The New York Times reports that economists at Columbia and the University of Texas have found strong evidence that many American parents of Chinese, Korean, and Indian descent use various sex selection methods to make sure they have at least one boy:
In general, more boys than girls are born in the United States, by a ratio of 1.05 to 1. [Girls have a better survival rate.] But among American families of Chinese, Korean and Indian descent, the likelihood of having a boy increased to 1.17 to 1 if the first child was a girl....If the first two children were girls, the ratio for a third child was 1.51 to 1—or about 50 percent greater—in favor of boys....
On the basis of census and birth records through 2004, the incidence of boys among immigrant Chinese parents in New York was higher than the national average for Chinese families. Boys typically account for about 515 of every 1,000 births....Among Chinese New Yorkers having a third child, the number of boys was about 558.
Notably, the gender imbalance at birth is much more dramatic in China, where 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. That's the overall rate, not (as in the American research) the rate for families that already have a girl. Sex-selective abortions, though illegal in China, are the preferred method for getting a boy/avoiding a girl there, whereas Chinese Americans also use in vitro fertilization or sperm sorting. While acculturation and economic improvement may partly explain why immigrants from China are more likely to have girls than parents who remain there, the country's strict population controls surely have much to do with it. When parents are limited by law to one or two children (depending on where they live), they are more likely to take extraordinary measures to ensure that the first or second is a boy. The combination of a preference for boys and the "one child" policy also leads to widespread abandonment of baby girls in China.
A couple years ago, I explored the nexus between China's population policy and international adoption in "Thank Deng Xiaoping for Little Girls."
So by having those mail order bride ads in the sidebar, Reason is attempting to even out the Asian Male/Female ratio in the US and performing a public service?
Us AMerican boys will take al the asian girls that they dont want, when there 18 of course. MMMM hot asian girls!
"If the first two children were girls, the ratio for a third
child was 1.51 to 1-or about 50 percent greater-in favor of
boys...."
And if the first two times I flip a quarter it comes out tails,
what are the odds that the third flip will come out heads?
This one is easy to fix. Merely commoditize Asian females and let the market sort it out.
"This one is easy to fix. Merely commoditize Asian females and
let the market sort it out."
I'm giving a recommendaition of buy.
And if the first two times I flip a quarter it comes out
tails, what are the odds that the third flip will come out
heads?
50%, or 1 to 1.
Any technology that is used to inhibit the creation of Asian girls should be banned.
And if the first two times I flip a quarter it comes out
tails, what are the odds that the third flip will come out
heads?
Facetious, or innumerate?
I'm giving a recommendaition of buy.
Is there a lease option?
Natural selection applies to cultures as well as individuals,
and if a culture has such a low opinion of females that it can't
keep itself going, then goodbye, good riddance, and when the last
lonely horny Chinese male dies of frustrated virginal old age (or
some embarrassing suffocation/masturbation debacle), a culture with
a healthy gender balance can move in to the abandoned country and
do something useful with it.
Same goes for you, too, India. Either learn to appreciate females
or go extinct; 'tis all the same to me. I promise to be
extra-graceful when I dance on your collective grave.
They should skip even having a first or second child and go right for the third.
Jennifer, traditionally, excessive males leads eventually to war as all those males who can't get a wife start to get pissed off. So, while it would be nice for this policy to screw those who practice it, it ends up screwing those around them too. I mean, if your culture has too few women, the one next over has some, right?
I don't remember who, but someone wrote once that all the excess
Chinese males should get up with all the excess women in Russia and
form a new nation in Siberia. It was pointed out that this wouldn't
work, however, because the Chinese males are mostly under the age
of 25 while the Russian women are all, like, 60.
(If i inadvertently summoned the cougarbot, i apologize.)
They could just share women.
Is that not what socialism is about?
--==*
Cougarster.Com *==-- Best Cougar dating site in the
world!
For Cougars, dating younger man can be exciting and feel younger.
And also you may find yourself more compatible with young man. For
younger man, dating older women has numerous advantages. You can
learn valuable advice from her on how to conduct himself in
difficult situation. She is best listener and supporter.
Join us and contact tens of thousands of cougars and cougar
admirers!
Despite your feelings about abortion, I really do feel it's morally rotten to just abort a potential human life because it's doesn't fit into your "ideal gender picture" of your kids.
Leave me alone, Monkey. I'm already beating myself up about the 8 syllable 2nd line. I offer a "distraction at work" not as an excuse, but as a reason.
Jennifer, traditionally, excessive males leads eventually to
war as all those males who can't get a wife start to get pissed
off. So, while it would be nice for this policy to screw those who
practice it, it ends up screwing those around them too. I mean, if
your culture has too few women, the one next over has some,
right?
With luck, the excess Chinese males will start a fight with the
excess Indian males and the two groups will kill each other off
while the women from both benighted countries emigrate to a Western
nation that has evolved beyond the belief that virtue, intelligence
and self-worth reside exclusively in the human penis.
Jennifer - I hope you're be facetious, because I have no desire to see millions of people die, regardless of their abhorrent cultural beliefs.
Come on Sugarfree, its easy...
Come here Chinese girls
Wen Jaibao doesn't want you
you love me long time
TAO,
Despite our disagreement on the subject, I don't imagine too many
PWWATBL think that an abortion under those circumstance is a free
choice the woman is making.
Women who do freely abort on the basis of sex selection are morally
abhorrent, but I still wouldn't make it illegal.
With luck, the excess Chinese males will start a fight with the
excess Indian males and the two groups will kill each other off
while the women from both benighted countries emigrate to a Western
nation that has evolved beyond the belief that virtue, intelligence
and self-worth reside exclusively in the human penis.
__________________________________________
I dont think you will get much restiance from the American male, we
will take all the asian and indian women they want to send, persian
woman from iran/turkey are also very welcome here.
monkey,
Spend the rest of the day writing haikus and then write them all
day tomorrow. You might be able to catch up with the
number I've written on these boards.
"virtue, intelligence and self-worth reside exclusively in the
human penis."
Well you must admit the overwhelming majority of it does.
SugarFree - I'm talking about in the United States, not in
China.
I wouldn't make it illegal either. Up to a certain point,
abortion-on-demand should be the law.
"Come here Chinese girls
Wen Jaibao doesn't want you
you love me long time"
No ten dollah, no sucky-sucky.
Jennifer - I hope you're be facetious, because I have no
desire to see millions of people die, regardless of their abhorrent
cultural beliefs.
Evolution is a harsh master that offers only two choices: Adapt or
die. If a culture's view of women is so low that said culture ends
up lacking enough women to keep itself going, I personally would
rather see the culture die out rather than figure out a way to
import women from other cultures, and keep those women doomed to
eternal second-class status.
And if a massive female shortage isn't enough to make those idiots
appreciate the value of women, as apparently it is not, that
suggests "adapt" might be beyond their ability. So they can, quite
literally, drop dead, and if you want to turn this into a PC
cultural-sensitivity thing, I'll point out that my XX chromosomes
give me a trump-proof victim card to play in this primarily male
comment board: I will NOT be "tolerant" of a culture which teaches
that I myself am a second-class creature.
I'm talking about in the United States, not in
China.
I am too. Immigrant populations can face cultural pressure as
strong as the ones that stayed home. Think about the Islamic women
you see in this country that still wear veils and scarves. Nothing
about our over-culture forces them to wear them, but they still
do.
(Yes, some may do it voluntarily... but there must be a high
percentage that don't. And "voluntary" gets thin on the edges.)
I think, Jennifer, that TAO is objecting to your collectivist
view where you contend all males in the society think less of
women, and therefore deserve to die. Are we individualists here or
not?
Women who do freely abort on the basis of sex selection are
morally abhorrent
Why? You have no objection to a woman aborting an unwanted fetus
for other reasons; who cares about her reasons in this case?
Episiarch - not true. I'm personally judgmental enough in many
cases of abortion, but I'm lenient to a great deal in my
judgmentalism. If the woman isn't emotionally or financially ready,
as is the case in many abortions, I understand that. That's the
responsible choice to make. On the other hand, being ready and
willing to take care of child but aborting it because it doesn't
have the right genitals, or eye color, or hair color, is personally
abhorrent and superficial to me.
And if a massive female shortage isn't enough to make those idiots appreciate the value of women, as apparently it is not, that suggests "adapt" might be beyond their ability. So they can, quite literally, drop dead
For one, yes, as Epi said, these are individuals you're hoping
die because of their differing viewpoints from your
own.
Two, I suggest you look back and survey history and see how many
human societies died out because they objectified women. Hint:
fucking none of them. So, "respecting" women isn't quite the
evolutionary advantage you think it is.
I believe in female equality as much as the next person, but that's
in defiance of evolutionary precedents and biological
imperatives, not in compliance with them.
I think, Jennifer, that TAO is objecting to your
collectivist view where you contend all males in the society think
less of women, and therefore deserve to die. Are we individualists
here or not?
God save me from semantic purists. Very well. Next time I
criticize, for example, "the Saudi Arabains' barbaric view of
women," I will take the additional time to tack on the required
disclaimers about how SOME Saudis no doubt have complete respect
for the autonomy of the female adult individual whatever whatever
whargarbl, and after I spend several hours and dozens of pages
typing out all the specific exclusions everyone whose eyes have not
glazed over can shout "Hosanna to Jennifer for her exquisite use of
language to communicate rather than obfuscate! I now know exactly
what she's talking about, when she criticizes
some-but-not-all-of-the-Saudis! In honor of her achievement we'd
like to present her with this 'Golden Dildo Award,' so that the
next time her job duties require her to go to a we-hate-women
mosque, she can brandish the dildo and shout 'Behold! I have a
dick! Now will you fuckheads look me in the eye?'"
Oops, there. Apparently my annoyance with a real-life situation is
spilling over onto the Internet. O, how quaint.
I wasn't being nearly that picky. I was objecting to your
apparently latent wish that "cultures" that aren't sufficiently
feminist kill themselves off via a war that will cost millions of
lives.
I mean, yikes.
who cares about her reasons in this case?
A woman who gets pregnant by choice with a nominal 50-50 chance of
aborting the fetus is morally off to me. She can do want she wants
with her body and I certainly have no "sanctity of life" issues,
but I find the practice to be on shaky moral grounds.
But it gets thin on the edges, like I said. Would she be doing this
if not for the boy-preference in her over-culture? Is she freely
making this choice? So no condemning or stoning from me, but it's
certainly nothing I would ever do... which is my moral
compass.
That said, if they want a certain sex of baby, technology is making
that possible now and it's just going to get easier.
I am a complete and total relativist on ethics and I never expect
anyone to share my ethics. But a lack of common ethical grounding
doesn't endear a person to me.
TAO, I have no objection to the procedure of abortion.
Therefore, why would I object based on the motivation of the woman?
It's like saying prostitution is ok if the guy is really lonely but
morally abhorrent if he's sick of his wife. Who cares why he's
going?
Jennifer, that's a good rant. Still, what you are doing is
essentially the same as saying "all French are cowards". You mostly
attacked the culture, which makes sense, but wanting untold numbers
of men to die as if they were all guilty is, well, wrong.
Sorry.
I was objecting to your apparently latent wish that
"cultures" that aren't sufficiently feminist kill themselves off
via a war that will cost millions of lives.
Actually, if you'll re-read my comments (move your lips if it
helps), you'll see that I did not criticize any culture for being
"insufficiently feminist," but for having such a low opinion of
females that they lack enough females to keep the culture
going.
Big. Fucking. Difference.
Episiarch - ummm, I suppose that's your ethical choice to make,
but I do see a moral and ethical difference between visiting a
prostitute if you're lonely and doing to cheat. I don't have any
objections to the act of sexual intercourse qua sex, but
if you're engaging in it to say, fuck with someone's head, or as a
revenge fuck, or in the course of adultery, do you really not
morally distinguish those cases from two
emotionally-stable adults engaging in it for fun or out of
love?
I mean, I don't think that pressuring a girl into having sex should
be illegal or categorized as rape, but any dude who browbeats or
guilts a chick into it is a real fucking douche.
Jennifer - whatever. I don't care what "difference" you want to
draw, you're practically dancing on the grave of millions of
men.
you wished them death. and you couched it in some
ridiculous notion of "evolution", as if "appreciation of women" was
some kind of evolutionary advantage.
What a joke.
So how is the Chinese & Indian desire to reduce the number of females any different/similar to the S.C.U.M. Manifesto?
I mean, I don't think that pressuring a girl into having sex
should be illegal or categorized as rape, but any dude who
browbeats or guilts a chick into it is a real fucking
douche.
You're just feeling guilty about all those pity fucks you've
attempted to get.
do you really not morally distinguish those cases from two
emotionally-stable adults engaging in it for fun or out of
love?
I really don't care about their motivations as long as no force is
involved, no. People are fucked up and do lots of fucked up shit
for weird reasons.
A woman who gets pregnant by choice with a nominal 50-50 chance
of aborting the fetus is morally off to me.
Why? This would indicate that you have a partial objection to
abortion, as if getting rid of a few cells was bad in certain
cases. This seems to contradict previous positions taken by
you.
who cares about her reasons in this case?
I wouldn't make it illegal, but I reserve my absolute right to
consider her superficial, self-centered, weak-minded, and
unethical/immoral.
As I read Jennifer, what she is saying is that she won't shed any
tears if cultures that intentionally engineer massive shortages of
women and concomitant social instability go to war with each
other.
"virtue, intelligence and self-worth reside exclusively in
the human penis."
Well you must admit the overwhelming majority of it
does.
Yes. Specifically, in MY penis.
For the record, i read Jennifer's post the same way RC did, and find myself not in disagreement.
I wouldn't make it illegal, but I reserve my absolute right
to consider her superficial, self-centered, weak-minded, and
unethical/immoral.
Why? If abortion isn't bad, how is this different than her cutting
off all her hair or getting a tattoo?
I really don't care about their motivations as long as no force is involved, no. People are fucked up and do lots of fucked up shit for weird reasons.
Are you telling me that your moral and ethical evaluations of the
actions of others is based solely on whether they engage in force?
That, to me, is not only incomprehensible, but I find it highly
unlikely.
Have you ever felt "wronged" by someone? I mean, do you only feel
"wronged" by people if they hit you over the head or
something?
As I read Jennifer, what she is saying is that she won't shed any tears if cultures that intentionally engineer massive shortages of women and concomitant social instability go to war with each other.
Not really different from Falwell saying that 9/11 is our fault, is
it?
TAO, I have no objection to the procedure of abortion.
Therefore, why would I object based on the motivation of the woman?
It's like saying prostitution is ok if the guy is really lonely but
morally abhorrent if he's sick of his wife. Who cares why he's
going?
This is well said.
As someone who believes abortion should be legal, I don't give a
fuck what the reason is. I don't see how aborting for sex selection
is more morally abhorrent than aborting because u didn't use
protection.
I also want to step in and say I agree with Jennifer.
I don't this characterization is correct:
I was objecting to your apparently latent wish that "cultures"
that aren't sufficiently feminist kill themselves off via a war
that will cost millions of lives.
She did nothing of the sort. What I read from her comments was
essentially : if these people choose live in an arcane world with
an arcane mindset and they wind up going extinct because of it, I
wouldn't shed a tear. They would be getting what they
deserve.
I don't see her celebrating or wishing it, just merely asserting
that she wouldn't lament the loss of a backwards society that
thinks females are inherently inferior. It's especially NOT tragic
when the people have a choice in the matter.
Nature is a bitch like that. Adapt or die. And if you CHOOSE not to
adapt, why should others mourn?
If the woman isn't emotionally or financially ready, as is
the case in many abortions, I understand that. That's the
responsible choice to make. On the other hand, being ready and
willing to take care of child but aborting it because it doesn't
have the right genitals, or eye color, or hair color, is personally
abhorrent and superficial to me.
i get what you're saying, but i also don't: at the end of the day
it's still an abortion.
"So how is the Chinese & Indian desire to reduce the number
of females any different/similar to the S.C.U.M. Manifesto?"
being put into actual practice on a large scale?
just for starters...
i get what you're saying, but i also don't: at the end of
the day it's still an abortion.
Exactly. All the rest is a bunch of rationalizing to try and
justify to ones self the existence of something they aren't really
comfortable with.
As someone who believes abortion should be legal, I don't give a fuck what the reason is. I don't see how aborting for sex selection is more morally abhorrent than aborting because u didn't use protection.
What in the blue hell does your view of what the legal
status of abortion should be have to do with your view of what the
ethical and moral implications of an individual choosing
to engage in that act are?
Look, folks, I think adultery should be *legal*. I reserve the
right to call you a total *fuckhead* for being an adulterous
sonofabitch, though.
Does anyone here think that racism should be outlawed? Now, does
anyone here find racism totally morally abhorrent?
Was that so hard?
Nature is a bitch like that. Adapt or die. And if you CHOOSE not to adapt, why should others mourn?
Common human decency and moral agency are natural feelings
as well. I didn't know you had the moral agency of a fucking
rock.
And, again, the subjugation of women has ZERO to do with evolution.
Nothing.
Are you telling me that your moral and ethical evaluations
of the actions of others is based solely on whether they engage in
force? That, to me, is not only incomprehensible, but I find it
highly unlikely.
I do not tend to overly care about people's interpersonal actions
as they are theirs and not mine. If you said "that girl cheated on
her boyfriend just to hurt him" I'd say "that's fucked up and
shitty". I'd stay away from her. But I'd be more curious about
why she felt the need to do that than I would be in
engaging in moral approbation.
All the rest is a bunch of rationalizing to try and justify
to ones self the existence of something they aren't really
comfortable with.
i'm not quite so didactic; i think abortion is a kind of killing -
or at least the cessation of a future being, a future consciousness
- but i have no urge to involve the government and make it worse.
but i'm not sure i see a difference between "cannot take care of"
and "don't want" or "don't want because it's a girl" beyond the
cultural factors involved.
Look, folks, I think adultery should be *legal*. I reserve
the right to call you a total *fuckhead* for being an adulterous
sonofabitch, though.
Really? What if it was a woman cheating on her husband who was
already cheating on her? What if it was pre-arranged that
extra-marital affairs were perfectly fine?
This is why I tend to stay out of moral judgments of other people's
interpersonal behavior: because I don't know the whole story.
Like I asked you previously, Epi, do you only feel "wronged" if
someone initiates force against you?
If your answer is "no", then your ethics go a little bit deeper
than your libertarianism.
But I'd be more curious about why she felt the need to do that than I would be in engaging in moral approbation.
And if you asked her and she said "I did it
because I wanted to hurt him", that's morally
wrong, and I think it would make you kinda a
relativistic, spineless POS not to speak up and say so.
And if you asked her and she said "I did it because I wanted
to hurt him", that's morally wrong, and I think it would make you
kinda a relativistic, spineless POS not to speak up and say
so.
a better question would be "who the hell asked you, anyway?"
"being put into actual practice on a large scale?
just for starters..."
And what of similarities?
Episiarch - we're talking about two different things. At some
point, you have enough information to pass judgment. I know that
"judgment" is some kind of dirty word in America, but it's
appropriate to judge people. It's what you're supposed to
do.
Hey, on the other hand, you don't know the full story behind that
racist Klanmember over there, so who are you to judge him?
"And, again, the subjugation of women has ZERO to do with
evolution. Nothing."
Then why are there so many people in China and India?
And if you asked her and she said "I did it because I wanted
to hurt him", that's morally wrong
Why did she want to hurt him? Maybe he cheated on her with
her sister. Maybe he smacked her around.
I think it would make you kinda a relativistic, spineless POS
not to speak up and say so
WHAT THE FUCK business is it of mine? What business do I have
telling her how to run her personal life? You have some screwy
priorities, buddy.
Common human decency and moral agency are natural feelings
as well. I didn't know you had the moral agency of a fucking
rock
If the wound is self inflicted then I don't really feel a sense of
loss or sorrow or sadness or whatever.
I don't shed tears for people who are victims of themselves.
Just like I don't mourn Darwin Award Winners.
That doesn't mean I have the "moral agency of a rock". It just
means I save my emotions for people who deserve them (like people
who are wronged by others or who are victims of others).
I'm not telling you to go around being a nosey-parker, Epi, but
if you want to just default to "no use of force? Not my problem!" I
think that makes you a terrible person, and probably a pretty bad
friend.
Shit, let's say that your best friend is wrecking himself on booze.
What business is it of yours to speak up and tell him how to run
his personal life? Best to just keep your mouth shut and say
nothing.
"which are?"
That one gender is superior to another. That taking steps to reduce
or eliminate one gender is deemed a social good.
just for starters...
So, ChicagoTom, you're just going to see a war between China and
India and just shrug your shoulders?
Right.
"I know that "judgment" is some kind of dirty word in America,
but it's appropriate to judge people."
Kinda funny when one considers that the dictionary defines "wisdom"
as the ability to judge.
I know that "judgment" is some kind of dirty word in
America, but it's appropriate to judge people. It's what you're
supposed to do.
why?
that's just a very weird thing to say, dude. if someone's cheating
on someone else, it's tragic for the children involved, if any, but
otherwise just how people figure things out (or don't).
some people are just bad at romances. or bromances, even.
Why did she want to hurt him? Maybe he cheated on her with her sister. Maybe he smacked her around.
Yeah, and maybe she's a bad person. Again, you're
appealing to incomplete information. I'm not telling you to jump to
conclusions, but I am telling you that at some point you will have
enough information to decide "that was warranted adultery" or "that
was a fucking chach move, and you're a bad person for it".
Shit, let's say that your best friend is wrecking himself on
booze. What business is it of yours to speak up and tell him how to
run his personal life? Best to just keep your mouth shut and say
nothing.
I love this line of thinking. It's the epitome of being a
busy-body.
Doing nothing isn't a bad option, because quite honestly my friend
already knows he has a drinking problem, he doesn't need me to tell
him. And it isn't useful to try and force help or change on someone
who doesn't want help/to change.
And chances are that if I were to stick my nose into his business
he would tell me to fuck off or he might decide to not be friends
with me anymore.
So yeah, it might be best to just keep your mouth shut and let
adults do what they want. There are A LOT of things people do that
I think is destructive to them, but until someone asks me for my
perspective, I don't feel its my right or obligation to tell them
my opinions on their behavior.
why?
that's just a very weird thing to say, dude. if someone's cheating on someone else, it's tragic for the children involved, if any, but otherwise just how people figure things out (or don't).
no. no. Just no.
are you saying there is never a time and a place for social
sanctioning? For moral judgment? The cheating thing is just one
hypothetical we're discussing, but change it to "totally legal
racism" and see where you go from there.
Shit, let's say that your best friend is wrecking himself on
booze. What business is it of yours to speak up and tell him how to
run his personal life?
You are jumping from promoting the idea of telling a stranger that
she's immoral to not talking to your friend about a perceived
problem. You're being disingenuous.
Other people's personal lives are not my business. The most I would
do is judge, from what I can tell from their actions, whether they
are someone I would associate with, or watch out for, etc. But I'm
not getting up on a moral high horse without the full story,
sorry.
You sound a lot like the stereotypical gossipy housewives of yore
who loved to rush to a moral judgment on the tiniest info.
The State Department asked the social networking Web site
Twitter last weekend to postpone scheduled maintenance that would
have cut daytime service in Iran on Tuesday, just as protests
against official election results were heating up, U.S. officials
said.
Twitter, which has emerged as a leading unofficial news source from
and into Iran since the Friday presidential election there, is
still up and running in the Islamic republic, even though it has
reportedly blocked text-messaging services.
The popular site had planned regular maintenance, which would have
disabled access to it and its mobile version for several hours over
the weekend. State Department officials noticed an announcement
about the interruption and called Twitter to discourage it from
going ahead with its plans.
"We highlighted to them that this was an important form of
communication," a senior official told reporters. "One of the areas
where people are able to get out the word is through Twitter. They
announced they were going to shut down their system for maintenance
and we asked them not to."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/state-asks-twitter-to-keep-site-up-in-iran/?
ChicagoTom - are you really totally incapable of knowing the
difference between "being a good friend" and "being a
busybody"?
I can only assume that you're terribly emotionally stunted.
And chances are that if I were to stick my nose into his business he would tell me to fuck off or he might decide to not be friends with me anymore.
Wow, what a terrible consequence that might be...I mean, he might
choose not to be your friend anymore if you prevent him from
killing himself. Oh Jesus, not that! Best to stay silent and let
him kill himself...that way he won't stop being your friend until
he dies.
As I read Jennifer, what she is saying is that she won't
shed any tears if cultures that intentionally engineer massive
shortages of women and concomitant social instability go to war
with each other.
Bingo.
What I read from her comments was essentially : if these people
choose live in an arcane world with an arcane mindset and they wind
up going extinct because of it, I wouldn't shed a tear. They would
be getting what they deserve. I don't see her celebrating or
wishing it, just merely asserting that she wouldn't lament the loss
of a backwards society that thinks females are inherently
inferior.
Right again.
Here's a fact of biology: for all that I support legal equality of
the sexes, there's still great biological inequality. To wit: only
ONE gender is currently capable of getting pregnant and having
babies. Coincidentally, that is also the gender held in low regard
in China and India, such low regard that these cultures are
actually facing a female shortage. This might be fun in a gay male
porn movie, but in the real world it can have harsh consequences.
And if a culture's opinion of women is so low that said culture
ends up lacking enough women to keep itself viable ... too damned
bad. Either learn to appreciate why it's good to have women around,
or you can damned well go extinct. And I won't shed a single tear
if this happens.
So, ChicagoTom, you're just going to see a war between China
and India and just shrug your shoulders?
Wow talk about moving the goal posts. That's quite a leap from
going to extinction because they abort women to starting a
war.
I'll tell you what, if that war starts, I'll be concerned and Ill
lament how we got there. Until then, if people choose to shoot
themselves in the foot because they are holding on to arcane
beliefs about the primacy of the male (or whatever) I'll just shrug
and think "what a stupid culture"
The most I would do is judge, from what I can tell from their actions, whether they are someone I would associate with, or watch out for, etc. But I'm not getting up on a moral high horse without the full story, sorry.
Where did I say "don't get the full story?"
YOU'RE the one who said you don't have any other moral judgments
outside of "Did they use force?" and now you've admitted that's not
true. I never said anything like "jump to conclusions" or "be
gossipy".
Learn to read.
Why? If abortion isn't bad, how is this different than her
cutting off all her hair or getting a tattoo?
I think the problem is that many people are pro-choice not because
they believe abortion to be morally neutral, but because they think
that outlawing abortions is a worse option.
To extend your prostitution analogy, i think prostitution is wrong.
But since prostitution will exist anyway, I'd rather it be legal
because legalized prostitution tends to be safer for the
participants.
This seems to contradict previous positions taken by
you.
Technically, what I'm really against is forced pregnancy. It's the
flip-side of the abortion debate that normally ignores everything
except the rights of the fetus.
Our hypothetical Chinese woman has every right, in my mind, to
abort any child what for any reason she chooses, but that doesn't
mean I have to think it's an ethical action. It's the
intentionality to have a child, but then aborting it because of
something superficial. It makes gender into a birth defect that
must be corrected. And that rankles me.
Do we already have a libertarian motto to the effect of:
You can do anything you want to yourself except expect me
to be happy about it.
Jennifer - still dancing on the graves of millions of men, for a culture that is, for the most part, not their fault. Dress it up all you want, but you're practically wishing that millions of people die.
YOU'RE the one who said you don't have any other moral
judgments outside of "Did they use force?" and now you've admitted
that's not true.
Let me rephrase this: I don't tend to make much of a moral judgment
in most cases because a) it's none of my business and b) I don't
know the whole story. You are correct that I do sometimes do so,
but it is rare.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's return to:
are you saying there is never a time and a place for social
sanctioning? For moral judgment?
You know how I socially sanction? I avoid people like racists and
other assholes. What do you do?
ChicagoTom - are you really totally incapable of knowing the
difference between "being a good friend" and "being a
busybody"?
The irony of this comment.
If you think "being a good friend" is equivalent to "giving your
unwanted opinion about the choices of others" then you are more
confused than I thought.
Wow, what a terrible consequence that might be...I mean, he
might choose not to be your friend anymore if you prevent him from
killing himself. Oh Jesus, not that! Best to stay silent and let
him kill himself...that way he won't stop being your friend until
he dies.
You're funny. You really are. If he is my "best friend" as you said
than yes it would be a problem. I wouldn't want to stop associating
him because I don't agree with his choices or I think he is acting
destructive. And I wouldn't want to push him away by forcing "help"
or opinions on him that he doesn't want.
I have a number of very good friends that I have had for years
(since grade school). DO you know why it's like that? Because we
don't pass judgement and we don't stick our nose in each other's
business (unless someone asks us to). There are lots of things my
friends do that I don't agree with. But I am mature enough to
understand than unless I am their mom or dad, it isn't my place
unless they ask me.
Adults are fucking adults. My choice is to accept him or not. It's
not my place to tell him how to live his life.
Why is that so contraversial?? I am NOT my brothers keeper.
are you saying there is never a time and a place for social
sanctioning? For moral judgment? The cheating thing is just one
hypothetical we're discussing, but change it to "totally legal
racism" and see where you go from there.
i see where you're rolling here, but the sort of judgments you're
calling for are more akin to masturbation than social sanctioning.
i don't think anyone was saying that you have to go into business
with adulterers/racists, but probably something more like adultery
not being a bfd and racism being more of a bfd. adultery is shitty
for the people involved; racists are seen as potentially violent or
otherwise harmful to third parties not involved.
what i'm saying, i guess, is that love is a battlefield.
i was also hung up on judgment being something we're "supposed to
do". inclined, yes, but i tend to roll with the general idea that
judge not lest ye be judged is a good idea for me. (the ye is
judged by thou, like a snake eating its tail.)
It makes gender into a birth defect that must be
corrected.
i see what you're saying sf, but you could step back and say that
abortion in general turns life into a birth defect.
still dancing on the graves of millions of men, for a
culture that is, for the most part, not their fault.
How is it not their fault?
The people of a nation aren't responsible for their culture and the
continuation of arcane cultural ideas?
What?
Whose fault is it ?
Two Foot Stools:
"virtue, intelligence and self-worth reside exclusively in the
human penis."
Well, at least in the male it does.
You know how I socially sanction? I avoid people like racists and other assholes. What do you do?
Tell them they're assholes, and why.
If you think "being a good friend" is equivalent to "giving your unwanted opinion about the choices of others" then you are more confused than I thought.
Please shut up. I didn't say anything like that. I said that there
are times where you're an unwanted busybody and times where people
are practically crying out for someone to ask "Do you need help?"
if you're too stunted to realize that and you still
consider that part of being an adult, I feel sorry for your
superficial life.
Adults are fucking adults. My choice is to accept him or not. It's not my place to tell him how to live his life.
Like I said, don't worry about that "good friend" on the path to
self-destruction. He's an adult; you're being a better friend by
staying out of it.
Shit, ChicagoTom, why stop there? you should tell your mom to fuck
off too. I mean, you're an adult. Who the hell is she to worry
about the choices you're making? Adults are adults.
The people of a nation aren't responsible for their culture and the continuation of arcane cultural ideas?
To certain extent, yes.
Now, if you can tell me the difference between these two
statements:
"I won't cry if the United States is attacked, because of their
culture with respect to abortion and gays"
and
"I won't cry if millions perish in a Sino-Indian war, because of
their culture with respect to women"
I'd be glad to hear it.
Jennifer - still dancing on the graves of millions of men,
for a culture that is, for the most part, not their
fault.
Whose fault is it, then? If the Chinese are not to blame for
Chinese anti-female attitudes, then who is?
And whether I blame them or not, the fact remains: no women means
nobody capable of making babies. No babies means the culture dies.
So my opinion changes not the fact that the Chinese have two
choices: adapt or die. Apparently they're not going with option
one, as their continued gender imbalance demonstrates.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but: wasn't one of your earlier
Internet incarnations the one who insisted that Lebanon "deserved"
to be bombed by Israel because the Lebanese -- including the
infants, schoolchildren and incontinent old farts -- weren't "doing
enough" to stop Hamas? If Lebanese share collective guilt, in your
eyes, for the behavior of a relatively few terrorists in their
midst, why aren't the Chinese equally responsible for what is, for
them, a mainstream viewpoint?
It makes gender into a birth defect that must be
corrected.
Only conceptually, as imagined by you. To the woman, it's a choice.
You may not like that choice because of your stated reason, but
that choice may be important to her.
Let's take another, weirder scenario: a woman finds out her fetus
will have brown hair but she and her husband are blond (mutations
are possible). She didn't cheat on him, but she knows he will think
she did. So she has it aborted. Is that wrong too?
dhex,
i see what you're saying sf, but you could step back and say
that abortion in general turns life into a birth defect.
It's the intentionality that causes me to balk, not the abortion. A
woman who got pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion
would also get "a non-willingness to associate with" from me as
well.
Tell them they're assholes, and why.
ha!
man, you must be fun at parties. ok, well, you'd be fun at my
parties.
but more seriously, do you really lecture strangers on the
regular?
Angry Optimist, would it make you feel better if I said "The Chinese culture is going to die out if they don't have enough women, but I hope the men all die of lonely old age instead?" (Granted, this is very unrealistic; a culture filled with unattached males who have zero chance of ever getting laid is not likely to be peaceful. But I can hope human nature makes an exeption where the Chinese are concerned. I will also hope human nature changes enough to make the Communist utopia a reality, because poverty sucks and I'd love to see it vanish.)
Did I say deserved? Maybe I did. Regardless, that does not mean that I was as pleased at the prospect as you are.
It's the intentionality that causes me to balk, not the
abortion.
well, there's no functional difference. i'm not sure that "i don't
want this baby" is that much different than "i don't want this baby
girl". neither child-to-be is wanted, and that's about that.
Tell them they're assholes, and why.
Really? So you are the end-all be-all of what constitutes
assholeness, enough so that you can walk up to people and tell them
so?
Racism is easy. But what about passive aggressive people? They're
pretty obnoxious. Do you walk up to them and call them assholes
too?
If you drove an SUV, would a person who thinks SUVs are killing the
planet be justified in walking up to you and calling you an
asshole?
but more seriously, do you really lecture strangers on the regular?
Not to be tautological, but if they say something I think warrants
speaking up, then, uh, yeah.
I mean, if someone said "Hey, I wouldn't mind if all the
faggots/niggers/spics died" at a party, you can bet your sweet ass
he'd never hear the end of it.
And if someone at a party said "I regularly screw around on my
wife, because she's too much of an airheaded bitch to know, and
what she doesn't know won't hurt her", well, that kind of crap
doesn't need to go unchallenged.
Is that wrong too?
You seem to be mistaking my disapproval as a statement I am making
about objective morality. This is not the case. "There is nothing
either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." I reserve the right
to think anything I like, thank you.
well, there's no functional difference.
Sorry, but I'm not talking about the intentionality of the abortion
but of the pregnancy.
"Let's take another, weirder scenario: a woman finds out her
fetus will have brown hair but she and her husband are blond
(mutations are possible). She didn't cheat on him, but she knows he
will think she did. So she has it aborted. Is that wrong
too?"
I'd say she is ignorant of genetics (and perhaps you are too as it
certainly takes no mutation for two brunettes to produce a blonde
given the dominant / recessive nature of genes.
Really? So you are the end-all be-all of what constitutes assholeness, enough so that you can walk up to people and tell them so?
Uh, yeah, who else would be? If I'm the one who determines who is
an asshole, then....yeah, I guess I would be the who determines who
is an asshole. I get to decide when I speak up, where, when and
why. If it has social consequences, so be it. I'm fully capable of
making that decision, judgment and balancing between "being a
spineless coward" and "being an overbearing fuckwit".
I mean, if someone said "Hey, I wouldn't mind if all the
faggots/niggers/spics died" at a party, you can bet your sweet ass
he'd never hear the end of it.
And if someone at a party said "I regularly screw around on my
wife, because she's too much of an airheaded bitch to know, and
what she doesn't know won't hurt her", well, that kind of crap
doesn't need to go unchallenged.
the first part, sure, i don't want people like that around, if only
because they'll hog all the tostitos and dip made by homosexual
african-americans and it would make my nose hurt not to point that
out.
the second? eh. it's a little too jesus-y for my tastes to get all
"thou shall totally get up on the coventry of thine wife, yo" and
whatnot. i'll probably skip giving him a handjob in the bathroom
later, but that's true of so many people.
Sorry, but I'm not talking about the intentionality of the
abortion but of the pregnancy.
ahhh, gotcha.
hmm.
and perhaps you are too as it certainly takes no mutation
for two brunettes to produce a blonde given the dominant /
recessive nature of genes
I said it was two blonds producing a brunette, not two brunettes
producing a blond. Read carefully. And gene pairing is more
complicated--vastly more complicated--than the dominant/recessive
paradigm you learn in high school.
"I mean, if someone said "Hey, I wouldn't mind if all the
faggots/niggers/spics died" at a party, you can bet your sweet ass
he'd never hear the end of it."
I respect your right to use those words.
I reserve the right to think anything I like, thank
you.
You will think what I tell you, bitch. Or not think what I don't
tell you.
"I DON'T PAY YOU TO THINK!"
CD - it's entirely possible to respect the right as a right, but still have no respect for the employing of said right.
I'm fully capable of making that decision, judgment and
balancing between "being a spineless coward" and "being an
overbearing fuckwit".
If you tell some guy at a party who has admitted to cheating on his
wife that he's an asshole, I'm going to call bullshit on your
statement there. Because that would put you into "overbearing
fuckwit" territory.
That's your call, Episiarch. I don't see why it is that
it's perfectly valid for someone to say what was said in the
hypothetical, but it's somehow unacceptable for me to call him out
on it.
Oh well. I think you saying nothing makes you spineless and weak.
There you go.
I'm fully capable of making that decision, judgment and
balancing between "being a spineless coward" and "being an
overbearing fuckwit".
I have yet to see evidence of this alleged balancing act.
"CD - it's entirely possible to respect the right as a right,
but still have no respect for the employing of said right."
I agree. But there are some who would ban those words for all
time.
Oh well. I think you saying nothing makes you spineless and
weak.
I find it utterly fascinating that my not poking my nose into
someone else's business, and not pushing my personal morality on
them, makes me spineless.
Let's say you call the guy an asshole for adultery, and he gets in
your face and calls you a fucking shithead pussy. What do you do
now?
anyway, jennifer, I'm not sure where it was I said that I was trying to appease you.
I find it utterly fascinating that you can just listen to a guy
talk about how he runs around on his "airhead bitch" of a wife and
just act like nobody said anything offensive.
Let's say you call the guy an asshole for adultery, and he gets in your face and calls you a fucking shithead pussy. What do you do now?
Defend myself, just like I would do with anybody who gets
in my face. What, am I not supposed to speak my opinion because the
dude *might* get in my face?
Alright, so say the guy said "I wouldn't mind if the all the fags
died"...what are YOU going to do, Epi?
Defend myself, just like I would do with anybody who gets in
my face.
What does that mean? He hasn't touched you yet. So I want to know
what--exactly--you would do. Would you insult him back? Swing on
him?
Alright, so say the guy said "I wouldn't mind if the all the
fags died"...what are YOU going to do, Epi?
I would turn around and walk away, immediately. I want nothing to
do with someone like that.
I want nothing to do with someone like that.
Why? He didn't use force against you. Or is it because you find
something morally objectionable about what he said?
What does that mean? He hasn't touched you yet. So I want to know what--exactly--you would do. Would you insult him back? Swing on him?
I suppose I would tell him that I think he's a piece of shit for
saying what he said and for cheating on his wife. I mean, is his
response some kind of morality meter or something? I am failing to
grasp the point here.
Please shut up. I didn't say anything like that. I said that
there are times where you're an unwanted busybody and times where
people are practically crying out for someone to ask "Do you need
help?" if you're too stunted to realize that and you still consider
that part of being an adult, I feel sorry for your superficial
life.
Yes you did. You keep asserting that there is a moral flaw in
anyone who doesn't go around forcing their beliefs on others who
don't share those beliefs.
Every single example you posted are examples of being an unwanted
busy-body. I can see you clutching your pearls and fainting at the
thought of it.
And up until now I have refrained from making personal attacks on
you, but since you keep making it personal...
Fuck you, busybody. My life is superficial? HA! The loser who gets
off on giving moral lectures to strangers who is convinced of his
own moral rightness is going to judge me??? That's fucking
rich.
Let me tell you something you moralistic piece of shit, adults
don't need you to save them. The problem isn't others' behavior,
it's the inability of losers like you to mind your own fucking
business.
And yes, as an adult I have told my mom to fuck off whenever she
sticks her nose in my business without invitation. *MY* morals are
just that -- MINE. And your (or anyone else's) opinions of them
aren't even remotely interesting or wanted.
I know that moral crusaders like yourself have this deluded notion
that shaming people and saving them from themselves is not only a
good idea, but required -- but that's exactly why no one wants
people like you around.
You are nothing but a judgmental piece of shit nanny with a
superiority complex. The fact that you are here asserting that
there is something flawed with people who don't stick their nose in
other peoples lives shows what kind of a pathetic person you truly
are.
Go ahead Mr. Morals. Keep asserting how superior you are for being
willing to pass judgement on others who don't conform to your
pathetic world view. That delusional sense of superiority and $1.50
might get you a cup of coffee at a diner.
Why? He didn't use force against you. Or is it because you
find something morally objectionable about what he said?
Are you being disingenuous again? I posted, above, that you were
correct that at times I did make a moral judgment, just rarely.
This would be one of those times.
I suppose I would tell him that I think he's a piece of shit
for saying what he said and for cheating on his wife. I mean, is
his response some kind of morality meter or something? I am failing
to grasp the point here.
The point is that you feel that your morality is so correct, that
escalating a social situation into one of potential violence is
perfectly ok.
You're chest-beating, and it reminds me of joe. It's quite
ugly.
The point is that you feel that your morality is so correct, that escalating a social situation into one of potential violence is perfectly ok.
So, wait, I'm the one who escalated this situation? Now it's my
fault for speaking my mind?
I'm not sure where it was I said that I was trying to
appease you.
I'm guessing it's in the same comment -- read only by you, because
nobody else on this thread has seen it -- where I wrote things like
"Non-feminists all deserve to die."
Yes you did. You keep asserting that there is a moral flaw in
anyone who doesn't go around forcing their beliefs on others who
don't share those beliefs.
No, I didn't, so the rest of your post is a bunch of noise. I said
that there are times to speak up and say something, and not all
instances thereof = nannyism or busybodyism.
Oh well. I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend that.
Yes you did. You keep asserting that there is a moral flaw in anyone who doesn't go around forcing their beliefs on others who don't share those beliefs.
No, I didn't, so the rest of your post is a bunch of noise. I said
that there are times to speak up and say something, and not all
instances thereof = nannyism or busybodyism.
Oh well. I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend that.
A shortage of females in China means there will be a lot of
angry men who can't get laid. Sounds like a recipe for a war-like
people, like in Islamic cultures where polygamists horde women,
leaving many men with nothing.
In America, a shortage of Chinese females means more Chinese men
will be seeking women outside their culture.
Social evolution tends to have pendulum swings, and China would
be no exception.
If China gets to the point where it has vast amounts of males
unable to get laid, the most logical place to vent their anger
would be against the commie government. The ensuing civil war would
reduce the male population. And probably allow a power vacuum where
democracy could rise up. In the new Chinese democracy, women would
have more rights, and the gender balance would be closer to
50/50.
So there you have it. Red China is inadvertently sowing the seeds
of democracy. And although I wouldn't rejoice about the ensuing
deaths, the tree of liberty grows from the blood of patriots and
tyrants.
Here's a fact of biology: for all that I support legal
equality of the sexes, there's still great biological inequality.
To wit: only ONE gender is currently capable of getting pregnant
and having babies. Coincidentally, that is also the gender held in
low regard in China and India, such low regard that these cultures
are actually facing a female shortage. This might be fun in a gay
male porn movie, but in the real world it can have harsh
consequences. And if a culture's opinion of women is so low that
said culture ends up lacking enough women to keep itself viable ...
too damned bad. Either learn to appreciate why it's good to have
women around, or you can damned well go extinct. And I won't shed a
single tear if this happens.
Only one flaw in your theory. The cultures where women are held in
low esteem are the ones that are reproducing like crazy. It's the
ones that they're held in high esteem that have a decreasing
population.
It is not so much that women are held in low regard (though there is some of that), it is that chinese parents have a culturally driven economic interest in having a son. Culturally, sons are responsible ofr taking care of elderly parents, daughters are responsible for her husband's parents. It is not that the Chinese hate their daughters, it is that raising a daughter is an expense, rasing a son is an investment. Couple that with a totalitarian government's ham fisted population control policies, it easy to see how girls get the short shrift. If culturally the Chinese and Indians hated having daughters, how did there get to be around a billion of each in there ancestral nations alone?
"As someone who believes abortion should be legal, I don't give
a fuck what the reason is." - Chicago Tom
This seems to be an odd flavor of "if x is illegal, then it's
immoral" with the twist being "if you think x should not be
illegal, then you are not allowed to think that x is immoral".
Whatever, it is still an abdication of thought.
Gender ratios are just as bad in democratic Asian states like
India, South Korea or Taiwan as they are in commie China.
It comes down to culture not political system. What's more, those
nations have been living with this gender imbalance for millenia
with no more warfare than Western Europe.
In fact, they are arguably far less warlike. There is a reason we
conquered North and South America and Australia instead of
Asians.
Further more, Asians males are decidedly more feminine and less
aggressive. In a lot of ways, they are sexless. I believe they
evolved this way so they could live in overcrowded societies who a
large number of men are celibate.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245