[Domestic Church]

"Still, I wish they'd made the relationship between the State's moral control of population and the predetermination of sex more clear."

Can't you see through the smoke and sulfur haze?

They will make it look like a candyshop freedom choice by the time it surfaces in the public eye. First they will make the gender predetermination a token gesture to the upper middle class to give it some medical cachet. This might have started already.

[Askel5]

I can kind of see it. Wedging open the door with Sons to carry on the family name or inherit the Property.

(After all, It's the Economy, Stupid.)

But I still wonder whether that's just a way to appeal to human nature (being made in God's image and prizing the first born son) or whether it also is part and parcel of the State's interest in males over females.

For if the State were interested in some parity, it would seem China would force folks to keep a certain amount of girls rather than look the other way as folks abort, abandon or kill their female children to obtain a boy. They don't seem to have any problems with an excruciatingly, overwhelmingly male population.

For exactly what purposes it's hard to say. Fewer female definitely puts the brakes on procreation, beefs up the military with real muscle and encourages the homosexuality that is the State's ideal in many respects. I don't know. Still thinking about that one.

If I manage to dig up anything resembing Chicom encouragement of females, we'll see if there's a clue there.