Is it mysogynistic to account 80 million or more women missing from a population as merely a loss to male stability? Or is it just practical? Not that it’s going to change anyone’s actions: “Oh, I’d better have a girl so that the rising generation won’t get restless.” No, it’s the tragedy of the commons* all over again: “I need a son to work the fields, inherit, carry on the family name, worship the ancestors, or receive a dowry instead of paying one.” One thing that is happening is that families with a son are not finding anyone to marry him unless they also have a daughter that they can marry to their son’s bride’s brother.
Maybe it’s not misogyny: maybe it’s just a way to get people’s attention.
You can follow the link to this article, read about the issue, and comment.
“If I graze one more cow, I’ll be one cow richer, and the whole community has to share the cost in overgrazing, so it’s only 1/50th my problem.”
