Holley I seem to have got you wrong.
Knew you liked to poke and prod, provoke even, but did truly think you had a brain.
maybe be you do, any chance you may use it soon?
7 Million female children killed in India? truth is more , many many more.
My information came from the BBC web page two days ago.
It had links to similar story's,about 5 more, but never gave a time line.
In that country, any research on the subject will find, it costs a great deal in Dowry to find a husband for daughters.
And those daughters are killed if after the wedding dowry is incomplete.
Honestly it may well be double triple that number.
Chinas one child policy, not ignored as much as some think,see,the same.
A son is required to look after parents in their old age.
If it was only seven million,and it is not, that is one million more than the Jews Hitler murdered.
Impacts next.

Upset that I need to justify my concern at the murder and miss treatment of women, just because of their sex is shattering for a life long Social Activist.
But even those who do not care will be impacted by this, within 30 years.
If 5% even less of a country's females never grow up or wed, who will wed the extra men.
In India I fear far more than 5% is the figure,what if it is 15%? and the same in China?
Will women be of great value or just bought and sold?
War,can any of us see just maybe wars will be fought much as primitive tribal ones have been for century's to take brides.
So if it is not our concern, if we turn away because its only them, those others, will we be the victims of a shortage of women, will ours be stolen.
Are we talking about cattle?
It would seem so for some no human being any sex should be a slave .

'7 Million female children killed in India?'

Or fetus aborted? 'Feticide' would suggest the latter. How many abortions in America last year?

How old were the 'children' and how were they killed? I read it's in the last decade BTW.

Apparently the government are trying to outlaw gender being given at ultrasounds. What do you propose they do to stop this?

A doctor gives a little sign for a few rupees in the back pocket...

Forget the one child policy and wait for double that amount of children to starve at 3yo?

You sound like you have all the answers Belly, let's hear it?

“So Jewels, your thesis is that men are inately evil, even your own bloke, and it's just a benign culture that's stopping him from becoming a wife beater and rapist who treats women like dirt? Nice.”

Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name, but what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Now give Houel back his account you horrible man.

“But Banjo you could give 95% of your income so that 1 less kid will suffer, while still surviving yourself. But you don't. I don't think you really care. Any more than me anyway. Talk is cheap.”

He wouldn’t have to give anything, he can vote and do other stuff same as we all can – actually I can’t vote so I just do other stuff.

“Why deny my natural nature.”

Houel what I was pointing out was how people can change because of what is all around them. If I’d spent a few months hanging out with amazons who knows what it would reveal about my natural nature. My bets are on nurture overriding nature anyways. Like I said hubby changed back pretty quick but I don't know about people raised in some societies being as flexible.

Belly,
I think you may find that if countries experience a shortage of women, then women will become more valuable and thus more girls will survive. I do not think a shortage will occur quickly but over a period the men/women ratio will alter. I read somewhere that in some areas China is moving away from the 1 child policy.

As well polyandry (i.e. A woman having more than one husband) may become more acceptable. It is rare at the moment but not unheard of.
That would indeed put women in a position of power to rule the roost.

Humans seem to adapt to changing situations.

Runner asks: How can the weaker sex be equal? Does lowering the standards to join the Police Force or other professions make a woman as strong as a man? I doubt it. Face it, men and woman are different.

I remember pondering this about 30 years ago as I carted my heavy, sleeping 5 year old son up a flight of stairs. I had recently read a book on women's workplace conditions (yep, a feminist book) which listed the jobs not open to women because we were not legally permitted to carry more than about 15 kg (can't remember exactly but lower than my child's weight). I thought, those rules don't apply to the women's unpaid work, like carting kids, and certainly didn't in the past - think washing over a steam copper, chopping wood, etc. Weight limits were introduced when women and children did do very heavy labour, at slave rates, eg in mining. Originally to protect against exploitation, the were turned against women using the above argument. The other reason the 'pit girls' were excluded from heavy mining work in the late 19C was one of Victorian prudery - they wore trousers!

Anyway physical strength is a total non-issue in the work-place today at least in western society. Miners sit on big machines and press buttons. Women are sought after as drivers of big trucks in mines - this from the manager of one of the biggest companies - I wasn't looking for a job, but I had a test drive in a 35 tonne Volvo tip-truck (a ladder to the cabin, tyres above my head - the strongest man could not change those without machines!). No physical strength required, just intelligence and skill (I was 56 and although I do outdoor work, neither fit nor strong).

Police? A trained, fit women is going to take out a drunken yobbo any day, and anyway, even the male police use tazers, pepper spray (probably too much).

Back to India. Clearly big social problems ahead with an excess of males; but in the long-run less women = lower birth-rate