I’ve long wondered how practices in which babies of one sex are favored over that of another affect the society that encourages them, so I was interested to see that in the midst of a larger rant, Heather Hurlburt on Lawfare discusses some relevant information:
We are just at the beginning of understanding how the scarcity of young women in societies that prize male babies more highly than females affects social stability, but the first indicators are extremely worrying. We have anecdotal evidence, in the form of the interrogation of the sole Mumbai attacker to be captured alive, that the compelling argument for joining an extremist group was the opportunity to earn money and status that would allow him and his brothers to afford bride prices. Young men, in other words, face a particular gender dilemma in societies where their path to adulthood—and women’s value to their families—is still expressed through a bride price.
Societal constructs of masculinity may have important impacts on whether and how much sexual crimes feature in warfare. And researchers find as well that young women are more likely to participate in violent movements in societies where women’s roles are severely restricted.
In the absence of statistical studies of this sort, which must be quite difficult to conduct, the best argument I have come up with against those who, in our society, would relegate women to the kitchen, is fairly simple-minded. Fill in with a picture of noted American traditionalist Phil Robertson in the following:
PR: Women should remain in the kitchen.
ME: Ah, so you’re for treason against America?
PR: What?! No, I’m for traditional American values! It’s what make us great!
ME: And cripples us.
PR: What are you talking about?
ME: It’s not about being tough, it’s not about being traditional. It’s about being smart.
PR: Huh?
ME: Restrict half the American population from contributing their intellectual firepower to America, and we’re crippled.
PR: Oh, bullshit!
ME: Ever wonder why we didn’t really start dominating the world until the 1920s? There are other factors, but key was the freedom of our woman to explore new options, write, invent – do all those things that are important to our development. When everyone contributes in the way that best suits them, we fly. When we tell everyone what they’re going to do, based on their gender, we’re going to droop because efficiency is impaired, morale is shot, and we start to fall behind. The ‘traditionalist’, in pursuit of the mythical happiness of yesteryear, is really a detriment to the survival of his country –
At this point I get punched out in this particular fantasy. The point is that most arguments about gender-neutral freedom (such a hoity-toity phrase I just made up) balance on concepts of justice, and while those are important to make, they can be difficult to win when others are waving around tradition and religious books. But once you point out the tangible benefits of making everyone truly equal, then eyes start to open. Compare to other societies such as, say, Afghanistan, where women struggle just to get an education – and it seems like the country spends half its time killing each other, don’t appear to invent anything of interest, etc.
Personally, I figure in those sorts of countries the men are just afraid of the competition from the women.
