Concern over the slaughter of baby girls may become fashionable...

China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. -"The War on Baby Girls," in The Economist, March 4, 2010.

(Tim, w/thanks to Ross C.) The two big social justice causes Emergelical hipsters are concerned about just now are sex trafficking and earth-keeping--female circumcision had a short half-life. Like articles in refereed journals, clothing, and liturgy, the choice of social justice issues is merely a giggling excitement over fashion.

There are more trees in the Eastern third of these United States than there were when this continent was first settled by Europeans; landfills are filled with the chattering class's newspapers--not fast food packaging and diapers; and people who claim to be Green don't recycle any more than the uneducated slobs who make no claim at all. Which is not to say recycling or using cloth diapers or laying pine flooring from Log's End aren't good things.

But religious things? Biblical things? Christian things? No, sorry...

These are the small laws men use to escape the big laws they hate, and watching Christians join the conspiracy is pathetic. Laissez-faire capitalism, earth-keeping, and democracy are about equally salvific--which is to say, not at all. I don't get stars in my eyes when I hear someone talking about the new agrarianism; my higher purpose isn't sustainability; I think meat is good for you; my nose twitches when I hear the word 'holistic'; chiropractors give me the creeps (sadly, my family loves them); and even if I were Roman Catholic, 2x6 exterior framing filled with an inch of closed-cell foam and five inches of cellulose plus geothermal with Puron would not qualify as works of supererogation.

So, now that I've softened you up to the prevalence of hypocrisy in the causes we claim, note this article from The Economist on Asian's wholesale slaughter of little girls. This is no news to those who hate abortion, but no one else has given a rat's brain about it until now. So why have our cultural superiors decided its day has come?

Not out of concern over the bloodshed of innocents. Not the hundreds of millions of deaths in the womb--with alacrity The Economist clarifies this is not its concern:

For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances...

Regardless of their reasons, it's a very good thing they are concerned, and we rejoice. 

What is the extent of this holocaust?

In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. (Gendercide) affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike. Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones.

Sadly, The Economist's solution is the massive implementation of Feminist ideology. Which should remind us that some ninety-five percent of micro-finance loans go to women...

Comments

"they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son"

This formulae may be changed to read:

"they will sacrifice the unborn to their pursuit of_________"

a career

a Phd.

Wealth

a good name

a "managable" family

a marriage

etc. etc. etc.

The Economist ought to be worried about a lot more than implementing feminist ideologies. From their precarious perch in London, they perhaps should take note that so many young men coming to physical maturity without the prospect of the civilizing influence of a wife look like nothing so much as . . . a ready-made army. Their next crisis issue, which might be just a few years down the road, may seem them pondering to whom they would rather bow their knee - Allah or Mao.

Also, speaking of the emergelical fad about sex-trafficking, I got dropped from the local group's notifications list when I challenged them on doing a fund-raiser with Whole Foods. They also didn't seem very concerned about the more socially acceptable forms of sex trafficking such as egg-donation and womb-rental.

I'd better stop now.

Kamilla

P.S. Nifty Chesteron allusion, Tim.

Why are no feminists outraged about this?

I'd like to corner an abortion-loving feminist and ask her to comment about this. What is she going to say, that it's the parent's CHOICE to have an absolute disregard for the female sex?

They can't really say anything, can they?

About Emergent's having social justice fads, I don't want to make it sound like I don't care about things like sex trafficking or that I look down on those who do. It's just that I feel like much of their social justice causes are ploys to get us to believe that big government is the only answer to societal ills. In this logic, one who doesn't love big government, must not care about things like social justice.

Leslie,

I think that's a big part of it. Tomorrow I am going to a lecture/roundtable and one of the participants is Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares?" in which he shows that its us mean old members of the religious right who not only do more for the poor, but give more.

It's the same sort of thing that gets me so twitterpated in the Obamacare debates - that those of us who don't support the healthcare bill don't care about people being able to go to the doctor, etc. Brooks shows its actually the other way around - its the liberal who don't do so much personally because they expect government to do it.

Kamilla

Kamilla:

Where are you doing this? Can I come?

Leslie,

I emailed you a bit ago with some information.

Kamilla

I just read that South Korea is starting to enforce its very old law making abortions illegal. The article speculated that this is because governmentpeople are worried about a falling birth rate. Also, Korea is notorious as one of the places where girls get aborted.

I wonder whether Christians should get some credit too. Anybody have any rumors?

Add new comment