The Skeleton in Radical Feminism's Closet; How Can They Explain Killing Girls Just for Being Girls?

Article excerpt

Byline: Joseph Meaney, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Well over 40 percent of the world's annual births are occurring in countries where a girl is far less likely to be born than a boy. For more than 30 years, son preference, a euphemism in societies where ultrasound scans commonly are used to find female fetuses for the purpose of aborting them, has silently created a demographic crisis for the modern world. How is it possible that 100 million 'missing' girls, a recent headline from the Boston Globe, could happen without major institutions and organizations worldwide mobilizing to fight it?

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning Indian economist, raised the alarm about missing women in a controversial 1990 article in the New York Review of Books. Mr. Sen began with the simple observation that deadly discrimination against women must be occurring because women live on average several years longer than men, but they are a minority of the population in many countries. In a 2003 British Medical Journal article that highlighted the role of sex-selection abortions, he admitted to having missed the key fact that the principal driver of missing women was discrimination before rather than after birth.

Even earlier, philosopher Mary Anne Warren wrote Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection in 1985. This new term, gendercide, that Ms. Warren coined derived from genocide but with the distinction that the killings are targeted at one sex. Amazingly for a person explicitly alarmed about massacres based on gender, Ms. Warren's view is that there is great danger that the legal prohibition of sex selection would endanger other aspects of women's reproductive freedom. Her radical abortion rights position makes her unwilling to stand up for the lives of unwanted unborn women, and she is not alone among feminists. …