Poriot,
According to feminist theory, it should not matter if there are more males to females, because a woman simply goes from one man to the next.

Some further information about China, not often mentioned by those who wish to say females are being discriminated against.

0-14 male to female ratio 1.167
15-64 male to female ratio 1.057
65+ male to female ratio 0.92

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

As for the costs of domestic violence: I could think that I am a victim of domestic violence, and I can claim that I am a victim of domestic violence, and I know that I am a victim of domestic violence, and domestic violence has now filled every aspect of my life, and domestic violence is now all I can think of.

Although I haven't actually had any bruising.

vanna,

Are you planning on growing up and getting a life anytime soon?

What sort of a "balanced" comment is this?

"...because a woman simply goes from one man to the next."

Well, I don't know what sort of women you've associated with in the past to be left with an outlook like that, but....oh well, what's the use? No matter what I say, you'll reply with a torrent of puerile misogynist claptrap...that's what you do - and that's why I don't usually bother to engage you anymore.

Antiseptic, it is sexist to decide that on the balance of probabilities, and without weighing the merits of the particular person, that one ought to die because they are presumed to be less economically productive than another.

How can you know? And why is it that gender should be the prime determinant?

It would be wrong of me to moderate these threads on the basis that the male contributors are more likely to be boofheads than the females, and to penalise males accordingly (and no Houllebecq I wasn't specifically thinking of you when I originally made the boofhead comment).

So it is equally wrong to presume that because a child is female it will contribute less to your financial well-being than a male and so should be aborted as an unacceptable opportunity cost, that is if one accepts lower economic contribution as a valid reason for abortion at all.

Poiriot,
It is a part of feminist theory that a woman moves from one man to the next. That is why they wanted no fault divorce, and have rarely had a good thing to say about marriage. They want de facto relationships.

They also want lots of IVF, but isn’t nature ironic.

“Certain types of IVF treatment may increase the odds of having a boy, research revealed yesterday. Some methods tip the gender balance to as many as 128 boys being born for every 100 girls.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1316079/IVF-skews-ratio-boys-girls.html#ixzz1XAaOz48A

I can't wait for our un-married feminist Prime Minister to say that she is being abused and discriminated against, because she has such a low public approval rating.

Really, vanna,you don't say..... how profoundly absorbing for you.

<So it is equally wrong to presume that because a child is female it will contribute less to your financial well-being than a male and so should be aborted as an unacceptable opportunity cost, that is if one accepts lower economic contribution as a valid reason for abortion at all.Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 8:50:13 PM?>

Is it not also sexist to choose male children because of the labour that they can provide?

However we have the luxury of a relatively high standard of living and our survival is not dependent on the productivity of a meagre few acres of land.

What articles like this one expose, is what is known as values conflict. What right do we have to impose our values onto another culture.

Afterall our own society is less than perfect, the westernizaton of cultures has lead to turmoil and disharmony.

From what I understand some other cultures view the western culture as sinful and evil.