Magazine, website & books written by teens since 1989

What Are Women For?

Custom User Avatar
More by this author
Is it not a common fact that it takes a women and a man to produce and offspring? For any living creature in the world that depends on sexual reproduction with the opposite sex, this is true. History has been a constant reminder of how women in many countries were undervalued. Infanticides of female babies were common in the societies of Europe and Asia just a few centuries ago and still exist today as exemplified by India and China. Why?

“India’s Deadly Secret” is the absence of an estimated amount of forty million women in their country. This is not by accident. Female babies are being systematically killed. Reasons for female infanticide are shared in both India and China, the two countries that are contemporarily notorious for their low female sex ratios. Financial value takes priority in both cultures. This means that their ethnic group could eventually become extinct due to the low value they place on women. In American modern world history, students are taught that China and India were among the first civilizations to make useful advances in technology and education. China invented paper and printing which is used in everyday common life. Studies of Algebra, Trigonometry, and Calculus originated in India and it was the first location to mine diamonds. Regardless of academic and technological invention, both China and India have proved that pedantry does not mean having an astute common sense. Having ignored the most evidential law of human nature, both societies are driving themselves to extinction on the basis of their respective cultural beliefs and financial importance.

Survival is an obvious desire for any animal species. Let’s say that a plague similar to the Black Death of the 14th century were to suddenly hit China or India. What would happen? Not only would there be even less people than there are now, but because of the lack of women, extinction of the two ethnicities would be even more probable. Mathematically speaking, there must be one input for every output. One woman for every man or vice versa. Understandably, marriage is still a common practice in India and China, but with such a significant shortage of women, one has to wonder what they had in mind when they were aborting and killing female babies. In some instances, the male baby is needed to carry on the family name since women traditionally take on the family name of the husband; however, how can anyone’s son carry on the family name with no woman to marry? Men in India are looking to get married and in China, supposedly wives are being “loaned” in order for other men to have children. These two advanced societies are so perplexing because despite their reputation for being advanced, they have demonstrated a grand ignorance of the laws of nature that will eventually cost them more than they thought it would, should they have even been thinking in the first place.

Overall women carry a child for about nine months and in countries that do not practice female infanticide, they are in abundance for a most likely natural reason. Going back to the hypothetical plague, if a plague were to wipe out over half of the Indian and/or Chinese populations, how exactly would the loss of human lives be resolved? By reproduction of course. Although it would be nice to have one man per woman, the reality is that only one man would be needed to impregnate multiple women. With the time it takes to have a baby and the potential chance of miscarriage, it would make sense to have an overabundance of women versus and overabundance of men. Although India and China are popular for their favor of male children, other countries are also guilty of female infanticide though the fact remains that in order to survive, every animal reproduces. For millenniums this has been true and in the future it will continue to be true, regardless of societal preference or financial aspirations. In the face of apocalypse, should we look to males for money and to carry on the family name or should we look to women, the bearers of children, the essential pieces of reproduction and survival?




Join the Discussion


This article has 1 comment. Post your own!

SongSparrow said...
Jan. 3, 2012 at 11:32 am:
I like! I like a lot! Very convincing, very nicely done! I especially liked the feel of it, how you sort of said "women are more important than men", as if knowing it would make the reader think "that's ridiculous! But, then, the opposite is ridiculous too..." I like!
 
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
 
Site Feedback