Poirot:"However, there will be ramifications in the years to come when males are unable to find wives...."

What then of Australia? In this country, the sex ratio for the population under 40 is still around 1.03 and it is not until past age 50 that it reaches rough parity, reflecting the fact that far more men die young than females do. What "ramifications" do you foresee?

I'm afraid your analysis is unconvincing. At present, it seems that the Chinese sex ratio is with historical norms for expatriate Chinese living in the US at 1.13. It may be slightly inflated due to the abortion of female foetuses. Who is driving this, do you think? Men or women? Chinese women aren't known as subservient tools of patriarchy, as far as I can tell.

It wasn't all that long ago when claims were made about super bowl domestic violence. How the level of domstic violence rose.

Sensational stuff, that proved to be not based on facts.

So in reality any sensational claims should be treated with a grain of salt.

Antiseptic, I was only commenting on the figures that were presented at the time. I don't claim expertise in birth rates, just some expertise in statistics.

Your Wikipedia stats don't negate this. The 1.14 male versus 1 female births in some ethnic minorities is an outlier and occurs in occasional years. I also wonder why "Hawaiian, Filipino, Chinese, Cuban and Japanese" should have a higher incidence of males than the bulk of the population. They're all quite distinctive racial types.

So the Chinese figures are outside the norm and suggest an increased rate of abortion of girls, which your Wiki quote also supports.

This is sexist, irrespective of whether it is rational or not because of economics as JamesH seems to be claiming.

Look, I realize that is horribly crass of a mere male to ask for evidence, references, or even a little vague guidance in the general direction of facts, when the topic is so emotionally charged.

But surely... someone?

"[VAW] in Australia alone will cost an estimated $15.6 billion in 2021-22."

"More girls have been killed in the last fifty years, precisely because they are girls, than men were killed in all the wars of the twentieth century combined."

I'm not after any level of precision. But these are heavy numbers.

GrahamY:"This is sexist"

I don't agree. If something is done for sound reasons, such as the greater productive capacity of sons in a peasant milieu, then it is not sexist. If I select black for my solar heat collector instead of white, am I being colourist? Black will collect more heat and work more efficiently.

Moreover, if it is the mothers who are doing the selecting, as seems likely, then it is a far different picture to the one that people like Julie McKay would have us take away. I think that is important to pint out.

Pericles, I'm sure Ms McKay must have some basis for her assertion. You can't think she'd just have made it up?

Don't be silly, Antiseptic, of course not.

>>Ms McKay must have some basis for her assertion. You can't think she'd just have made it up?<<

A figure as precise as $15.6 billion, in the specific timeframe of 2021-22, cannot possibly be invented. The detailed accuracy of the "point-six", and the identification of the exact financial year, indicate a carefully researched source with a refined methodology.

That's the part that interests me