Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic More evidence that the sex ratio in cases of infanticide is skewed

Ann, next time you post something like this, could you please phrase the title in such a way that, if we don't want to read about this kind of subject, we don't have to have it shoved in our faces every time we read the Off Topic section? I would appreciate it if you would at least try.

Thanks.

Tara

The reason why I chose to bring up the case from Germany is not that it was from Germany. It was, rather, that it reinforced a conclusion I had drawn due to the fact that the sex ratio for abandoned and/or killed babies in Sweden has been so incredibly skewed. The number of abandoned or killed babies has been small, no doubt partly because it is so easy to have an abortion in Sweden. Those women who absolutely don't want to have a baby can easily have an early abortion.

All in all, I know of about fifteen cases in Sweden during the last circa thirty-five years. That is not a lot. But I remember the cases, because the newspapers always wrote a lot every time a dead or abandoned child was found, and it took only two cases until I noticed that both babies were girls. And then it went on like that. Dead or abandoned girls, girls, girls. Only one baby was definitely a boy, and in his case the mother hadn't looked at the baby before she wrapped him in towels and plastic bags and put him in the freezer. That mother, however, had clearly stated that she preferred boys over girls, and she had already had three girls whom she had given away for adoption, which is an extremely uncommon thing to do in Sweden.

So I have nothing against Germany, and I have no specific preconceived notions about Germany, or at least I don't think that I do. I just noticed the case because it said that there were three dead babies and all were girls, and I thought to myself, how typical. It's just like in Sweden!

Right now Swedish newspapers have reported about case in Austria where a man killed his wife, his child, his parents and his father-in-law. Was his child a boy or a girl? It was a girl. Maybe it is just as common that parents kill their sons, but the cases that I read about in the newspapers mostly seem to deal with murdered girls.

Tara: Next time I'll think about phrasing the title so that it is obvious that I'm going to talk about the selective killing of girls. In my own defence, however, it seems to me that the title I chose for this thread might have suggested that I would bring up something like that here.

Ann

I don't think that's what she means. I don't think she's offended that the thread is about the selective killing of girls, I think she means she wants you to tone down the title a little bit, such as "Infanticide" instead of "dead babies in freezer" which is gross, and every time someone posts in this thread, it's bumped and you have to see the words "dead babies in freezer" over and over again, which is uncomfortable for someone who doesn't want to read about it.

That would be my point exactly, Trinity. Thanks.

Tara

Okay. I get it.

Ann

I (and I'm pretty sure Mellie as well) didn't mean to imply that you think that Germany - for the well-known reason - would be just the right country for this to happen. Assuming that Germans in general are more evil than any other people is so naive that I wouldn't even consider you could think such a thing.

The point is that - like Mellie - I don't think that a mother who would kill her child in a moment of sheer panic would consider the sex of the child beforehand.

Truth is - more baby girls than boys are born alive. Having two x chromosomes, girls just don't suffer from some diseases that would kill boys before they would ever be born. So statistically, I wouldn't be astonished if more baby girls were killed.

Remember - statistically you can proof that the storch brings the babies. That doesn't make it true.

I don't really believe that. In most Western countries, more boys than girls are born alive. Indeed, I know that in Sweden, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls and that sex ratio has remained constant for at least a hundred years. Yes, I know that more boys are spontaneously aborted due to various defects, but that still doesn't change the fact that slightly more boys than girls are born alive in our part of the world. I'm almost certain that the same sex ratio can be found in most Western countries.

What I ask myself is, how likely is it that it might be sheer coincidence that thirteen out of fifteen newborn and abandoned or killed babies are girls, and only one is definitely a boy? (The sex of one baby was never disclosed.) What are the mathematical, statistical odds that this could be sheer coincidence, in view of the fact that slightly more boys than girls are in fact born alive in the West?

I find it just too improbable that this kind of sex ratio among the dead and "discarded" babies would be coincidence. And that is precisely why I always notice the gender of any baby that is found dead. However, I have to admit - there was a case in Denmark perhaps a year ago, when a baby boy was found. I think he was alive, and he was eventually adopted by a couple.

Ann

As for that case in Denmark, when a baby boy was found abandoned but alive. In Sweden during the last circa ten years, all abandoned newborn babies have been found dead, and all but one of them have been girls. If you assume, as I do, that practically no mothers want to kill their newborn sons, but some of them do want to kill their newborn daughters, then it makes sense that the boy in Denmark was found alive. His mother felt unable to take care of him, but she really wanted him to survive. He was her son, after all.

I know that some parents do kill their sons, but I don't think that parents ever kill their sons because they are boys. No, I think it is the boys' habits or quirks or irritating behaviour that drive their parents crazy and provoke them to commit murder. I do think, however, that some parents are willing to kill their daughters, or take insufficient care of their daughters, because the daughters are girls. If you consider that new case in Austria, the man who killed his daughter didn't do it because the girl drove him crazy with her behaviour. No, he wanted to obliterate his entire family so that he wouldn't have to tell them that he had squandered a large sum of money. He was prepared to kill his own child to cover up his shame. Would he have been willing to kill his child for that sort of reason, though, if the child had been a boy? Personally, I strongly doubt it. A son's life is so valuable to a father that I really doubt that the father would be willing to kill his son just to save his own dignity. But his daughter's life may be worth less to the man than his own loss of standing in the eyes of his family. At the very least, I don't know of a case where a man went on a murder spree which started with his own killing of his own son.


Don't kill your son! God stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac.



But God didn't stop Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter. But then, she was only a girl. (Judges, chapter 11.)

Ann

You are right Ann, that Abraham was stopped from sacrificing Isaac and that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter but the circumstances are completely different and does not show any favoritism on God's part.

God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son in order to test him. God knew he would never have Abraham go through with it but wanted to see if Abraham was willing to follow God's will, even if it meant sacrificing his beloved son.

Jephthah made a foolish vow all on his own: that if God were to give the Ammonites over to him, he would sacrifice the first thing that ran out of his front door upon returning home. God did not say he needed to make this vow or that he wouldn't have given the Ammonites over to him anyways. Nor does it say what would have happened to Jephthah had he not followed through with sacrificing his daughter. In this story, God was not testing Jephthah, he commited that atrocity all on his own.

People do foolish things in the Bible all the time, that are not sanctioned by God. For example, when Saul and his army were going to fight the Philistines, Saul made a very foolish vow: 1 Samuel 14:24-30

24 Now the men of Israel were in distress that day, because Saul had bound the people under an oath, saying, "Cursed be any man who eats food before evening comes, before I have avenged myself on my enemies!" So none of the troops tasted food.

25 The entire army [d] entered the woods, and there was honey on the ground. 26 When they went into the woods, they saw the honey oozing out, yet no one put his hand to his mouth, because they feared the oath. 27 But Jonathan had not heard that his father had bound the people with the oath, so he reached out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb. He raised his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened. [e] 28 Then one of the soldiers told him, "Your father bound the army under a strict oath, saying, 'Cursed be any man who eats food today!' That is why the men are faint."

29 Jonathan said, "My father has made trouble for the country. See how my eyes brightened [f] when I tasted a little of this honey. 30 How much better it would have been if the men had eaten today some of the plunder they took from their enemies. Would not the slaughter of the Philistines have been even greater?"

Jonathan does not end up getting killed/sacrificed by his father because his men stand up for him.

43 Then Saul said to Jonathan, "Tell me what you have done."

So Jonathan told him, "I merely tasted a little honey with the end of my staff. And now must I die?"

44 Saul said, "May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if you do not die, Jonathan."

45 But the men said to Saul, "Should Jonathan die—he who has brought about this great deliverance in Israel? Never! As surely as the LORD lives, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground, for he did this today with God's help." So the men rescued Jonathan, and he was not put to death.

You are right about what you say about Jephthah's idiotic vow. That vow was the thing that made the poor girl's death happen.

Suppose, though, that Jephthah's child had been a boy. Would God just have accepted that Jephthah killed his son just so that he could fulfill his vow to God? Frankly, I don't believe it. There are many passages in the Bible that most strenuously forbid the sacrificing of sons. Yes, there are also passages that forbid the sacrificing of sons and daughters, but there are no passages that single out the sacrificing of daughters as forbidden in itself. To me, there is no doubt that the Bible speaks with more vehemence when it forbids the sacrificing of sons than when it forbids the sacrificing of daughters.

I just don't believe that the Bible would have allowed Jephthah to kill his son in the same way and under the same circumstances that he killed his daughter. Remember that Jephthah is not given any sort of punishment for killing his daughter, and God makes no sort of comment whatsoever to argue that it would have been better to let the girl live. And Jephthah does not try to plead with God to spare his daughter's life. If the child had been a son, surely Jephthah would have asked God for mercy, and surely God would have granted it. And if Jephthah hadn't tried to plead with God, but had carried out the sacrifice of his son anyway, surely God would have punished him one way or another. Because the Old Testament does not allow fathers to kill their sons. It is far less obvious that it forbids fathers to kill their daughters.

Ann

What I'm wondering about all this is how it all comes around to mentioning what you've read in the Bible, Ann? For someone who doesn't seem ascribe to the teachings of the Bible, you sure do like to use it a lot to advance your opinion.

As much as you run down Christianity, you often mention your grandfather and I recall a remark that you made saying he was an intelligent man, but you totally bust on him for his Christian beliefs and make Christianity out to be some evil conspiracy against women.

I can't help but wonder what someone claiming to be a Christian did or said to you to make you spout such a rampant derision of basic Christian doctrine, when what you don't seem to get is that it's people that make bad stuff happen; people make horrible, evil decisions every day that make this world a horrible evil place, but somehow or other YOU have to make these happenings part of some sexist conspiracy that is somehow founded on Christian beliefs.

I've perused websites and news outlets that point out it's more often Chinese, Indian, and the Middle Eastern cultures that murder their girl children, mostly in the name of favoring a boy child to carry on the family name or to save the family a bride price, cultures that are predominantly NOT Christian, so I'm at a complete loss as to how you continually make this connection.

I know there are a lot of people praying for you, Ann, myself included and I must just continue to hope that whatever malady has you on this obsessive bent will eventually be relieved, because it's completely pitiful to come to this site and find it displayed over and over again.

God bless Ann.


TEEEEEEEJ

OK, now I am not religious, and most of what I learned about the Bible and religious teachings in my youth has been forgotten. So if I step on someone's toes here, please forgive me.

The events as related in the Bible took place thousands and thousands of years ago. They were passed along from generation to generation before man developed an efficient means of writing them down physically. The society as described in the Bible was very different from Western society today, and there were no concerns about being politically correct. Women were treated like chattel because that's the way most men viewed them. We can debate now whether it was right or wrong, but that is simply the way it was, and nothing that we do or say can change it.

And although this is no longer the case in most Western societies, we know that in some parts of the world women are still considered to have less value than men. I don't argue with that, Ann, but despite the many posts you have made on this subject you have failed to convince me that this is a prevalent concern in Western society. And as to your perceived preference of boys over girls, I don't believe that people in the U.S. or Canada (I mention those since those are the two cultures I know best), for example, view baby girls less favorably than boys because they read about and were thus influenced by similar instances in the Bible.

Ann, you bring up various cases to prove your point, and I understand that you feel very strongly about this, but to me your viewpoint is skewed by your very strong bias about female oppression. Unless I see hard statistics drawn from a much broader spectrum that support your belief, I am unwilling to draw the same conclusions as you do from such a small sampling.

You cite 13 out of 15 abandoned/killed babies being girls, but that's just in the examples you've given. How many more out there are there over the past however many years? How many more instances - boys or girls - that you haven't researched? I have no idea, and I'm afraid that I'm unwilling to do any research on the subject, because I find the entire topic of abandoned/killed babies/children upsetting in the extreme, period, no matter what the gender of the child is. It may be the first piece of information that you seek out, but not me. I'm just horrified to hear of it happening, regardless of the circumstances. And I realize that I only know a microscopically small sample of Western society, but of everyone I know with children, those children are adored by their parents, be they male or female.

And to quote from one of the links that you yourself posted - BBC: Facts about female infanticide - it says:

Kathy

Kathy's right here you've only presented cases that you feel fit your theory and that isn't enough substantial evidence to prove your theory is correct. Here in Australia a toddler boy's body was found down a mine shaft and the father has been arrested charged with his murder. In fact I can tell you now that here the high profile child homicide cases have been predominately male. However, I will not jump to such a bias theory why? Because a few isolated cases aren't enough for me to draw any significant conclusions.

You also mentioned that it took you only 2 cases before you noticed a pattern that isn't enough to draw such a conclusion. To establish a definite pattern you'd have to pull out all child homicide cases and actually look at them first.

This doesn't prove that the baby was murdered it could have died from exposure or lack of food from not being found in time. There was a similar case in Western Australia where an abandoned baby was found dead at garbage dump and if memory serves correct it had been alive when it was left there.

As a Christian I refuse to believe that God is bias towards a certain gender. I don't understand where you can draw such a conclusion. Please remember that the Old Testament contains traditions that are thousands of years old. Traditions which today are generally not practiced especially in Christianity. Also you mention that you were raised on the Bible and that it seemed to you that the birth of a daughter was not desired. In those times perhaps it was true, but the Bible also has two books that are specifically about women Ruth and Esther. Esther would eventually be crowned queen. As for your theory that God would have stopped Jephthah from killing his son had it been his son that was the first to greet him as like Stephanie said he made that vow on his OWN. As for Abraham and why God stopped him it was meant to be a test of his devotion to God that he'd be willing to sacrifice the one thing that meant the world to him because God asked him to.

You are right, two cases don't make a pattern. But after two cases I got interested. After that I started paying very close attention every time a baby was found abandoned. What was the baby's gender? Was it a girl? As a matter of fact, yes, it was. It was a girl every time except once. Also there was a case when the sex of the baby wasn't disclosed, but as you may have guessed, I believe that it was a girl that time, too.

Let me say that it has been a pretty powerful experience to guess that an abandoned or killed baby is going to be a girl, and to be proved right every time except once. (And as for that one case, the mother stated for the record that she hadn't looked at the baby before she wrapped it in towels and plastic bags and put it in the freezer, but apart from that, this particular mother also stated that she preferred boys over girls anyway.)

Like I said, it has been a profound experience to expect, over and over again, that an abandoned baby is going to be a girl, and to be proved right every time except one. Naturally, when I heard about that case in Germany, where three babies were found in a freezer, I expected that those babies would prove to be girls, too. And when it was confirmed that they were indeed girls, I couldn't resist posting.

By the way, it has been a profound experience, too, to see that when the media have first reported about another abandoned infant, they have almost never disclosed the baby's gender right away. More often than not, it has taken days before they reported it, although you'd think they would know right away. Certainly the police would know right away. Why not tell us right away? Instead, they keep mum about it for days, leaving us to guess. And when they finally report it, the information is often to be found in fine print at the bottom of an article. Again and again, I have been wondering if the new case of an abandoned baby is another girl. I have of course guessed that it was a girl, and I have read everything I have found about the case, and then finally I have found confirmation. Yes, it was indeed a girl - again.

The new case in Germany was exactly like that, by the way. When the press first reported the case, nothing was said about the babies' gender. Why? Surely the police must have known? Surely the reporters could have asked? But no one asked and no one told. However, the dead babies were girls. Again.

Maybe all of this is coincidence. But you have to forgive me for not thinking so.

Oh, and yes, I was raised on the Bible. When I was six or seven years old, I read a children's version of the Bible over and over again. I couldn't help noticing that in the Old Testament there were stories about how boys and men were being saved - there was the story of how little Moses was saved, and how a man with leprosy was being healed by the prophet Elishah (hope I spelled that right in English - I don't have the energy to look it up) and how a dead boy was raised by the prophet Elijah, and how another dead boy was raised by the prophet Elishah. And there were all those women who rejoiced when they gave birth to sons: Hagar, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth, Mary. But there weren't any women who rejoiced when they gave birth to daughters. At least there was Jesus, who raised a girl from the dead, and who healed several women!

Anyway, did my reading of that kiddie Bible make me think that God didn't like girls as much as he liked boys? Yes, in fact, it did.

Ann

I think we should discern between two different topics here. First, there is the matter of infanticide and the ratio of girls to boys. Second, there is question if the bible is sexist.

Let's discuss - if we so desire - the infanticide matter here. And leave the bible out of it. Or start another topic on it. Anyway, I don't think we should mix topics here.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't take offense at you quoting an example from Germany. Not at all. After all, I was just as shocked as you were when I read about it. I didn't even expect someone might think I might take offense. But I do consider Germany my home ground, and I do indeed think that I understand what's going on here (in Germany) better than someone from another country. That's not meant to say that you don't have any right to say what you think, or that it has to be horribly wrong, but only that, sometimes, there are things you might (or might not) overlook.

Thank you for changing the topic title, Ann.

Tara

Ann, I'm afraid you might have misunderstood some of what I wrote earlier. I don't mean to imply that your interpretation of your reading of the Bible (either as a child or an adult) is wrong. I don't know the Bible well enough to make any kind of judgment.

But what I am trying to say is that you are viewing an ancient society through very modern eyes, and faulting it for not upholding to the moral standards of a modern Western society. And you can't do that. That society is gone. Unless new evidence is unearthed, we're not going to learn anything new and radically different about it. You know how long it has taken in many cultures for women to be treated equally to men - it obviously should be no surprise to you that thousands of years ago, women were not.

As far as God condoning or even encouraging the treatment of women that way, I don't think that he was. God does not micromanage events in peoples' lives. If so, then why would God let any of the terrible things happen - natural disasters, war, terrorism...

It was man - men with the sexist attitudes of the time - who lived the events as detailed in the Bible, and man who wrote them down.

Kathy

No, actually, that is not my point. I'm saying, or you could say that I'm guessing, that the Bible reflects a deeper, human way of reasoning. It could be that our modern Western society is the "natural" human society, but then again, it could be that our society is just the foam on top of a wave. It could disappear before we know it, and a society whose morality is more like the Biblical one could be the one to replace it.

Why were the people of the Old Testament sexist? Is it because they were radically different than we are? I doubt it. I think that they were basically just like us. And like Jen pointed out, even in the Old Testament people were not all sexist. There are strong women in the Old Testament, like Deborah, and there is at least one wonderfully warm and unconventional woman in the Old Testament, Ruth. And there were probably others like her. But the society as a whole was mostly sexist, and sometimes very sexist.

Most societies are like that, as a matter of fact. Not everyone or everything in them is sexist. But the societies as a whole are.

The reason why I speak so much of the Bible is twofold. I believe that the major religions of the world reflect who and what we are as human beings. I don't mean that all human beings are the same. I'm not trying to say to any of you that you are sexists. But, yes, I believe that societies are different from individual people, and I think that it may be true that practically all human societies tend to become sexist. If all major religions are sexist, and I believe that they are, then that strongly suggests to me that the human societies that produced them are sexist. When that sexism becomes so strong that it begins to kill women, either through condoning outright murder of women or girls, or through condoning serious neglect of young girls or women, then that becomes a hugely serious issue for me.

I think that our modern societies re-use at least parts of the "group morality" of those ancient societies which wrote down the Bible. When some people say that every word in the Bible is holy, then they actually say that the most sexist passages of those ancient texts are holy, too. The sexism of thousands of years ago becomes holy today. And some of those people who extol every part of the Bible seem to ask for, no, demand respect for their own sexism. Those polygamist sects have a point when they say that the Bible never forbids polygamy. It doesn't, as a matter of fact. (Neither, however, does it recommend it or outright celebrate it.)

I'm not trying to talk about ancient cultures per se. I'm trying to talk about the morality and ethics we have today. Often attempts at equality and fair treatment of women are described, rather scornfully, as "political correctness". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is quite common in the United States to be proud of the fact that you are not "politically correct".

So I'm trying to talk about what I might call an underlying readiness to accept sexist societies here and now and all over the world, and I think the major religions condone and "sanctify" that universal sexism with its deep historical roots.

And I believe that the ultimate expression of sexism is the elimination of women. Interestingly, societies are never going to allow the complete elimination of women, because societies need women. But families in sexist societies don't necessarily feel the need to have daughters. Hence female infanticide.

Ann

Yes, Ann, I apparently misunderstood you, so I apologize for stressing a point that apparently you were not trying to make.

Kathy

Yesterday ActionAid published a new report about how girls are disappearing in India. I found an article about it on a page from expressindia.com. Here are a few quotes from the article:

The article can be found here.

Ann