Yes, I've read this, and it is true. And a totally repressive 'system of distribution' a la Handmaid's Tale is conceivable ... but ultimately society will crumble without greater female rights. So further control measures may necessarily have to be a short-term reaction.
My view: if men do not find they have a perceived 'fair share' access to reproductive opportunity, instinctive competition will take over - and that wrecks social order.
While perhaps less pertinent to female rights per se, it is interesting to consider the case of the Spartans. Their ideology and wholehearted application of social engineering towards those ideals wrecked them.
Poverty, family pressure, status, to avoid abuse, to avoid penalties associated with children of that sex (a fine, dowry payments), and (deleted) to avoid upsetting the father.
Hence ready and willing... (i.e. ready = able) Otherwise I take your point completely. Incidentally, note that I did rate higher social standing from a prefered sex as a 'positive' ... since irrespective of our view of it, a family in difficulty with a slightly higher social standing due to prefered offspring may make just that difference in success/survival - unfortunately.
Note: this is quite separate from actual economic output, necessarily. Most societies who practice sex selection are patriarchial, so favour male children. Males will have superior access to social resources to the betterment of their family and female relations. Irrespective of, say, higher female productivity since farming may be far steadier income than cattle ranching/goat herding. The damnable old myopia of social valuation - but there's no getting past it without the kind of major effort no one seems willing to seriously try any more. (alternative: UN viral-like efforts with female education, UNDP efforts, etc.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Impact
Date: November 14th, 2003 09:46 am (UTC)From:My view: if men do not find they have a perceived 'fair share' access to reproductive opportunity, instinctive competition will take over - and that wrecks social order.
While perhaps less pertinent to female rights per se, it is interesting to consider the case of the Spartans. Their ideology and wholehearted application of social engineering towards those ideals wrecked them.
Poverty, family pressure, status, to avoid abuse, to avoid penalties associated with children of that sex (a fine, dowry payments), and (deleted) to avoid upsetting the father.
Hence ready and willing... (i.e. ready = able) Otherwise I take your point completely. Incidentally, note that I did rate higher social standing from a prefered sex as a 'positive' ... since irrespective of our view of it, a family in difficulty with a slightly higher social standing due to prefered offspring may make just that difference in success/survival - unfortunately.
Note: this is quite separate from actual economic output, necessarily. Most societies who practice sex selection are patriarchial, so favour male children. Males will have superior access to social resources to the betterment of their family and female relations. Irrespective of, say, higher female productivity since farming may be far steadier income than cattle ranching/goat herding. The damnable old myopia of social valuation - but there's no getting past it without the kind of major effort no one seems willing to seriously try any more. (alternative: UN viral-like efforts with female education, UNDP efforts, etc.)