Category Archives: One-child policy

Too Little. Much Too Late.

 

The Chinese government has recently eased some of its decades old one-child restrictions. Now, if one or both spouses in a marriage grew up as an only child, they may be permitted to have a second baby.

 

The new law is intended to address the widespread abortion of female fetuses in a society that favors male babies so highly that a doctor has been arrested for trafficking newborn boys. (After telling the shocked new parents that their children were too ill to survive, or that they were born with congenital conditions unacceptable to most Chinese families, and promising to get rid of the infants’ bodies, the doctor then sold the little boys on to wealthy parents hundreds of miles away. Only the tenacity of one set of deceived parents discovered her crime.)

 

It’s a nice thought, preventing femicide in the womb by allowing parents two children.

 

The thing is, it won’t work.

 

The proof lies to the southwest. In India.

 

India has no one-child policy. In rural areas, families tend to be large, although girls are still likely to have less food and less care, especially if they have a twin brother. Even though bridal dowry is technically illegal, once girls enter adolescence the payment of dowries occupies the thoughts and finances of many beleaguered families.

 

Better, the thinking goes, to eliminate the need for dowries by aborting female fetuses.

 

The Indian middle and upper classes – for whom dowry may not be a concern at all, if they are modernized, Westernized, or simply law-abiding – are already doing this. Among those couples, the ideal family has shrunk from “as many as God wills” through “as many as we have to have in order to get a boy” (making him the youngest child in more than a few families) to its current two children. Both male.

 

Coincidence? Hardly. Male babies are just as favored in India as in China. Pregnant women are under almost as much pressure there to produce boys. They have the same access as Chinese women to ultrasounds and blood tests to reveal the baby’s sex, and even though abortion for sex-selection purposes is against Indian law, that law is ignored.

 

Thus, even though Indian women of childbearing age are allowed to have as many children as they and their husbands wish, the de facto result of tradition plus technology plus law-breaking is often a pair of sons.

 

So, China. You think you can counter your extraordinary problem of skewed female-male birth rates by permitting certain couples to have more than one child, in the face of family pressure and technology? Sorry. It will not be that easy.

 

You will need to criminalize the abortion of female fetuses, offer extra bonuses to parents of newborn daughters (including ring-fenced admissions to universities), and by a combination of social media and education foster a wave of little girls to counter the current dearth.

 

You must also make harming them – by murder, rape, kidnapping, assault – a capital crime . . . which would carry the side benefit of eliminating some serial pain creators, mostly male.

 

Not that this will prevent the gangs and violence that a mostly-male cohort of adolescent and 20-somethings inevitably produces. But bringing your skewed sex ratio back to birth-normal (100 girls to 106 boys) will have knock-on beneficial effects.

 

Start today. There’s no time to waste.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under One-child policy

In China, Breast Milk Is For Grown-Ups

 

Call it “capitalism gone mad”, as a conservative writer for the Telegraph just did.

 

In Shenzhen, the booming city in southern China that borders Hong Kong, young women from poor rural areas who have just given birth (to what is often their only child, given China’s one-child policy, and increasingly a boy, due to the practices of fetal sex determination and abortion of female fetuses) are being recruited to feed their breast milk, not to their newborn, but to wealthy, grown Chinese men.

 

A Chinese writer blasted what is referred to as “adult nannying”, calling it “the moral degradation of China’s rich”. No wonder, for in a nation with low breastfeeding rates (because of limited maternity leave and formula manufacturers’ pushiness, only 28% of Chinese women feed their babies human milk), these women are not only depriving their own infants of the healthiest and cleanest nourishment available, but are giving it to wealthy men who frequently demand to suckle.

 

That’s right. They’re not drinking human milk from cup or bottle or breastpump, but directly from the women’s breast.

 

You notice I wrote these women were giving their milk. No, not quite. They are selling the entire breastfeeding/wet-nursing experience for what in China are big bucks.

 

From The International Business Times: “Lactating mothers are hired by wealthy families for six to eight months and can earn up to 16,000 yuan (£1,700) a month [in US terms, about $2,500 per month], vastly more than a factory job pays.”

 

Families hire these women as wet nurses in part because of a 2008 formula contamination scare in China, during which six babies died and hundreds more were made ill by tainted artificial milk.

 

But who is hiring, from the same services agency, lactating women for adults? According to the IBTimes, the clients include wealthy businessmen from Hong Kong and “overworked company directors”.

 

Oh, poor things. So much stress, so much money. So much creepiness.

 

For the young mothers, the money seems like a godsend. It supplements their husbands’ pay (no single mums in China), and is saved for the child’s education. But while children may be benefited later, they lose out on all the nutrients and immunological pluses of mother’s milk, while the milk goes down the throats of lubricious fat cats, where it is not needed. No adult, especially not a company director – overworked or not – needs to boost their immune system, unless it is compromised (by AIDS, for example).

 

The proof that this practice is less about health than about sex and unrestrained capitalism comes from an interview of the Shenzhen domestic services agency that supplies wet nurses, Xinxinyu. Young women who are “healthy and good-looking” can earn even more than the average monthly pay-packet.

 

What are the Chinese saying about this?

 

Largely, they’re appalled. The breastfeeding of royal children over the age of five has a long history in China – the last emperor, Pu Yi, was allowed access to the breasts of wet nurses into his teens – but the practice was banned by Mao Zedong and has long been regarded as immoral. Chinese on social media have condemned the current revival, calling it corrupt and unethical. Said one writer, Cao Baoyin, “This adds to China’s problem of treating women as consumer goods, and the moral degradation of China’s rich.”

 

And Western capitalists? Are they of the same mind? Here is Tim Stanley, for the Telegraph: “When you take the profit motive and strip it of old-fashioned concepts like shame or natural law, it becomes rational in the minds of nihilists to treat the human body as yet another product to packaged, priced up and put on the market . . . If China’s oligarchs treat their people like cattle, that’s exactly where capitalism without morality ends. Don’t be surprised if rich Chinese businessmen start wearing clothes taken from the hair of the poor, or jewelry made from fingers. Perhaps an amputated foot as a doorstop? . . . The world’s reached a pretty poor state when a rich man can request breast milk on his cornflakes. As species go, we’re a sick bunch of bunnies alright.”

 

I think we need a better analogy, Tim. Even bunnies’ milk goes to their own offspring.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion, Breast milk, Capitalism, China, Misogyny, One-child policy, Sex-selective abortion, Telegraph, Wet nurse

The Dragon’s In Trouble

Powerful now. In the future, handling chaos of its own creation

 

You probably think China is an unstoppable power, well worth your investment as a business person.

 

The first part of that sentence part may be true, depending on definition. The second part is demonstrably false.

 

Is China a good investment now? Yes. Will China be a good investment in, say, 2016?

 

Not if you trust the people who know. Including the many wealthy Chinese who are setting up boltholes in English-speaking countries. Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, have all seen applications for resident status rise, and the applicants read like a Who’s Who of contemporary China.

 

Don’t believe the tales of a sinking ship?

 

Take this quote from a recent business blog: “China is recovering steadily but not in a way that suggests we are about to benefit. To the contrary.”

 

And listen to this from a March 2013 article quoting a report from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development): “‘ . . . point to risks [in China] such as property prices and potential tension arising from social inequalities and an ageing population”.

 

An “ageing population” is easy to define. The Chinese population, like many, is getting older. Despite its enormous size, the same chickens are coming home to roost as in, say, Japan. Good nutrition, good healthcare, are prolonging the lives of the elderly. The one-child system restricted many of those same people from having more than a single child, so the general population is skewing older.

 

China’s general population is also skewing more male. That’s what “social inequalities” means, when you strip it of bland-speak. It means that in a very quiet, uneasy way, the sons who were born in place of daughters – unvalued daughters aborted when their parents learned their ultrasound results – are growing up. The first wave of excess boys (sex-selective abortions of female fetuses are on the rise all over Asia as people in other nations follow China and India’s dangerous lead, and especially in Muslim-majority former SSRs) are now entering their teenage years, the years of high testosterone and still-developing judgment.

 

What happens when 16-year-old boys get hold of alcohol and violence-fueling drugs? When they have a me-me-me outlook, as many of China’s “little emperors”  do? If society is lucky, they create noise and a little damage. Unlucky, and the town gets trashed. Extremely unfortunate, and citizens are hurt and attacked, raped, and killed.

 

Because small boys are more vulnerable to illness and disease, and males aged 10 to 25 more vulnerable to risk, including assaults from other males, the average town in the West has slightly fewer adolescent boys than adolescent girls. In five years, the average Chinese town will contain many more teenage boys than girls. That makes many more potentials for testosterone-fueled violence.

 

Gangs of teenage boys and young men will know they are powerful because of their numbers. While some boys will always be studious and have strong ethics, others will use their power in negative ways, ways that create huge pain footprints. They will far overwhelm the numbers of adolescent girls, and girls will be at risk from them in ways we have not yet seen in China. To call marauding groups of young men “potential tension arising from social inequalities” is absurdly mild.

 

Future China will be unstoppable only as it either harnesses those young men or eliminates them. Both, I fear, are impossible. Where once the prediction was of a Chinese military grown enormous, I now see chaos and domestic insurrection. No nation can afford a combined military/police force as large as China’s would need to be in order to channel the energies of its young men.

 

The reputation of the 19th-century American Wild West as a lawless place will seem quaint by comparison with the stories emanating from China by 2030, with 32 million excess men . . . and counting.

 

Go ahead, invest in China. But be prepared to get out, and quickly, in a few years.

 

Unless you sell alcohol or guns. Young men have an appetite for those.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion, Beijing, China, Gendercide, Misogyny, One-child policy, Pain footprint, Sex-selective abortion, US citizenship

In The US, One Town. In Asia, Entire Nations.

Oil workers

 

A recent New York Times article profiled boom town Williston, North Dakota. There, because of geological finds, American men are flocking for well-paid jobs in the oil industry, some paying six-figure incomes. It’s the class gold-rush scenario, though this time with a requirement of more skills than desperation.

 

But Williston existed as a town before the shale beneath it became an object of desire. And the people moving in are almost exclusively male.

 

What does that mean for women in Williston? Complications. Risk. Fear.

 

According to the Times: “Many said they felt unsafe. Several said they could not even shop at the local Walmart without men following them through the store. Girls’ night out usually becomes an exercise in fending off obnoxious, overzealous suitors who often flaunt their newfound wealth. ‘So many people look at you like you’re a piece of meat,’ said Megan Dye, 28, a nearly lifelong Williston resident. ‘It’s disgusting. It’s gross.’

 

Prosecutors and the police note an increase in crimes against women, including domestic and sexual assaults.”

 

The article is replete with language that equates women to products, as well. An example: “‘It’s bad, dude,’ said Jon Kenworthy, 22, who moved to Williston from Indiana in early December. ‘I was talking to my buddy here. I told him I was going to import from Indiana because there’s nothing here.’”

 

The italics are mine, the sentiments Mr. Kenworthy’s.

 

Williston police and local prosecutors are disturbed by an uptick in crimes against women, including sexual assaults.

 

Williston is an unusual case here in the US, where for the past decades newborns have maintained the natural ratio of 100 girls/106 boys.

 

But in Asian countries such as China and India, where for many years the natural ratio has been skewed and wrested abruptly male (due to preference for sons, sex-selective abortion of female fetuses, plus China’s one-child policy), and continues to be artificially skewed (the practice of sex-selective abortion is spreading throughout Asia, and is worryingly strong in Western Asian, Muslim-majority former SSRs), Williston’s experience will be repeated over and over in the coming decades.

 

Where women are rare, unlike flatscreen TVs they are not regarded as more precious and worthy of care and tenderness. In a skewed-male environment, they are instead hounded, persecuted, regarded as potentially available by married men as well as single ones. Men who feel entitled to hetero sex – and equally entitled to take it – demean and degrade women.

 

That’s a huge pain footprint.

 

Given that a change in perspective might take hundreds of years, China and India need to plan for the future. When female citizens there are in the minority, how will their safety – and thus the future of the nation – be addressed? What will be the penalties for abusing girls and women? In villages, towns and cities that, like Williston, will feel akin to male prisons or the army, women face a future certain to contain enormous risk and pain.

 

That’s why wealthy Asians are looking to English-speaking countries (Australia, the US, Canada, and the UK) for investment and secondary residence. They’re prepping safety nets for their families, because they recognize the harm to come. The increase in wealthy Asians looking for visas and citizenship in the above-mentioned four nations is skewing way, way up. Note that these people are wealthy – which doesn’t mean they are ethically intelligent and would make good potential citizens, just that they’re able to play the immigration game by investments.

 

Chinese girls and women may at least look to a centralized government for protection from a plethora of men. In India, with its high proportion of governmental sluggishness and corruption, who will help girls and women avoid abduction, rape, murder? Delhi is currently wracked by protests, its officials urged to finally prosecute brutal rapes. In an increasingly-male world, women may find themselves back in the days of seclusion. Instead of predatory men’s movement being restricted by law – which makes most sense – there’s a likelihood that women will be forced to stay at home, just like their great-grandmothers in the 19th century.

 

Which is, of course, backward.

 

In Williston, one woman’s family “hardly ever lets her go out on her own — not even for walks down the gravel road at the housing camp where they live. ‘Will I stay for very long? Probably not,’ she said. ‘To me, there’s no money in the world worth not even being able to take a walk.’

 

In America, it’s one town. In Asia, it will increasingly be whole nations.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under China, India, Misogyny, Oil, One-child policy, Pain footprint, Rape, Rape is torture, Rapist as parasite, Sex-selective abortion, Sexual assault, Testosterone, War against women, Williston

In Beijing, Save Your Breath

Beijing, 14 January 2013

The photo above was posted today, 14 January 2013.

And you thought Mexico City’s air was bad.

In Beijing, air pollution is so dangerous that emergency measures were just enacted to alleviate its effect on children. As CNN reports, “Schoolchildren were ordered to halt outdoor sports activities until Tuesday this week, as a dirty cloud of smog continued to shroud China’s capital. This was among a series of emergency response measures adopted in Beijing Sunday when the city’s Air Quality Index exceeded 500 micrograms, the highest level. Anything above this is regarded as ‘beyond index’.”

Babies have been hospitalized.

The wind is supposed to rush through in two more days. Officials, parents, everyone hopes the breeze will sweep the skies clean.

Despite the promises made by the Chinese government before the 2008 Olympics, and its assurances since then, Beijing residents have not seen a diminution of pollution. It’s as though they’re living in 1950s Charleston, West Virginia, before the Clean Air Act was passed. The Chinese echo those American old-timers in protesting that they “haven’t seen the sun in four days”.

When unbearable air conditions force the cancellation of nearly 700 flights per year, as at the airport in Beijing, everyone knows you’re in trouble.

Beijing air has been bad for years. This weekend, it got much worse. “The Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Centre said levels of PM2.5, tiny particulate matter, had reached more than 600 micrograms per square metre in many areas, and Reuters said it may even have hit 900 – its worst-ever reading. The World Health Organisation considers a safe daily level to be 25.”

Only 25. Yet the levels of particulate (ash, smoke, etc.), the stuff that settles in lungs, that causes disease, are currently at least 600, and may be as high as 900.

That’s 36 times the WHO’s safe daily level.

In future years, doctors may well ask Chinese with unhealthy lungs, “Did you live in Beijing in January of 2013?”

Yet the problem is not just in one city.

The Chinese government has plans to create multiple brand-new cities in its extensive west, not over many decades as occurred in the US (St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver), but over a mere few years. By funneling excess young men – created by its one-child policy plus permission to abort female fetuses – to its western rural areas, it hopes to channel their energies as well as raise cities from the dust.

So where will that dust go?

It will settle into the lungs of designers, engineers, builders and residents. And it will travel.

Since the winds in western China often flow to the northeast, the dust will reach . . . Beijing.

Or, if on a semi-clear day you can see winds stream forever east, those clouds of dust will blanket China’s commercial coastal cities, like Shanghai and Fuzhou.

From the Independent: “Air pollution is a major problem in China due to its rapid pace of industrialization, reliance on coal power, explosive growth in car ownership and disregard to environmental laws. In Beijing, authorities have [also] blamed foggy conditions and a lack of wind for the high concentration of air pollutants.”

Can we add “lack of planning”?

Look, it took many years of hard work before the Clean Air Act was passed in the US. Manufacturers balked and protested that they would go bankrupt – yet General Motors still exists – and even today, Tea Partyers complain about government nannyism.

Would they and their children rather breathe Beijing’s air?

That air is a brewing toxic nightmare, and for the Chinese, rather like riding in a freight train they know with certainty will hit a second freight train dead-on.

We’re watching in slow-motion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion, Air pollution, Beijing, Cancer, China, Clean Air Act, Health, One-child policy, Sex-selective abortion

More Money Than Sense

Just another bloke who threw away US citizenship

 

Eduardo Saverin is in the news.

Who in the world is Eduardo Saverin? He’s a 31-year-old who was at Harvard with Mark Zuckerberg. He worked with Zuckerberg to create what was then called “The Facebook”, and the team made stacks of money when it launched back in 2004. Since then, Saverin, as CFO, has seen his influence and shares diminish after arguments with Zuckerberg, but he still owns a nice hunk of the social networking site.

Now, with the contemporary, ever-more-powerful Facebook about to go public with an IPO, its shares to be traded on stock exchanges, the two men stand to cash in even more bigtime. Billions of dollars will land in their bank accounts. That’s billions with a B.

Knowing this, Saverin decided months ago to move permanently to Singapore and renounce his American citizenship. Which means that the US will not be able to tax him on his gains, and the country where he and Zuckerberg were able to design the privacy-breaking Facebook will not be able to profit from Saverin’s use of its university, its schools, even its haven.

Because, as much of a jerk as Saverin might be as a cradle-US’er, turning his financial back on his own land, it turns out he was sheltered by the US at a time when he most needed it.

Eduardo Saverin was born in São Paulo to an influential Brazilian family, and grew up speaking Brazil’s native Portuguese. When he was 13 years old, his father, an industrialist, discovered that Eduardo’s name was on a list of potential victims of a gang specializing in kidnapping for profit. Of course, the family worried.

Did the Saverins hire more bodyguards and protectors? They did not. Did they move to Portugal? Again, no. Instead, they upped stakes for . . . America.

They moved to Miami, enrolled Eduardo in a private school which he attended through 12th grade (thence to Harvard, the beneficiary of US monetary support, and the educated minds of people who have been though US schools), and took full advantage of the excellent police force and stable environment of Dade County, Florida. Eduardo grew up in a comparatively sheltered place, thanks to American generosity and the fact that the police force was uncorrupted and thus the streets were moderately safe.

At that time, he and his family called the US a haven.

When Saverin was on the outs with Zuckerberg, when they argued over influence (and therefore money), who did Saverin call on for help? Ghostbusters?

No, he hired US-trained attorneys and made formal complaint through the US-supported court system, which awarded him Facebook shares.

The haven that sheltered the young Eduardo, prevented him from being kidnapped and possibly murdered, the place where he encountered excellent schools and helpful faculty, the nation he relied on to hear his claim in its impartial court system, is not good enough for him now, though . . . because like most Western democracies, the US attains its stability partly through taxation. The taxes that Eduardo Saverin, the erstwhile waif about to make billions, does not want to pay.

Pundits on left and right are weighing in on Saverin’s jettisoning of his US passport. Is what he’s doing legal?  Absolutely. Is it ethical? Not quite.

Is it grateful? Puh-leez.

In a piece with the ballsy title “Why Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin is a schmuck”, writer David Gewirtz deems Saverin an “ungrateful S.O.B.” and says, “One of the first things they teach you in B-school is to pay the least amount of taxes you can within the bounds of the law, and even the IRS accepts this as a reasonable strategy. But going so far as to renounce the incredible gift of citizenship we gave to this man, and by doing so, saved him from kidnap gangs in his native country — that’s below reprehensible. . ..”

“Below reprehensible” is right.

After describing the brutal penal system of Singapore, Gewirtz goes on: “By not paying his fair share of taxes in the United States, [Savarin is] essentially stealing from all of the rest of us taxpayers who supported his education and his business venture . . . I have this simple message for Eduardo Saverin: you better walk the straight and narrow very carefully and follow every single law to the letter. Because if you don’t, and there’s any justice in this world, you will be subject to Singapore’s justice system.”

Exactly. Given Savarin’s penchant for champagne, it wouldn’t take much for someone akin to the college-age Eduardo, some opportunistic entrepreneur, to design a situation where Savarin would find himself in hot legal water.

I have another message for Savarin, though, and that is: look north. Way north. Past the nations of Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos. See that gigantic country taking up much of East Asia?

China, yes. You know what’s happening in China? Lots of little boys are being born, more every year, as gendercide of female fetuses continues and expands. In some areas of China, the sex ratio at birth has dramatically skewed from its normal 100 girls/106 boys to 100 girls/158 boys.

Right now, those tykes aren’t much threat. But give them and their little-boy neighbors twelve or fifteen years, and suddenly, testosterone kicks in, aggression ramps up. Too many males means more violence, more bloodshed, more risks being taken. China, with its aging population, will have neither the will nor the cash nor the ability to rein in its destabilizing cohort of young males (by 2034, 32 million excess young men). No nation can afford such huge armed forces, police force, or prison population.

But it can attempt to focus its young men and teenage boys in other directions. East toward the Koreas and Japan. West toward the former Soviet Socialist Republics. And, of course, south. In the coming years, millions of male Chinese will start to pour through the soft southern nations amid extraordinary carnage and aiming right for the prize of Singapore.

If he’s still there, Savarin will need a haven. It’s unlikely to be the United States.

Leave a comment

Filed under China, David Gewirtz, Eduardo Saverin, Facebook, Gendercide, One-child policy, Schmuck, Singapore, Teenage boys, US citizenship

No More Women, No More Prostitution? Ha!

Asian men -- too many for society's health

 

It sometimes happens that the book or person or title we knew was out there in cyberspace somewhere, plops into our lap unexpectedly, no search necessary. That happened today. I recalled reading an article about young boys being sexually abused by Afghan men (even married ones, whose mantra is apparently, “Women are for babies, boys are for pleasure”) who keep them, give the boys gifts, but daily cause them enormous pain, and refuse to regard themselves as homosexual “because we are not in love with the boys”.

 

I’d been intending to search for the article, and bam – it fell as manna from the sky. Here it is.

 

Why was I about to search for this article? Because, in designing the nonfiction book about Asian gendercide (and its effect on the West) which I’m writing, it occurred to me that I needed to detail what would happen in India and China when women of childbearing age become rare.

 

No longer will female prostitutes be pimped out to 30 men per day, as happens in the slums of Mumbai and Kolkata. Nearly all of these girls and women suffer from depression (so would you, if your body was repeatedly invaded by strangers forcing themselves into you), which means the “johns” are taking advantage of mentally ill people. In addition, many of them have been sold, primarily in Nepal with its tradition of getting rid of excess daughters to slavers who bring them to India, so they are unwilling prostitutes who would rather rejoin their families in the mountains.

 

Over the next twenty years, with sex-selective abortion continuing to rise in India and China (the practice is now also spreading throughout Southeast Asia and west into the former Soviet Socialist Republics), women will become too valuable as child-bearers to be rented out in prostitution. They will be secluded, even hidden, in order to prevent abduction, and perhaps shared between two brothers or cousins or friends. They will likely rarely see another woman, unless they need medical care or midwifery, and healthcare professionals and aides will make house-calls in order to treat women who are rarely allowed to leave their homes.

 

But since the indulged boys of India and China will have grown into entitled, need-to-be-indulged young men, some will want sex outside marriage, and many who have no wife at all will want sex with anyone. With women unavailable, whose bodies will they use, who will they enslave?

 

Boys, of course.

 

There will be no dearth of boys. Already, the skewing of sex ratios at birth rises each year. The husbands who insist on sons, the prospective grandparents who pressure their daughters-in-law to abort female fetuses again and again, hoping for an eventual boy to show up on the ultrasound screen – they have no idea what they’re doing. Because in addition to the chaos that will ensue when too many people commit testosterone-fueled aggression and violence, boys will also be victimized.

 

Boys from poor families, retarded boys, boys with congenital defects, blind boys – these will be at special risk.

 

Since there will be few women allowed out and about, who will protect them? Who will reveal the harm and rescue them? Who will act?

 

No one.

 

At a conference on water earlier this year, an Indian official noted that, “The day is not far off when there will be no girls to marry and we’ll all become gays.” Setting aside questions of sexuality (is it immutable or labile?), the question is not whether men will have sex with men (some will, some won’t), the issue is that of victimization of children.

 

That should concern everyone in the West who thinks the fallout from Asian gendercide will stay on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

Leave a comment

Filed under China, Domestic terrorism, Family, Gendercide, Health, India, Misogyny, News, One-child policy, Rape, Teenage boys