NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?

Only about 1/3 of china is actually under that policy, it's not a nation wide thing, and is in place mainly in the cities.

Moreover since the purpose is to reduce population levels, if the chinese government has reached the point where the scenario has occurred, there'd be no real reason to continue the policy as is.

So, short answer...yes, you're the only one.

No, you're not.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04e.html
http://uygurletter.blogspot.com/2004/03/lack-of-women-threatens-stability-in.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2008-10/24/content_7138397.htm
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/7/19/15334/2974

Note: I do, though, agree with the below post
|
|
v

....seriously, the worst effect you can come up with of families aborting or otherwise getting rid of girls is "oh noes, now the men will have trouble getting laid"? Seriously?

....seriously, the worst effect you can come up with of families aborting or otherwise getting rid of girls is "oh noes, now the men will have trouble getting laid"? Seriously?

Eh that's not the worse. The worse is China's population will take a nose dive since after awhile the men will greatly outnumber the women, which means birth rate will drop and the number of people dying vs being born will be out of proportion to one another. With the death rate being higher than the birth rate, and it'll ultimately crash China's market since the sharp decline in population will most likely cause a shortage in workers.

better?

Oh come on. You're not going to have a nation full of men with blue balls in any case, because like most of the worlds cultures, China has discovered the art and science of masturbation. In fact, they were the first ones to do so among the ancient civilizations, preceding the earliest Western accounts of jerking off by at least six hundred years.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?

No. You're not.

Wilgrove, I presume you did some basic research before starting the thread.

In the course of doing my own basic research, I found this in Wikipedia:

According to a report by the State Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30 million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability.

30 million may sound a lot, but it's only about 2.3% of China's current population.

The footnote for that links to this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6254763.stm) which you may find useful.

They can always keep up the current policy of importing women from other countries...

Hmm, over-population is a hell of a problem, must be said. Not condoning the one-child policy, but hey, at least they're making an effort!!!

....Right?

Eh that's not the worse. The worse is China's population will take a nose dive since after awhile the men will greatly outnumber the women, which means birth rate will drop and the number of people dying vs being born will be out of proportion to one another. With the death rate being higher than the birth rate, and it'll ultimately crash China's market since the sharp decline in population will most likely cause a shortage in workers.

better?

Also less mouths to feed.

And isn't a lower population kinda the point of this whole exercise?

Oh come on. You're not going to have a nation full of men with blue balls in any case, because like most of the worlds cultures, China has discovered the art and science of masturbation. In fact, they were the first ones to do so among the ancient civilizations, preceding the earliest Western accounts of jerking off by at least six hundred years.

Ive heard the chinese are the world's biggest consumers of porn per person.

Anyways, yes, the real problem is the killing of baby girls.

Also less mouths to feed.

And isn't a lower population kinda the point of this whole exercise?

Yeah, but that's a terrible idea. Their economy simply isn't developed enough to handle demographic imbalances; Japan can deal with it because they're developing robots out the ass, but that's not the case in China.

Lower pop. is bad for the economy but good for the environment.

It's very good for the women in China. They don't have to settle, they can have the best, if they choose to marry at all.

Lower pop. is bad for the economy but good for the environment.

I personally think that the environment is more important.

China has an extremely poor environmental record, too.

It's very good for the women in China. They don't have to settle, they can have the best, if they choose to marry at all.

True. Their scarcity will increase their social stature. In the long term, this will be probably help get Chinese women closer to social equality.

True. Their scarcity will increase their social stature. In the long term, this will be probably help get Chinese women closer to social equality.

Not really, if every guy i met was desparate for a wife Id probably marry the richest hottest one and never have to work a day in my life.

I personally think that the environment is more important.

You live somewhere rich enough you can say that. Most Chinese farmers and factory workers are likely more concerned with escaping poverty than the environment.

in general a good idea. draconian measures of enforcement of it, on the otherhand, are not.

True. Their scarcity will increase their social stature.

Or lower them to the social level of cattle and baby making machines. I have always bet on the darker side of humanity, and I've not lost yet.

You live somewhere rich enough you can say that. Most Chinese farmers and factory workers are likely more concerned with escaping poverty than the environment.

I'm sure they are. How this is relevant I'm not sure, though.

Or lower them to the social level of cattle and baby making machines. I have always bet on the darker side of humanity, and I've not lost yet.
I'm not sure how that will work...

Did you know that after the black death in Europe, the peasant population had been so decimated that they became much more valuable to the nobility and their lives actually improved?

Not really, if every guy i met was desparate for a wife Id probably marry the richest hottest one and never have to work a day in my life.

That would still be an improvement on them being seen as worthless by many parents now.

While I'm generally against the One-Child policy, it does have an advantageous side-effect.

Since many males of military-service age have no siblings, a war of aggression is highly unlikely. Family is incredibly important in Chinese culture, and to sending young men off to die, potentially ending thousands of family lines, would create extreme unrest among the civilian population, something the Chinese government is obviously not interested in doing.

Even if exemptions for couples who have lost children in such a conflict were enacted, there is no guarantee that all of these couples will be able, capable, or willing to have another child.

In short...the One-Child policy is making Taiwan safer, as well as discouraging the sort of military adventurism that has so unfortunately taken place in the U.S.

It's very good for the women in China. They don't have to settle, they can have the best, if they choose to marry at all.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. The loss of choice for the men might balance the improved range of choices for the women.

It's their own damn fault for fucking like rabbits, IMO.

It's their own damn fault for fucking like rabbits, IMO.

What is their fault? And ... what?

Oh come on. You're not going to have a nation full of men with blue balls in any case, because like most of the worlds cultures, China has discovered the art and science of masturbation. In fact, they were the first ones to do so among the ancient civilizations, preceding the earliest Western accounts of jerking off by at least six hundred years.

Ssek, you just made my night!

What is their fault? And ... what?

Any population problems China has is their own damn fault.

Any population problems China has is their own damn fault.

Any penguin problems Antarctica has is their own damn fault, too.

In short...the One-Child policy is making Taiwan safer, as well as discouraging the sort of military adventurism that has so unfortunately taken place in the U.S.

Taiwan is perfectly safe and has been since the 80's.

America should give up its silly protection, and certainly stop sending them weapons since they only head straight over to China anyway.

The one-child rule is also a little silly, with many detrimental effects, kidnapping and buying of women being one. Exceptions to the one-child rule have been around for a while, female infanticide is prevalent in many Asian countries. Having said that, Chinese women are pretty damn straightforward these days and I'd almost fear for the mollycoddled men over the women.

Taiwan is perfectly safe and has been since the 80's.

I won't argue that point, although I do disagree...but there is no reason for China to be doing the crash blue-water naval construction program they are currently undertaking unless they had plans for the sort of operations that a conflict with Taiwan would necessarily entail.

So while it might be safe now, that degree of safety cannot be presumed to last indefinetly.

[/threadjack]

I'm not sure how that will work...

Did you know that after the black death in Europe, the peasant population had been so decimated that they became much more valuable to the nobility and their lives actually improved?

The peasant population was necessary in order to sustain a viable workforce so as to support the nobility. Improvement of their lives was necessary in order to make sure they lived longer and worked better.

Those conditions don't apply for women in China in this scenario, since there is no workforce shortage. There will be however, a women shortage, not a workforce shortage. What do you think that will translate to in terms of frustrated men? Increased instances of prostitution, kidnap/forced marriages, rape, etc, etc.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....
The gender imbalance is actually pretty minor at the moment, you're also not taking into account the fact that the policy isn't as strongly enforced in the countryside, where people get away with having more children.
Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?
No, which is why the Chinese government started about, eh, 20 years ago, telling people that having girls is fine.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?

Err... possibly happening? it IS happening!

The peasant population was necessary in order to sustain a viable workforce so as to support the nobility. Improvement of their lives was necessary in order to make sure they lived longer and worked better.

Those conditions don't apply for women in China in this scenario, since there is no workforce shortage. There will be however, a women shortage, not a workforce shortage. What do you think that will translate to in terms of frustrated men? Increased instances of prostitution, kidnap/forced marriages, rape, etc, etc.

Forced marriages are probably already common. Less women and more men mean that women have more chance of getting better candidates for marriage.

More prostitution? Where will they get the extra women necessary? I'd say that a girl's chances of becoming a prostitute will actually be lower, given that she'll have no problem finding a husband.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?I'm sure others that have no clue about what the One Child Policy really is come to similar conclusions.

More prostitution? Where will they get the extra women necessary?
On the contrary - one prostitute services multiple men, a bordello can provide sexual fulfillment to an entire block.

It's really terribly wasteful to have most women service just one male.

Forced marriages are probably already common. Less women and more men mean that women have more chance of getting better candidates for marriage.

Better candidates meaning ones with more money, maybe, but it also means more destruction of women's rights, and of course, takes no account of whether the supposed candidate is an abusive asshole with a history of wife killing.


More prostitution? Where will they get the extra women necessary?

I take it you've not heard of human trafficking?


I'd say that a girl's chances of becoming a prostitute will actually be lower, given that she'll have no problem finding a husband.

I see. You're thinking willing prostitutes. I'm not talking about those, but the human slave sort.

I see. You're thinking willing prostitutes. I'm not talking about those, but the human slave sort.
That's an extreme, though they can keep turning a blind eye to it. Or, knowing China, they could do it in a more organized way - just selectively conscript females along with males (all in the interests of gender equality), and have them in public service corps.

Better candidates meaning ones with more money, maybe, but it also means more destruction of women's rights, and of course, takes no account of whether the supposed candidate is an abusive asshole with a history of wife killing.

I take it you've not heard of human trafficking?

I see. You're thinking willing prostitutes. I'm not talking about those, but the human slave sort.

I recall doing some stuff related to this when I was in Amnesty International.

Human Rights Report on PRC: (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Asia-Pacific/China)
Women suffered discrimination in employment, education and access to health care. The trafficking of women and girls remained widespread, particularly from North Korea (see below). Domestic violence continued to be prevalent and was said to be a primary cause of suicide among women in rural areas.
Approximately 50,000 North Koreans were reportedly hiding in China, living under constant fear of deportation. Each month hundreds of North Koreans were believed to have been forcibly repatriated to North Korea without being given access to UNHCR offices in China. A majority of the North Koreans in China were women, many of whom had been trafficked into China and whose primary means of avoiding forcible return to North Korea was being sold into marriage to Chinese men.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?

I think they're feeling the effects of it already.
They're counteracting with mail-order brides. Basically, they're importing women.

NAS, have you considered trying to find some historical case of a gender imbalance on the order of 10 or 20%, to see whether a shortage of one gender leads to them being oppressed, or to them gaining an advantage?

That some men will act more desperately when their chances of attracting a wife/partner are lower is like saying prosperity is a bad thing because more people become obese. And it risks becoming a "men can't help themselves" argument ... and we know where that goes.

Better candidates meaning ones with more money, maybe, but it also means more destruction of women's rights, and of course, takes no account of whether the supposed candidate is an abusive asshole with a history of wife killing.
I never said things would be wonderful and peachy. Yes, ones with more money. As opposed to abusive assholes with a history of wife killing and less money.



I take it you've not heard of human trafficking?
I was referring to women born in China.



I see. You're thinking willing prostitutes. I'm not talking about those, but the human slave sort.
It's unlikely that more parents will force their daughters into sex slavery when chances are higher that they'll get a better deal out of marrying her off to a rich guy.

Your arguments are illogical.

NAS, have you considered trying to find some historical case of a gender imbalance on the order of 10 or 20%, to see whether a shortage of one gender leads to them being oppressed, or to them gaining an advantage?

That some men will act more desperately when their chances of attracting a wife/partner are lower is like saying prosperity is a bad thing because more people become obese. And it risks becoming a "men can't help themselves" argument ... and we know where that goes.

I remember an article about this in Foreign Policy. Called "The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration." (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3377)

Understanding the effect of the testosterone overload may be most important in China, the rising Asian superpower. Prompted by expert warnings, the Chinese authorities are already groping for answers. In 2004, President Hu Jintao asked 250 of the country’s senior demographers to study whether the country’s one-child policy—which sharply accentuates the preference for males—should be revised. Beijing expects that it may have as many as 40 million frustrated bachelors by 2020. The regime, always nervous about social control, fears that they might generate social and political instability.

Brigham Young University political scientist Valerie Hudson—the leading scholar on the phenomenon of male overpopulation in Asia—sees historical evidence for these concerns. In 19th-century northern China, drought, famine, and locust invasions apparently provoked a rash of female infanticide. According to Hudson, the region reached a ratio of 129 men to every 100 women. Roving young men organized themselves into bandit gangs, built forts, and eventually came to rule an area of some 6 million people in what was known as the Nien Rebellion. No modern-day rebellion appears to be on the horizon, but China watchers are already seeing signs of growing criminality.
The long-term implications of the gender imbalance are largely guesswork because there is no real precedent for imbalances on such a scale. Some Chinese experts speculate, off the record, that there might be a connection between the shortage of women and the spread of open gay life since 2001, when homosexuality was deleted from the official Classification of Mental Disorders. It is possible to dream up all kinds of scenarios: Mumbai and Shanghai may soon rival San Francisco as gay capitals. A Beijing power struggle between cautious old technocrats and aggressive young nationalists may be decided by mobs of rootless young men, demanding uniforms, rifles, and a chance to liberate Taiwan. More likely, the organized crime networks that traffic in women will shift their deliveries toward Asia and build a brothel culture large enough to satisfy millions of sexually frustrated young men.

I was referring to women born in China.

Snatching occurs within China as well, even those who are already married.

It's unlikely that more parents will force their daughters into sex slavery when chances are higher that they'll get a better deal out of marrying her off to a rich guy.

Your arguments are illogical.

No, for one, the cost of raising a child in the near term outweighs the possible reward in the future, easier to sell young. Second, there may be no choice, the girl is simply taken, no money either way.

Where there's demand, supply will occur. Where men have difficulty getting married, they'll either visit prostitutes or pay and agent to get one.

The argument is logical.

Snatching occurs within China as well, even those who are already married.



No, for one, the cost of raising a child in the near term outweighs the possible reward in the future, easier to sell young. Second, there may be no choice, the girl is simply taken, no money either way.

Where there's demand, supply will occur. Where men have difficulty getting married, they'll either visit prostitutes or pay and agent to get one.

The argument is logical.

Those are issues of kidnapping, already presumably quite illegal.

Those are issues of kidnapping, already presumably quite illegal.

Well so is prostitution in many places, including the majority of America, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Having said that, much of the middle class doesn't really mind having girls, it's among the poor and uneducated that the worst abuses happen.

Still, a rise is a rise and if something causes that rise, it's not particularly good.

Well so is prostitution in many places, including the majority of America, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Having said that, much of the middle class doesn't really mind having girls, it's among the poor and uneducated that the worst abuses happen.

Still, a rise is a rise and if something causes that rise, it's not particularly good.

True.

But then again, it's hard to say exactly what will happen, as a significant gender imbalance is a very rare scenario in this form. There have been significant gender imbalances before, but they tend to be because of war and such, which kills off men disproportionately, oftentimes.

I remember an article about this in Foreign Policy. Called "The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration." (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3377)

I'm trying not to get too embroiled in the argument (trying for an early night here.)

I was thinking of historical trends following from gender imbalance, so something that wasn't still in process. In particular, the effect of large numbers of men dying in wars.

But thanks anyway.

I'm trying not to get too embroiled in the argument (trying for an early night here.)

I was thinking of historical trends following from gender imbalance, so something that wasn't still in process. In particular, the effect of large numbers of men dying in wars.

But thanks anyway.

I'd be interested to see what that gender imbalance in traditional war was, one might guess that as many women were killed as men as armies went rampaging, raping and pillaging their way through a country. In mediaeval times, I think (really going out on a limb here) women traveled with the army as support as well, whether for making arrows or other.

If someone might spend the next couple of months in exhaustive research, I'm sure we'd all appreciate if it isn't a little tl:dr.

I'd be interested to see what that gender imbalance in traditional war was, one might guess that as many women were killed as men as armies went rampaging, raping and pillaging their way through a country. In mediaeval times, I think (really going out on a limb here) women traveled with the army as support as well, whether for making arrows or other.

If someone might spend the next couple of months in exhaustive research, I'm sure we'd all appreciate if it isn't a little tl:dr.

Certainly the losses from war would be somewhat proportional in areas where battles and conquering took place.

However, if the war is costly, the nation doing the invading still suffers the loss of many men, while its own cities and female population remain. I've heard of cases during the Civil War where in smaller Northern towns, the entire young male population was devastated, since at the time, men conscripted from one area generally were all assigned to the same unit. I've heard that this practice was changed specifically because of this effect, of wiping out the entire young male population of whole towns.

I just though of a historical gender imbalance with too many males.

Early American colonial society. The early colonists, especially the indentured servants, were mostly men.

There was the outlet of the frontier, but it was still one of the causes of Bacon's Rebellion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion)

Eh that's not the worse. The worse is China's population will take a nose dive since after awhile the men will greatly outnumber the women, which means birth rate will drop and the number of people dying vs being born will be out of proportion to one another. With the death rate being higher than the birth rate, and it'll ultimately crash China's market since the sharp decline in population will most likely cause a shortage in workers.

better?
not in the slightest. You really just don't get it, do you?

What worries the PRC more than having a nation of men furiously whacking off is a nation of frustrated men extremely pissed off at their government for enforcing the policy that makes them have to whack off cause there's no women.
It's part of the reason many commentators say China will find a reason to go to war with someone within the next coupla decades. We can see this occurring to a lesser extent today, with the Chinese government cynical (and blatant!) manipulation of the population to divert and direct their frustrations and anger towards outside issues. Like the whole, "I hate the French" protests and riots earlier this year. While they're shouting about whatever issue the PRC has decided is topical, they're too busy to question and wonder why they can't get laid, and why - if the economy is doing so damn well - their standard of living is still as shitty as ever. I read the other day in the WSJ that 1/3 - 400+ million - of the Chinese population living standards have actually decreased over the past few years despite the economy growing at 10+% each year.


India is facing similar problems, due to the greater desire for boys over girls.

NAS, have you considered trying to find some historical case of a gender imbalance on the order of 10 or 20%, to see whether a shortage of one gender leads to them being oppressed, or to them gaining an advantage?


India is facing the exact same problem in terms of gender imbalance. Look at where women, at least those not born into positions of power, tend to stand on the social scale.


That some men will act more desperately when their chances of attracting a wife/partner are lower is like saying prosperity is a bad thing because more people become obese.


Not all, no, but given existing problems with human trafficking, pseudo slave wives bought off trafficking rings and such, which are already on the rise in the region due to lack of available wives, it is foolish to think an increase in gender imbalance won't see a further rise of these problems.


And it risks becoming a "men can't help themselves" argument ... and we know where that goes.

There might be some like that. Maybe. I put them on the same level as rabid animals, which also cannot help themselves. In which case, they must be disposed of post haste.

I never said things would be wonderful and peachy. Yes, ones with more money. As opposed to abusive assholes with a history of wife killing and less money.

So all that's happening is that more women get oppressed more, by those with better capability to carry out even further abuses and get away with it.

Seems like it's for the worse.


I was referring to women born in China.


So? Just because a human trafficking gang sells in China doesn't mean it won't kidnap people from China, especially as their "value" increases from scarcity.


It's unlikely that more parents will force their daughters into sex slavery when chances are higher that they'll get a better deal out of marrying her off to a rich guy.

And who is to say this rich guy isn't already married, and simply wants more "staff" for the flesh trade? It isn't as if the entire damned region doesn't have a history of poor people selling off their children to brothels to make ends meet.

My arguments are perfectly logical, when you consider the dark side of humanity who will do what it takes to get ahead, or just to survive another day.

I remember an article about this in Foreign Policy. Called "The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration." (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3377)
You have to admit, though, bandits are pretty cool. They're like land pirates or something, but with forts instead of ships.

not in the slightest. You really just don't get it, do you?

What worries the PRC more than having a nation of men furiously whacking off is a nation of frustrated men extremely pissed off at their government for enforcing the policy that makes them have to whack off cause there's no women.
It's part of the reason many commentators say China will find a reason to go to war with someone within the next coupla decades. We can see this occurring to a lesser extent today, with the Chinese government cynical (and blatant!) manipulation of the population to divert and direct their frustrations and anger towards outside issues. Like the whole, "I hate the French" protests and riots earlier this year.

This is very true. The CPC relies on nationalism to deflect domestic unrest. The problem is that too much nationalism could result in anger towards the government for not standing up to other nations (as happened with the May 4th Movement). So a more restive population would probably lead to a more bellicose foreign policy.

"More likely, the organized crime networks that traffic in women will shift their deliveries toward Asia and build a brothel culture large enough to satisfy millions of sexually frustrated young men."

They're already doing this: kidnapping/luring girls from Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Mongolia, Burma, Laos, etc on the promise of high paying (for their country) wage only to find themselves trapped and forced into brothels.

"More likely, the organized crime networks that traffic in women will shift their deliveries toward Asia and build a brothel culture large enough to satisfy millions of sexually frustrated young men."

They're already doing this: kidnapping/luring girls from Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Mongolia, Burma, Laos, etc on the promise of high paying (for their country) wage only to find themselves trapped and forced into brothels.

But Callisdrun insists it is merely a "kidnapping" problem and that being illegal, will solve the issue handily, forgetting that China is incredibly corrupt, and the social pressures will mean the authorities will be far more likely to close an eye to the problem if it means that they will be able to have a pick of the "goods".

This is very true. The CPC relies on nationalism to deflect domestic unrest. The problem is that too much nationalism could result in anger towards the government for not standing up to other nations (as happened with the May 4th Movement). So a more restive population would probably lead to a more bellicose foreign policy.
very likely. PRC is sitting on a powder keg, and they know it. Right now I understand they're extremely worried about what effect the global downturn will have. Again from the WSJ, it said already 1.3 million workers have been laid off in the Guangzhou region (this is the manufacturing hub of Southern China - borders Hong Kong) due to the drop in global demand; the majority of whom are from the Sichuan province. Sichuan, where they had that massive earthquake which killed 100,000 injured another 300,000 and left couple of million homeless.
Place is still in ruins (if you recall, reason why so many - especially schoolchildren - died was due to really shoddy buildings passed fit by corrupt communist party officials) and many of them have been relying solely on the money sent home from their family working in the Guangzhou factories. Money that's no longer coming.
Think how pissed off they must be to have seen them homes destroyed and their one and only child killed due to corrupt greedy officials and now their one source of income returns broke and jobless, with the PRC telling them they can't do anything to help. These are people who have been indoctrinated with the 'communist' idea that the Party will take care of everything for them, and that they'll have a job for life. The notion of capitalism with all it's nasty side-effects of downturns, layoffs and unemployment isn't something the people at the bottom fully understand just yet. Especially as China's been doing nothing but growing at an insane rate for the past 15 years, so they've never experienced anything like what we're seeing now.

Another worry for the PRC is that many of the big multinationals are making serious noises about closing their factories down and reopening them across the border in Vietnam or Cambodia, where wages are much lower. If this happens, It will exacerbate the situation. We'll see many more millions of Chinese workers out of a job and heading back to their destitute farmlands. More frustration and anger. Lots more.

But Callisdrun insists it is merely a "kidnapping" problem and that being illegal, will solve the issue handily, forgetting that China is incredibly corrupt, and the social pressures will mean the authorities will be far more likely to close an eye to the problem if it means that they will be able to have a pick of the "goods".
An especially naiive view, considering we can't even control this obscenity happening in the West, and our authorities (ie the police, Interpol) are way less corrupt than anything you get in China.

I recall reading that much of the anger about the aftermath of the earthquake in Sichuan was directed towards local officials, rather than the central government. The national CPC probably managed to deflect some criticism with its response to the earthquake--Wen Jiabao got personally involved, sent in the army, etc.

But all in all, China already had some major challenges ahead even without a global slowdown. Environmental damage is going to be a major problem as well.

Another worry for the PRC is that many of the big multinationals are making serious noises about closing their factories down and reopening them across the border in Vietnam or Cambodia, where wages are much lower. If this happens, It will exacerbate the situation. We'll see many more millions of Chinese workers out of a job and heading back to their destitute farmlands. More frustration and anger. Lots more.

The PRC is trying to soften this by encouraging local spending among the middle class and above with holidays and the like, but the ratio compared to the poor is simply too large to make much of a dent if the multinationals jump the border.

An especially naiive view, considering we can't even control this obscenity happening in the West, and our authorities (ie the police, Interpol) are way less corrupt than anything you get in China.

Half the problem is that China is simply too massive population wise to do very much to stop the corruption with a centralized agency. Abuses are practically unchecked simply because there isn't anyone with the clout or the knowledge or both to deal with the corruption in any effective fashion. You'd practically need Superman to make an appreciable dent.

But Callisdrun insists it is merely a "kidnapping" problem and that being illegal, will solve the issue handily, forgetting that China is incredibly corrupt, and the social pressures will mean the authorities will be far more likely to close an eye to the problem if it means that they will be able to have a pick of the "goods".

I never said anything about "merely."

I concede the argument.

It's unlikely that more parents will force their daughters into sex slavery when chances are higher that they'll get a better deal out of marrying her off to a rich guy.
Yeah, there's gonna be enough rich guys for every woman, all riding shining mercs in white body armor.


We're not talking like 5% of women and 95% men (and in that case, too, not all women would be taken and personally used by rich guys). We're talking a 15-30% imbalance, which doesn't make women rare enough to appreciate for scarcity, but does create said 15-30% of men unable to fit into a monogamous model.

The rich men able to beat any prostitution price will still have enough women. But the trophy wife market is quickly saturated. The middle and especially lower class are going to need prostitutes. And, while a lower-classer can't pay as much individually as a middle-classer, they can collectively. Well, the bordello-running businessmen will, of course.


And women's status in society? Suffices to say they'll have a more demanded and important job than becoming lawyers and managers. Lower-class ones, at least, and often middle-class.
Plus, it's still desirable to sell your daughter as a way to just get rid of her. Beats killing, both morally and economically. You can sell a young daughter unnoticed, so you can wait for a son, you can't grow her up and marry her unnoticed.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?

I see this as such a far-fetched assumption. Not because of the preference the Chinese have for sons, but the assumption that most girls are killed.

Ok, so I've thought about this from time to time, and I just have to ask this. China has a 1 child per family rule. Which is population control, since China has about 1 billion people. Now in Chinese culture, a boy is preferable, and if someone gives birth to a girl. While a few are kept, some are put in orphans, others are killed. Now sooner or later, China is going to run out of women, it'll be nothing but a nation of sexually frustrated Chinese men. Imagine a billion men having blue balls....

Am I the only one seeing this possibility happening?
Yes, because the tragedy of the anti-girl, anti-woman attitudes is that MEN won't have enough holes to fuck.

I see this as such a far-fetched assumption.I see parts of it as entirely false assumptions.

I see parts of it as entirely false assumptions.

I just didn't want to be so hard on poor Wilgrove, not as my entrance post.;)

Yes, because the tragedy of the anti-girl, anti-woman attitudes is that MEN won't have enough holes to fuck.
You can always be born a MAN, so that's a matter of choice. However, what would be the point of that choice if you had nowhere to park your caddy.

You can always be born a MAN, so that's a matter of choice. However, what would be the point of that choice if you had nowhere to park your caddy.
This is both humorous and original.

I just didn't want to be so hard on poor Wilgrove, not as my entrance post.;)He could seriously have done the minimum of research required to figure out that the one child policy fines you for bearing extra children and not raising them. The idea that girls would be sent off to orphanages because of the policy is nonsensical, since it would deprive the families of a working hand without sparing them the fine. Also, the one child policy has been loosened for academic families, which are less likely to see their daughters as burdens. The effect is there, but the way Wilgrove painted the situation is pretty off.

I see this as such a far-fetched assumption.
why do you think it far-fetched?
It's a demonstrable fact that more boys than girls in China each - statistically far more than normal. Normal live birth sex ratio is 106 boys to 100 girls . In China it's now 123 boys to 100 girls (that's on average, in Hainan, for eg, it's 135 boys to 100 girls).
Scanning for fetus gender is illegal in China, so how is this possible unless they:
1. Illegally pay for gender scans then abort;
or
2. They abandon the newborn or commit infanticide;
or
3. all of the above.

What other explanation is there?


And this doesn't tell the full story, as it's only a statistic at live birth. Infant mortality rates for girls in China is much higher than for boys:
Boys: 19 deaths per 1000 live births
Girls: 23 deaths per 1000 live births
(this is number of deaths of infants under one year old)

Oh no. The plan went Wong.

Yeah, I know using Chinese surnames in puns isn't very PC. In fact, its so un-PC that my normal desktop computer kept proclaiming that I was performing an "illegal operation" and wouldn't let me type it here. Which is why I used a supercomputer instead. I mean, controlling what you are allowed to type? Thats PC gone mad.

He could seriously have done the minimum of research required to figure out that the one child policy fines you for bearing extra children and not raising them. The idea that girls would be sent off to orphanages because of the policy is nonsensical, since it would deprive the families of a working hand without sparing them the fine. Also, the one child policy has been loosened for academic families, which are less likely to see their daughters as burdens. The effect is there, but the way Wilgrove painted the situation is pretty off.

Could you clarify, the ratio of boys to females is 118:100 so clearly something is happening, and that's recorded births, not counting infanticide and abandonment.

It seems you're saying there aren't more boys than females, or increased abandonment, either through adoption or plain leaving by the wayside, that there's no effect of the one-child policy, I just want to understand what you're saying.

Through the 1980s, as the one-child policy came into force, parents who desired a son but bore a daughter in some cases failed to report or delayed the reporting of the birth of the girl to the authorities. But rather than neglecting or abandoning unwanted girls, the parents may have offered them up for formal or informal adoption. A majority of children who went through formal adoption in China in the later 1980s were girls, and the proportion who were girls increased over time (Johansson and Nygren 1991).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

why do you think it far-fetched?
It's a demonstrable fact that more boys than girls in China each - statistically far more than normal. Normal live birth sex ratio is 106 boys to 100 girls . In China it's now 123 boys to 100 girls (that's on average, in Hainan, for eg, it's 135 boys to 100 girls).
Scanning for fetus gender is illegal in China, so how is this possible unless they:
1. Illegally pay for gender scans then abort;
or
2. They abandon the newborn or commit infanticide;
or
3. all of the above.

What other explanation is there?


And this doesn't tell the full story, as it's only a statistic at live birth. Infant mortality rates for girls in China is much higher than for boys:
Boys: 19 deaths per 1000 live births
Girls: 23 deaths per 1000 live births
(this is number of deaths of infants under one year old)

I could understand if some of those girls are sent to orphanages and such, but to blatantly post that they're killed outright is just preposterous. I just will considered that Wil's assumptions are coloured by his surprise at, perhaps, doing the minimum research and by his own understanding of the subject. Nothing else.

I see this as such a far-fetched assumption. Not because of the preference the Chinese have for sons, but the assumption that most girls are killed.

Generally, they go for an abortion. But those too poor to afford the ultrasound scans, most of rural China, and India for that matter, simply kill the girl after birth. If you grew up in a first world country, of course it would seem alien and unthinkable to you. But many countries in the region, especially the ones were poverty and lack of education are rampant, are far more strongly patriarchal than first world countries, to the point where women simply are not seen as equal living beings.

Amongst the middle and upper class of China, a girl is not too much of a problem for the parents, either because they are capable of bribing their way for another child, or are not bound by the rural beliefs of traditional China. This is simply not the case in rural China where poverty is crushing, dowries are common practice for marriage (girl's parents have to give them), and family line is important.

Could you clarify, the ratio of boys to females is 118:100 so clearly something is happening, and that's recorded births, not counting infanticide and abandonment.

It seems you're saying there aren't more boys than females, or increased abandonment, either through adoption or plain leaving by the wayside, that there's no effect of the one-child policy, I just want to understand what you're saying.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Really? It seems like I'm saying that? You're reading way too much into what I've posted. I'm saying Wilgrove has been exaggerating the extent of the one child policy and the description he posted of it is misleading as to what it mandates and does.

I could understand if some of those girls are sent to orphanages and such, but to blatantly post that they're killed outright is just preposterous. I just will considered that Wil's assumptions are coloured by his surprise at, perhaps, doing the minimum research and by his own understanding of the subject. Nothing else.No, infanticide happens.

I could understand if some of those girls are sent to orphanages and such, but to blatantly post that they're killed outright is just preposterous. I just will considered that Wil's assumptions are coloured by his surprise at, perhaps, doing the minimum research and by his own understanding of the subject. Nothing else.

You're wrong. First, China has banned scanners to determine the sex of the foetus due to the abortion of females, for no reason? Other than that, try explain the recorded birth rate disparity, and that's just recorded.

Finally, go walk on the streets of Chinese cities and see the ratio of children either selling flowers or outright begging in groups that are female.

The one-child policy is not necessarily the cause, there are many cultural issues, it certainly excaberates the problem.

Really? It seems like I'm saying that? You're reading way too much into what I've posted. I'm saying Wilgrove has been exaggerating the extent of the one child policy and the description he posted of it is misleading as to what it mandates and does.

Hence I asked for an explanation but it still seems to dismiss the issue. I'd say 20-30 million disparity is low because the figures are recorded by China. Note the difference where it was 117:100 - I thought it was 118 earlier but hadn't checked - and it's suddenly lowered to 110:100 - much like pollution levels in Beijing where actually the measurers were moved or outright removed.

The problem is far greater than official records indicate.

Again, females in tier one urban cities are probably close to equal, but there's 700m poor and uneducated where the one-child policy coupled with ingrained cultural attitudes cause real issues.

It's not just China, merely 500 years ago, Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon because she didn't bear males, times will change.

I don't have any problem with the Chinese as a people, but this predicted downfall of China is probably for the best in the long run.. I know that sounds horribly harsh, but the world is finally starting to wake up and realize we need to do something about the environmental issues in this world, and fast. How efficiently can we do that when 20% of the human population is run by a greedy, ego-centric government who could care less? Utilitarianism FTW.

As for the gender imbalance.. well... Maybe they'll just have to go back to cutting sleeves.

I don't have any problem with the Chinese as a people, but this predicted downfall of China is probably for the best in the long run.. I know that sounds horribly harsh, but the world is finally starting to wake up and realize we need to do something about the environmental issues in this world, and fast. How efficiently can we do that when 20% of the human population is run by a greedy, ego-centric government who could care less? Utilitarianism FTW.

As for the gender imbalance.. well... Maybe they'll just have to go back to cutting sleeves.

It's hard to care about abstract environment over real people - not that I'm saying environmental issues are not real, but it's harder to ignore the audible voice of a population wanting to increase wealth over a silent environment quickly deteriorating.

China is not alone, and near-sighted stability will always win over long-sighted benefit.

It's not just a fault of the government, other than giving in to the immediate concerns of all its people. It's hard to tell a population a reality they don't want to hear, it's even harder to change their individual desires.

If anything, the CCP is testament to that, mass force for change does not work, governments have to stop giving in to short-sighted concerns, media has to stop biased reporting to sell papers, we all have to sacrifice, or simply alter priorities, to turn things around.

30 million may sound a lot, but it's only about 2.3% of China's current population.

Thats the population of Canada. holy shit

I don't have any problem with the Chinese as a people, but this predicted downfall of China is probably for the best in the long run.. I know that sounds horribly harsh, but the world is finally starting to wake up and realize we need to do something about the environmental issues in this world, and fast. How efficiently can we do that when 20% of the human population is run by a greedy, ego-centric government who could care less? Utilitarianism FTW.

As for the gender imbalance.. well... Maybe they'll just have to go back to cutting sleeves.

America doesn't make up 20% of the worlds population.

America doesn't make up 20% of the worlds population.

1.3 billion out of 6.8 billion, sounds like China to me. America is what, 7%?

Quit oppressing yourself.

You're wrong. First, China has banned scanners to determine the sex of the foetus due to the abortion of females, for no reason? Other than that, try explain the recorded birth rate disparity, and that's just recorded.

Finally, go walk on the streets of Chinese cities and see the ratio of children either selling flowers or outright begging in groups that are female.

The one-child policy is not necessarily the cause, there are many cultural issues, it certainly excaberates the problem.

My surprise and incredulity comes from posting that the Chinese in rural areas would outright kill the girls when they're born. I can't grasp it, not only culturally-wise but also because the Chinese cannot be (those in rural areas) that savage. Can they?

My surprise and incredulity comes from posting that the Chinese in rural areas would outright kill the girls when they're born. I can't grasp it, not only culturally-wise but also because the Chinese cannot be (those in rural areas) that savage. Can they?

Savage is a harsh word, and it certainly doesn't apply to the majority and it certainly doesn't mean people are willingly killing female babies.

Your initial incredulity was over sending to orphanages, which is clearly wrong, it happens. From orphanages one moves to giving away to selling to those offering to buy, without wanting to think of the possible consequences, hoping for the best. Then comes abandonment in the hope that someone else will take better care.

Finally, a very small percentage, there's infanticide.

Don't think people willingly kill babies remorselessly, more have pity that people feel forced, through cultural beliefs that are seen in all cultures, that a female child is worth less than a male and the consequences of that belief.

My surprise and incredulity comes from posting that the Chinese in rural areas would outright kill the girls when they're born. I can't grasp it, not only culturally-wise but also because the Chinese cannot be (those in rural areas) that savage. Can they?

It's not a question of savagery. It's a question of how much importance they place on family lines, and the economic question of daughters. Rural societies often have families paying dowries to other families when their daughters marry to other families. A payment in exchange for links to another family so to speak. Rural China does not have the kind of populace that can afford dowries of any kind, and the cultural ties that lead to this are very strongly rooted, and generations old.

This is not unique to China. Pre-industrial Japan had the same issue, as does rural India.

America doesn't make up 20% of the worlds population.

I have to assume that is sarcasm, because no one is that stupid. Just because Bush Jr. didn't agree to the the Kyoto protocol does not mean that the U.S. hasn't started to make changes, and just because China did agree to the Kyoto protocol doesn't mean they aren't decimating the environment anyway.

I do agree that the U.S. is in dire need of regulations, but the fact that the U.S. is slowly reducing their pollution, and China is rapidly increasing theirs, my original statement holds firm.

I could not be arsed to read all of the thread, sorry.
In response to the original poster:-
If china ended up mostly men I guess China would just have to do two things
a)stop the 1 baby rule
b)make polygamy legal - polygamy historically occurs in cultures with an imbalance of the sexes.

The nasty stuff that has happened to children, born and unborn and their mothers over this 1 sprog law is distastful to me to say the least so as to not give myself nightmares about my own beloved daughter I am not taking this thread that seriously

It's very good for the women in China. They don't have to settle, they can have the best, if they choose to marry at all.

You would think that. But historically shortages of women have lead to their commoditization, not just in paying the parents of a girl for marriage, but also in buying, selling, kidnapping women into prostitution.
In particular you see this in China most clearly in the southern Song where even noblemen would sell their wife off for a period of 1 to 2 years to cover debts.

As for the effects on demographics. We will see them within 10 years as the current working generation retires and their is a limited number of new workers to replace them. It wont be catastrophic it will just convert China's economic growth to something along the lines of Italy. And may well already have, China's Stock market is down 50%, and their stock market fell before the current economic crisis(started in 2007). I suspect they are cooking the books on their GDP growth (can't cheat on a freely traded stock market).
Also they have a stimulus/bail out of about 20% of their GDP that would the equivalent of 3 trillion dollars if the US did so, so I really question their numbers.
Nothing to do but wait and see.

I have to assume that is sarcasm, because no one is that stupid. Just because Bush Jr. didn't agree to the the Kyoto protocol does not mean that the U.S. hasn't started to make changes, and just because China did agree to the Kyoto protocol doesn't mean they aren't decimating the environment anyway.
of course China agreed to it the Kyoto protocol has no effect on non industrialized countries. for them it is like signing a piece of paper saying you will have less competition.


I do agree that the U.S. is in dire need of regulations, but the fact that the U.S. is slowly reducing their pollution, and China is rapidly increasing theirs, my original statement holds firm.

The US is decreasing their pollution slower then Europe for several reasons.
1. The US has the largest Coal reserves in the world. So really doesn't make sense for us not to use coal.
2. When the US was setting the current infrastructure in place the majority of Americans had cars. So our infrastructure was developed around cars.
Post WWII Europe most people did not have cars so the infrastructure developed around mass transportation.
To switch to mass transportation would not only cost a lot of money but would also turn our previous infrastructure investment to being worthless.
The interstate system is perhaps one of the largest most expensive projects to date.

I could understand if some of those girls are sent to orphanages and such, but to blatantly post that they're killed outright is just preposterous. I just will considered that Wil's assumptions are coloured by his surprise at, perhaps, doing the minimum research and by his own understanding of the subject. Nothing else.

One of my Dear friends was adopted from China. Her parents were working at the Us embassy in China. Her now adopted mom was riding her bike for exercise when she heard a noise under a bridge.
She went to investigate. My friend was a baby girl under a pile of baby girls. She had survived because the the other discarded children bodies had kept her warm.
Infanticide was common at least 18 years ago when it was done to my friend. And I wager it is still common today.

....seriously, the worst effect you can come up with of families aborting or otherwise getting rid of girls is "oh noes, now the men will have trouble getting laid"? Seriously?
I think it's more so because other effects of this have already been talked about, and the thread starter probably wanted to talk about something less frequently discussed.

Yeah, there's gonna be enough rich guys for every woman, all riding shining mercs in white body armor.


We're not talking like 5% of women and 95% men (and in that case, too, not all women would be taken and personally used by rich guys). We're talking a 15-30% imbalance, which doesn't make women rare enough to appreciate for scarcity, but does create said 15-30% of men unable to fit into a monogamous model.

The rich men able to beat any prostitution price will still have enough women. But the trophy wife market is quickly saturated. The middle and especially lower class are going to need prostitutes. And, while a lower-classer can't pay as much individually as a middle-classer, they can collectively. Well, the bordello-running businessmen will, of course.


And women's status in society? Suffices to say they'll have a more demanded and important job than becoming lawyers and managers. Lower-class ones, at least, and often middle-class.
Plus, it's still desirable to sell your daughter as a way to just get rid of her. Beats killing, both morally and economically. You can sell a young daughter unnoticed, so you can wait for a son, you can't grow her up and marry her unnoticed.

One post above yours (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14206493&postcount=65)

Thats the population of Canada. holy shit

China has declared they will Annex Canada's women to make up for the gender imbalance.

Certainly the losses from war would be somewhat proportional in areas where battles and conquering took place.

However, if the war is costly, the nation doing the invading still suffers the loss of many men, while its own cities and female population remain. I've heard of cases during the Civil War where in smaller Northern towns, the entire young male population was devastated, since at the time, men conscripted from one area generally were all assigned to the same unit. I've heard that this practice was changed specifically because of this effect, of wiping out the entire young male population of whole towns.

Bedford, VA lost 19 soldiers on D-Day out of a total population of just 3,200 people. They were all in the same National Guard unit. The same thing could very well happen to day as National Guard members are still concentrated by geography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford,_Virginia

I could understand if some of those girls are sent to orphanages and such, but to blatantly post that they're killed outright is just preposterous. I just will considered that Wil's assumptions are coloured by his surprise at, perhaps, doing the minimum research and by his own understanding of the subject. Nothing else.
If they're sent to orphanages, that wouldn't explain the huge discrepancy between what is the norm for gender ratio and what is seen in China. We'd still see a male:female ratio close to the 106:100 norm. Instead it's up to 135:100 in some areas.
This leaves just abortion and/or infanticide as explanation. Chinese families are hardly going to practise abortion unless they definitely know the fetus' sex. Ultrasound is illegal in China for this purpose, and poor families can't afford Blackmarket ultrasound which leaves abortion out for the majority.
So we're left with the sole explanation of infanticide. This is partially backed by the much higher mortality rates of girls vs boys under 5years of age. Traditional Chinese society puts no stock into girls. Read up on female roles in China, it will surprise and shock you.
The Chinese expression for giving birth to a boy translates as 'great happiness' vs 'small happiness' for a girl. Even more telling is this ancient Chinese poem:
When a son is born
Let him sleep on the bed,
Clothe him with fine clothes.
And give him jade to play with.

When a daughter is born,
Let her sleep on the ground,
Wrap her in common wrappings,
And give her broken tiles for playthings.

Sure it's a very old poem, but it does highlight the inherent sexism of traditional Chinese society.

China has declared they will Annex Canada's women to make up for the gender imbalance.

If they try anything, we'll f*ck them up :p