Urging Women's Equality Is Key to Making World More Peaceful

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 2/7/2003 | Robyn Blumner

[Utah Girl]

In his State of the Union address, President Bush laid out the many ways this world has become a more dangerous place: Iraq, North Korea and, of course, the global threat of terror -- cells of angry men, loosely organized and ever-ready to strike. As he and our Western allies look for ways to address these menaces, they should keep one winning idea in mind: women's equality.

Studies have repeatedly shown that societies willing to invest in the education of girls are likely to be far better off than those that concentrate those benefits on boys only: Population rates fall, environmental degradation slows and families disproportionately benefit since women's earnings are more likely to be used for their children.

But there is another, graver reason to worry about the status of women and girls. In places in the developing world where females are relegated to second-class status, girls are disappearing. They are either being killed off through infanticide or eliminated prenatally through sex-selection abortion. As a result, there will soon be more mateless young men in the world than at any time in history. And that means increased instability, aggression and, possibly, terrorism.

According to researchers Valerie Hudson of Brigham Young University and Andrea Den Boer of the University of Kent in the United Kingdom, there are already, conservatively, between 66 million and 86 million excess males in Asian countries like India, Pakistan, China, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, among others. In their 2002 article titled, "A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace" in the journal International Security, they warn that within the next two decades, these men, known in China as "bare branches," will fuel a new regime of violence.

For much of the last century, the disciplines of anthropology, psychology and women's studies tried to convince us that male aggression was a social construct. Boys liked playing war games and cops and robbers more than girls because they were socialized to do so. But the facts point to genetic predisposition, not culture, as the culprit. It doesn't matter where in the world you look or at what time in history, you'll find that violence is a male occupation. This consistency suggests it has a biological basis.

That is not to say that genetics can't be influenced by the right acculturation. It can. And it turns out that the absolute best means of reducing the aggressive tendencies of young men is to marry them off. Women, contrary to sitcom stereotypes, have a significant pacifying effect on men. Wives and children make men more invested in the social order.

But what if there are no women to marry? What if parents, in places where girls have nowhere near the same status or economic opportunities as boys, do the logical thing for their own long-term economic security and make sure they have sons? Suddenly, the male chauvinism of the developing world goes from a concern for a narrow interest group of feminists to a burgeoning crisis of international stability.
    In places like China, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the most violence-prone men will soon be without women to moderate their impulses. These men are a veritable time bomb, coming from the lowest socioeconomic classes, since the women from their villages will be able to "marry up." According to the authors, unmarried men between 24 and 35 years old are three times more likely to murder than married men of that age group. "Cross-culturally, an overwhelming percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by young, unmarried, low-status males," Hudson and Den Boer write.

The authors say the problem is again compounded by another male tendency: When in groups, men -- "most particularly young, single, low-status males -- will not rise above the behavior of the worst-behaved individual." They say this kind of outcast or bachelor subculture, along with a lack of any investment in preserving the social order, is likely to result in "organized social banditry."

If history is any guide, the repercussions for the polity are disturbing. While the West might hope that China and Pakistan will be moving toward democratization, their demographics tell a different story. Societies with high sex ratios are more likely to be autocratic as a way to assert social control.

Promoting women's equality is the way to turn this trend around. In developed democracies girls are not burdens, they are bundles of joy with limitless futures. We somehow need to convince the developing world that girls are the key to theirs.

[onedoug]

Neither does particularly male homosexuality benefit women well.

[ffusco]

let's light candles and chat alert!

[js1138]

No doubt that one of the illnesses of Islam is its attitude towards women. We, of course, are less than a century ahead of them. I am curious how they will adapt. My daughter has shared a house with a young orthodox Jewish woman. She is under many of the same restrictions as Islamic women. She is currently in Israel to prove she is worthy of the mate selected by her family. Almost makes me a feminist.

[NP-INCOMPLETE]

Not an economic issue, not a political issue, you're dealing with a social issue here. All of these cultures believe that women are inferior to men in varying degrees. There are practical solutions to all of this, the male time-bomb will occur in about 20 years when the surplus boys become men, but in 20 years China will have the biggest economy on earth, so they would have enough money to import millions of women. Now there would still be an extra 5-7 million extra guys running around, draft them into the army! Send them to war! There is a great use for young restless men, its called cannon fodder.

[biblewonk]

Isa3:12 bump!

[big'ol_freeper]

In the US our problem is that the boys are the ones being short changed by the educational system and society in general; which has led to a lost generation. A great book is: The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers

[VeniVidiVici]

, there are already, conservatively, between 66 million and 86 million excess males in Asian countries like India, Pakistan, China, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, among others.

I don't know what the liberals are worried about here. They are always telling us that at least 10% of the population is gay. So, assuming the population of the above countries are evenly split 50/50 (for arguement's sake) that means there are roughly 100 million gay men in those countries.

That exceeds the 66 - 86 million of "excess males" as stated in the article.

Therefore, no worry, problem's solved. Next.

[Utah Girl]

Exactly. We need to value both boys and girls as human beings. The sexes are complementary.

[Fintan]

Studies have repeatedly shown that societies willing to invest in the education of girls are likely to be far better off than those that concentrate those benefits on boys only: Population rates fall, environmental degradation slows and families disproportionately benefit since women's earnings are more likely to be used for their children.
 

I would dearly love to read one of these "studies". However, Ms. Blumner, in true journalistic fashion, has somehow forgotten to cite even one which might support her flimsy, self-pitying BS.

I'm sure it was just an oversight....

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Utah Girl]

Good catch. I get tired of that old argument about how women are just soooo much better than men: wars would end if only women were in charge, children would live in a brighter world if only women were in charge, yada yada yada. I thought Blumner made some good points with this article, and entirely missed the boat in a couple of spots.

[axxmann]

they should keep one winning idea in mind: women's equality.

Careful what you wish for...if the ERA had passed, there would be no such thing as a Deadbeat Dad. If we have "equal rights" and women can decide not to be parents (abortion), men can make that decision, too.