Flashback Friday.
A New York Times article broke the story that a preference for boy children is leading to an unlikely preponderance of boy babies among Chinese-Americans and, to a lesser but still notable extent, Korean- and Indian-Americans.
Explaining the trend, Roberts writes:
In those families, if the first child was a girl, it was more likely that a second child would be a boy, according to recent studies of census data. If the first two children were girls, it was even more likely that a third child would be male.
Demographers say the statistical deviation among Asian-American families is significant, and they believe it reflects not only a preference for male children, but a growing tendency for these families to embrace sex-selection techniques, like in vitro fertilization and sperm sorting, or abortion.
The article explains the preference for boy children as cultural, as if Chinese, Indian, and Korean cultures, alone, expressed a desire to have at least one boy child. Since white and black American births do not show an unlikely disproportion of boy children, the implication is that a preference for boys is not a cultural trait of the U.S.
Actually, it is.
In 1997 a Gallup poll found that 35% of people preferred a boy and 23% preferred a girl (the remainder had no preference). In 2007 another Gallup poll found that 37% of people preferred a boy, while 28% preferred a girl.
I bring up this data not to trivialize the preference for boys that we see in the U.S. and around the world, but to call into question the easy assumption that the data presented by the New York Times represents something uniquely “Asian.”
Instead of emphasizing the difference between “them” and “us,” it might be interesting to try to think why, given our similarities, we only see such a striking disproportionality in some groups.
Some of the explanation for this might be cultural (e.g., it might be more socially acceptable to take measures to ensure a boy-child among some groups), but some might also be institutional. Only economically privileged groups have the money to take advantage of sex selection technology (or even abortion, as that can be costly, too). Sex selection, the article explains, costs upwards of $15,000 or more. Perhaps not coincidentally, Chinese, Korean, and Indian Asians are among the more economically privileged minority groups in the U.S.
Instead of demonizing Asian people, and without suggesting that all groups have the same level of preference for boys, I propose a more interesting conversation: What enables some groups to act on a preference for boys, and not others?
Originally posted in 2009.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 33
bluey512 — June 22, 2009
One could argue that you are just replacing one trope with another by suggesting that the data can be explained by the relative wealth of Asian families.
From what I have seen - and I don't really have data on this, just anecdotes - sex selection preferences in Asian families are more pronounced than in white or black families.
I thought it was interesting that the trend did not apply to Japanese-American families.
Duran — June 22, 2009
You're interpreting the data incorrectly.
The Times article presents "what happened". Its data is based on actual births, and the data indicates that Asian families do have a higher percentage of boys.
The Gallup poll presents "what people think". Its data is not based on actual births, but instead on what people claim their preference is. It's clear from the Gallup poll that American on average may prefer boys, but it's clear from the Times study that Asians are the only group that takes consistent action on that preference.
Do you see the difference?
Roving Thundercloud — June 22, 2009
Thanks, Duran. More than that, the polls do not show that the average American prefers boys. In the 1997 poll, 65% did *not prefer* a boy (they either preferred a girl or stated no preference), and in 2007, it fell only two percentage points to 63%. Getting closer to the median American, perhaps, but I wouldn't say that's the average American. But notice that the *preference* for a girl jumped more than the preference for a boy, which taken together maybe only indicates that Americans aren't as neutral as they used to be.
Do expensive sex-selection techniques really account for the difference, or is there something a little darker going on?
Women’s Studies Liblog — June 22, 2009
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/22/new-york-times-frames-sex-selection-as-culturally-asian/ [...]
Lisa Wade, PhD — June 22, 2009
Yes, Duran, I see the difference. The difference is my point: While many groups prefer boys over girls (though not necessarily to the same extent), it seems to me that different groups are more willing or able to act on that preference. I bet there are lots of reasons why. To frame it as simply "cultural," though, glosses over all of these things and leaves us just thinking "Asian" people are misogynist or something worse.
Tadjio — June 22, 2009
It was explained to me by a young Chinese man (and an extremely well-educated one at that) that historically in China (and likely other parts of Asia), women became property of their husbands' families at marriage. In effect a daughter would disappear from your household upon her marriage, whereas a son would not only remain with you after his marriage, but the wife he brought home would become something like a daughter to you. And in an era where there was essentially no provision other than immediate family for taking care of the elderly, people REALLY wanted sons because only sons could reassure them that they would be taken care of in their old age.
My friend points to this as the explanation for the Chinese preference for sons, at least. And much to my surprise, though my friend (in his very early 20's and a first-generation immigrant) thinks this is a crock of shit and that women should never be considered property of their husbands, his -mother- vocally disagrees (his father is much more progressive, oddly enough.) There is a whole morass of cultural anxiety around daughters being somewhat "temporary" family members, which of course lead to their devaluation. There is a perception that there's no need to cultivate anything other than husband-attracting attributes in your daughter, as she is bound to leave your family eventually.
Philip Cohen — June 22, 2009
The idea that wealth accounts for some of the effect is conceivable as a way to explain differences between Asian groups. Although the focus on these groups might just as well reflect data availability. But this explanation can't explain why, even though the U.S. is much richer than India, Korea, and China, these countries have much steeper sex ratios than we do here. In China, Tadjio is right it follows from traditional matrilineal practices - exacerbated by the lack of old-age support.
As an aside, on the image aspect of this post, why does that graph start at 0 on the left? If they set the axis at 100, where it belongs, the differences would look more accurately striking - they are very dramatic compared with standard ratios.
Pauline — June 22, 2009
Tadjio - that was a very interesting comment. It actually makes a lot of sense, although I'd never really looked at it that way...
I have a different take on the data. In most families I have seen, once a son is born the mother will stop trying for children. The reason given to me is that a son is often quite difficult to raise and usually puts the parents off having more children. Maybe the Chinese aren't as put off parenting by having a son and are more inclined to keep having children after him, and thus increasing their chances of having more sons?
Pauline — June 22, 2009
Also, on a side note, I really don't get this graph's labels. Since when has 'White' and 'Black' been a country of origin such as 'Chinese'...
The US is strange.
caity — June 22, 2009
I have heard Tadijo's explanation a number of times, but with an added edge for Chinese born Chinese (as opposed to ethnic Chinese from other parts of Asia).
In China for decades they had the one child policy - subequent children had no access to state provided services (education, health, welfare - essentially all services in communist china) and there were other financial penalties including, in some cases, job loss for the parents.
So, if you can have only one child and your cultural belief is that a daughter will essentially vanish from your life once she is married, and that you must have a son to look after you when you're too old to work, the previous preference to have at least one boy in the mix suddenly becomes a determination in a lot of people that that one child *must* be male.
It seems inevitable that this combination would lead to an increased social acceptance of sex selection ranging from the techniques described above to female infanticide and abandonment. This last is the main reason why childless foreign couples who adopt from China almost always get a girl.
Note that the one child policy is still technically in force, but with the recentish rice of capitalism in China I'm told that more people can afford to pay for education, health care etc independently and have private jobs and are therefore able to more or less ignore the penalties of having multiple children.
caity — June 22, 2009
Pauline, "Chinese" as an ethnic classification (or cultural/linguistic) usually means Han Chinese, which is the ethnic majority in China (and apparently makes up about 20% of the global population). In terms of traditions and physical appearance, when most people say "Chinese" they probably mean Han.
There are long established ethnic Han Chinese communities in a large number of South East Asian countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. They look different from the native majority populations of those countries, speak a different language, more often than not practice a minority religion and have usually been there for many generations.
Noemi — June 23, 2009
Lisa,
From experience here in Canada where there are very large Asian diaspora communities, sex-selection - particularly sex-selective abortion - is indeed a "cultural" issue, with its practice particularly prevalent among first-generation immigrants from parts of Asia where sex-selective abortion is widely accepted. There is a massive unbalance in the ratios between female and male children born in both India and China, to the extent that India (where states do not control family planning in the same "One Child" manner as in China) has actually outlawed sex-selective abortion to try to combat its prevalence. There are tens of millions of "missing" women in India and China as a result of sex-selective abortion - for figures about India, there is a useful statistical survey on this that was published in the Lancet in 2006, and many publications on demographics in India address this.
I say that not to unduly other people in North America of Asian and South Asian descent (sex-selective abortion prevalence varies state-by-state within India, for example), but just to note that there are parts of the world where sex-selective abortion is more commonly practiced to achieve an ideal of the family, an ideal that devalues daughters, within a specific economic and social context. Our family ideals, no matter what culture we are raised in, aren't always malleable - even if we leave one country and become citizens of another. Although I agree the New York Times' racial categorizations are awkward, they are also getting at the demographic truth of the situation. Despite any sex preferences that may exist among Caucasians and African-Americans, which might result in different levels of attention, economic resources devoted to, and expectations for male and female children after they are born, sex-selective abortion is not culturally acceptable, and having a son is definitely not as important.
I get where you are coming from in rejecting defining it as "cultural" (I think given the categories, "racial" would be actually how the NYT was framing it) and leaving it *at that*, but acknowledging that people's family ideals and family planning practices are profoundly influenced by their cultural reality is reasonable. You can't understand the prevalence of sex-selective abortion without understanding the larger cultural context.
ellecain — June 23, 2009
What Tadjio said.
I'm Indian and I can attest that the same reasons apply in Indian families as well. There are some other cultural reasons*in addition to those above:
- In India, women have to pay for the privilege of getting married - the dowry system is still alive (dowry harassment too) and weddings are still grand occassions that cost a lot of money (as in the US). Thus having a girl child means that you will need more money. So female children are viewed as more expensive than male children which means poor families view girls as a burden.
- Also there's some piece of Hindu mythology that says you can only get to heaven if your funeral pyre is lighted by your son. It sounds stupid but it holds a lot of superstitious/religious value so people want sons to allow them entry into heaven.
Also as mentined above, sex-selective abortion prevalence varies state-by-state within India. In the north (Haryana) there a severe gender imbalance with more boys, but in the south (Kerala) there's more women than men; there are some stories of North Indian men paying dowry to Kerala women because they need wives.
*cuture varies in different parts of India. I'm just speaking for the state I live in.
AR — June 23, 2009
I think you're putting too much faith in what people say they prefer. "Preference" only addresses half of the issue: what people want. The other half is what they're willing to sacrifice to get it, which can only be seen by looking at what people actually do. Sure, a lot of people in every group might "prefer boys", but what about when they come to actually creating a child? Will they just really hope that it's a boy but live with either result? Will they get sex-selected artificial conception? Will they abort if sonograms reveal a girl? If it really came down to it, would they commit infanticide?
Every option above constitutes "preferring boys." Getting an idea how much a group prefers boys can only be done by looking at the actual sex ratio.
Wednesday Blogaround « The Gender Blender Blog — June 23, 2009
[...] If you ask the NYTimes, sex selection is culturally Asian. [...]
More Tradition « stories from the Realm — June 24, 2009
[...] The blog Sociological Images also did a take on that NYTimes article I was ranting about last week. Read it here. I hadn’t quite thought about the article in the context they [...]
Julia — June 24, 2009
Thank you, bluey512, for your comment. I'm Chinese, and I find lisa's analysis here to be extremely problematic. I'm going to try to be civil here, but I am being honest when I say that I'm pissed off.
This is going to be a long comment, so I'll provide an executive summary:
SEX SELECTION IS CULTURALLY ASIAN.
Okay, here goes. I'm going to talk about Chinese people throughout, because that's what I'm familiar with.
lisa, you say: Instead of emphasizing the difference between “them” and “us,” it might be interesting to try to think why, given our similarities, we only see such a striking disproportionality in some groups. This is vague. I have no idea what you mean by "our similarities" or "some groups." Yes, Chinese culture and American culture are both misogynist; I suppose that's a similarity. But Jesus Christ, anyone who follows Chinese social issues would know that sex-selective abortions, abandonment, and adoption are HUGE PROBLEMS in China, in poor rural areas as well as in urban areas. It has little to nothing to do with class and everything to do with misogyny. The disproportionate male births among third or fourth Chinese-American children is merely a reflection of the Chinese cultural tradition of killing female babies or aborting female fetuses to comply with both the one-child policy and the patriarchy.
lisa, your argument that the greater average wealth of Chinese-American families accounts for the disparities between the white, black, and Chinese bars on that last graph simply holds no merit. There is a sizeable socioeconomic gap between blacks and whites in America. Whaddya know, the difference between the black and white bars on that graph is virtually nonexistent. In comparison, the socioeconomic gap between whites and Chinese people in America is relatively small, yet the difference between the white and Chinese bars on that graph is quite large. Why? Because it's not about socioeconomic status at all! Also: the average income of blacks has increased since the 1970s, yet the black bar is static in those three graphs. Why? Because it's not about socioeconomic status at all! If it were, you would expect the black bar to get larger over time, corresponding to increased wealth. But it doesn't.
The truth is that even if you controlled for socioeconomic status, you would still see a disproportionate number of male Chinese births relative to whites and blacks, and that disparity would be due to culture, not socioeconomic status. Why is it that China has a larger gender imbalance in its population than any other country, including countries with higher per-capita income? Because of culture. Period. It is ignorant to deny it, or to engage in any kind of apologetics.
lisa, you say: To frame it as simply “cultural,” though, glosses over all of these things and leaves us just thinking “Asian” people are misogynist or something worse. Once again, your vague language makes it impossible for me to know what you mean by "these things" or "something worse." Look, admitting that Chinese culture is sexist doesn't gloss over anything. Sex selection for male infants is cultural. The reason we know it's cultural is because it happens more often in Chinese culture than in other cultures! By definition, that makes it cultural! I'm not saying "Asian people are misogynist or something worse." I'm saying that Asian culture is virulently misogynist. Your claim that acknowledging the cultural dimension of sex selection will lead to racism is, once again, ignorant.
lisa, you are NOT doing Chinese women and girls a favor by denying the misogyny of Chinese society. You are NOT doing Chinese women and girls a favor by defending, either explicitly or through your vague language, a culture that has been defined by men and used to oppress women and girls.
And whatever you do, please do not respond to this comment by claiming that your one wishy-washy disclaimer ("Some of the explanation for this might be cultural") is enough to counteract the rest of your post.
Are you Asian? Are you a woman of color? If you are white, let me reassure you: Admitting that Asian cultures have a unique problem with sex selection does NOT mean that Western cultures aren't misogynist too, okay? We can admit that Chinese women abort female fetuses because Chinese culture is misogynist and ALSO admit that many white Americans prefer boys to girls.
For another rant on Western feminists refusing to call out the oppressiveness of non-Western cultures, I recommend:
http://apostate.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/breasts-and-hair/
Julia — June 24, 2009
Or, what Noemi said.
Anonymous — June 25, 2009
Hi Julia,
Thanks for your long and thoughtful comment. I agree that we need to reserve the right to criticize oppressive practices that occur elsewhere. I also think that, at the same time, we need to be mindful of a tendency to (1) demonize other groups and (2) valorize our own group to the point of erasing problems here.
So, yes of course there is something about Chinese culture that contributes to Chinese women's oppression (sex selection among other things). And that something about Chinese culture has a manifestation in the U.S. too. That's not to say that the U.S. and China are the same, only to reject a *binary* in which China is culturally bad and the U.S. culturally good.
As for the points about institutional forces contributing to rates of sex selection: I simply think that institutional forces are always interesting to think about and speculated about what those might be in this case. And, certainly, considering these factors in no way displaces consideration of cultural ones.
Tonto — June 25, 2009
I also think that, at the same time, we need to be mindful of a tendency to (1) demonize other groups and (2) valorize our own group to the point of erasing problems here.
What do you mean by "we," white woman?
This blog is incredibly frustrating sometimes.
Blake — June 26, 2009
It seems that this blog was widely rebuked, judging by the comments that were posted on it. Yes, it forces us to frame the argument a little differently, pointing out that it is not unusual for a culture to prefer boys.
However, preference is a tricky thing to analyze, and hard is hard to tell with a single study. After all, there is a difference between preferring a boy to a girl and wanting nothing else but a boy.
To remove the controversy of sex preference, an example is in order. If there were only two ice cream flavors in the world, vanilla and chocolate, and I was given the choice, I would prefer chocolate. This does mean, necessarily, that I do not like or want vanilla, or that I will settle for nothing less than chocolate, but merely that I want chocolate more.
In other words, there are different degrees of preference. Many Asian cultures are still deeply rooted in the patriarchal family, which requires a son to preserve the family name. Coupled with the Chinese law limiting families to having only one child, this has lead to a widespread acceptance of sex-selection (using abortion, in most cases).
And now, that same attitude has crept over to Chinese Americans, 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation.
In other words, like the blog post said, it has to do with cultural enabling of sex-selection, but this is also based in a fundamental, cultural necessity for at least one male child. This preference exists all around the world, but in Asian, and particularly Chinese culture, who’s culture, government, and lifestyle are fundamentally based on the patriarchal family, it seems to be more pronounced.
To dismiss the ‘preference issue,’ and move straight to the issue of enabling seems to brush over the fact that the two are issues are fundamentally linked. A culture in which the preference for boys is stronger is more likely to enable others to act on that preference.
Louisa — June 27, 2009
I don't like this generalization that "Chinese culture is sexist." There are sexist themes that crop up in groups of people based on the mindset that's been there for a while, but I am not sexist (I am first generation), I know many Chinese people both first and second generation who are not sexist, and are perfectly happy having girls instead of boys. It kind of irks me when people go on about "the Chinese" do this and that. Am I not Chinese? Am I not part of "the Chinese"? I have known many Chinese people in my life and not one of them have ever aborted a fetus because it was female.
New York Times Frames Sex Selection As “Culturally Asian” at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture — July 2, 2009
[...] By Guest Contributor Lisa, originally published at Sociological Images [...]
(Young) (Male) Americans Prefer Boy Children | Scientopia Guests' Blog — August 11, 2011
[...] a previous post I’ve argued against framing a preference for boy children as “culturally Asian.” New data from Gallup, sent in by Kari B., shows that this preference is alive and well among [...]
(Young) (Male) Americans Prefer Boy Children : Ms Magazine Blog — August 12, 2011
[...] 12, 2011 by Stephanie Posek · Leave a Comment In a previous post I’ve argued against framing a preference for boy children as “culturally ‘Asian.’” New data from Gallup, sent in by Kari B., shows that this preference is alive and well among [...]
(Young) (Male) Americans Prefer Boy Children : Ms Magazine Blog — August 12, 2011
[...] 12, 2011 by Stephanie Posek · Leave a Comment In a previous post I’ve argued against framing a preference for boy children as “culturally ‘Asian.’” New data from Gallup, sent in by Kari B., shows that this preference is alive and well among [...]
Does Europe Have a Sex Selection Problem? — October 8, 2013
[...] return to a point made in an earlier post on skewed sex ratios, Americans may not be so different, after all, in their gender preferences [...]
ria — December 13, 2014
I dont really see this as "demonizing", although it is clearly meant to draw a comparison. Feel free to interpret that as you wish.
I do think that the traditions of some Asian countries such as India makes people more prone to believe that a boy brings in money, i.e. is an asset while a girl takes money such as that for a dowry. Similar views are probably held by strictly traditional people elsewhere.
People seem to be quick to label anything they dont agree with problematic when they shouldn't be so hasteful to pass judgement. Traditionsl values may be part of your cultural heritage but there's a place for them-and that's in the past.
Gender Focus | Round-Up: Dec. 16, 2014 — December 16, 2014
[…] Images has data that challenges the idea that sex selection – preference for male children – is inherently […]