
How China's one-child policy has backfired on men - dctoedt
http://europe.newsweek.com/chinas-one-child-policy-has-backfired-men-327875
======
erikb
Why do people believe that women have the upper hand now?

They might have in the slight time frame between high school graduation and
marriage (~25 years for Chinese women). Before they have not much say because
their fathers are the boss. Afterwards they have husbands who don't do
anything but work and sleep (and maybe care for their mistresses). It's true
that in that short slice of time their power over each single men who wants
them is nearly unlimited. But would you trade your whole life for 5 years of
power over guys you don't care about?

And it's not really true that they have power in a global sense, it's only in
each of these 1-on-1 encounters with potential marriage partners. On the
global scale requirements like beauty and social standards are higher and the
push to marriage is also stronger than for men.

So this "has backfired on men" should be read as "has decreased the huge
advantage of men to become only a big advantage for men".

~~~
stephengillie
Except that the article actually says the opposite.

 _> Consider Cai Li (who asked her real name not be used in this article), a
34-year-old marketing executive in Shanghai: she is smart, engaging, hip and
attractive. She is also the divorced mother of an 8-year-old girl. When she
caught her husband, a Taiwanese businessman, philandering five years ago, she
didn't hesitate. "I divorced him as soon as I could," she says. "He was
shocked. He thought I wasn't serious, that I wouldn't do it because of our
daughter. I said, 'You'll see'. And within a week I had filed the papers [for
divorce]. And why wouldn't I? Why should I put up with that? I have parents
here in Shanghai who help take care of my daughter, I had a good job. Plus, if
I want to get remarried, it's not as if there's a shortage of men, even at my
age, who would be interested. [My ex] was crazy to think I was going to stick
around."

> The only problem for Cai was that her parents sided with her ex. "They had a
> typical Chinese reaction. They said, 'Oh come on, he probably won't do it
> again. It's not that big a deal anyway'," she says. "It was a generational
> attitude. When they were young, people put up with it, I guess. But I told
> them, not now. I was really angry. I put my foot down. Things are different
> now." _

Is this one woman an exception?

~~~
erikb
Huh? Are you arguing against my point or for my point? At first you say "the
article actually says the opposite", which makes me think you want to argue
for women having a better position. Then you show an example of a women
getting pressured by her parents to not divorce beside being in an
unacceptable position.

I'm a little confused but I assume that you argue against my post based on
your first sentence.

Maybe it's not clear how much influence Chinese parents have on their
children. As a woman it might even happen that your husbands parents have more
power over your life than your own parents. So there is often no chance to
divorce. In fact many Chinese women wouldn't even attempt that, because of
fear to lose their job, any chance to remarry, losing both party's parents'
favour. The husband does not have to accept any punishment for having a lover
on the side, not doing their part at home, or for not taking care of the
child(ren).

A typical situation in China is the wife fighting the younger girlfriend of
the husband, both fighting to gain the man's favour. This only happens out of
fear, not out of respect for oneself.

So to answer your question: She's an exception for actually divorcing her
husband, but she's not an exception for getting punished for the divorce more
than the husband who is actually the one who caused the divorce.

~~~
Dylan16807
The pressure was there, but the increased power let her do the divorce anyway,
even though she wasn't in that "five year period".

~~~
erikb
Even if I'd agree with that point it would still just be "she's better off
than her mother's generation" not "she's better off than the husband", right?

~~~
Dylan16807
Sure. They have the advantage in some areas and it's closer to equality,
though men still have most positions of power. The article didn't try to say
that women had taken over.

~~~
erikb
Then I have misunderstood it, seriously. To me it said Chinese men are in such
a poor situation now, which to me implies that the Chinese women have the
upper hand. Maybe I've read too much into it.

------
seanmcdirmid
Some officials are already acknowledging that one child has gone on too long,
and most couples are allowed to have two now (most minorities have always been
allowed more, most country-side dwellers are allowed two if the first is a
boy). But many couples aren't taking advantage of the new two child policy,
since raising a kid in a Chinese city is expensive (especially schooling,
which isn't really free).

Korea went through the same cycle: too many kids in the 70s, got everyone cut
back, and then they went over a demographic cliff and now have to beg couples
to have more kids today.

~~~
baldfat
Russia has Day of Conception Sept 12 for married couples. If you have a child
9 months later you get money form the governemnt.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Conception](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Conception)

~~~
MrZongle2
Oh, that's not creepy _at all_.

Could you imagine such a thing in the United States? I envision big posters in
medical buildings saying "Uncle Sam Wants YOU (to get knocked up)!" The target
birth month would be hell for parents, as well: nonstop shuttling of your kids
to birthday party after birthday party.

~~~
Lockyy
Or you could all chip in together and have one big party for all the kids
where everyone gets a present? It'd probably end up being cheaper for each
parent but overall be a better party.

------
meesterdude
Really great read; sheds light on some things I never understood about china,
but now it makes sense.

Goverment: "Stop making so many babies! that's it, just one per couple."

Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"

What could go wrong?

Yes, woman are gaining some upper hand here; and thats good. But it's not
because of a change of outlooks or perspectives of the people, it's simply out
of scarcity of the gender.

And what happens when there aren't enough women to go around? why, they import
them of course! And by import I mean sex slavery and arranged marriages.

"life...finds a way..." to keep on fuckin'

~~~
mrweasel
>Citizens: "well, if we can only have one, we better make sure it's a boy!"

I get the feeling that the people who invented the "One child policy" where at
a different stage in civilization/education/whatever you call, than the people
for whom they made the rule. So they didn't even consider that the public
might choose to get rid of their girls.

China has been extremely focus on reaching the western standards of living,
but their culture haven't been able to keep up. I think it's great that they
addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India
has failed to do. Their error was that they didn't try to bring about lower
birth rates though education and welfare programs and instead opted for
punishment. The Chinese where given an incentive to abort girls, so in
hindsight it's not a surprise that things have worked out the way they have.

~~~
param
> they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like
> India has failed to do

India took the path to education and propaganda to voluntarily reduce the
fertility rate. I don't think India has failed in its initiatives. Instead, I
think they are going extremely well given that there is no legal limit on how
many kids you can have. India is on track to reach peak-population by 2060.
[1]

Most educated middle class couples would not think of having more than 2 kids
(this has been true for the last 15/20+ years) and now we are entering a phase
where a small minority is choosing to go without kids, completely.[2]

The total fertility rate in India has gone from 6 to 2.5 in the last 50 years.
(Google for "total fertility rate india")

Edit: One more thing - there are 11 states in India that are at or below a TFR
of 2.1 [3].

Net net - far from a failure, India is making good progress.

[1]: [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-
population-w...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-population-
will-peak-at-1-7bn-in-2060-UN-study/articleshow/8164798.cms)

[2]: [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-
style/relationships/...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-
style/relationships/parenting/No-kids-please/articleshow/6859698.cms)

[3]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertil...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate)

~~~
hedgew
It's well known that birth rate decreases as a nation's economic status
increases. India has also gone through massive economic changes in the last 50
years, which is likely to have affected fertility rates much more than
propaganda.

I'd like to see studies with control groups before believing that voluntary
methods can significantly impact fertility rates.

~~~
param
Voluntary: done, given, or acting of one's own free will

India's population control has been voluntary. Aside from a failed attempt in
1975 (declaration of emergency/forced castration of a negligible number of
people), all of the decline in fertility in India has been voluntary.

------
transfire
They can look at as many corollary data plots as they like, but the simple
explanation is that modern society has made men dispensable. A traditional
"patriarchal" marriage is based on the woman's need of a man to provide for
her and keep her safe, while the man's attachment to a woman is primarily one
of desire. Now that modern society has made it possible for a woman to live
well without a man, she is free to base her romantic relations on desire as
well. Obviously these things take decades to play out, so we still see the
primary desires of woman lean toward the financial capabilities of the male.
But this will slowly change. For better or worse, family structures of the
future will look nothing like those of the past. Single mothers will top 50%
in China, just as it has in the USA, within two generations.

~~~
jkyle
Single mother rates aren't because women are some kind of super feminists who
refuse to marry. The majority of single mother families are the result of
failed marriages and long term relationships.

They are also most likely to be financially insecure. And that insecurity is
due to the lack of participation in the rearing and responsibility for their
child by the father.

In short, the rising rate of single parenthood in the U.S. is not an outcome
of empowering women and equal rights. It's a consequence of abject poverty and
lack of accountability by fathers.

[1] [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/discouraged-
dad...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/discouraged-dads/)

~~~
bnolsen
pile of crap. women in the US are incentivized to divorce. In all cases they
get primary custody of the children even if they have drug issues and walk
away with substantial income. 80% of divorces in the US are initiated by the
woman. This leaves men impoverished and unable to interract with their own
children. The state treats them like money generators and that's it.

[http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/08/80-percent-of-
divorces...](http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/08/80-percent-of-divorces-are-
filed-by.html)

i don't agree with the above article, just posted it as the very wide evidence
of women throwing away the marriage contract.

~~~
magic_beans
"In all cases they get primary custody of the children even if they have drug
issues and walk away with substantial income"

Whoa. That is ABSOLUTELY not true.

"80% of divorces in the US are initiated by the woman."

20% percent (but probably much more) of marriages involve women being domestic
abused by their husbands.

Why should a woman stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship?

Your comment is pretty out of line, man.

~~~
hedgew
The overall violent crime rate is 0.4%. It sounds unbelievable that wives are
50 times more likely to be victims of violence than the general population.

Even in prisons, the violent crime rate is only 4%

~~~
snowwrestler
For almost any category of violent crime or abuse, the statistics are clear
that it is more common between people who know each other (family, spouse,
lover, friend, coach, teacher) than between strangers.

------
j_m_b
Ahh.. the unintended consequences of central planning.

~~~
snowwrestler
I think it remains to be shown whether these consequences were unintended. The
point of the one-child policy was to limit population growth. A gender
imbalance which leads to women being more independent and marrying later
advances that goal very well.

~~~
logfromblammo
Furthermore, the number of females determines the size of the next generation
to a far greater extent than the number of males. Or at least that's the way
it works for most mammals.

All they really need now is some way to get rid of their least-fit excess
males, so they don't get all angry and rebellious on them. What the central
planners really need now is some sort of grand, state-funded enterprise
wherein a few million young, unmarried men would get killed, without too much
blame accruing to the state.

Now what sort of project could do that? I feel somehow that building up reef
islands in the South China Sea might somehow be relevant, but I don't imagine
that an oceanic construction crew would kill more than a dozen or so workers
per year, and people would blame lax safety standards....

Hang on. I need to put my foil hat on....

Ah. Got it. They need to start a war with someone who is well-supplied with
military technology, but not actually another superpower, or too closely
allied with one, because that could quickly spiral out of control. Option 1 is
China versus Malaysia-Vietnam-Philippines. Option 2 is China versus India.
Option 3 is to cultivate an Uighur terrorist attack, and use that as pretext
to invade Afghanistan, which has faithfully served as meat grinder for so many
superpowers already.

Or maybe they could just use fluoride and phytoestrogens to make those males
infertile, or use high-flying planes to spray chemtr--whoops, this hat needs
to come off now.

------
cletus
1.16 boys per girl? Down from 1.22? Wow. I knew there was an imbalance. I
didn't realize it was quite so large.

It's really depressing that such an anachronistic notion (of carrying on your
family's "name") is still so prevalent that it results in _tens of millions_
of abortions of unwanted girls.

My only hope is that 20 or 30 years from now when the children of this
generation of Chinese are themselves looking to marry and have families that
such misogyny has fallen by the wayside.

------
baldfat
Where USA stacks up to Materinity Leave compared to other countries.

1\. Sweden offers the most generous maternity leave policy, with 56 weeks paid
at 80 percent of citizens' salary, and 13 additional weeks paid at a fixed
rate thereafter.

2\. In some central European countries, the standard maternity leave is three
years.

3\. Adoptive parents and same-sex parents get parental leave in the U.K.,
Canada, France, and yes, Sweden.

4\. There is still zero mandated maternity leave benefits in the U.S.,
although companies with over 50 employees are obligated to offer three months
of unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

5\. This makes the U.S. one of only four countries in the world with no
required paid maternity leave. The others are Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua
New Guinea.

[http://www.payscale.com/career-
news/2013/05/these-9-countrie...](http://www.payscale.com/career-
news/2013/05/these-9-countries-have-the-worlds-best-maternity-leave-policies-
infographic-)

------
baldfat
Japan is so screwed! By 2060 there population will be 50% of what it was and
only 32 million people will be under 65 years old!

After peaking seven years ago, at 128 million, Japan's population has been
falling — and is on a path to decline by about a million people a year. By
2060, the government estimates, there will be just 87 million people in Japan;
nearly half of them will be over 65. Without a dramatic change in either the
birthrate or its restrictive immigration policies, Japan simply won't have
enough workers to support its retirees, and will enter a demographic death
spiral. Yet the babies aren't coming.

[http://theweek.com/articles/453219/everything-need-know-
abou...](http://theweek.com/articles/453219/everything-need-know-about-japans-
population-crisis)

~~~
newuser88273
Japan is betting that automation means they don't need gazillions of workers
to feed their old.

If they're right, they'd win so big compared to "us" that in fact the biggest
obstacle they're facing might be that "we" won't allow them to win the bet.

~~~
cyorir
However, if their bet fails and automation alone can't make up for the
shortfall in the labor force, they stand to lose more compared to other
countries like the US and those in Europe that do a better job of integrating
immigrants into society and the workforce.

------
jstalin
One logical conclusion is that policy makers may decide that in order to cull
the male population, war is needed.

------
ausjke
the real issues:

1\. more man than woman, about 50Million man will probably never have a wife.
Really, either legalize prostitution, or somehow have a war, otherwise you
will read more news about rape.

2\. the world is flat, woman are better educated and they do not want to marry
a man that is inferior, they would rather stay unmarried if no good fit can be
found, that further worsen the situation. low-class men are the real losers,
in a large amount.

3\. people do get married do not want to have more than one baby due to
various reasons listed by others here.

~~~
cyorir
1) That is a pretty dim and sexist view of men. You are implying that men who
do not get married will be likely to resort to committing rape. I think a
broad generalization like this should be backed up with statistics. It also
distracts from marital rape, which is a frequent and often unreported form of
rape.[0][1]

2) In China, sadly, there is still a gender imbalance in education. For
example, the literacy rate is lower, on the whole, for women.[2] While a lot
of attention is given to the demographic challenges facing men in China as a
result of the one child policy, it is important to also recognize the
challenges faced by women in China as well.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Prevalence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Prevalence)
[1]
[http://www.ncdsv.org/images/nnfr_partnerviolence_a20-yearlit...](http://www.ncdsv.org/images/nnfr_partnerviolence_a20-yearliteraturereviewandsynthesis.pdf)
[2] [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/ch.html)

------
virmundi
I'm curious how this seeming gender war will resolve. One way is that
homosexual and asexual behavior will be accepted. Another is that men will
decide to not prioritize marital relations. Finally, both genders could accept
each other as equals and partners.

For the first, the supply of men will decrease. It might decrease enough to
cause a more traditional relationship between the genders. The surviving
heterosexual group will have more power since the demand is probably constant.

The second, is probably more how many picture the 1960s and 1970s in the US.
Men getting the milk for free. In many ways if all you want is milk, so to
speak, you get off quite well in the process. It is a selfish take on life,
but oh well we'll all just matter anyway.

Third, this is the sanest approach. It allows the species to succeed. It also
seems to make the major genetic predisposition of the species.

Only time will tell.

~~~
peter303
India has a similar gender imbalance for the same reasons- sons favored and
selection technology. India seems to have a horrifying rape culture in some
places. I dont know if its always been there or worsened by the gender
imbalance.

~~~
virmundi
That is a valid option that I didn't mention: actual gender war. A rape
culture, to me, would fit that description.

------
rm_-rf_slash
I wonder if the irony has been lost on the young men in Silicon Valley reading
this article and teasing central planning before they go back to the grind so
that someday they too can impress the Bay Area's few women who still don't
resent tech wealth from the view of their Lamborghini.

~~~
j_m_b
Where are these mythical women who resent wealth you speak of?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
A while back I could talk about working in tech with locals and it would drive
good conversation. Recently when I brought up my work I was met with reactions
of annoyance for being one of many newcomers pricing locals' favorite
kindergarten teachers out of their homes of decades. I just don't get good
vibes from locals in the Valley anymore, so I went back home to a college town
with a far lower cost of living and plenty of new students coming in every
year. Haven't looked back.

------
tomjen3
This probably means there is a market for pickup artists who speak Chinese.

~~~
gadders
Or dating agencies for Chinese Men and overseas women, like the "Marry Russian
Brides" ones you see on the web.

------
dctoedt
The article's description of women's power over men is reminiscent of Robert
A. Heinlein's sci-fi novel _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ , in which Luna had
many more single men than single women, with similar results.

------
crimsonalucard
Is there any land in this world where the situation is reversed?

~~~
frankosaurus
NYT had an interesting recent article "1.5 Million Missing Black Men", which
discusses the socio-economic consequences in communities with a scarcity of
men.

------
peter303
Sounds like Silicon Valley' similar gender imbalance.

------
justabystander
A lot of this is the result of historical policies and culture. It doesn't
necessarily excuse poor behavior, but there's enough of that to go around on
all sides that we eventually learn not to point fingers.

It is culturally expected of the man to take care of his parents and
grandparents. It's a very gendered role, so a daughter might not accept that
responsibility. Typically the son's loyalty is expected to go to his own
parents, while the daughters loyalty would transfer to her husband's family.
But sometimes when she got married her husband would accept responsibility for
her parents as well. But that places a significant burden on the man. It
wasn't that big of a deal with multiple children - you could split up the
parents and grandparents. But with one child, you now have to hope that one
can take care of six adults and a spouse. It's described as the 4-2-1 problem
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#.22Four-
two-o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#.22Four-two-
one.22_problem)).

There was an article on modern Chinese women not wanting to support their
parents that I encountered a while back (though I think it was older), but I'm
having problems finding it. This might change, though, as new legislation
surfaced recently making it a legal burden for _all_ children
([http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/chinese-laws-
requ...](http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/chinese-laws-requires-
adults-to-care-for-aging-parents-china-economy/1708639.html)). This should
help alleviate a lot of retirement care concerns.

Some rural areas have policies where new children are greeted with extra land.
This was returned to the government upon marriage for girls, while it stayed
with the family for boys. Ostensibly this was to prevent the land from going
to some city dweller. It's a policy littered with faulty assumptions, but that
extra acre of land could be pretty tempting to a rural villager.
([http://research-china.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-girls-are-
aba...](http://research-china.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-girls-are-abandoned-in-
china.html)). Outdated ownership and inheritance policies are another cause
for concern.

With the relaxing of the one-child policy, things got a lot better.
([http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/07/as-
china-s-...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/07/as-china-s-one-
child-policy-relaxes-girl-children-no-longer-stigmatized.html)) Note that some
parents are aborting boys for girls, now. But we can see that a lot (but not
all) of the parents concern over the gender of their child can come from
government policies and wanting a place to live in their declining years.
Let's not try to force our own paradigms and logic on other cultures just
because it's convenient. I'm not Chinese, but I still get frustrated when
people judge their worth without considering Chinese values and cultural
expectations. It's a _lot_ more complex than an entire country hating women.
Selfishness is a much more reasonable assumption. Assuming it's selfish to
want your kids to take care of you when you took care of your parents and
grandparents. I'd say it's more like perpetuating the cultural machine.

We've also completely ignored the historical relevance of China's bride price
([http://qz.com/92267/in-a-reversal-of-the-dowry-chinese-
men-p...](http://qz.com/92267/in-a-reversal-of-the-dowry-chinese-men-pay-a-
steep-price-for-their-brides/) and
[http://www.npr.org/2013/04/23/176326713/for-chinese-women-
ma...](http://www.npr.org/2013/04/23/176326713/for-chinese-women-marriage-
depends-on-right-bride-price)). Surely the fact that it's been culturally
expected to pay your wife's parents to be eligible for marriage has influence
somewhere. Notably, a son (and thus continuing financial support) was still
considered more desirable than a one-time payment. A daughter might make you
rich, but a son would make sure you always had a place to live. Because if he
didn't, society would make life very difficult for him.

Perhaps this would all be a bit better if parents weren't planning their
children's lives (from their careers and educations down to their sex) based
on their own wants and needs. But being old doesn't really make you wise.

------
caskance
Ah, another anti-China propaganda piece based on American misconceptions about
Chinese policy.

~~~
Someone1234
While there are absolutely tons of anti-Chinese US pieces written, I'd be
interested to hear what misconceptions the US has about China's policy (I'm
guessing the one child policy)?

From the raw data I've seen in recent years there is just under a 4%
"shortfall" in girls Vs. boys within China.

~~~
caskance
Most Americans believe the "one child policy" limits families to one child.
Then they extrapolate conclusions based on how they imagine that might be
enforced. It's like someone thinking the American "Affordable Healthcare act"
made healthcare in America affordable. And then they guess "oh, that law
probably limited how much hospitals and doctors could charge or something".
"So that probably made it harder for hospitals to make money, right? I don't
care enough to find out whether that's true, but it makes sense." "Hey, an
article about a healthcare merger in the US. I'll comment on it since I know
all about why this is happening."

------
jkyle
Overall, this would appear to be a good thing.

~~~
jmnicolas
Let me see : baby girls are being killed, lots of men will never marry and
women become spoiled brats that choose their husbands only for their riches
... we must have a really different notion of "a good thing".

~~~
jkyle
Abortion isn't murder.

Women empowered to leave abusive, philandering husbands.

Women no longer pressured to marry young in order to survive, can focus on
careers.

As far as whether women choose husbands only for their riches, I tend not to
draw too many generalizations based on a sample of 2 in 750 million.

However, men and women in an egalitarian society tend to choose partners they
view as having achieved comparable success socially, economically, and
academically.

~~~
3princip
>Abortion isn't murder

Always struck me as a very Orwellian slogan.

~~~
juliangregorian
It's not though. A fetus is not a person, and the act is not unlawful. So
abortion is logically not murder, and therefore no doublethink is involved.

~~~
pjkundert
There was a time the same reasoning worked for slaves.

edit:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes)

"If any slave resists his master...correcting such a slave, and shall happen
to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all
punishment...as if such accident never happened."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States)

... a master could be held criminally liable for killing a slave only if the
slave he killed was "completely submissive and under the master's absolute
control."

So, effectively, slaves were considered chattel, and legally dispatched if not
submissive to the will of the owner. Much like a cow, not like a person. This
historical fact is not really at question.

~~~
juliangregorian
Not true, it was never legal to kill slaves (in the US anyway).

------
lectrick
For anyone who made a lot of money on Bitcoin during the runup (which was
largely powered by Chinese buying and the Chinese "saving" mentality mentioned
in this article)... you have the Chinese one-child policy to thank for your
Teslas

