Mars^H^H^H^HChina Needs Women!

Great Debates
1

I read somewhere that, due to its efforts to limit population growth, China will have a severe shortage of women in the next generation.

Is this true?

If this is true, what is the projected ratio of men to women in China in the next generation?

If this isn’t true, can we pretend that it is true for the sake of discussion?

To get to the debate: What are the psychological, sociological, political, and economic effects of a disproportionate gender ratio in a nation, especially one where there are more men than women? Has this happened anywhere else in recorded history?

For example, I suspect that, in the future:

  • Male homosexuality will become (more) popular in China
  • Women’s rights will improve
  • Even more Chinese men will emigrate than do currently
  • Efforts will be made to limit the emigration of Chinese women
  • The Chinese Army will control even more of the Chinese economy than it does currently
  • The Chinese government will continue to implement economic “reforms” while at the same time maintaining a nearly fascist control over the economy.
  • China’s land forces will get even larger
  • China will launch a war of conquest against Siberia, India, or both

And, before anyone asks, I am not in school and this is not a school project.

2

Neat predictions. Can you let me in on how they all depend from the male:female ratio?

3

good GOD! HOMOSEXUALITY LEADS TO SIBERIAN CONQUEST!

4

How will conquering Siberia help the male:female ratio?

5

In fact, a good long war would in fact help to correct the male:female ratio.

6

I think this might make women more fought over, more protected, and less “free” than they were before.

I’m reminded of the Le Guin story about the world where male children were born only once in every few hundred pregnancies. Only in reverse. And not as extreme. And in China.

7

The same thing’ll happen in India. I predict they’ll attack
Singapore.

8

>> Male homosexuality will become (more) popular in China

I have never heard the idea that straight men become homosexual when they are going through a dry spell. You have any proof of that?

>> Women’s rights will improve

They already are for the same reasons they did in the west which have nothing to do with women being scarce.

>> Even more Chinese men will emigrate than do currently

May be but the effect of a shortage of women will be minimal compared to many other factors.

>> Efforts will be made to limit the emigration of Chinese women

I cannot see this happening.

>> The Chinese Army will control even more of the Chinese economy than it does currently

Nope. The trend is exactly the opposite.

>> The Chinese government will continue to implement economic “reforms” while at the same time maintaining a nearly fascist control over the economy.

Chinese economy is already being privatised and opened by leaps and bounds and, barring unforeseen circumstances, will continue to do so. What does this have to do with the ratio of men to women?

>> China’s land forces will get even larger

China’s army will definitely be modernised as the country can afford to do so but what does this have to do with anything? China wants to have a better army for a variety of reasons none of which have to do with a shortage of women.

>>China will launch a war of conquest against Siberia, India, or both

No way China is going to launch an unprovoked war of conquest in Siberia or India. No way. In a decade or two, when China has a powerful army, it would be in Taiwan or the South China Sea where we might see China throwing its weight around.

9

From Anaxagoras

I can see some of these points, but others leave me a bit baffled. I’d say that Male homosexuality MAY become more popular in China in the future…I’m not sure what its current state of acceptability in China is to be honest, either from a cultural or from a political (e.g. communist) perspective. I’d say that the womans rights thing is already happening, but due to other factors (the communists were big on this point, to get away from their earlier cultural hangups about it) but don’t see it necessarily accelerating due to an imbalance of M to F population. I’d think just the opposite to be honest…as women become scarce, they will become more objects I’d think, than if they outnumbered the males. Thats just an IMO though. Emigration though…you might have something there, as its logical for young males who can’t find a mate to maybe go in search of one elsewhere.

As to the others…well, I fail to see why an imbalance would cause the Chinese government to further hamper emigration of women…they already put up enough road blocks, so I doubt they’d really need more. Also, women are percieved (to the best of my knowledge) as ‘lesser’ there, and as this is more a cultural thing, I doubt it will change any time soon.

I also fail to see most of our other points as well. Why would a M to F ration imbalance necessarily mean the Army has more influence? Are you proposing that the Army will get bigger because of this? If so why? My understand is the Army is mostly male now anyway.

Also, why would this one factor have anything to do with whether or not China does or doesn’t continue to implement economic reforms, etc?? How does the fact that there are more males influence this at all?? Males already control the government there.

Why will China’s land forces get larger just because there are more males than females?? How does this make any sense at all? Are you postulating that there will be some excess of males wandering around with nothing to do and the Army will just snatch them up or something??

Why would China will launch a war of conquest against Siberia, India, or both just because there were more males than females? Just because males are supposedly more aggressive, or because they are more stupid than females??? :slight_smile:

Are you postulating that China would launch a war to, what? Gain more females? I’d think India would be the last place then as India is in pretty much the same straights (i.e. they also will have a pretty heavy M to F ratio imbalance). Siberia is mostly unpopulated so I don’t see them attacking for females there. If you are thinking of the room…well, again India is fairly crowded already…and Siberia isn’t exactly good colonization teritory.

The only real result of what China and India are doing will most likely be the fact that 20-30 years from now their populations will implode until a new balance is reached IMO. Any other speculation on what will happen is just that…speculation.

I think this IS a school project btw. :slight_smile:

Reguards,
XT

10

Fair enough: I should explain my reasoning before asking for other viewpoints. Fair warning: Because I am offering these assertions for discussion, I don’t have any cites handy. In fact, I am actually looking for other perspectives on these questions.

Suppose the male:female ration dips to 60:40. Some percentage of the (heterosexual) men in China will be unable to find mates. Some of these men may turn to other men for satisfaction. Therefore, “Male homosexuality will become (more) popular in China”.

If there are fewer women available in a patriarchal society, these women will be better able to agitate for their (inalienable) rights because men will be more apt to listen. Therefore, “Women’s rights will improve”.

I know that if I could not find a mate in my home land, I would seriously consider going elsewhere. Therefore, “Even more Chinese men will emigrate than do currently”.

Historically, any nation that suffered a shortage of a commodity has taken action to limit the export of that commodity. Therefore, “Efforts will be made to limit the emigration of Chinese women”.

Historically, nations with a surplus of men have impressed those men into their armed forces, if only to help maintain civil order. Therefore, “China’s land forces will get even larger”.

According to Tom Clancy – I know, not a real cite – the Chinese Army owns “most” of the heavy industry in China. This makes sense to me, because the Chinese Army is the largest land force in the world. Armies with lots of troops standing around need to find something for those troops to do. If I was in charge of the Chinese Army, I would put my troops to work. Therefore, “The Chinese Army will control even more of the Chinese economy than it does currently”.

Assuming that the Chinese Army does in fact own “most” of the heavy industry in China, then the Chinese government would be more heavily influenced by the military than is normal, in the sense that they are working with a true military-industrial complex. Therefore, “The Chinese government will continue to implement economic “reforms” while at the same time maintaining a nearly fascist control over the economy.”

Historically, large land forces without enough to do tend to convince their (nominal) leaders to start wars. China is badly overpopulated, has the largest land forces in the world, and would greatly benefit from access to new natural resources. Just north of China is the largest untapped pool of natural resources in the world: Siberia. Therefore, “China will launch a war of conquest against Siberia, India, or both”.

What do you think?

11

Jan Wong, author of Red China Blues (a book I highly recommend, by the way) had an insight into China’s future that is far more likely than any of the war scenarios suggested by the OP. During one of her visits to China in the late eighties (Wong is Canadian), she saw a Chinese extended family trying to calm a squalling infant. It was clear that this child was being closely attended by his parents and all four grandparents. They tried various bribes, but the only thing that calmed the child down was when one of the grandfathers gave him an unlit cigarette.

Wong figured this blatant spoiling of children (all of who would be only-children, naturally) would completely undermine communism in China, because how can you sell the idea of collectivism to people who’ve had the world revolve around them since childhood? If anything, it might make the American “me” generation look altrustic by comparison.

12

I remember listening to a story on NPR claim that society tends to see a more conservative push where there are shortages of women. Because guys get more possessive of the women they do have and keep them under their thumbs.

13

This is what I’m looking for! Thanks!

14

**

Tthere are plenty of examples of men and women turning to homosexual relationships when members of the opposite sex are unavailable for long periods of time. Of course they typically don’t continue those relationships once the opposite sex becomes available.

Though if it gets drastic enough I could see a lot of Chinese people sending away for foreign brides. At least those who could afford it.

Marc

15

Well, then do the right thing and plunk down a few bucks for Jan Wong’s book (or at lleast check it out at your local library). Her version was far more detailed than my summary.

16

Perhaps, but this implies that homosexuality is a choice, and that will get a lot of criticism. Though this could happen, I think it would be of little significance.

This is one possibilty, and one that I feel would be a good change. However, women could just as easily become a commodity and lose rights. It depends on whether the culture and individuals decide what to do after recognizing women as a (semi-)rarity - is this fact exploited or respected?

This could happen, too, but it’s problematic in terms of culture and taste. I hear that Asian males tend to go for Asian females due to cultural pressures. That, and they may not necessarily like the foreign look (this is probably a weak point, though; men, I think, get less discriminatory as desperation increases).

This could happen as well. Considering their laws on reproduction, this isn’t entirely far-fetched. More likely, however, is the cultural pressure - “You should stay here to be with Chinese men! Help the nation!” Kinda like “Buy American.”

Maybe, but if the land forces grow due to this, I wouldn’t suspect it to be substantial.

Maybe, but it’s getting a little diluted… IF the army grows because of the lack of women then it’s POSSIBLE that their influence will grow as well. Same for the question after.

I kind of doubt this. IF the army does grow and IF it gains influence, then there’s still quite a few hurdles to overcome. I don’t think the world would stand idly by and watch a war of pure conquest and aggression occur, especially as India has nuclear capabilities and - my guess - would launch a few in a war of aggression. (I’m basing this on the tension between Pakistan and India. If India is willing to go to nuclear war over Kashmir, then I definitely think they’ll drop the bomb if China ups and attacks the entirety of India.)

Interesting! I like hypothetical debates like these - not so much blood on the ground.

17

China cannot threaten Taiwan without a huge navy, period, end of story.

And to be honest about it, I suspect most of their talk about taking it is just talk. They bring it up and rattle the saber whenever the leadership feels some pressure.

18

I could see this. In Marvin Harris’s Cows, Pigs, Wars, & Witches, he explains the warlike and patriarchal culture of the Yanomamo Indians as a result of the practice of allowing men to have more than 1 wife, as well as the practice of polygyny. Women just past menarche are promised to middle-aged men. Thus, teenage and 20-something men have no women available to them, and are more willing to fight, due to the promise of female captives. His thesis: more men = greater competition for women = more reason for men to become more “male-like” and compete for the rights to women.

19

We don’t have to go as far as to say that they become “homosexual” in the sense that they are only attracted to men from then on. They will have sex with other men as an alternative. However, I don’t see this happening to the same degree it does in prison, mainly because men in a womenlow country will still be able to pursue women and have a realistic expectation of success, whereas men in prison have 0 hope at all.

However, I do think, and hope, that it would enhance the power and prestige of women.

20

Could be that more men turn to homosexuality, then again, could be that more men “share” the same woman via various formal and informal means.

Please note, it is factually incorrect that the PLA owns most of the heavy industry. The PLA has been divesting itself of business interests very substantially over the past 10 years in return for funding for a smaller and more professional armed forces. The heavy industry that is still state owned, is in fact owned by the state and not by the PLA. although through circular logic one could say that the State owns the PLA and therefore the PLA owns the State Owned Enterprises. Regardless, most of the quality state assests are now listed companies (albeit still majority owned by one government arm or another).