Sex Selection Further Devalues Women
October 16th, 2012 | Posted in Gender, Marriage/Family
by Kate Gilles, policy analyst, International Programs
A direct consequence of prenatal sex selection is that fewer girls are born relative to the number of boys born. In some countries, the situation is becoming more extreme, and dramatic reductions in the numbers of girls born have led to a “scarcity” of women. Some argue that these reductions can have positive outcomes for women because following the law of “supply and demand,” their value will increase as their numbers shrink. In fact, the opposite may prove to be true.
The problem with the “supply and demand” argument is that it overlooks the gender norms and social realities of sex selection. In patriarchal societies where sex selection is practiced, men hold the power. A woman’s life is more often controlled by her father, brother, or husband than by the woman herself. In these settings, a woman’s value is perceived not in terms of her worth as an individual but as a family possession or asset. Under these conditions, a shortage of women does not miraculously lead to greater freedom and empowerment for women, but rather to increased subjugation—and potentially—abuse, as men tighten their control over an increasingly valuable commodity.
Evidence that women become more vulnerable as their numbers diminish can already be seen in a number of countries, including India and China (two countries with the longest and most extreme records of sex selection). For example, one might expect the custom of dowry (the payment made by the bride’s family to the groom’s family at marriage) to decrease or disappear as the pool of available brides shrinks. However, not only has the practice persisted, the size of payments has increased and the custom has been adopted in areas where it wasn’t common before. China, India, and Vietnam have all documented increased trafficking of women, forced marriage, and early marriage as the ranks of bachelors rises relative to the number of potential brides. The “bride shortage” means that men are marrying later and women are marrying earlier, increasing the age difference—and therefore the power imbalance—between a husband and wife, which decreases the wife’s autonomy and increases her risk of experiencing violence or abuse. Men are also looking further afield for wives, and women who move far from where they were born are at greater risk of isolation and abuse.
Clearly, sex selection and the resulting scarcity of girls and women, far from advancing women’s position in society, perpetuate and exacerbate gender inequality and discrimination against women. As the ranks of women shrink, their power becomes more limited and their vulnerability to exploitation and abuse grows. Sex selection contributes to the invisibility of women figuratively and literally, by reducing their power along with their physical presence.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 17th, 2012 at 11:25 am
[...] Population Reference Bureau’s blog Behind the Numbers notes a study suggesting that, contrary some predictions, a decreasing sex ratio in China and India and [...]
October 17th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
I agree that researchers should not assume that that the “supply and demand” argument is correct — that male-female sex imbalance, where it occurs in the marriage ages, is yielding more power to women or assume that this demographic factor is undermining the dowry system. However, I think that this analysis makes strong assertions on the basis of very weak evidence. For example, where is there evidence that women are marrying earlier? Also, dowry prices (largely confined to India, Nepal and Sri Lanka), the frequency of trafficking and even the frequency of the legal bride import market (mail order brides) respond to increases in available income among males in certain classes — a factor not discussed here. For example, India’s sex imbalance at birth is confined to a minority of states, yet dowries continue to rise virtually everywhere (in parallel with land prices). The author mentions trafficking in Vietnam, but marriage-age sex imbalances in that country are not indicated by published data. In addition, mail order brides, for which there are large markets among farmers in Japan and Taiwan (again, no male-female marriage-age imbalances in these countries), often come from Vietnam and the Philippines — clearly a case of income disparity rather than female-male imbalances.
In my opinion, this article could have been improved by interjecting much more doubt into the thread of the author’s arguments. The sources of uncertainty include: variation within and among countries; (2) a lack of systematic data; and (3) ideologically driven reporting. I think that it is safest to say that researchers remain at the “hypothesis stage” in the investigation of this phenomenon, and that they really do not know very much about the society-level or state-level implications of sex-selected abortion.
October 17th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
The “supply & demand” argument is itself quite devaluing to women. It is clearly established that one of the main reasons for sex-selection is a male bias within a patriarchal society. In such a background, it is an insult to the right to be born of any sex (or even any gender!) to apply supply-demand arguments to future births. Even if sex-seletion itself may not be so evil, doing it within a patriarchal male-bias mindset is surely abetting a crime against women.
November 13th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Thank you to both commenters for the thoughtful responses to this post. In particular, in reference to the points raised by Mr. Cincotta, we agree that it is difficult to untangle the relative influence of prenatal sex selection as compared other factors on practices such as dowry, forced marriage, etc. These practices occur in dynamic contexts and are subject to a myriad of influencing factors (such as urbanization, changing family structures, and – as you point out – income disparities). However, while sex ratio imbalances resulting from sex selection are not solely responsible, they are important determinants of the persistence and exacerbation of discrimination against women.
The point we wish to emphasize is that the practice of sex selection cannot be viewed through a narrow, economic lens and must not be dismissed as inconsequential. Far from being merely an academic question or a decision made by individual families, sex selection can have serious implications for girls and women broadly.
We can emphatically agree that more extensive and rigorous research needs to be done to move from informed hypotheses about the potential consequences of sex selection to a firm grasp of the real outcomes.
December 6th, 2012 at 12:52 am
I agree that the sex selection causes so many problems around the world and will have drastic effects on womens rights and the population. In my research, according to the United Nations Population Fund (unfpa.org), I found that the normal ratio is supposed to be for 102 to 106 males for every 100 females. In some countries like China and India this ratio is 130 males to 100 females. Which is a huge imbalance in the population.