I think it's rather odd that girls are so unfairly treated. You'd think that we women would be the dominant rather than men, since we are the ones who bear men AND women alike into being. So we're weak now, sterotypically, but what fault is that? If we were treated like we could do work and things we would be as strong as the guys! And personally I want to know how they treat gay men as they don't seem to like women who like men, how will they treat men who like men??

The problem with having girl chilrden for some societies is that they don't look after you when you're an old fart. They are married and go off and join another family, often takng an unaffordable dowrey with them. Boys stay with the family, bring doweries into the family and the oldies can expect a reasonable old age in the son's house.

As Marx said, it is all economics; or words to that effect. The only such societies can be changed in respect of girl children is to guarantee an index-linked  old age pension for all. Unlikely as it seems that the so called developed world is looking for ways, in Britain at least, to end the universal old age pension. 

of course I meant to say, "the only WAY such societies can be changed ..."

I find it fascinating that we ended up here as well. It wasn't always that way: There is a book called "The Alphabet vs. the Goddess" by Leonard Shlain that offers an opinion as to why there was a swich from mostly matriarchal societies in prehistory to mostly patriarchal. He seems to think that it has something to do with the left-brained mental functions being strengthened with the development of writing, which went on to favor "male" attributes and hence the "male" image became dominant. I'm not sure I agree with him, but looking back on at least 2000 years of predominantly female-subservient socities terrifies me. In the face of all that, I find it EVEN MORE amazing that we are where we are now, at least in the west: The place where I can read a "Good Housekeeping" article from 1956 that says "Never question your husband, even if he stays out all night. Never ask him for an explanation. He is the master of the house, and as such will rule with truthfulness and integrity." (that's a more or less direct quote) and not really be able to relate. That's incredible. Almost every woman from the last few thousand years can relate to that as 'the rules,' but I can't. Go feminism! Keep fighting!

I think the switch from matriarchal to patriarchal societies began very early on when it was realized that women did not produce babies out of magic but that the wonderous event was connected to a sweaty two seconds behind a mulberry bush event some nine months previously. In those days, any more that two seconds and you could end up as a sabertooth tiger's tea and tiffin. Connecting the two events removed most of the supposed magical power that women had. A grave disappointment no doubt; Once the magic was removed, there was no reason for the natural swing to physical power rather than magical power not to take place; Women's magical power then concentrated on  their knowledge of potions etc due to they being the ones who did all the herb collecting. A hint of this is seen in it being Eve who collected the fruit of the tree while her ol' man sat on his rear calling the animals names. No change there then, one might say.

The problems in China stem from their over-population. They have more people than the country can support and the government wanted to establish negative population growth, so they instituted the one child per family rule. They did not anticipate the desire for male children and the extent to which people would go to make sure that their one child was male. I have often wondered how they could have overlooked that possibility.

There are intrinsic problems with a mostly male population. Obviously, they cannot reproduce, so the population would soon dwindle if that trend continued. Some sociologists correlate periods in history when there have been comparitively large numbers of males in the population with war. That is another issue to consider.

Certainly the one child policy created problems in China that now the government is trying to solve. I am not sure that this situation can be applied to our culture in any way because our culture is very different from China's. I do think males are more valued in most cultures than females are, but there are many other cultural variables with China.

The question is interesting in light of some of the genetic studies that are being done and some of the in-vitro techniques that do allow parents to select the sex of their child. There are many ethical arguments that arise from those technologies.

While these issues of “feminism” or “inequality” for lack of better words exist in every nation, it has been exasperated to the point where even women prefer male children in some countries.  In Saudi Arabia they have created this problem by “taking care” of the woman by “protecting” her from harms way by basically doing everything for them.  It has gone to the point where the women of the higher classes in the country are so complacent that they simply will not do anything, even when asked!  It is no longer a issue of not being allowed to go work, go shopping, run errands, attend college, etc, now that all these are socially acceptable, many women simply do not want to participate in society – because letting drivers and maids, husbands and brothers do it for them is easier.  Then they can kick back watch TV, hang out with friends, have parties, etc.  Sounds like the life huh?  Or does it?  Is this a matter of digging one’s own grave?  Do women have to fight for their rights?  I think the problem often lies in that women in some contexts and cultures don’t SEE a need to fight because they are comfortable in their lifestyle-even if some would say it’s a matter of complacency or not knowing any better?  How do we address that - or is there even a problem if the given culture doesn't think it is and are merely discussing it because they know WE in the Western views of human rights think its a problem.

Social constructs. Remove all meaning that humans have contributed to learning about themselves. You shall see, man is not superior to woman. Woman is not superior to man. Nor are they equal. There's no point in saying, "because woman gives birth to man, they should be equal". That's nonsense (illogical). Humans rely on many things to survive (exist), but don't refer to those things are equals. Why women? Men could just as well subjugate women further and treat them merely as "receptacles". Or vice versa. Women could subjugate men and use them purely as sperm producers. Neither situation is objectively wrong or right. Subjectively, you should be thinking, wtf, unless your culture has taught you otherwise.

Equality is a desire, that can be expressed by one or many. An emotion. The child has a toy. I want it too. There is no moral obligation for humans to strive for equality.

A woman could desire to have the same opportunities as men.
A man could desire that women have the same opportunities as men.

If woman desires equal rights and treatment, a patriarchal society can agree or disagree. It can disagree and continue subjugating women because it has the power to do so. Or women can gain the power to fight the system.

By fight, I don't necessarily mean blood and violence. It simply means taking the opportunities one has and using them to their full extent. There are many such opportunities. A patriarchal is not a closed system. Gradually, it could become a matriarchal system again or an "equal" system or any of the degrees in between. It all depends on the interactions that occur in the system. It all depends on the amount of desire to change the system.

Like the above commenter stated, some women don't want to fight for their rights. That's not a problem (morally?). That's their desire. You can't exactly try to impose your "equal rights" doctrine on them. That would run contrary to letting one pursue their own desires, which is what equal rights and inalienable rights in general are all about.

From my experiences, I see no evidence for universal truths. Like I said, I see no evidence. I'm not going to fall for the argument that claims saying, "there are no universal truths" is a universal truth. When I say, there are no universal truths, it means, I see no evidence for universal truths. In conclusion, it's all about desire and the power to carry out that desire. The feminist's socially constructed views have no more truth value than the anti-feminist's social constructed views.

Good point, sandstorms. I know an American woman who converted to Islam a few years ago, and desires to move to the Middle East because "life is easier there, women aren't expected to do anything." It is a sad mentality to witness but you are right, we are all part of the social problem that has led to this.

"How we got here to begin with?"

I can answer this one. China has traditionally been an agricultural society. Farming, of course, is physically demanding and men are usually more productive in such an environment. Even though today's China is gradually evolving into an industrial power, the Chinese people still hang on to their belief that men are more productive.

Also, I can see why the Chinese people still harbor such an outdated belief. As human beings, we fear change and we like the feeling of consistency--it helps us make sense of the world around us.

Finally, if you go to the following link, you will find the Chinese character for "man." The top half of the character means "farm" and the lower half of the character means "power." So, "farm" + "power" = "man."

http://web.mit.edu/jpnet/ji/gifs/200x200/3543.gif

By the way, I would like to join the blog ring. Thanks.

Chinese people do not count on their sons to take care of them when they are old. Mostly the daughters do it. This is why people in their 40s with one son like to adopt a girl.

What happens is China is not okay but please do not write wrong facts.

Creed_Of_Kings had some interesting thoughts. Too bad they are no longer here to respond to...