2 ms·

I don't want to start a war with you. But in the interest of calm, reasoned discussion... Can't we agree that the most important bit is actually after the firs

I don't want to start a war with you. But in the interest of calm, reasoned discussion... Can't we agree that the most important bit is actually after the first part of the article, where it states that: * Once she and Ray broke down the numbers by age group, they found that the majority of excess female deaths came later in life: 66 per cent in India, 55 per cent in China and 83 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa.* They are dying after childbirth, after toddlerhood, because of unequal access to food, medical care and other social services. In China, not only have they tended to undervalue potential daughters, but women kill themselves at a higher rate than men. And in India, full-grown women are being tortured to death because their families have not paid the dowry. That sounds a lot worse to me.

ars 17y ago
It's interesting how the article implied all the things you write - but without actually saying any of them, since they are not supported by their own research. The number of suicides and kitchen fires is in the 10s of thousands, but the number of missing is in the 10s of millions. That is less than a 1/10 of a percent. Notice they did not once actually say how the vast majority died. My personal belief is they died in childbirth, since before modern medical care that is unfortunately a common thing (and in those counties that care is not available to either gender). Of course that belies their argument about discrimination causing it. This is one of those articles where they go in with the conclusion they want: "discrimination" and then look for facts to support it. Notice at the end how they ask: "How often are men given mosquito nets to protect themselves from malaria, but not women? How many women die because they are not taken to the hospital when they are sick?" They ask that, and thus imply it - but never actually show that it's actually the case. It's a masterful job over all. Not too many people can write like that, implying so many things, and leaving such a picture in peoples minds, without ever actually saying any of those things.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

ars 17y ago

It's interesting how the article implied all the things you write - but without actually saying any of them, since they are not supported by their own research. The number of suicides and kitchen fires is in the 10s of thousands, but the number of missing is in the 10s of millions. That is less than a 1/10 of a percent. Notice they did not once actually say how the vast majority died. My personal belief is they died in childbirth, since before modern medical care that is unfortunately a common thing (and in those counties that care is not available to either gender). Of course that belies their argument about discrimination causing it. This is one of those articles where they go in with the conclusion they want: "discrimination" and then look for facts to support it. Notice at the end how they ask: "How often are men given mosquito nets to protect themselves from malaria, but not women? How many women die because they are not taken to the hospital when they are sick?" They ask that, and thus imply it - but never actually show that it's actually the case. It's a masterful job over all. Not too many people can write like that, implying so many things, and leaving such a picture in peoples minds, without ever actually saying any of those things.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]