say that the possible natural methods are starvation and the cultural and economic traits that influence aggregate reproductive decisions characteristic of groups with stable or declining populations.
Hold on, I just realized how much of a tautology that is. "The traits that cause declining birth rates are characteristic to nations with declining birth rates." Profound...
To be more specific, I mean improved education, reproductive rights including access to contraception, and women's empowerment, all of which is difficult to force but tends to follow naturally from increased per capita wealth and exposure to cultures that already posses those traits.
All governments seize control of people's bodies all the time, and are generally considered to be in the right to do so if it is necessary to protect the interests of their population at large. If you had a problem with that you'd be opposed to the existence of police forces.
Over-reproducing in an overpopulated area isn't a personal decision; it directly puts a burden on the local society that now has to find some way to feed your kids while still feeding everyone else. I know people like us with computers and electricity in nations with huge tracts of fallow farmland often take for granted that such a thing will be possible, but that is not always the case.
EG, I understand your concern. But it's a matter of priorities. You can't define something as a "human right" and then call it off-limits. No doubt there are libertarians who would love to call taxes a violation of their "human rights" or their "individual rights" or what-have-you, but the fact of the matter is we have to share this little place and the decisions we make affect each other, sometimes drastically. You're forcing a binary distinction onto an un-binary world. We simply don't get to do everything we want, for the sake of others. Reproduction is an action, just like blasting music at 4 am, an action that others prevent us from taking for our mutual good. It's not clear to me what makes one a "human right" and the other not.
I'll see your comparison to slavery with an equally ridiculous hypothetical: if you know that somehow, popping out one more kid would make the planet spontaneously explode, would you do it just because you could and it was your right? Would you fight for someone else's right to do it right up to the brink of destruction? If you had a gun in your hand right there in the delivery room and you could save everyone else? I know what I'd do.
It's not a matter of "set feminism aside and wait for a while," but rather it's "95% of the goals of feminism can be accomplished without the threat of global meltdown, so why don't we tackle those first."
"They're dangerously overpopulated, and please don't say 'Better sex education!' because that's not a valid answer at this point."
This represents the sentiment of more than one contributor on this thread. I respectfully disagree. Better sex education, in my view, is the solution to the population problem that stands the best chance of long-term success. Women who both understand and control their own reproductivity have fewer children, period. Coercive, top-down policies, however, are never 100% effective, and they breed long-term resentment.
It is sad that simple sexist prejudice should lead to the termination of so many pregnancies in China simply because they would yield a girl if carried to term.
I do not usually accept the notion that things have to get bad in order to get better, because it's bad policy to let things get worse and worse in the hopes that this will bring about a revolution. (Revolutions can go the wrong way, too.)
However, just imagine what COULD happen in a society such as the patriarchal Chinese now seem to be creating: a society where boys seriously outnumber girls. Who gets a wider selection of potential mates? The girls. Who may someday find themselves without anyone to make babies with? Quite a lot of disappointed men.
Now imagine what will happen when the newest generation of Chinese girls grows up and decides not to have any babies with sexist men.
In just one generation, we could see some major changes.
It would be hypocritical in the extreme for me (I'm childfree) to try and take away another's reproductive freedom. I enjoy freedom of choice and so should others.
That being said, I don't see what is so wrong about pointing out the truth: We have a problem, a serious problem with our environment, with overpopulation, with pollution, with decreasing resources.
We ask people to be more environmentally aware, we ask for electric vehicles, for utilities that burn cleanly, for methods to grow enough food to feed the world. What is so wrong with asking people to think before having more than two (replacement value) children? Is it really so wrong to ask people to think of their neighbors, of the future and not just their own desires?
I don't agree with China's policy but that's because I don't trust The Powers That Be, of whatever government/group/religion/race/whathaveyou.
That being said, I do agree with the idea that something should be done about the environmental issues facing us, which includes a serious discussion about overpopulation and the steps we should (willingly) take to combat it.
Jeff, I don't really understand your point with this comment "95% of the goals of feminism can be accomplished without the threat of global meltdown, so why don't we tackle those first"...It does sound a lot to me like "lets set feminism aside for while" or at least "let's set some of the goals of feminism aside"
Maybe you can explain exactly what you meant by this, because I'm not seeing the difference between what EG interpreted it as, and what you are saying you meant by it.
Most all of us here do see reproductive rights as a fundamental human right. I am one of them. If you take this right away from women, you open the door to all sorts of abuses. i.e. if reproductive rights are denied, than women can be forced to have abortions, forced to carry unwanted or unplanned pregnancies to term, forced into having more kids than she wants, forced to be a "mate" for a predesignated partner, forced to be sterilized, etc. etc. Unfortunately many nations to not believe in a women's right to reproductive freedom, thus we have many of these horrible things happening all over the world. Coincidently, I read also, that in countries and societies where women have more reproductive freedom, the birth rates are lower. In countries and societies where women have less or no rights, the birth rates are higher - because you have men oppressing women through forced pregnancy, thus keeping them in the house, keeping them continually pregnant, raising kids, etc. So I think if you are concerned about population control, you should also be pushing for women's rights to be seen as a fundamental human right. They both go hand in hand.
Well said, meeneecat.
What is so wrong with asking people to think before having more than two (replacement value) children? Is it really so wrong to ask people to think of their neighbors, of the future and not just their own desires?
There's nothing wrong with that at all. I have no problem at all with informational campaigns about overpopulation and encouraging environmental awareness. But that's not what China does. What I and many others have a problem with is the coercion.
And Jeff, meeneecat is right. What you're saying is "what you think is a fundamental right isn't actually as important as this other issue over here, so set it aside." But you see, that doesn't address my point about human rights. If what you're telling me is that saving the environment requires women to accept second-class citizenship in the form of state intrusion into our bodies, then my response is simply that I will not give up my human rights and I will not advocate taking those rights away from other women. No matter what.
Excellent comment, EG @ 10:59 PM.
Steering off-course for a minute, does anyone else find it completely infuriating that the right wing hate machine has spun progressives, and feminists in particular, into their "OMG red scare commies" rhetoric? Because, you know, since we advocate safe and accessible birth control, including abortion, we're just like those gotdamn Communists in China. Blargh, makes me so mad sometimes.
All this talk of "we should/should not sacrifice women's rights to fight overpopulation" makes no sense, because women's rights (coupled with birth control access) are the most effective weapon against overpopulation.
Several Western countries already have negative population growth rates. Are the women in those countries really all thinking to themselves, "Gosh, I want to help the environment, so I won't have that third kid"? I doubt it. I think their thought process is more like, "I want a career, and I want to give my kids the attention they deserve, so I don't want to have too many children." Since birth control is widely accessible, and women have the power to use it, they don't have too many children.
It's not just limited to Europe, either. Developing countries still have positive population growth rates, but they've trended drastically downward as women gain more education and access to birth control. If you want to see zero population growth abroad, limits on children or even telling foreign women to think of the environment first isn't the answer. Contraception access and women's education/ rights are.
BabyPop:
Actually, it irritates me far more when people who know little about the situation in China go all "red scare Commie" about China. They aren't perfect, but they're barely communist, and I'm sick of hearing it. I am not sure if you're mocking this view or holding it, but I find that people are alarmingly ignorant about China and more inclined to blame than try to understand and address the unique challenges that a country like China faces.
Their are elements of the one child policy that clearly violate human rights (forced sterilization? hello?). On the other hand, we all need to recognize the consequences of overpopulation and be willing to do something about it, beyond just handing out pamphlets on contraception or something.
The attitude in American society, even among feminists, seems to be overall pro-procreation. Why? Why can I criticize my neighbor on the gas-guzzling car he drives, the chemicals he put on his lawn, and his refusal to recycle, but I can't criticize him on his family size? These are all issues that affect the sustainability of our planet, and we need to be able to talk about all of them. Children use resources. Period. Reproductive justice shouldn't mean free reign to use as many resources as you can with no interference from the people you are taking those resources from.
While there are huge problems with China's policies, what would be wrong with state policies around the globe that at least discouraged a greater than replacement-sized family? If China's whole scheme was just fine-based, would we be comfortable with that?
Pull rank,
I don't think you have been reading what everyone has been saying about the proven correlation between reproductive justice and lower population rates. It seems women with the freedom and agency to make their own choices don't want that many children.
Feminists are
The entire basis of this policy is flawed: it treats Chinese citizens as if they are mindless animals who, when left their own devices, will breed themselves into famine. I cannot and will not accept any government that dehumanizes its citizenry like this.
First off - let me say that I'm a woman. I'm a feminist. And I'm definitely pro-choice. I'm not saying that China's policy is right or wrong. I will say this - humans ARE animals. This is not to say that being an animal means we're bad. There's nothing inherently evil or wrong with animals. We're part of this world. We're not immortals. We're not used planning ahead more than 100 years.
But the end of the gravy train we've been riding is coming. Overpopulation IS one of the greatest threats facing us right now. Historically, China has a long history of periodic famines. As little as I like women's rights being trampled, I like children starving to death even less.
I don't have any answers. But I don't think the situation is as cut and dried as we comfortable, well-fed Westerners like to pretend.
Pull rank,
I don't think you have been reading what everyone has been saying about the proven correlation between reproductive justice and lower population rates. It seems women with the freedom and agency to make their own choices don't want that many children.
"The attitude in American society, even among feminists, seems to be overall pro-procreation. Why?"
Feminists aren't pro-procreation persay, more like pro rights to or own bodies. We should not be forced into abortion and sterilization just like we shouldn't be forced into pregnancy. Having control over your own body has nothing in common with criticizing your neighbor's car or lawn chemicals. These aren't criticisms of women's decisions, but forced bodily proceedures and/or enslavements that have dire impacts on women's lives.
meeneecat: If you take this right away from women, you open the door to all sorts of abuses. i.e. if reproductive rights are denied, than women can be forced to have abortions, forced to carry unwanted or unplanned pregnancies to term, forced into having more kids than she wants, forced to be a "mate" for a predesignated partner, forced to be sterilized, etc. etc.
If we make slander and libel illegal, nobody will be allowed to talk or write ever!
"It treats Chinese citizens as if they are mindless animals who, when left their to own devices, will breed themselves into famine."
But you see, they're right. It's an ugly truth, but it's simply our nature. That's how we've gotten where we are.
Despite how logical we're capable of being, we can't get past the biological imperative to procreate even as we choke ourselves out of our own environment.
When left to our own devices we continue to make our sustainability as a species an increasingly impossible task. The problem is that when a minority of people in a position of power realize this and try to do something about it, like the Chinese government has, they're doomed to failure from the outset. Only a massive shift in human consciousness itself could achieve something like that. And who the fuck knows how, when or if that will ever happen?
I don't understand this. If this has been going on for years then now at 14 men for 1 woman China would be in a population decline not boom. Unless the men are going to different countries to find wives.
There's something else that has been bothering me about the assertion that China has actually been "good" for women's rights, and I'm going to try to articulate it now.
I firmly believe, and I think most people here do too, that women's rights are human rights. And we should not forget the corollary of that: human rights are women's rights. And China has a terrible record when it comes to human rights. We cannot separate women out from humanity in general--that makes as much sense as asking black women to separate out being women from being black. When a population's human rights are being attacked--rights to free speech, rights to a fair and just judicial process, rights not to be jailed for political activity, rights not to be tortured, etc.--women are suffering too. There were plenty of women among the student dissidents that China imprisoned. China has not been good for human rights and women are human beings--if you want to point out that China has encouraged women to take strong roles in the workforce, that's fine, and it's one thing. Cuba has an excellent literacy rate, and that's a great thing, too. But neither China nor Cuba is good for human rights, and that means women's rights are being infringed as well.
Just a clarification--I'm not saying "chihuahuas are dogs, therefore dogs are chihuahuas" (heavens forfend--I don't much care for chihuahuas). What I am saying is that women suffer under human rights infringements and that those of us who are concerned with the subset of human rights that we call "women's rights" should not forget about the human rights that everyone, man and woman and everyone else, should be accorded.
I could probably extend the dog analogy, but I kind of think that this topic is too serious for one of my flip illustrative analogies.
Call me extreme, but I don't think I'd have the easiest time sleeping well at night in a country "sustaining" itself through forced abortions & sterilizations performed on unwilling women. It's an idealist "liberty-or-death" type feeling, but there you have it.
"It would be hypocritical in the extreme for me (I'm childfree) to try and take away another's reproductive freedom. I enjoy freedom of choice and so should others."
Exactly!
"We ask people to be more environmentally aware, we ask for electric vehicles, for utilities that burn cleanly, for methods to grow enough food to feed the world. What is so wrong with asking people to think before having more than two (replacement value) children? Is it really so wrong to ask people to think of their neighbors, of the future and not just their own desires?"
I'm reminded of how, in the Spitzer threads, we're asking men to think of other people too instead of just their own desires.
What about when a woman and her partner have only enough resources (earnings, time, extended family help, etc.) to adequately care for the children they already have, but she feels a deep emotional urge to have more? The town government would definitely violate her reproductive rights if it forces her to abort or get a tubal ligation! Her eldest daughter wouldn't violate her reproductive rights at all if she thinks "it's so cold out and I outgrew my winter coat, I need another one of those instead of another sibling" or "I haven't graduated, I need to go back to school instead of staying home changing diapers" rather than praising her mom's choice to have more.
"China has not been good for human rights and women are human beings--if you want to point out that China has encouraged women to take strong roles in the workforce, that's fine, and it's one thing. Cuba has an excellent literacy rate, and that's a great thing, too. But neither China nor Cuba is good for human rights, and that means women's rights are being infringed as well."
I totally agree!
Oops, my bad. I should have clarified with "if you mean the present Chinese and Cuban governments instead of the entire nations then I agree!"
I did indeed mean that--sorry for the unclear phrasing!
BC:
I'm mocking that view, which is espoused especially when progressives and feminists advocate for universal health care, care for women and families, etc.
Reading this thread, the thing that strikes me is that the people who are arguing that the One Child Policy is necessary don't seem to acknowledge that it is (like all policies put into place by very large governments, really) bound to be applied unevenly and unfairly. It's the difference between an ideal world and a real world (just like we were talking about in the last Spitzer thread): in an ideal world, yes, this policy would be a fairly reasonable way to deal with overpopulation. But in practice, as several people have already mentioned, it leads to things like girl babies being left in neglected, unsanitary orphanages, unsanitary forced abortions, and even (if one of the above commentors is right) family members feeding women fertility pills to try to get around it. Considering China's uneven treatment of different ethnic groups, too, I would guess that several (if not all) of the minority groups in China have the policy disproportionately enforced on them.
So which do we judge this policy by, the ideal or the reality? Honestly, what do we judge any policy by, the ideal or the reality? Do we say that, for instance, welfare reform in America was great because it got so many people off of welfare and into jobs, or do we look at the reality that it forced many people (esp. women) into very awful circumstances? You can agree with the goal but disagree with the policy and the way it is enforced. Perhaps I just haven't been reading closely enough, but it seems like those in this thread who are saying that population control is necessary are unequivocally supporting the One Child Policy, while those who are criticizing it are saying that some measure is necessary but that this policy is seriously flawed.
Funny, I was just thinking about the ideal and reality.
In a more ideal society, that is one that with a government that cares about human rights and the environment I agree with what posters have been saying about access to birth control, women's rights etc decreasing the birth rate. It does make more sense to criticize someone for washing their driveway than having a couple kids. Many country's populations would be decreasing without immigration and we use on average 14 times more resources than the people who use the least.
In reality, China seems uninterested in doing better. Certainly we should push them to do better but for now the One-child policy seems better than doing nothing.
Somewhat off topic, I think at this point we need everyone to start being environmentalists (like how we'd like everyone to live according to feminist beliefs), that is "any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects." We can care about both women AND our planet and I think it's essential to our planet's survival that we all act in ways to protect natural resources.
I don't understand some of the comments in this thread. People who are saying, yes, women's rights being infringed is really terrible, but the poor starving children is so much worse, so the one-child policy is a good thing. That's insane. It has been stated over and over that when women have reproductive freedom and society is closer to equal, the birth rate goes down. Hence, more reproductive freedom, more support for women's rights leads to better protection of natural resources and is a better way to combat over population. When women are systematically oppressed and their rights are taken away and are given no reproductive freedoms, the birth rate skyrockets, and you are guaranteed to have at least half of the babies born living in subhuman conditions.
So what is so hard about this? Clearly, the one-child policy is not working. It's a pretty crappy band-aid, and declaring that it's okay to trample on women's rights for the greater good is not only disturbing but nonsensical!
And I agree with the give me liberty or death sentiment above. If we're willing to tolerate or even endorse the abuses of women for "the greater good" then maybe our species deserves to die out.
I think you misread my comment Marissa. Forced sterilization and abortion are violations of human rights, period. What I was suggesting is that simply because we disapprove those policies, doesn't mean we have to embrace unfettered procreation under the banner of reproductive justice. As I said, what if this were ONLY a fine-based system? Would we be comfortable with that? Or is any kind of public policy decision that favors smaller families, contraception, and abortion over birth going to be criticized?
My fiancee, who has been to China (not a reason for her opinion to be some sort of authority, it just gives it a bit more credibility), and she told me that the over-population issue really is a crisis, and famine due to poverty and over-population has been a major problem for hundreds of years. I'm not sure if she's right, but I do know she studied history there.
Isn't it a bigger problem that they are treating women so poorly? I think they should add to the law that you should register your pregnancy and make it illegal to put the child up for adoption or to otherwise try to "get rid of it." It sounds arcane, but if everyone were required to register the pregnancy, it would be highly suspicious when someone shows up without the child.
Anyway, I don't presume to know everything or have a good solution, but I think the bigger problem is the sexism in the culture, not the law. What are they supposed to do with not enough resources to feed everyone? Let them over-populate even more and starve?
Oh, and another thing, my fiancee said that in rural areas, the one child policy is very loosely enforced, and more families in those areas have more than one child. I think she also told me that the government is very corrupt and rich people can bride officials to allow more than one child. Not that that's great or anything, just another facet of the issue.
Again, these opinions would have to be researched to show whether they are facts.
Yes, well, those people are wrong to complain. China's population growth is shrinking; it's not much greater than the United States'. Female infanticide has long been used to hold back population growth, in the bad old days before effective birth control. Ergo, fewer women equals fewer babies == population stabilization and eventual decline.
And you're right about historical means of dealing with a shortage of women, but I don't really see the Chinese following their own rape of the Sabines. With the exception of the rich, who also happen to be the most desirable partners within their own country, most Chinese men will not be able to afford to send for foreign brides.
I don't know where the above reader got the population estimates, but that's way off. If Wikipedia is at all credible, it says: US pop is about .3 billion whereas China's is about 1.3 billion. Is 1 billion people a small difference? I don't think so.
Chris, I haven't checked keshmeshi's accuracy, but I believe ze was referring to the population growth, not the population size.
"So which do we judge this policy by, the ideal or the reality? Honestly, what do we judge any policy by, the ideal or the reality?"
Exactly!
"It sounds arcane, but if everyone were required to register the pregnancy, it would be highly suspicious when someone shows up without the child."
That doesn't sound arcane, it sounds like what Ceausescu imposed:
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/preg.htm
Why should it be highly suspicious when someone w