Welcome to Gaia! ::

That population difference between males and females there is like only two+ per cent! What the hell is there to worry about? And let us consider that the male population probably has a gay population that is more than two per cent, meaning that there isn't much to worry about.

And does Chinese and Indian law dictate that a male must inherite everything? Because if it doesn't, than they shouldn't give a ******** if they have a girl or boy.

And if a man needs to ********, God forbid they see a prostitute...

Heavy pressure for abortion and sterelization I think. Unless she lives in a farm area and had a girl as a first born.

good point, ALSO on top of the acceptance of homosexuality and other consentual sexual bonds, there's the possibility of future wars which would not regret the surplus of young men.

I have a problem with this statement. I have a very big problem with this statement.

Namely, that it assumes that everyone is rich enough and educated enough to be accepted anywhere else. Do you have any idea how bloody hard it is to immigrate or get a visa just about ANYWHERE if you don't have tons of money or are invaluable as a skilled worker?

I married into a family that spent YEARS denying their children the toys, clothes, and food that most people here take for granted so that they could pay the immigration fees and have enough saved up that they would allow them into the country (well over $10,000CA in total) and they were lucky enough that my father-in-law had good enough grads to be accepted into the highly competitive institute and could have a higher education. Otherwise, they would never have been accepted.

"Don't like it, get the ******** out" is one of my pet peeves. It's one of those statements that just crawls under my skin because it is so incredibly far removed from reality and shows a complete lack of understanding and respect for the millions of people who suffer daily because they CAN'T get out.


An average of 10% (so 5% give or take of the total population).

However, this statement also implies a serious lack of cultural sensitivity. It is as hard to be a homosexual in India and China now as it was here in the '80s. To say "there's no problem! Those people can all go be gay!" presents an irrealistic (and rather flippant) solution to a far more complicated problem.


As I understand it, the State will provide public education for ONE child. Any more children, and the family has to pay. The fees are rather hefty.

As for the population difference, I find it absolutely horrible that there are so many "missing women." I also do not pity young main complaining of "p***y shortage." I am shocked that more work is not being done in this countries by foreign aid groups to increase independence for women so that they can save for themselves in their old age and that more pressure isn't being put on companies to provide retirement benefits for workers and their spouses.

Almost everything thing in this topic makes me very angry for some reason or another.

For one, alot of people in this topic are coming off as ASSHOLES. Sorry, but I can't help but think that while reading through this topic. I can't (Or won't) say exactly who or what I'm angry about, but there's something deffinatly in this topic that's pissing me off. stare

It's insulting to both genders to say that men are not responsible for their actions if women aren't around. It implies that

{1} women are only an incubator and a temperament manager for men; in other words, we only exist for them.

{2} that men cannot be decent, intelligent, and sensible enough on their own to keep themselves out of trouble.

I don't really give a s**t what people think of me for saying this: I believe that the value systems in those countries are severely ******** up. There has to be gender equality of at least some sort for society to function. Even in history when women were only supposed to be mothers and homemakers (MAYBE a teacher if you were really uppity, and even then only until you were married) women were at least given respect. Not much, but some respect.

In their value system, women are not respected. Women are walking wombs; they are to men what a patch of soil is to a farmer. Useful, ought to be well-kept and protected, but without any extreme amount of value or any rights. And certainly no personhood. Not the best analogy, but I think my point is clear.

There are always exceptions to this rule. I'm sure in China and India there are men who do not believe that females are less important, but they are few and far between.

Of course, this is just another part of the world's thought process that needs to be changed for the betterment of humankind. And just like all the other parts, it's doubtful that it will be changed without something cataclysmic happening.

I apologize for the generalization. That was wrong of me. You are, of course, correct; in no country is there a set value system for anything. My only possible defence is that I'd just finished reading a few other current-events anti-women occurrences, and was feeling rather angry and frustrated. But that's no excuse. So, as I said, I apologize.

I suppose it's far more accurate to say that in all parts of the world, everywhere, there are customs that are oppressive, violent, disturbing, and just plain hateful and wrong -- customs which need to be stopped and/or changed. In some areas they are predominant and much more obvious, and more widespread -- leading to the kind of country-focused outburst I exhibited earlier, but they exist everywhere and they need to be weeded out.

There is, however, always resistance where there is oppression, and such steps forward deserve to be acknowledged as well rather than simply focusing on the negatives and attacking those relentlessly.