It is rarely good to be female anywhere in the developing world today, but in India and China the situation is dire: in those countries, more than 1.5 million fewer girls are born each year than demographics would predict, and more girls die before they turn 5 than would be expected. (In China in 2007, there were 17.3 million births ”” and a million missing girls.) Millions more grow up stunted, physically and intellectually, because they are denied the health care and the education that their brothers receive.
Among policymakers, the conventional wisdom is that such selective brutality toward girls can be mitigated by two factors. One is development: surely the wealthier the home, the more educated the parents, the more plugged in to the modern economy, the more a family will invest in its girls. The other is focusing aid on women. The idea is that a mother who has more money, knowledge and authority in the family will direct her resources toward all her children’s health and education. She will fight for her girls.
Yet these strategies ”” though invaluable ”” underestimate the complexity of the situation in certain countries.
Perhaps they should try 1) enforcing the laws on the book; 2) tax credits for female children. Also, I think China has tightened up on Females being adopted out of the country. Imagine the social unrest in a country with say 1.5 males to every 1 female. The supply demand curve will mean a lot of unhappy campers.
It has often struck me that we should ask those who speak of a woman’s unfettered right to an abortion if they accept the abortion of female babies. They would, of course, insist that women who do such things are not freely choosing but are driven by their culture. But of course, this is immensely patronising: ask the women and they will say they know what they want – to get rid of this female child they are expecting.
Apologies for addendum: in these cases a woman’s right to choose becomes a woman’s right to deny life to women.