I think China needs to look at taking out a nice second mortgage on their country and put in a sizeable addition. A second floor, perhaps?

Seriously, when is someone over there going to figure out they are soon going to be running the biggest bachelor pad on the planet if they don't work this out?

I know I have not been enormously helpful, but the issue is a very complex one that deeper thinkers than I need to take a whack at.

"The researchers suggested that enforcing a ban on sex-selective abortions would solve this problem..."

Can China really enforce a ban on anything? Even hanging an occasional minister of this or that hasn't kept noxious chemicals out of practically everything Chinese.

China's got big problems in every area, and an oversupply of horny, feisty young men may be the least of them.

I agree with Krystal Kastle, no easy solutions here. They have an entire cultural pre-disposition toward male children which they need to reverse. How you quickly do that in a nation of over 1B people is beyond me...the economist in me suggests they give tax incentives for raising female children (both natural & adopted)...but what kind of tax incentives exist in a communist country???

The consequences of such an enormous gender gap are enormous. There is already a wife-trafficking market afoot, which will only get worse. Plus, one can only imagine the violence that will erupt as young men vie for the few available women.

Parents of girls may not realize it, but they will have enormous leverage in the matrimonial market in years to come.

This is sort of a chicken-or-the-egg deal, right?

Will mandating the policy change the way society values women, or will attempting to change the way society values women stop the need for the policy?

Historically, we've seen that legal action tends to precede social evolution, or at least tends to spur evolution with a little bit of counter-effective reaction.

I think there's larger work to be done, but that small, immediate, and forceful steps must be taken.

As to whether or not this is intruding on women's choice -- tricky. We all want to say "no," but I'm not sure it breaks down this easily. Clearly if the ban passes, it will give way to other arguments such as, "Sometimes women and their bodies have to be controlled if what they're doing is bad for society/criminal."

I can't help feeling some smug satisfaction knowing that they don't have enough women for the male population and that they DID IT TO THEMSELVES! This will give the existing female population a grand opportunity to leverage for more rights and freedoms and to increase their value. It’s pretty embarrassing for them that they didn’t see this coming though.

I'm confused. If abortions are legal, then how can they effectively ban sex-selective abortions anyway? Is there a box you must check when going in for an abortion that states your reason for wanting one? Are they going to administer lie detector tests in the doctor's offices to gleam whether or not the woman really wants to abort because the fetus is female or for some other reason?

I say let the generations go on without women and then they can all die out.

This is such a conflicting issue for me.. because I am a huge advocate of population control (the planet can only sustain us until it gives up, or until powerful governments with large populations take over weaker ones for their land/resources/etc and the population of the world is increasing at an alarming rate) and part of me feels that no one should interfere in the reproductive rights of a woman.

If we (as a society) say that a woman's reproductive rights can be temporarily suspended if it creates a problem for society, then we how do we draw that line? Yet, at the same time, we can't deny that China's (or the world's) population is a big problem, for itself, for the world, and for the limited resources of the world.

It is sad that female fetuses were either aborted or were nurtured in the womb, then give up for adoption. It is sort of funny that they have such a large gender gap, because maybe now women will have great leverage over who their partners will be..

Being an advocate for population control and a feminist all at the same time, I plan on adopting in the near future :)

This is such a conflicting issue for me.. because I am a huge advocate of population control (the planet can only sustain us until it gives up, or until powerful governments with large populations take over weaker ones for their land/resources/etc and the population of the world is increasing at an alarming rate) and part of me feels that no one should interfere in the reproductive rights of a woman.

If we (as a society) say that a woman's reproductive rights can be temporarily suspended if it creates a problem for society, then we how do we draw that line? Yet, at the same time, we can't deny that China's (or the world's) population isn't a big problem, for itself, for the world, and for the limited resources of the world.

It is sad that female fetuses were either aborted or were nurtured in the womb, then give up for adoption. It is sort of funny that they have such a large gender gap, because maybe now women will have great leverage over who their partners will be..

Being an advocate for population control and a feminist all at the same time, I plan on adopting in the near future :)

Part of being pro-choice is going along with the decisions others make, even when you disagree with them. Banning sex-selective abortions might have a small effect, but it won't make much of a difference. These SSA's are simply the symptom, not the disease. Banning SSA's will not reduce patriarchy. What will result instead is abandonment or infanticide of girls, or if not that, there will be "neglectful infanticide", in which limited resources are denied to girls, in hopes that she will die. Banning SSA's, if such a law is even enforcable, would simply shift the symptoms of patriarchy and women's inequality from one thing to another. The real solution is to end patriarchy and promote women's rights and women's equality.

"...let's reiterate that this is not family planning by any means. After all, coerced abortion and forced sterilizations doesn't involve much of a "choice," does it?"

No, but most of the abortions are not forced. Most women select the sex of their baby by themselves. Yes, in a society that favors son as caregivers of their families, but the majority is not forced into it as you imply. This is family planning gone awry, and it's due to sexist societal standards.

1) No, repealing the 1-child policy is not the answer- as much as it bothers me how the policy interferes with individual rights, it's saved millions and millions of people from poverty and starvation.

2) There are, however, intricacies of the one-child policy which could be tweaked to help even out the gender disparity. As it is, in rural areas, couples can have up to 3 children if the first 2 are girls, in order to try for a son. Not only that, a major method of enforcing the policy is that if a couple does have an extra child, that child is not eligible for government services, like public school. It might be possible to reverse the rural-style rule and make it so that female second children were supported but not male. This might even out the gender disparity, but it wouldn't solve the problem of sex-selected termination.

It's a complicated problem, as those above me have said.

Keep in mind, sex-selective abortions are ALREADY banned, the problem is, and will probably continue to be, enforcement. I seriously doubt 1) that China can effectively enforce the ban, particularly in far-flung rural areas, and 2) that their attempt to do so will be anything but oppressive for the women over whom they will try to exert more control.

As to whether this will result in any kind of "bonus" for the existing women in terms of bargaining power or like benefits, I really doubt that too. Since when have already-marginalized groups gained power from a reduction in numbers? I guess I am a terrible pessimist. I think it's more likely to go the other way, with an overwhelming population of men exerting more control over a smaller population of women. Can you imagine how ugly that could get?

A ban like on sex-selective abortions would be, for the most part, unenforceable. It also veers too closely to thought-policing. (How would you assess and/or prove that was the reason for the abortion?)

Re: population control, I will not get into the problems with the idea of saving the planet by controlling population (as opposed to, say, resources, etc.)

But it is a secondary good, even if you buy into it as a good. The right to control your own reproduction is so basic to human rights that you cannot legally trump it with population considerations. Absolutely not.

I think that China's one-child policy is an inexcusable violation of human rights; even if you believe that it has saved lives, you have violated a more fundamental freedom by enacting the laws and enforcing them. So you lose,on the freedom scale.

I have some suggestions: why don't we put more economic pressure on China to do a better job with their own consumption & policies... and lead by EXAMPLE.

Also, this problem is a good example of the paradox of unrestricted abortion rights: If all abortions are always ok, and the only one who can determine that is the woman procuring the abortion, then we have no right to criticize WHY a woman gets one, even if the reason is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-disability, etc. Right?

Here's an idea - end the one child per family rule!

That whole "overpopulation" theory is racist to begin with (you NEVER hear ANYBODY calling a White European country "overpopulated" - it's always Third World countries of color!)

So, end the one child rule, let people have as many kids as they want, ban sex selection abortion and the problem will be solved.

I know many people from China. According to my friends, the "one-child" policy is de jure but not de facto. In fact, several of my Chinese friends have siblings. These are middle class families. It stands to reason that things would be different in working class families, for reasons noted in earlier comments.

I'm with the comment maker above, that young Chinese women may now have a lot of leverage. Pick of the litter. Particularly now with the economic slowdown and decreasing jobs in China. They can "marry up" if you will, and more money = better education = eventual improved status for women.

At any rate, it will be interesting to watch how that plays out. Anyone interested might want to check out an Indian documentary about a small region in India with just this issue. Can't remember the name, sorry.

This situation is incredibly sticky for me, honestly, and normally I would probably keep my thoughts to myself at least until I'd taken the time to sort them out.

However, I have to voice that I'm deeply disturbed by the idea that this will somehow increase women's social leverage. There's just no way for that to work, unless you think of women as a commodity. Being treated as a commodity has never, to the best of my knowledge, helped women in the past and there's no reason to believe that it would now. Among other problems with that, the leverage goes to those who control the commodity, which is treated as an object. This would only increase the incentive to control women's actions and bodies.

What's more, it's based on the theory that women are in competition for benefits that come to them through finding the best man to attach themselves too. If women were fully included in society, that wouldn't be the case. It wouldn't be necessary for women to receive their social benefits through a man. If their benefits come from someone else, I really can't believe they're that secure.

And, really, how does having fewer people ever help an under represented group? It just seems like it would make their voice that much easier to marginalize.

Now to return to my regular lurking.

Another problem with the one child policy in China is that there are now many elderly people and relatively few young people. The declining working age population will result in higher labor costs and also make taking care of the elderly more difficult. The elderly are highly respected in Chinese culture and it is expected that their children will care for them when they're older (instead of moving away from their aging parents). Because of this, fewer than 30% of China's elderly have pensions but there won't be enough young people to take care of them. So in conclusion, I'm really not sure how many people this policy is "saving" if so many are suffering later on in life (in addition to the mainly female orphans who have been put up for adoption because of their gender).

I really don't like bans in general (and that's a very general statement--I'm in favor of bans on things like nuclear weapons). I think that people need to learn to take on individual responsibility, which China hasn't in many cases (looking at its human rights abuses, its levels of pollution, etc.). But then again, neither have many nations, the US included. This recession is a result of individual/corporate irresponsibility. So I really don't know what the answer is. But I DO know that I'm tired of people arguing in favor of the one child policy because it has serious negative consequences on the whole population, even if many families get around it due to their higher class background.

We can't just bewail Chinese peasants making what is, currently, a reasonable choice. Instead, let's looking at the reasons they're making this choice and how having a daughter can be made more appealing to them.

1. Senior payments. Something like Social Security so all seniors have an income in their old age, even if they have no children.

2. Tractor-libraries. Farmers would be able to borrow heavy machinery that would enable a daughter to do the farmwork almost as well as a son (there's no complete substitute for upperbody strength on a farm, but this would come close).

3. Naming. All women will keep their birth name at marriage and children will be assigned the mother's surname. No more need for a son to "carry on the family name."

4. Equal Rites. Whatever rituals only sons are currently allowed to perform can now be performed by anyone.

5. No Dowries/Bride price. Thorough elimination of payments to fathers for their daughters, not just the wink-wink nonsense. If one Chinese person were giving another $$$ for drugs the government would come down on that, there's no reason they can't prevent girls being sold.

6. Education. All girls can be registered and will receive free education. A village can only register as many boys as it has girls. A village will be rewarded if its girls do well on tests. That will keep villagers from pulling a daughter out of school to take care of a baby son, as is often done now.

Any other reasons Chinese families (and other cultures, including our own) want at least one son?

I remember the one-child policy being ended in the late 1990s/2000. Is this not correct? It would still explain the gap in the under-20 crowd...

I lived in Hunan province (south China) for awhile.

I taught around 130 University students. Around 25% of them had siblings (I know this because they had an assignment to conduct surveys amongst students. If you are interested, many of the survey results are posted here: http://alarana.net/esl/survey/index.html)

They came from mixed backgrounds. None of them were particularly rich, some of them were poor and in order to afford school took on janitorial duties for a discount in their education.

Something to note. These abortions are NOT forced. The way that sex selective abortions are prevented is the expecting couple is not supposed to know the results of ultrasounds or other tests that would tell the sex of the unborn baby.

Gender in China is different in a subtle way. There are ways in which women in China are equal and respected members of society, but there are also many, many, many more ways in which women are limited. Ultimately I had to leave because of those limitations.

There is another reason that boys are preferred. When adult children marry, they often live with their parents. Having a son means you have a child with you after he marries. Having a daughter means she will leave your household to be with her husband's family.

This is such a conflicting issue for me.. because I am a huge advocate of population control... and part of me feels that no one should interfere in the reproductive rights of a woman."

In fact, improving the education levels, social status and career options of women is a much more effective means of population control than policies like this. Women who have options beyond being mothers and wives have less children. Families who have economic opportunities beyond having every family member work to survive don't feel desperate to have children to put to work.
China could have done itself much better by improving the poor's living standards and making having less children more profitable and efficient for women than having many.
Typically for poor, rural populations and women whose jobs are to take care of the home and/or help work the fields, larger families make more sense, and in addition to the fact that controlling people's reproductive choices is wrong, trying to control those type of rational decisions is ineffective and unnatural.
Even a one child policy that doesn't allow for gender imbalances still won't fix China's population size problems, its environmental issues or its poverty.

I'm confused by the comments claiming this massive discrepancy will give women "leverage" in the marriage market, or somehow improve their standing in society.

In a nation wherein males are prefered to females to this extent (i.e. A LOT), what would make anyone think this gender gap would result in anything but further oppression of women and girls? Why would women be granted the opportunity to pick and choose among the huge male population? Instead, I predict men will compete with each other to claim their "chattel." Not only will Chinese women suffer, but women from neighboring countries will be trafficked into China to make up for the shortage of Chinese women. It's already a male supremacist society; the men will find ways to obtain sex slaves/wives.

Right now, in India sex selective abortions are illegal and as was mentioned the techs will hint at what the sex of the baby is. and in lower income families, that can't afford an ultrasound, but don't want another girl baby, there is the problem of infanticide.
I don't think sex selective abortions are the answer, they might help in some cases, but I really think promoting human worth for all individuals is the only thing that will help.

Does anyone knows where these 32million guys mainly located in? Having them located in city or rural area would make a critical difference too, because if these guys are mainly from rural area and the surplus of female is actually from the city, it aint going to help the current situation...

This is pretty much going to remain a problem until Chinese culture starts valuing daughters as much as sons. There's reasons for this happening that, from the perspective of a Chinese peasant, are entirely reasonable. One idea would be to offer some sort of a stipend to families whose "one child" is female for a while, and see if that rebalances things a little bit.

Won't it curve the fertility rate? There's going to be a decrease in population because some men won't be able to have kids. Isn't that what they were aiming for?