|
How did 100,000,000 women disappear?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
Holly . :eek: :eek: :eek:
Note - the article doesnt even mention the many female fetuses which are aborted, and many girls who are murdered at birth because they were born female and males are more values in some cultures / societies. That would be another cause to add to the list ...
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/645832
| quote: |
Two researchers crunching population statistics have confirmed an unsettling reality. Siwan Anderson and Debraj Ray noticed the ratio of women to men in developing regions and in some cultures is suspiciously below the norm
Jun 06, 2009 04:30 AM
In India, China and sub-Saharan Africa, millions upon millions of women are missing. They are not lost, but dead: victims of violence, discrimination and neglect.
A University of British Columbia economist is amongst those trying to find them – not the women themselves, who are long gone, but their numbers and ages, which paint a sad and startling picture of gender discrimination in the developing world.
The term "missing women" was coined in 1990, when Indian economist Amartya Sen calculated a shocking figure. In parts of Asia and Africa, he wrote in The New York Review of Books, 100 million women who should be alive are not, because of unequal access to medical care, food and social services. These are excess deaths: women "missing" above and beyond natural mortality rates, compared to their male counterparts.
Women who are dead because their lives were undervalued.
Around the world boys outnumber girls at birth, but in countries where women and men receive equal care, women have proved hardier and more resistant to disease, and thus live longer. In most of Asia and North Africa, however, Sen found that women die with startlingly higher frequency.
His research began a flutter of activity in academic circles and by 2005, the United Nations produced a much higher estimate for how many women could be "missing": 200 million.
From her office at the University of British Columbia, economics professor Siwan Anderson has been crunching numbers to try and understand why so many women are dying. "If you're interested in gender discrimination, it's really one of the starkest measures of discrimination, because it's women who should be alive, but aren't," she says.
The 40-year-old researcher recently co-authored a paper with New York University's Debraj Ray, focusing on figures from China, India and sub-Saharan Africa for the year 2000. What they discovered flew in the face of existing literature and commonly held beliefs about the missing women phenomenon.
"Previously, people had thought that they (the missing women) were all at the very early stages of life, prenatal or just after, so before four years old," Anderson says. "But what we found is that the majority are actually later." Female infanticide has been endemic in India and China for some time, which she says led researchers to assume that it was the source of all the missing women. But the truth is much more complicated.
Once she and Ray broke down the numbers by age group, they found that the majority of excess female deaths came later in life: 66 per cent in India, 55 per cent in China and 83 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa.
One of their colleagues in the economics department at the University of British Columbia says this finding is striking, and points the way for future research and advocacy.
"Why would there be excess mortality of, let's say, 45-year-old women versus 45-year-old men?" asks economics professor Kevin Milligan. "And what they find is ... they have the same set of diseases, they just seem to die more frequently. The explanation that seems most consistent with that is differential access to health care. And so that's a really striking finding."
Anderson says that lack of health care is likely a big part of the problem, but that there are numerous cultural and social factors at play that can be difficult to pinpoint.
In their "elementary accounting exercise" published this February, Anderson and Ray began to plot the causes of excess death in 2000 by age group, and produced some interesting figures.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the dominant source of missing women was HIV and AIDS, the cause of more than 600,000 excess female deaths each year.
In China, Anderson says, most of the 141,000 excess female deaths by injury were suicides, making China the only place in the world where women are more likely than men to kill themselves, often by eating pesticides used for crops.
And in India, a category called "injuries" yielded ominously high figures: 86,000 excess deaths in the age group 15-29 in 2000 alone. Anderson has done extensive research in India, and says the numbers beg the question of exactly how many deaths were so-called "kitchen fires" – often used to mask dowry-related killings, the result of a new bride being tortured by her new family until her parents pay their debts.
Contrary to what you might expect, Anderson says, dowry prices have not dropped off with improvements in education in India. Instead, they have gotten worse, with educated brides and their families willing to pay even more for high-quality grooms.
Anderson says dowry payments can be six times a family's annual wealth – an excruciating price, especially for poor villagers. The implications of this hefty sum trickle down to the first moments of a child's life. While conducting recent field work in India, Anderson asked villagers about selective abortions and found them open about the fact that they use ultrasound to determine the baby's gender and help them decide whether or not to keep it.
"They see no other options," she says. "They really cannot afford to have a daughter."
Future research will delve deeper, seeking answers to questions such as: How often are men given mosquito nets to protect themselves from malaria, but not women? How many women die because they are not taken to the hospital when they are sick?
Anderson is using data gathered primarily from the World Bank, the United Nations and the World Health Organization, but admits that getting the figures can be a huge challenge. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, many deaths go undocumented, and in India, it is virtually impossible to know how many "unintentional" deaths are actually dowry killings, because they are not accurately reported to the authorities.
It is also difficult to separate direct gender discrimination from biological, social, environmental, behavioural and economic factors. That will be part of the task as Anderson works on calculating missing women by region in India, and isolating gender discrimination from other factors that might contribute to uneven male-to-female ratios.
When asked what can be done to combat such deep-seated inequality, Anderson pauses. Even when governments outlaw root causes, such as the Indian dowry system, violence persists, she says. "It's too embedded in the system in their world." |
|
|
|
| Krypton |
| The question, what do we do about? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
In "non-developing nations. Women don't live longer because they are "hardier" they live longer because in nearly all western countries women get 2 to 3 times as much care as men do. They get more freebies, they get more clubs, organizations and programs, and they get more support. In ameirca every male is on his own. If your a woman, people throw money at you. Its the same in education. The majority of collage and universities kids are not female because of the bull about women supposedly being smarter, they are there because they get more benefits and free money and funds to go to school, while men don't.
I read the article and basic say "So what?" Its the opposite in the west, the male is drasticly undervalued. And if some femenists get their way, men would be killed at birth. Its not like any man in the west has any say in whether his own child lives or dies anyways.
Ontop of that, assuming there should be more woman is pretty much pulling out of their asses. Women outnumber men 4 to 1 in the west because of the extra beenfits they get in every aspect of the society. In other parts of the world where access to healthcare and education is the same reguardless of the gender, you see less woman. That because men are hardier than woman.
This sounds like a femenist article. Which puts its believeability right next to the Bible. Stupid Misandrists. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
In "non-developing nations. Women don't live longer because they are "hardier" they live longer because in nearly all western countries women get 2 to 3 times as much care as men do. They get more freebies, they get more clubs, organizations and programs, and they get more support. In ameirca every male is on his own. If your a woman, people throw money at you. Its the same in education. The majority of collage and universities kids are not female because of the bull about women supposedly being smarter, they are there because they get more benefits and free money and funds to go to school, while men don't.
I read the article and basic say "So what?" Its the opposite in the west, the male is drasticly undervalued. And if some femenists get their way, men would be killed at birth. Its not like any man in the west has any say in whether his own child lives or dies anyways.
Ontop of that, assuming there should be more woman is pretty much pulling out of their asses. Women outnumber men 4 to 1 in the west because of the extra beenfits they get in every aspect of the society. In other parts of the world where access to healthcare and education is the same reguardless of the gender, you see less woman. That because men are hardier than woman.
This sounds like a femenist article. Which puts its believeability right next to the Bible. Stupid Misandrists. |
Thats an interesting insight - I dont agree with it all - but some of that kinda made me think a bit.
Here's my opinion.
Yes, men are undervalued in successful Western societies, indeed.
I actually think that if women outnumbered men by 2 to 1 ratio overall in the entire world, it would be better for men, because then we would be better valued. And have better chances with women. :)
But then again - the nature of a man is a terrible one. Men are known to be very harsh and poor towards women - generally, so much violence, sexual and physical abuse, control, manipulation going on out there.
Ironically enough - very funny part of it - is that women often LIKE that kind of men - hard, mean, manipulating, powerful. Nice guys (like me) do indeed finish last. If I had 1000 great personal qualities (no smoking, no drinking, no tattoos, no criminal record, cook, organized, no drugs, etc. etc. etc.), they are meaningless because I am not a mean guy and dont try to look tough in front of everyone. Women in Western societies rarely if ever go for qualities like those. Women like the type of men who undervalue them (but these men don't necessarily undervalue them), generally. I guess its all about feeling secure, protected, whatever. I've known some of the biggest s who had the most beautiful women.
Heck, this could be a great debate / discussion if this could get continued on. |
|
|
| AnotherWay83 |
yeah i feel bad for the many male kids in countries like india and china. when they're of marriageable age many of them are gonna have a tough time finding women...:(
in the past few yrs. though this issue has been getting increasing attention
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508 |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Ironically enough - very funny part of it - is that women often LIKE that kind of men - hard, mean, manipulating, powerful. Nice guys (like me) do indeed finish last. If I had 1000 great personal qualities (no smoking, no drinking, no tattoos, no criminal record, cook, organized, no drugs, etc. etc. etc.), they are meaningless because I am not a mean guy and dont try to look tough in front of everyone. Women in Western societies rarely if ever go for qualities like those. Women like the type of men who undervalue them (but these men don't necessarily undervalue them), generally. I guess its all about feeling secure, protected, whatever. I've known some of the biggest s who had the most beautiful women. |
Women's sexual preferences are evolved, and therefore a function of the environment that they evolved in. Back in that harsh environment, men who were "hard, mean, manipulating, [and] powerful" were probably much more likely to survive and to succeed in keeping their family alive. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
@Magnetonium
Men are not naturally mean. And being mean is a negative attribute, being powerful and being able to control ones situations are posative attributes, one who is not in control of their life, and who is a weakling doesn't get anywhere, in the year 2009. Because a person has a house and car doesn't mean they got somewhere, Anyone can get those things, but does this person have a non-ed family? Is he/his wife cheating? Are his children lazy peices of that disobey everything thier parents tell them? Because when you have a nation of ed up families, you have a nation of ed up people. And then you have a ed up nation.
If you think you are all that because of you have a job. Then I pity you. Anyone can do that. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
@Magnetonium
Men are not naturally mean. And being mean is a negative attribute, being powerful and being able to control ones situations are posative attributes, one who is not in control of their life, and who is a weakling doesn't get anywhere, in the year 2009. Because a person has a house and car doesn't mean they got somewhere, Anyone can get those things, but does this person have a non-ed family? Is he/his wife cheating? Are his children lazy peices of that disobey everything thier parents tell them? Because when you have a nation of ed up families, you have a nation of ed up people. And then you have a ed up nation.
If you think you are all that because of you have a job. Then I pity you. Anyone can do that. |
I dont need anyone to pity me since I am doing OK with women. Well, not very good because I have been passed by a a number of women before as a "nice guy" type of character - a turn off, apparently ("Nice guys finish last", I suppose). Also, women like muscle-man/tough guy types, which is another genetic/evolutionary trait. I am quite slim, unfortunately.
I am not weak, I am very organized and successful, but this is not an autobiography.
There are many types of men out there, and I shouldn't be generalizing or putting all men in the same basket - that's not what I was trying to do. I understand your point. There's more to this issue than we have covered. But genetics plays a huge part, to this day. And peer pressure / group thinking. Just because I dont smoke ANYTHING, dont do drugs or drink alcohol, its a big turn-off for some women.
So of course not all men are mean, but aggressive men pass on their genes better. Just like cheating is also a genetic factor, a natural instinct to pass on your genes more successfully.
|
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Ironically enough - very funny part of it - is that women often LIKE that kind of men - hard, mean, manipulating, powerful. Nice guys (like me) do indeed finish last. If I had 1000 great personal qualities (no smoking, no drinking, no tattoos, no criminal record, cook, organized, no drugs, etc. etc. etc.), they are meaningless because I am not a mean guy and dont try to look tough in front of everyone. Women in Western societies rarely if ever go for qualities like those. Women like the type of men who undervalue them (but these men don't necessarily undervalue them), generally. I guess its all about feeling secure, protected, whatever. I've known some of the biggest s who had the most beautiful women.
|
This is THE classic misconception of the infamous "outlaw biker"-syndrome.
Men actually have a significant advantage in regards to approaching women, as women place far greater importance on how a man makes them feel than what he looks like. This is why there is now a bunch of seduction guides and seduction communities out there, as they have developed techniques to seduce a woman simply by knowing what to say/what to do and reading the signs.
Ultimately, it goes to show that the reason women are attracted to so-called "jerks" over "nice guys" is that "jerks" display confidence and have no problem being sexually assertive:
| quote: | | "It's not because women like jerks. Women prefer polite over rude, and attentive over distracted. The problem is the way nice guys present these positive characteristics. In order to appear friendly and romantic, these 'nice guys' think they have to turn off their sexuality. They hide their desires in order not to offend, presenting an androgynous, asexual persona. The first impression they give is one of emasculation, weakness, and lack of desire. At best, they confuse the woman as to whether they even find her attractive. That's what jerks offer women that nice guys don't: they're not afraid to be sexual." |
The Layguide |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Also, not all men get women because they want to "pass on their genes", that is what animals do. Animals also don't have to treat their females in any nice way, they often kill the babies of other females, and of course, emotions and beleifs don't play a part. As animals have none. [before all you animals lovers come around, no animals don't love and hate, or do any of those things, they sense your feelings and react to them, but they don't just sit around and go "yeah, I love that tabby cat, did you see her whiskers man??"]
Many men get a female because they simply want someone to be around them. Others do it because they are pitiful at taking care of house and home. Others do it because maby the woman has money...there are many reasons.
Also, most woman don't act like the ones you meet in bars and resturants. For most it isn't even about courting or anything. In many places woman seek to get married because they don't want to work, or don't know how. And many women prefer to stay at home, contrary to popular media belief.
There are lots of reasons men and woman seek out a partner, and a lot of the time is has nothing to do with "spreading genes" The world isn't deterministic, because someone has an impulse, doesn't mean they are always acting on that impulse when they do something. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | | Originally posted by cronodevir |
You've never touched a woman, have you? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
"It's not because women like jerks. Women prefer polite over rude, and attentive over distracted. The problem is the way nice guys present these positive characteristics. In order to appear friendly and romantic, these 'nice guys' think they have to turn off their sexuality. They hide their desires in order not to offend, presenting an androgynous, asexual persona. The first impression they give is one of emasculation, weakness, and lack of desire. At best, they confuse the woman as to whether they even find her attractive. That's what jerks offer women that nice guys don't: they're not afraid to be sexual." |
Jan, thanks for your input. I am a bit surprised to find you in PDD, but it seems like you've got more than just music expertise.
I'll look into that book, thanks for the link. And you're right, I think I do display a lot of those asexual characteristics.
Thanks for everyone's input. As I said, I am not an expert in the issue, but I'll listen to everyone's input / suggestions :D |
|
|
|
|
