They can look at as many corollary data plots as they like, but the simple explanation is that modern society has made men dispensable. A traditional "patriarchal" marriage is based on the woman's need of a man to provide for her and keep her safe, while the man's attachment to a woman is primarily one of desire. Now that modern society has made it possible for a woman to live well without a man, she is free to base her romantic relations on desire as well. Obviously these things take decades to play out, so we still see the primary desires of woman lean toward the financial capabilities of the male. But this will slowly change. For better or worse, family structures of the future will look nothing like those of the past. Single mothers will top 50% in China, just as it has in the USA, within two generations.
Single mother rates aren't because women are some kind of super feminists who refuse to marry. The majority of single mother families are the result of failed marriages and long term relationships.
They are also most likely to be financially insecure. And that insecurity is due to the lack of participation in the rearing and responsibility for their child by the father.
In short, the rising rate of single parenthood in the U.S. is not an outcome of empowering women and equal rights. It's a consequence of abject poverty and lack of accountability by fathers.
The differences between "failed marriages" of yesterday and today is that before women had to stay in them. Many of these poor single mothers are better off than with an abusive or irresponsible husband.
Are you not displaying sexist thinking here, in that you privilege mothers over fathers? Why should the well-being of the mother be the only relevant criterion? What about the well-being of the father and the children?
And I questioned why the OP made such a one-sided example, one that falls squarely in line with those who -- empirically -- disproportionally benefit financially from a divorce.
I'm suggesting that the main concern should be the well-being of the children. Most marriages fail, because the spouses get bored and tired of each other, and feel that the grass could be greener somewhere else. I don't think that's good enough a reason for divorce. At least wait until the children have left the home.
pile of crap. women in the US are incentivized to divorce. In all cases they get primary custody of the children even if they have drug issues and walk away with substantial income. 80% of divorces in the US are initiated by the woman. This leaves men impoverished and unable to interract with their own children. The state treats them like money generators and that's it.
Why should a woman stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship?
Turn this question around: why should a man stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship? Answer: because given the current divorce law, and, more importantly, divorce practice, he will loose half his money, his house and his children, should there be any.
20% percent (but probably much more) of marriages involve women being domestic abused by their husbands.
By what credible metric? Counting not buying red roses every day as abuse?
The overall violent crime rate is 0.4%. It sounds unbelievable that wives are 50 times more likely to be victims of violence than the general population.
Even in prisons, the violent crime rate is only 4%
For almost any category of violent crime or abuse, the statistics are clear that it is more common between people who know each other (family, spouse, lover, friend, coach, teacher) than between strangers.
The author of the linked site is a Christian Evangelist.
The statistics he cites are out of context.
The divorce rate has been dropping sharply and now hovers at 15%. Social scientists and researchers attribute this drop, in large part, to the feminist and equal rights movements and changing gender roles. [1]
Lower socioeconomic status and education are correlated with higher divorce rates. And higher rates of financial insecurity after divorce. This is largely attributed to more traditional gender roles. [1]
Essentially, the spike in divorce during the 70's and 80's was due to women being empowered to leave bad marriages and find economic independence. Currently, those demographics that have embraced the new gender roles and women's equal social status have seen a huge drop in divorce, increase in marriage stability, and decreases in marriage related stress. While those demographics who continue to try to enforce traditional gender roles retain the same level of volatility.
Only 10-15% of all divorces end in alimony. I'd say that's hardly enough to claim that the "state treats them like money generators".
A new report shows the current number of married adults has dropped to a record low of 51 percent.
That's not the only trend changing. Americans are getting married for the first time at older ages than ever before.
The crazy person might think the reason divorce rates have dropped is a combination of marriage rates decreasing coupled with the ones who do marry do it when they're older and presumably wiser and more mature.
Not only that, but for years now I've seen people talking about men not marrying because they get no real benefit out of marriage, but take on all the risks. And while I don't have any statistics on the matter, as a man who has made the decision not to marry myself, this really resonates with me as to my thinking when I first made the decision back in my college days.
Where are your statistics that the spike in divorces in the 70's and 80's were due to woman being empowered? You make the claim, but not even the link you posted bears that out. Here's a quote from your link:
But it also seems to be the case that marriages have gotten more stable, as people are marrying later.
Even it attributes it to people marrying later (which makes sense).
Furthermore, the poster you were responding to was obviously talking about more than simply alimony. They were talking about things like child support as well. When you see people talking about marriage having all the risks but none of the rewards this is what they're talking about.
Can you please get some actual statistics to backup your claim? Because not even the articles you linked appear to agree with you.
> Single mother rates aren't because women are some kind of super feminists who refuse to marry. The majority of single mother families are the result of failed marriages and long term relationships.
Failed marriages may in many cases be the result of an independent attitude (such as the single mother in the article, who divorced her husband because he cheated on her). Is it good that she left a bad husband? Is it bad that her child is growing up in a broken home? Well, that's something folks can disagree on.
As for long term relationships, I believe that phenomenon is a symptom of America's incarceration rates among the poor: free men are so outnumbered by women that they have no need to marry.
You don't like the phrase "broken home", but you're happy to talk about "cheating"? [EDIT: removed confrontational language] Both of those idioms attempt to universalize judgments that are necessarily personal and cultural. There are many happy productive intact families who have infidelity or [EDIT: in some cases perhaps] better said polyamory in their past or even present. Marriage is what married people choose to make it, every day. Is it telling that you particularly mention "a cheating husband"?
I actually have no problem with non-traditional marriages.
However, some form of "forsaking all others" is one of the most common vows. So, assuming it was part of the original covenant then it was clearly that convent was broken well before 'divorce.' Some groups go so far as to consider a couple divorced on the first infidelity.
Also, generally it’s not the initial cheating party that instigates divorce proceedings as your better off divorcing before infidelity than after. So, if we are talking about female divorcers then the infidelity would generally be on the male side (excluding LGBT).
> The majority of single mother families are the result of failed marriages and long term relationships.
i'm going to posit that it wasn't a 'failure' of marriage or long-term relationship, it was the complete absence of one. in fact many times women get pregnant in order to attempt to enter one.
that strategy, of course, could be described as .. misguided, but young women don't know that. they are just as stupid as young men in their attempts to secure relationships.
Call me crazy but I think the fact that in China so many female fetuses are literally dispensed with kind of shows that women are a little more dispensable than men.
You can't really knock this one on central planning alone, more that central planning didn't really understand the context of the society around them when they made the policy. If China hadn't been so insanely patriarchal, a one-child policy wouldn't have given parents there an incentive to abort their baby girls.
It's more accurate to say this is the problem with central planning in the large ("command economies" in the context of a nation state) where issues with calculation and signal distortion start to set in. Otherwise central planning in the small with the likes of cooperatives or business plans is pretty uncontroversial, as they harbor less externalities.
You say this is a problem with "central planning in the large". That is just a problem with central planning. Otherwise the opposite would be "central planning in the small". One person selecting the dinner location for four friends doesn't constitute central planning.
The planners don't care about the consequences. They have their fortune overseas. It's rather a failure of decoupled interests between them and the the rest of people.
Not a good comparison since everything Mao did was about politics not about bettering the lives of anyone else but himself. The Cultural Revolution was his creation and he created it so that he could have a huge mob to attack who he want attacked. Mao did nothing great or forward thinking except die. After he died, the real modern changes come to China.
I think it remains to be shown whether these consequences were unintended. The point of the one-child policy was to limit population growth. A gender imbalance which leads to women being more independent and marrying later advances that goal very well.
Furthermore, the number of females determines the size of the next generation to a far greater extent than the number of males. Or at least that's the way it works for most mammals.
All they really need now is some way to get rid of their least-fit excess males, so they don't get all angry and rebellious on them. What the central planners really need now is some sort of grand, state-funded enterprise wherein a few million young, unmarried men would get killed, without too much blame accruing to the state.
Now what sort of project could do that? I feel somehow that building up reef islands in the South China Sea might somehow be relevant, but I don't imagine that an oceanic construction crew would kill more than a dozen or so workers per year, and people would blame lax safety standards....
Hang on. I need to put my foil hat on....
Ah. Got it. They need to start a war with someone who is well-supplied with military technology, but not actually another superpower, or too closely allied with one, because that could quickly spiral out of control. Option 1 is China versus Malaysia-Vietnam-Philippines. Option 2 is China versus India. Option 3 is to cultivate an Uighur terrorist attack, and use that as pretext to invade Afghanistan, which has faithfully served as meat grinder for so many superpowers already.
Or maybe they could just use fluoride and phytoestrogens to make those males infertile, or use high-flying planes to spray chemtr--whoops, this hat needs to come off now.
Without central planning though, the entire situation would be an unintended consequence. Centralization has both benefits and drawbacks just like an unregulated situation.
In california we're trying to build a high speed train across the state. It's taking years for this happen with no end in sight. It's largely due to lack of funding and a lot of decentralized opposition.
In china, thanks to centralized planning, they can build the same public project in two years.
For anyone who made a lot of money on Bitcoin during the runup (which was largely powered by Chinese buying and the Chinese "saving" mentality mentioned in this article)... you have the Chinese one-child policy to thank for your Teslas
Let me see : baby girls are being killed, lots of men will never marry and women become spoiled brats that choose their husbands only for their riches ... we must have a really different notion of "a good thing".
Women empowered to leave abusive, philandering husbands.
Women no longer pressured to marry young in order to survive, can focus on careers.
As far as whether women choose husbands only for their riches, I tend not to draw too many generalizations based on a sample of 2 in 750 million.
However, men and women in an egalitarian society tend to choose partners they view as having achieved comparable success socially, economically, and academically.
"If any slave resists his master...correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."
... a master could be held criminally liable for killing a slave only if the slave he killed was "completely submissive and under the master's absolute control."
So, effectively, slaves were considered chattel, and legally dispatched if not submissive to the will of the owner. Much like a cow, not like a person. This historical fact is not really at question.
China has long forbid pre-birth gender detecting. As a respond, People just bin new born girls outright. Especially in rural villages. There are sparse reports on news but as far as I know, it is very common.
Yes this is just one article, but it doesn't mention anything about post-birth selection. That would be terrible. I just don't believe it is happening at scale - people are not that evil.
> Women no longer pressured to marry young in order to survive, can focus on careers.
And what great mothers this produces, with happy and balanced kids all around, right? Err, somehow, I fail to see many around me, but I am sure this is just local situation. Maybe you are happy just by pursuing career, but most have to find happiness elsewhere.
The thing is, women don't really have such a big window as men when they are considered attractive for dating or starting a family. And then you have fertility issues sooner. The world ain't fair in this topic, but things are as they are.
> Women empowered to leave abusive, philandering husbands.
In current modern empowered world, there are as many bad wives as bad husbands (yes, anecdotal, but somehow real in my experience). Women don't tend to resort to physical violence, but there are other ways to behave badly in relationships.
Really great read; sheds light on some things I never understood about china, but now it makes sense.
Goverment: "Stop making so many babies! that's it, just one per couple."
Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"
What could go wrong?
Yes, woman are gaining some upper hand here; and thats good. But it's not because of a change of outlooks or perspectives of the people, it's simply out of scarcity of the gender.
And what happens when there aren't enough women to go around? why, they import them of course! And by import I mean sex slavery and arranged marriages.
>Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"
I get the feeling that the people who invented the "One child policy" where at a different stage in civilization/education/whatever you call, than the people for whom they made the rule. So they didn't even consider that the public might choose to get rid of their girls.
China has been extremely focus on reaching the western standards of living, but their culture haven't been able to keep up. I think it's great that they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do. Their error was that they didn't try to bring about lower birth rates though education and welfare programs and instead opted for punishment. The Chinese where given an incentive to abort girls, so in hindsight it's not a surprise that things have worked out the way they have.
> they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do
India took the path to education and propaganda to voluntarily reduce the fertility rate. I don't think India has failed in its initiatives. Instead, I think they are going extremely well given that there is no legal limit on how many kids you can have. India is on track to reach peak-population by 2060. [1]
Most educated middle class couples would not think of having more than 2 kids (this has been true for the last 15/20+ years) and now we are entering a phase where a small minority is choosing to go without kids, completely.[2]
The total fertility rate in India has gone from 6 to 2.5 in the last 50 years. (Google for "total fertility rate india")
Edit: One more thing - there are 11 states in India that are at or below a TFR of 2.1 [3].
Net net - far from a failure, India is making good progress.
I did not know that. I would agree that going fertility rate from 6 to 2.5 is anything but a failure. It might take longer, but it's probably a much better solution that the "One child policy" in the long run.
It's well known that birth rate decreases as a nation's economic status increases. India has also gone through massive economic changes in the last 50 years, which is likely to have affected fertility rates much more than propaganda.
I'd like to see studies with control groups before believing that voluntary methods can significantly impact fertility rates.
Voluntary: done, given, or acting of one's own free will
India's population control has been voluntary. Aside from a failed attempt in 1975 (declaration of emergency/forced castration of a negligible number of people), all of the decline in fertility in India has been voluntary.
A most bodacious of comments! And spot on - education is a better solution than rules. We see the same changes in the US across class divides; poorer people are less educated and rear more children.
"Different" stage - maybe, but... "not even considering" something that then happens on a huge scale is not a sign of being at a sufficiently advanced stage of "civilization"/whatever you call it. Certainly not sufficiently advanced to be governing those people whose behavior one fails to predict.
Also... if you're saying that "getting rid of the girls" is dumb ("indicative of lack of civilization"), as opposed to "bad" in some other way (say, immoral) - then, well, it might be much dumber for society than it is for individuals, depending on the specifics. (It depends on the various costs of raising a single child who's a boy vs raising a single child who is a girl. If you count on your child to be supporting the family with physical labor from a young age, for instance, a girl would be more costly to raise.) Pushing people to do something which makes sense for them individually but is a disaster for society as a whole is very common for rulers who're out to inflict as much good as possible upon their less-civilized subjects.
Get some perspective. In some cultures, they actually are. This could be for many reasons:
* The girl will marry and join another family, leaving no one to care for the parents in their old age.
* Because of traditional gender roles as well as physical attributes, the girl won't be able to toil the fields (doing so might make it harder for her to find a good husband). A child that can do so is more valuable.
* Only sons can inherit land
* Only sons can carry on the family name
That was actually the reality in most places of the world for most of human history, and unfortunate as it is, still the reality in some cultures and countries. It isn't bullshit.
Assuming that you don't buy into that bullshit, could you then please explain why the gender imbalance is currently at 1.16 to 1, when naturally you would have slightly more women than men? Because it sure seems like the Chinese believe they have a reason for preferring boys.
"I think it's great that they addressed the issue of over-population"
Yes exactly. Thank You. These types of articles keep popping up but IMOP a much bigger problem was addressed than was caused. Also IMOP the world would be much better off if other nations found a way to reduce overpopulation.
Seems a better way is to follow the shoes of Germany and Japan. Those coutnries if they don't turn things around will be a 2/3 of what they were in just 40 years.
Whoa, Japan I knew about but I didn't know germany was in similar straights. Interesting considering both of them were heavily involved in WW2; though I can't say how related/coincidental it is.
I wonder if the irony has been lost on the young men in Silicon Valley reading this article and teasing central planning before they go back to the grind so that someday they too can impress the Bay Area's few women who still don't resent tech wealth from the view of their Lamborghini.
I think they were referring specifically to 'tech wealth', which often comes with the baggage of all Silicon Valley's excess and personality defects and abusive/sociopathic behavior.
I don't think that exists (except communists), but they may well not like the personality that helped the rich guy earn that money. That's not hard to do when we're talking about, for example, bankers or brogrammers.
A while back I could talk about working in tech with locals and it would drive good conversation. Recently when I brought up my work I was met with reactions of annoyance for being one of many newcomers pricing locals' favorite kindergarten teachers out of their homes of decades. I just don't get good vibes from locals in the Valley anymore, so I went back home to a college town with a far lower cost of living and plenty of new students coming in every year. Haven't looked back.
Believe me if I wanted to get rich I wouldn't have gone into technology, I would have chosen a bullshit career in scamming (finance) and easily made my entire yearly salary in bonuses.
trying to impress a woman you want to actually spend more than one night with your wealth, or appearance of it, is just plain stupid. it will lure exactly the expected types - money grabbers who knows the word love only from some tv show. results of such "relationships" shouldn't be surprising
Some officials are already acknowledging that one child has gone on too long, and most couples are allowed to have two now (most minorities have always been allowed more, most country-side dwellers are allowed two if the first is a boy). But many couples aren't taking advantage of the new two child policy, since raising a kid in a Chinese city is expensive (especially schooling, which isn't really free).
Korea went through the same cycle: too many kids in the 70s, got everyone cut back, and then they went over a demographic cliff and now have to beg couples to have more kids today.
Could you imagine such a thing in the United States? I envision big posters in medical buildings saying "Uncle Sam Wants YOU (to get knocked up)!" The target birth month would be hell for parents, as well: nonstop shuttling of your kids to birthday party after birthday party.
Or you could all chip in together and have one big party for all the kids where everyone gets a present? It'd probably end up being cheaper for each parent but overall be a better party.
What I don't understand is why not marry someone from the countryside? It's not as if there isn't a supply. However it seems perceived status gets in the way and these guys hoping to pair off would rather endure than settle with a mate from the countryside.
Believe it or not, guys from cities do marry girls from countryside. Men from higher socioeconomic status marrying down is both socially acceptable and practical in Today's China.
It happens but not to a degree enough to relatively devalue the status of mature (of age) city women. Of course if the became a trend, males from the countryside would be left holding the bag or left to import brides from places worse off, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. Or alternatively, the age gap widens considerably.
Man, this is really going to cause some serious issues in Chinese society.
Just think of how rather psychopathic women are in our, American, society about material things, being wined and dined, having all kinds of benefits and advantages heaped upon them. Now multiply that by the power of a wild imbalance of men to women. There are several generations of women growing up who have the narcissistic, selfish psychopathies embedded in their identity and one set of throngs of men are going to play into it and feed that beast, and another throng of men are going to reject that notion and build up some serious resentments, anger, and volatile personality traits. It just doesn't seem good at all. This is the kind of shit that ends up leading to war. It's precisely the reason why things like the Crusades were started.
Why do people believe that women have the upper hand now?
They might have in the slight time frame between high school graduation and marriage (~25 years for Chinese women). Before they have not much say because their fathers are the boss. Afterwards they have husbands who don't do anything but work and sleep (and maybe care for their mistresses). It's true that in that short slice of time their power over each single men who wants them is nearly unlimited. But would you trade your whole life for 5 years of power over guys you don't care about?
And it's not really true that they have power in a global sense, it's only in each of these 1-on-1 encounters with potential marriage partners. On the global scale requirements like beauty and social standards are higher and the push to marriage is also stronger than for men.
So this "has backfired on men" should be read as "has decreased the huge advantage of men to become only a big advantage for men".
That is clearly not what the article was claiming, either you have information the author does not or you have an agenda you're not being truthful about.
it's clearly the latter, he just wrapped 3 or 4 feminist talking points into a comment and posted it out of context in response to an article about something else entirely.
What is "that"? The article claims women have the upper hand when it comes to dating in China. I argue that a) it's not as much the case as it looks like on and b) to evaluate one has to look at many different aspects and women in China having the disadvantage in so many aspects that one would rather be a Chinese man than Chinese woman.
Except that the article actually says the opposite.
> Consider Cai Li (who asked her real name not be used in this article), a 34-year-old marketing executive in Shanghai: she is smart, engaging, hip and attractive. She is also the divorced mother of an 8-year-old girl. When she caught her husband, a Taiwanese businessman, philandering five years ago, she didn't hesitate. "I divorced him as soon as I could," she says. "He was shocked. He thought I wasn't serious, that I wouldn't do it because of our daughter. I said, 'You'll see'. And within a week I had filed the papers [for divorce]. And why wouldn't I? Why should I put up with that? I have parents here in Shanghai who help take care of my daughter, I had a good job. Plus, if I want to get remarried, it's not as if there's a shortage of men, even at my age, who would be interested. [My ex] was crazy to think I was going to stick around."
> The only problem for Cai was that her parents sided with her ex. "They had a typical Chinese reaction. They said, 'Oh come on, he probably won't do it again. It's not that big a deal anyway'," she says. "It was a generational attitude. When they were young, people put up with it, I guess. But I told them, not now. I was really angry. I put my foot down. Things are different now."
Huh? Are you arguing against my point or for my point? At first you say "the article actually says the opposite", which makes me think you want to argue for women having a better position. Then you show an example of a women getting pressured by her parents to not divorce beside being in an unacceptable position.
I'm a little confused but I assume that you argue against my post based on your first sentence.
Maybe it's not clear how much influence Chinese parents have on their children. As a woman it might even happen that your husbands parents have more power over your life than your own parents. So there is often no chance to divorce. In fact many Chinese women wouldn't even attempt that, because of fear to lose their job, any chance to remarry, losing both party's parents' favour. The husband does not have to accept any punishment for having a lover on the side, not doing their part at home, or for not taking care of the child(ren).
A typical situation in China is the wife fighting the younger girlfriend of the husband, both fighting to gain the man's favour. This only happens out of fear, not out of respect for oneself.
So to answer your question: She's an exception for actually divorcing her husband, but she's not an exception for getting punished for the divorce more than the husband who is actually the one who caused the divorce.
Even if I'd agree with that point it would still just be "she's better off than her mother's generation" not "she's better off than the husband", right?
Sure. They have the advantage in some areas and it's closer to equality, though men still have most positions of power. The article didn't try to say that women had taken over.
Then I have misunderstood it, seriously. To me it said Chinese men are in such a poor situation now, which to me implies that the Chinese women have the upper hand. Maybe I've read too much into it.
The fact that she can marry up and divorce with a child, and still be in demand in the dating world is a privilege men do not enjoy. As shown earlier in the article, single man of similar socioeconomic status without all the baggage are not considered serious suitors.
On the other hand, it is more socially acceptable for successful men to have mistress as opposed to successful woman to have, hmm, 'misters'.
In extremely simple words, rich men enjoy more privileges than rich women, average men fair worse than average women, poor men die alone.
A Shanghai marketing executive who was married to a Taiwanese Businessman is not exactly representative of women across the country. Not all demographics in China will feel the same empowerment that she might feel.
In my experience many men overestimate the power of women's sexual choices, and underestimate the power of social structures and habits that prefer men.
I think this is because men experience the power of female sexual choice first-hand during adolescence. It's a time of crazy emotions in general, and none crazier than those related to love and sex. It can seem like your entire happiness is dependent on whether a particular girl likes you back. That is memorable.
(Of course, women experience the same things during adolescence. Very few feel powerful during that time...they feel vulnerable just like the guys.)
Meanwhile, men do not directly experience the power of social structures that prefer them. Instead what they experience is a relative absence of barriers that present themselves to women. And how easy is it to notice the absence of something you've never experienced? Not easy at all.
It's very difficult in general for humans to empathize with experiences that they've never had themselves. David Foster Wallace discussed this memorably in his "this is water" speech.
Good argumentation. Yes, the advantage you have had your whole life (and previous generations before) is something you don't experience as such. But if that advantage is decreased just the slightest bit, then suddenly you feel very disadvantaged, while you are actually still "ahead".
Also in a society were sexism isn't considered a topic it's also hard for women to see their disadvantages. They feel a lot of pressure from society and family, but it's the same for their friends and (female) colleagues. Failing to fulfil them while other women around you struggle to achieve them makes you look like a loser. So Chinese women also support the status quo, which makes it even harder for Chinese men to see the point.
While its true the women who were born have a slight advantage when it comes to hetero pairing off, the main premise ignores the fact that many never made it out of the womb and they are the real disadvantaged ones. That is, there are men alive because their parents forwent a daughter via physician intervention. Now, this has nothing to do with being pro choice or not, but one can't ignore the undercurrent which gives rise to this.
Now, with regard to men in cities, if they could only subject themselves to the injustice of marrying a mate from the countryside, they would not have a problem, but for whatever reason, a city reared mate it must be, so cry me a river.
I think to your first point, the assumption here is that the unborn don't have rhetorical standing. In this context I'm not sure I see a downside to that (at least in this context).
My point is that this occurs because parents have a preference for male heirs who, presumably, are obligated to provide parents with some support when they become infirm, while girls become part of the other family once they marry and their allegiance is to the other family.
This setup is what disfavors the female gender in that society.
The article's description of women's power over men is reminiscent of Robert A. Heinlein's sci-fi novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which Luna had many more single men than single women, with similar results.
While there are absolutely tons of anti-Chinese US pieces written, I'd be interested to hear what misconceptions the US has about China's policy (I'm guessing the one child policy)?
From the raw data I've seen in recent years there is just under a 4% "shortfall" in girls Vs. boys within China.
Most Americans believe the "one child policy" limits families to one child. Then they extrapolate conclusions based on how they imagine that might be enforced. It's like someone thinking the American "Affordable Healthcare act" made healthcare in America affordable. And then they guess "oh, that law probably limited how much hospitals and doctors could charge or something". "So that probably made it harder for hospitals to make money, right? I don't care enough to find out whether that's true, but it makes sense." "Hey, an article about a healthcare merger in the US. I'll comment on it since I know all about why this is happening."
I'm curious how this seeming gender war will resolve. One way is that homosexual and asexual behavior will be accepted. Another is that men will decide to not prioritize marital relations. Finally, both genders could accept each other as equals and partners.
For the first, the supply of men will decrease. It might decrease enough to cause a more traditional relationship between the genders. The surviving heterosexual group will have more power since the demand is probably constant.
The second, is probably more how many picture the 1960s and 1970s in the US. Men getting the milk for free. In many ways if all you want is milk, so to speak, you get off quite well in the process. It is a selfish take on life, but oh well we'll all just matter anyway.
Third, this is the sanest approach. It allows the species to succeed. It also seems to make the major genetic predisposition of the species.
India has a similar gender imbalance for the same reasons- sons favored and selection technology.
India seems to have a horrifying rape culture in some places. I dont know if its always been there or worsened by the gender imbalance.
1.16 boys per girl? Down from 1.22? Wow. I knew there was an imbalance. I didn't realize it was quite so large.
It's really depressing that such an anachronistic notion (of carrying on your family's "name") is still so prevalent that it results in tens of millions of abortions of unwanted girls.
My only hope is that 20 or 30 years from now when the children of this generation of Chinese are themselves looking to marry and have families that such misogyny has fallen by the wayside.
NYT had an interesting recent article "1.5 Million Missing Black Men", which discusses the socio-economic consequences in communities with a scarcity of men.
1. more man than woman, about 50Million man will probably never have a wife. Really, either legalize prostitution, or somehow have a war, otherwise you will read more news about rape.
2. the world is flat, woman are better educated and they do not want to marry a man that is inferior, they would rather stay unmarried if no good fit can be found, that further worsen the situation. low-class men are the real losers, in a large amount.
3. people do get married do not want to have more than one baby due to various reasons listed by others here.
1) That is a pretty dim and sexist view of men. You are implying that men who do not get married will be likely to resort to committing rape. I think a broad generalization like this should be backed up with statistics. It also distracts from marital rape, which is a frequent and often unreported form of rape.[0][1]
2) In China, sadly, there is still a gender imbalance in education. For example, the literacy rate is lower, on the whole, for women.[2] While a lot of attention is given to the demographic challenges facing men in China as a result of the one child policy, it is important to also recognize the challenges faced by women in China as well.
Where USA stacks up to Materinity Leave compared to other countries.
1. Sweden offers the most generous maternity leave policy, with 56 weeks paid at 80 percent of citizens' salary, and 13 additional weeks paid at a fixed rate thereafter.
2. In some central European countries, the standard maternity leave is three years.
3. Adoptive parents and same-sex parents get parental leave in the U.K., Canada, France, and yes, Sweden.
4. There is still zero mandated maternity leave benefits in the U.S., although companies with over 50 employees are obligated to offer three months of unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
5. This makes the U.S. one of only four countries in the world with no required paid maternity leave. The others are Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea.
Japan is so screwed! By 2060 there population will be 50% of what it was and only 32 million people will be under 65 years old!
After peaking seven years ago, at 128 million, Japan's population has been falling — and is on a path to decline by about a million people a year. By 2060, the government estimates, there will be just 87 million people in Japan; nearly half of them will be over 65. Without a dramatic change in either the birthrate or its restrictive immigration policies, Japan simply won't have enough workers to support its retirees, and will enter a demographic death spiral. Yet the babies aren't coming.
Japan is betting that automation means they don't need gazillions of workers to feed their old.
If they're right, they'd win so big compared to "us" that in fact the biggest obstacle they're facing might be that "we" won't allow them to win the bet.
However, if their bet fails and automation alone can't make up for the shortfall in the labor force, they stand to lose more compared to other countries like the US and those in Europe that do a better job of integrating immigrants into society and the workforce.
Research/creative work is difficult to automate, and it seems that only a smallish percentage of population excels at it. Small population -> falling behind in those areas, unless the Japanese somehow revolutionize their education system.
A lot of this is the result of historical policies and culture. It doesn't necessarily excuse poor behavior, but there's enough of that to go around on all sides that we eventually learn not to point fingers.
It is culturally expected of the man to take care of his parents and grandparents. It's a very gendered role, so a daughter might not accept that responsibility. Typically the son's loyalty is expected to go to his own parents, while the daughters loyalty would transfer to her husband's family. But sometimes when she got married her husband would accept responsibility for her parents as well. But that places a significant burden on the man. It wasn't that big of a deal with multiple children - you could split up the parents and grandparents. But with one child, you now have to hope that one can take care of six adults and a spouse. It's described as the 4-2-1 problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#.22Four-two-o...).
There was an article on modern Chinese women not wanting to support their parents that I encountered a while back (though I think it was older), but I'm having problems finding it. This might change, though, as new legislation surfaced recently making it a legal burden for all children (http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/chinese-laws-requ...). This should help alleviate a lot of retirement care concerns.
Some rural areas have policies where new children are greeted with extra land. This was returned to the government upon marriage for girls, while it stayed with the family for boys. Ostensibly this was to prevent the land from going to some city dweller. It's a policy littered with faulty assumptions, but that extra acre of land could be pretty tempting to a rural villager. (http://research-china.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-girls-are-aba...). Outdated ownership and inheritance policies are another cause for concern.
With the relaxing of the one-child policy, things got a lot better. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/07/as-china-s-...) Note that some parents are aborting boys for girls, now. But we can see that a lot (but not all) of the parents concern over the gender of their child can come from government policies and wanting a place to live in their declining years. Let's not try to force our own paradigms and logic on other cultures just because it's convenient. I'm not Chinese, but I still get frustrated when people judge their worth without considering Chinese values and cultural expectations. It's a lot more complex than an entire country hating women. Selfishness is a much more reasonable assumption. Assuming it's selfish to want your kids to take care of you when you took care of your parents and grandparents. I'd say it's more like perpetuating the cultural machine.
138 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadThey are also most likely to be financially insecure. And that insecurity is due to the lack of participation in the rearing and responsibility for their child by the father.
In short, the rising rate of single parenthood in the U.S. is not an outcome of empowering women and equal rights. It's a consequence of abject poverty and lack of accountability by fathers.
[1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/discouraged-dad...
Are you suggesting that marriages should be held together so as not to damage the well being of the abuser by losing his object of abuse?
I'm suggesting that the main concern should be the well-being of the children. Most marriages fail, because the spouses get bored and tired of each other, and feel that the grass could be greener somewhere else. I don't think that's good enough a reason for divorce. At least wait until the children have left the home.
http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/08/80-percent-of-divorces...
i don't agree with the above article, just posted it as the very wide evidence of women throwing away the marriage contract.
Whoa. That is ABSOLUTELY not true.
"80% of divorces in the US are initiated by the woman."
20% percent (but probably much more) of marriages involve women being domestic abused by their husbands.
Why should a woman stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship?
Your comment is pretty out of line, man.
> Why should a woman stay in an [unhappy] relationship?
I don't think you can make that inference.
Even in prisons, the violent crime rate is only 4%
Everything I've read on the matter seems to think men are more likely to be abused in relationships than men.
The statistics he cites are out of context.
The divorce rate has been dropping sharply and now hovers at 15%. Social scientists and researchers attribute this drop, in large part, to the feminist and equal rights movements and changing gender roles. [1]
Lower socioeconomic status and education are correlated with higher divorce rates. And higher rates of financial insecurity after divorce. This is largely attributed to more traditional gender roles. [1]
Essentially, the spike in divorce during the 70's and 80's was due to women being empowered to leave bad marriages and find economic independence. Currently, those demographics that have embraced the new gender roles and women's equal social status have seen a huge drop in divorce, increase in marriage stability, and decreases in marriage related stress. While those demographics who continue to try to enforce traditional gender roles retain the same level of volatility.
Only 10-15% of all divorces end in alimony. I'd say that's hardly enough to claim that the "state treats them like money generators".
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-i...
A new report shows the current number of married adults has dropped to a record low of 51 percent.
That's not the only trend changing. Americans are getting married for the first time at older ages than ever before.
The crazy person might think the reason divorce rates have dropped is a combination of marriage rates decreasing coupled with the ones who do marry do it when they're older and presumably wiser and more mature.
Not only that, but for years now I've seen people talking about men not marrying because they get no real benefit out of marriage, but take on all the risks. And while I don't have any statistics on the matter, as a man who has made the decision not to marry myself, this really resonates with me as to my thinking when I first made the decision back in my college days.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/24/decline_of_ma...
Where are your statistics that the spike in divorces in the 70's and 80's were due to woman being empowered? You make the claim, but not even the link you posted bears that out. Here's a quote from your link:
But it also seems to be the case that marriages have gotten more stable, as people are marrying later.
Even it attributes it to people marrying later (which makes sense).
Furthermore, the poster you were responding to was obviously talking about more than simply alimony. They were talking about things like child support as well. When you see people talking about marriage having all the risks but none of the rewards this is what they're talking about.
Can you please get some actual statistics to backup your claim? Because not even the articles you linked appear to agree with you.
Failed marriages may in many cases be the result of an independent attitude (such as the single mother in the article, who divorced her husband because he cheated on her). Is it good that she left a bad husband? Is it bad that her child is growing up in a broken home? Well, that's something folks can disagree on.
As for long term relationships, I believe that phenomenon is a symptom of America's incarceration rates among the poor: free men are so outnumbered by women that they have no need to marry.
However, some form of "forsaking all others" is one of the most common vows. So, assuming it was part of the original covenant then it was clearly that convent was broken well before 'divorce.' Some groups go so far as to consider a couple divorced on the first infidelity.
Also, generally it’s not the initial cheating party that instigates divorce proceedings as your better off divorcing before infidelity than after. So, if we are talking about female divorcers then the infidelity would generally be on the male side (excluding LGBT).
i'm going to posit that it wasn't a 'failure' of marriage or long-term relationship, it was the complete absence of one. in fact many times women get pregnant in order to attempt to enter one.
that strategy, of course, could be described as .. misguided, but young women don't know that. they are just as stupid as young men in their attempts to secure relationships.
That sums up the problem with central planning. There are too many variables for any individual or organization to track let alone make decisions on.
[edit]: typo
All they really need now is some way to get rid of their least-fit excess males, so they don't get all angry and rebellious on them. What the central planners really need now is some sort of grand, state-funded enterprise wherein a few million young, unmarried men would get killed, without too much blame accruing to the state.
Now what sort of project could do that? I feel somehow that building up reef islands in the South China Sea might somehow be relevant, but I don't imagine that an oceanic construction crew would kill more than a dozen or so workers per year, and people would blame lax safety standards....
Hang on. I need to put my foil hat on....
Ah. Got it. They need to start a war with someone who is well-supplied with military technology, but not actually another superpower, or too closely allied with one, because that could quickly spiral out of control. Option 1 is China versus Malaysia-Vietnam-Philippines. Option 2 is China versus India. Option 3 is to cultivate an Uighur terrorist attack, and use that as pretext to invade Afghanistan, which has faithfully served as meat grinder for so many superpowers already.
Or maybe they could just use fluoride and phytoestrogens to make those males infertile, or use high-flying planes to spray chemtr--whoops, this hat needs to come off now.
In california we're trying to build a high speed train across the state. It's taking years for this happen with no end in sight. It's largely due to lack of funding and a lot of decentralized opposition.
In china, thanks to centralized planning, they can build the same public project in two years.
Women empowered to leave abusive, philandering husbands.
Women no longer pressured to marry young in order to survive, can focus on careers.
As far as whether women choose husbands only for their riches, I tend not to draw too many generalizations based on a sample of 2 in 750 million.
However, men and women in an egalitarian society tend to choose partners they view as having achieved comparable success socially, economically, and academically.
Always struck me as a very Orwellian slogan.
edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes
"If any slave resists his master...correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
... a master could be held criminally liable for killing a slave only if the slave he killed was "completely submissive and under the master's absolute control."
So, effectively, slaves were considered chattel, and legally dispatched if not submissive to the will of the owner. Much like a cow, not like a person. This historical fact is not really at question.
China has long forbid pre-birth gender detecting. As a respond, People just bin new born girls outright. Especially in rural villages. There are sparse reports on news but as far as I know, it is very common.
Yes this is just one article, but it doesn't mention anything about post-birth selection. That would be terrible. I just don't believe it is happening at scale - people are not that evil.
And what great mothers this produces, with happy and balanced kids all around, right? Err, somehow, I fail to see many around me, but I am sure this is just local situation. Maybe you are happy just by pursuing career, but most have to find happiness elsewhere.
The thing is, women don't really have such a big window as men when they are considered attractive for dating or starting a family. And then you have fertility issues sooner. The world ain't fair in this topic, but things are as they are.
> Women empowered to leave abusive, philandering husbands.
In current modern empowered world, there are as many bad wives as bad husbands (yes, anecdotal, but somehow real in my experience). Women don't tend to resort to physical violence, but there are other ways to behave badly in relationships.
Goverment: "Stop making so many babies! that's it, just one per couple."
Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"
What could go wrong?
Yes, woman are gaining some upper hand here; and thats good. But it's not because of a change of outlooks or perspectives of the people, it's simply out of scarcity of the gender.
And what happens when there aren't enough women to go around? why, they import them of course! And by import I mean sex slavery and arranged marriages.
"life...finds a way..." to keep on fuckin'
"One-child policy" Bad policy.
"Woman gaining upper hand" Yay.
<Insert unintended consequence> Yeah, China's screwed.
I'll wait and see.
I get the feeling that the people who invented the "One child policy" where at a different stage in civilization/education/whatever you call, than the people for whom they made the rule. So they didn't even consider that the public might choose to get rid of their girls.
China has been extremely focus on reaching the western standards of living, but their culture haven't been able to keep up. I think it's great that they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do. Their error was that they didn't try to bring about lower birth rates though education and welfare programs and instead opted for punishment. The Chinese where given an incentive to abort girls, so in hindsight it's not a surprise that things have worked out the way they have.
India took the path to education and propaganda to voluntarily reduce the fertility rate. I don't think India has failed in its initiatives. Instead, I think they are going extremely well given that there is no legal limit on how many kids you can have. India is on track to reach peak-population by 2060. [1]
Most educated middle class couples would not think of having more than 2 kids (this has been true for the last 15/20+ years) and now we are entering a phase where a small minority is choosing to go without kids, completely.[2]
The total fertility rate in India has gone from 6 to 2.5 in the last 50 years. (Google for "total fertility rate india")
Edit: One more thing - there are 11 states in India that are at or below a TFR of 2.1 [3].
Net net - far from a failure, India is making good progress.
[1]: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-population-w...
[2]: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/...
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertil...
I'd like to see studies with control groups before believing that voluntary methods can significantly impact fertility rates.
India's population control has been voluntary. Aside from a failed attempt in 1975 (declaration of emergency/forced castration of a negligible number of people), all of the decline in fertility in India has been voluntary.
Also... if you're saying that "getting rid of the girls" is dumb ("indicative of lack of civilization"), as opposed to "bad" in some other way (say, immoral) - then, well, it might be much dumber for society than it is for individuals, depending on the specifics. (It depends on the various costs of raising a single child who's a boy vs raising a single child who is a girl. If you count on your child to be supporting the family with physical labor from a young age, for instance, a girl would be more costly to raise.) Pushing people to do something which makes sense for them individually but is a disaster for society as a whole is very common for rulers who're out to inflict as much good as possible upon their less-civilized subjects.
Only if you actually buy into the bullshit that girls are worth less than boys...
* The girl will marry and join another family, leaving no one to care for the parents in their old age. * Because of traditional gender roles as well as physical attributes, the girl won't be able to toil the fields (doing so might make it harder for her to find a good husband). A child that can do so is more valuable. * Only sons can inherit land * Only sons can carry on the family name
That was actually the reality in most places of the world for most of human history, and unfortunate as it is, still the reality in some cultures and countries. It isn't bullshit.
Yes exactly. Thank You. These types of articles keep popping up but IMOP a much bigger problem was addressed than was caused. Also IMOP the world would be much better off if other nations found a way to reduce overpopulation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/europe/germany-fight...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing_of_Europe
Korea went through the same cycle: too many kids in the 70s, got everyone cut back, and then they went over a demographic cliff and now have to beg couples to have more kids today.
Could you imagine such a thing in the United States? I envision big posters in medical buildings saying "Uncle Sam Wants YOU (to get knocked up)!" The target birth month would be hell for parents, as well: nonstop shuttling of your kids to birthday party after birthday party.
Can you pursue your career? Do you have any family or friends? What about material assets?
Just think of how rather psychopathic women are in our, American, society about material things, being wined and dined, having all kinds of benefits and advantages heaped upon them. Now multiply that by the power of a wild imbalance of men to women. There are several generations of women growing up who have the narcissistic, selfish psychopathies embedded in their identity and one set of throngs of men are going to play into it and feed that beast, and another throng of men are going to reject that notion and build up some serious resentments, anger, and volatile personality traits. It just doesn't seem good at all. This is the kind of shit that ends up leading to war. It's precisely the reason why things like the Crusades were started.
They might have in the slight time frame between high school graduation and marriage (~25 years for Chinese women). Before they have not much say because their fathers are the boss. Afterwards they have husbands who don't do anything but work and sleep (and maybe care for their mistresses). It's true that in that short slice of time their power over each single men who wants them is nearly unlimited. But would you trade your whole life for 5 years of power over guys you don't care about?
And it's not really true that they have power in a global sense, it's only in each of these 1-on-1 encounters with potential marriage partners. On the global scale requirements like beauty and social standards are higher and the push to marriage is also stronger than for men.
So this "has backfired on men" should be read as "has decreased the huge advantage of men to become only a big advantage for men".
Which is it?
> Consider Cai Li (who asked her real name not be used in this article), a 34-year-old marketing executive in Shanghai: she is smart, engaging, hip and attractive. She is also the divorced mother of an 8-year-old girl. When she caught her husband, a Taiwanese businessman, philandering five years ago, she didn't hesitate. "I divorced him as soon as I could," she says. "He was shocked. He thought I wasn't serious, that I wouldn't do it because of our daughter. I said, 'You'll see'. And within a week I had filed the papers [for divorce]. And why wouldn't I? Why should I put up with that? I have parents here in Shanghai who help take care of my daughter, I had a good job. Plus, if I want to get remarried, it's not as if there's a shortage of men, even at my age, who would be interested. [My ex] was crazy to think I was going to stick around."
> The only problem for Cai was that her parents sided with her ex. "They had a typical Chinese reaction. They said, 'Oh come on, he probably won't do it again. It's not that big a deal anyway'," she says. "It was a generational attitude. When they were young, people put up with it, I guess. But I told them, not now. I was really angry. I put my foot down. Things are different now."
Is this one woman an exception?
I'm a little confused but I assume that you argue against my post based on your first sentence.
Maybe it's not clear how much influence Chinese parents have on their children. As a woman it might even happen that your husbands parents have more power over your life than your own parents. So there is often no chance to divorce. In fact many Chinese women wouldn't even attempt that, because of fear to lose their job, any chance to remarry, losing both party's parents' favour. The husband does not have to accept any punishment for having a lover on the side, not doing their part at home, or for not taking care of the child(ren).
A typical situation in China is the wife fighting the younger girlfriend of the husband, both fighting to gain the man's favour. This only happens out of fear, not out of respect for oneself.
So to answer your question: She's an exception for actually divorcing her husband, but she's not an exception for getting punished for the divorce more than the husband who is actually the one who caused the divorce.
The fact that she can marry up and divorce with a child, and still be in demand in the dating world is a privilege men do not enjoy. As shown earlier in the article, single man of similar socioeconomic status without all the baggage are not considered serious suitors.
On the other hand, it is more socially acceptable for successful men to have mistress as opposed to successful woman to have, hmm, 'misters'.
In extremely simple words, rich men enjoy more privileges than rich women, average men fair worse than average women, poor men die alone.
I think this is because men experience the power of female sexual choice first-hand during adolescence. It's a time of crazy emotions in general, and none crazier than those related to love and sex. It can seem like your entire happiness is dependent on whether a particular girl likes you back. That is memorable.
(Of course, women experience the same things during adolescence. Very few feel powerful during that time...they feel vulnerable just like the guys.)
Meanwhile, men do not directly experience the power of social structures that prefer them. Instead what they experience is a relative absence of barriers that present themselves to women. And how easy is it to notice the absence of something you've never experienced? Not easy at all.
It's very difficult in general for humans to empathize with experiences that they've never had themselves. David Foster Wallace discussed this memorably in his "this is water" speech.
Also in a society were sexism isn't considered a topic it's also hard for women to see their disadvantages. They feel a lot of pressure from society and family, but it's the same for their friends and (female) colleagues. Failing to fulfil them while other women around you struggle to achieve them makes you look like a loser. So Chinese women also support the status quo, which makes it even harder for Chinese men to see the point.
Now, with regard to men in cities, if they could only subject themselves to the injustice of marrying a mate from the countryside, they would not have a problem, but for whatever reason, a city reared mate it must be, so cry me a river.
This setup is what disfavors the female gender in that society.
From the raw data I've seen in recent years there is just under a 4% "shortfall" in girls Vs. boys within China.
For the first, the supply of men will decrease. It might decrease enough to cause a more traditional relationship between the genders. The surviving heterosexual group will have more power since the demand is probably constant.
The second, is probably more how many picture the 1960s and 1970s in the US. Men getting the milk for free. In many ways if all you want is milk, so to speak, you get off quite well in the process. It is a selfish take on life, but oh well we'll all just matter anyway.
Third, this is the sanest approach. It allows the species to succeed. It also seems to make the major genetic predisposition of the species.
Only time will tell.
It's really depressing that such an anachronistic notion (of carrying on your family's "name") is still so prevalent that it results in tens of millions of abortions of unwanted girls.
My only hope is that 20 or 30 years from now when the children of this generation of Chinese are themselves looking to marry and have families that such misogyny has fallen by the wayside.
1. more man than woman, about 50Million man will probably never have a wife. Really, either legalize prostitution, or somehow have a war, otherwise you will read more news about rape.
2. the world is flat, woman are better educated and they do not want to marry a man that is inferior, they would rather stay unmarried if no good fit can be found, that further worsen the situation. low-class men are the real losers, in a large amount.
3. people do get married do not want to have more than one baby due to various reasons listed by others here.
2) In China, sadly, there is still a gender imbalance in education. For example, the literacy rate is lower, on the whole, for women.[2] While a lot of attention is given to the demographic challenges facing men in China as a result of the one child policy, it is important to also recognize the challenges faced by women in China as well.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Prevalence [1] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/nnfr_partnerviolence_a20-yearlit... [2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
1. Sweden offers the most generous maternity leave policy, with 56 weeks paid at 80 percent of citizens' salary, and 13 additional weeks paid at a fixed rate thereafter.
2. In some central European countries, the standard maternity leave is three years.
3. Adoptive parents and same-sex parents get parental leave in the U.K., Canada, France, and yes, Sweden.
4. There is still zero mandated maternity leave benefits in the U.S., although companies with over 50 employees are obligated to offer three months of unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
5. This makes the U.S. one of only four countries in the world with no required paid maternity leave. The others are Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea.
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2013/05/these-9-countrie...
After peaking seven years ago, at 128 million, Japan's population has been falling — and is on a path to decline by about a million people a year. By 2060, the government estimates, there will be just 87 million people in Japan; nearly half of them will be over 65. Without a dramatic change in either the birthrate or its restrictive immigration policies, Japan simply won't have enough workers to support its retirees, and will enter a demographic death spiral. Yet the babies aren't coming.
http://theweek.com/articles/453219/everything-need-know-abou...
If they're right, they'd win so big compared to "us" that in fact the biggest obstacle they're facing might be that "we" won't allow them to win the bet.
It is culturally expected of the man to take care of his parents and grandparents. It's a very gendered role, so a daughter might not accept that responsibility. Typically the son's loyalty is expected to go to his own parents, while the daughters loyalty would transfer to her husband's family. But sometimes when she got married her husband would accept responsibility for her parents as well. But that places a significant burden on the man. It wasn't that big of a deal with multiple children - you could split up the parents and grandparents. But with one child, you now have to hope that one can take care of six adults and a spouse. It's described as the 4-2-1 problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#.22Four-two-o...).
There was an article on modern Chinese women not wanting to support their parents that I encountered a while back (though I think it was older), but I'm having problems finding it. This might change, though, as new legislation surfaced recently making it a legal burden for all children (http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/chinese-laws-requ...). This should help alleviate a lot of retirement care concerns.
Some rural areas have policies where new children are greeted with extra land. This was returned to the government upon marriage for girls, while it stayed with the family for boys. Ostensibly this was to prevent the land from going to some city dweller. It's a policy littered with faulty assumptions, but that extra acre of land could be pretty tempting to a rural villager. (http://research-china.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-girls-are-aba...). Outdated ownership and inheritance policies are another cause for concern.
With the relaxing of the one-child policy, things got a lot better. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/07/as-china-s-...) Note that some parents are aborting boys for girls, now. But we can see that a lot (but not all) of the parents concern over the gender of their child can come from government policies and wanting a place to live in their declining years. Let's not try to force our own paradigms and logic on other cultures just because it's convenient. I'm not Chinese, but I still get frustrated when people judge their worth without considering Chinese values and cultural expectations. It's a lot more complex than an entire country hating women. Selfishness is a much more reasonable assumption. Assuming it's selfish to want your kids to take care of you when you took care of your parents and grandparents. I'd say it's more like perpetuating the cultural machine.
We've also completely ignored the historical relevance of China's bride price (http://qz.com/92267/in-a-reversal-of-the-dowry-chinese-men-p... and htt...