‘No girls born’ for past three months in area of India covering 132 villages

Post by simonh » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #44

simonh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the study? Are you qualified to evaluate the statistical methodology and have you done such an analysis? If so fine, but otherwise neither you nor I are qualified to make a statement like that. There does seem to be something going on. According to Wikipedia only 43% of the population of the region are female. If 63 million women are statistically missing from the Indian population, I think it's pretty…

Anybody can and should feel free to offer their analysis regardless of their level of qualification. Otherwise we all just sit around waiting for the experts to chime in. And if it's wrong enough, it will prompt one to correct it.

Post by codr7 » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

exo762 wrote: post #38

codr7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see a problem with aborting because of the "wrong" gender? I don't know if you got the memo, but equal rights is a pretty Big Thing lately. I'm pretty sure most mothers would have preferred to keep all their children, and a society without women isn't going very far.

It's not the child. It's a fetus. It does not have rights that trump the right of the mother to abort. Also, if having a son is so important for them, there is a reason for that. We are talking about very poor people. Whole thing is about their material well-being!

Post by underwater » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

maratumba wrote: post #40

distant_hat wrote: post #14

Its a clickbait headline. Not saying that there isn't an issue with female foeticide in India but this study isn't it. There are nearly 700 villages in the district, and most of them are small enough to have Out of all those villages they just picked the ones which happened to have had no females. It is no coincidence, whoever did the study clearly knew what they were doing and cherry picked the data to sensationaliz…

Haven't actually read the study but not sure I understand your comment. Even if every village has only one birth, the probability of having no girls at random is 1/(2 700) which seems practically impossible. Perhaps there is something else that made you response critically of their methods?

Post by vinceguidry » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #51

vinceguidry wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody can and should feel free to offer their analysis regardless of their level of qualification. Otherwise we all just sit around waiting for the experts to chime in. And if it's wrong enough, it will prompt one to correct it.

My point is it's not analysis. It's a completely unsubstantiated assertion of fact based on what's actually a wild guess. The info in the article isn't a study, it barely even summarises a study, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the commenter hasn't read the actual study. If so saying "this study isn't it" isn't simply an opinion, it's misrepresentation.

Post by jacobush » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

novok wrote: post #24

JohnBooty wrote: post #8

I can only imagine that there are a number of secondary effects of creating a skewed male/female ratio. Simply put, there are not enough women to go around. I suspect this leads to lots of overly fierce competition for women. Women treated more as precious commodities and less as human beings. Men lacking experience dealing with women. A certain percentage of men being unhappy much of the time because finding a mate…

Looking at China, I think it's the opposite actually? By being the rare commodity, you get to dictate terms and be picky with a lot to choose from.