The stunning reversal of humanity's oldest bias
is a senior editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate teams and the Unexplainable and The Gray Area podcasts. He is also the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section and writes the Good News newsletter. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk.
The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls.Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl.
Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially 'missing' — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren't.
Sen's estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter's one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.
But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios.
Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That's comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?
Related The movement desperately trying to get people to have more babies
Success in school and the workplace
For one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits.
Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men.
Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like 'Save the Daughter, Educate the Daughter' have helped change opinions.
A changing preference
The shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.
Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was 'necessary' to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.
In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying.
A more equal future
There's still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.
And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we'd like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women.
It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.
But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls' lives saved. And maybe one Father's Day, not too long from now, we'll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lizzo Reacts to Performance of ‘About Damn Time' at President Trump's Military Parade
When Lizzo sang, 'Turn up the music, let's celebrate,' Donald Trump's widely protested military birthday parade was not what she had in mind. After video of a performer singing Lizzo's Billboard Hot 100-topping hit 'About Damn Time' at the event in Washington, D.C., on Saturday (June 14) surfaced online, the hitmaker made her feelings quite clear in a TikTok posted over the weekend. Stitching the clip with a few seconds of footage of the parade singer's breathless live rendition of the self-love anthem — performed in front of a gathering on the National Mall — Lizzo then cuts to a shot of herself staring pointedly at the camera, looking perplexed and disgusted. More from Billboard Tyler, the Creator, Finneas, Kehlani & More React to Los Angeles Protests Against ICE Addison Rae Announces Dates For Debut 2025 Headlining World Tour How Brandon Lake Is Leading A Whole New Flock To 'What's Real And What's True' In Christian Music 'cease & desist,' she wrote in the caption. It's unclear which performer is singing 'About Damn Time' in the video Lizzo shared, but according to USA Today, the parade stage's lineup included DJ Nyla Symone, Lee Greenwood, Scotty Hasting, Noah Hicks and Warren Zeiders. The choice to cover the Grammy-winning hit at Trump's procession was certainly an interesting one, though, as Lizzo — who endorsed Kamala Harris in the 2024 election — has made her disapproval of the twice-impeached POTUS very clear over the years. She's not the only one. While Trump was celebrating the U.S. Army's 250th birthday — as well as his own 79th birthday, which was also Saturday — through a grand show of military might in D.C., a slew of 'No Kings' gatherings broke out across the country in protest of his administration. Those overlapped with the ongoing protests in Los Angeles against the country's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which recently launched raids into multiple workplaces across the city in the name of alleged immigration violations. Lizzo also posted several times about the ICE raids on Bluesky a few days prior to her TikTok about the military parade. 'The irony of an ice agent forcing a Mexican person off of their ancestral land when that agent's ancestors are European immigrants is just…,' she wrote in one post, adding in another: 'And still … there are people who voted for this who are going to sleep with a smile on their faces pleased as pie … It's a wild world y'all.' See Lizzo's TikTok below. Best of Billboard Chart Rewind: In 1989, New Kids on the Block Were 'Hangin' Tough' at No. 1 Janet Jackson's Biggest Billboard Hot 100 Hits H.E.R. & Chris Brown 'Come Through' to No. 1 on Adult R&B Airplay Chart
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Whoopi Goldberg Under Fire For Insisting Black People In The U.S. Have It As Bad As People Living In Iran
Whoopi Goldberg is facing backlash for comparing life in the U.S. to that in Iran during a heated debate with "The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin. The Oscar-winning actress highlighted systemic racism and violence against minorities, while Griffin countered with Iran's harsh laws, especially against women. The remarks by Whoopi Goldberg come amid escalating Iran-Israel conflict, with Israel launching major airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Goldberg has caused a stir online over a heated exchange with her "The View" co-host Griffin during which she claimed that life in the U.S. can be just as harsh as living in Iran. During Wednesday's episode of the ABC talk show, Goldberg raised her voice while highlighting America's own violent history, saying, "We have been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car. Listen, I'm sorry. They used to just keep hanging black people." She then drew a bold comparison, stating, "It is the same," referring to conditions in the U.S. and those under Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Griffin, 36, quickly pushed back, firmly rejecting the comparison. She argued that in Iran, women are subject to extreme restrictions, including the threat of death, simply for showing their hair, arms, or wearing a skirt. "It is not even the same. I couldn't step foot wearing this outfit in Tehran right now," she said, referencing Iran's strict dress codes enforced by the country's notorious morality police. Goldberg held firm in her stance, arguing that violence against marginalized groups should be condemned universally. "That's why I'm saying that it is the same," she insisted. "Murdering someone for their difference is not good, whoever does it. It's not good." When Griffin reiterated that the U.S. in 2025 is not comparable to Iran's current authoritarian regime, Goldberg countered, "Not if you're Black," pointing to the persistent fear and systemic racism faced by Black Americans. "Every day we are worried. Do we have to be worried about our kids? Are our kids gonna get shot because they're running through somebody's neighborhood?" she added. However, Goldberg still acknowledged, "This is the greatest country in the world." Griffin responded by stressing that none of the women at the table would even be safe setting foot in Tehran. Despite the tension, Griffin acknowledged Goldberg's concerns, making it clear that she wasn't trying to downplay the challenges faced by many in the U.S. "I don't want to diminish the very real problems people face here," she said empathetically. "But I think it's important we remember there are places much darker than this country and people who deserve rights." Since her remarks hit the internet, Goldberg has come under fire from furious netizens, calling her out for being "out of touch." One person wrote on X, "Sure, Whoopi, being black in America in 2025 is just like being a woman in Iran in 2025. To quote Jack Nicholson in 'As Good as It Gets': 'Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.'" Another said, "It's always about her. Never have I been so appalled and disgusted by this individual's remarks." A third person noted, "It's hard to believe this is real, but it's not surprising. Nothing like good ole' oppression for the elites." An X user partially defended Goldberg, writing: "Whoopi, I get where you're coming from, but let's pump the brakes here. Comparing the experiences of Black Americans to those of women in Iran is a bit like comparing apples to, I don't know, nuclear warheads. Sure, there are issues with racism in the U.S., and it's something we need to keep addressing, but let's not forget that women in Iran face state-sanctioned violence just for showing their hair." They added, "That's a whole different level of oppression. Your heart's in the right place, but maybe we should stick to analogies that don't downplay the severity of human rights abuses elsewhere. Just saying." As the exchange grew more intense, Goldberg cut in to remind Griffin that not all Americans have shared the same freedoms, noting that Black citizens weren't granted voting rights until 1965. Griffin responded sharply, pointing out, "They don't have free and fair elections in Iran. It's not even the same universe." At that point, the "Sisters Act" actress appeared to grow frustrated, telling Griffin she would never truly "understand" the perspective she was trying to express. Co-host Joy Behar stepped in to defuse the tension, urging Griffin to try and view the conversation through the lens of a Black American. "Just try to understand from their point of view, this country does not do them well," Behar said. Griffin responded respectfully, saying she "completely" acknowledged that experience, but maintained her belief that the conditions in Iran are "significantly worse" than those in the U.S. The fiery back-and-forth wrapped with Goldberg telling the audience, "We'll come back to this," before the show cut to a commercial break. Goldberg's fiery on-air exchange with Griffin took place against the backdrop of rising tensions between Iran and Israel, as the two nations edge closer to full-scale war. The conflict escalated after Israel launched a wave of preemptive airstrikes targeting Iran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. In response, Iran fired over 100 drones on Friday, calling the Israeli strikes a "declaration of war." According to reports, Israel's attacks struck key nuclear facilities and missile production sites in Tehran, killing several top military officials. The assault is being described as one of the most significant Iran has faced since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a national address, confirmed that the military offensive, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, aimed to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure, missile capabilities, and military strongholds.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Economics Nobel Laureate calls for a 'working-class liberalism'
Economics Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu has called for working-class liberalism. In his talk at the London School of Economics on Wednesday, as part of LSE Festival: Visions for the Future, professor Acemoglu said that despite liberalism's enormous success, he's become convinced that the old version of liberalism is dead and needs remaking. "I have become convinced over the last decade that liberalism's enormous successes are being overshadowed by some problems. So it does require remaking of some sorts," he said. In the Great Hall of LSE's Marshal Building, packed to the brim, Acemoglu, the joint winner of of 2024 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences and an MIT professor, said the ideas space was being won by those on the right. "This may come as a shock to some of you, but my view is that right now, new ideas are coming not from the liberal side, but they're coming from the anti-liberal, the right. Read more: Nobel economics prize awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson & James A Robinson "If you look at ideas that are spreading and articulating new ways of organising society, which many ... find very unattractive, they are the ones that are getting traction." He said the old version of liberalism was not enough. "Liberalism failed to adjust to being the establishment," Acemoglu said. The Nobel laureate sketched out his case for "Remaking Liberalism", which is also the working title of his forthcoming book, scheduled to be published in 2026. Delving into the history and the development of the moral and political philosophy that underpins liberalism, he said it played a crucial role as a force of good, mostly delivered via a democratic state. "Liberalism, broadly speaking, is respect for individual liberties and freedoms, efforts to create a rule of law, a level playing field, commitment to helping the disadvantaged via redistribution and other public investments. "So sort of not classical liberalism, but a little bit more left leaning liberalism, which has been the dominant force in generating new ideas for much of the 20th century, is responsible for many of the achievements that we have witnessed over the last 150 years, perhaps longer." Read more: UK borrowing rises in May, making tax hikes 'increasingly likely' He said liberalism's success was rooted in three implicit promises. First: shared prosperity, meaning that economic growth would take place and pretty much every group in society would get some share out of it. Getting voting rights was part of this agenda of creating shared prosperity, he said. Second: public services or drains. "I think the mood is captured by the once poet laureate of Britain, John Beecham, who said our nation stands for democracy and proper drains; getting services to people which did not exist for the most part in the 19th century." Shared prosperity and public services are the secret sauce of liberalism, Acemoglu said. The third promise of liberalism was economic growth. "Shared prosperity already bakes in economic growth. I think one of the most inspiring things about liberalism was that its belief in progress, not [the] inevitability [of it], but possibility of progress. He said liberalism allowed for the building of democracy from the bottom up, it allowed people to exercise their freedoms, including economic freedoms within a market system with economic growth as the glue that kept the system intact. But how did the political economy of this work out? Acemoglu explained how the two elements of political economy, the economics and the politics, manifest to produce what he called "an industrial compact" in the decades following the second world war, leading to a rise in demand for labour and wages – creating a pathway for prosperity. The industrial compact peaked with rapid economic growth, the spread of technology and the beginning of mass production. However, cracks started to appear as the industrial compact gave way to post-industrial economics, especially with the introduction of digital technologies alongside globalisation and deregulation. "Digital technologies did a couple of things at the same time. The first one is that by their nature, early digital technologies were very complementary to more skilled, educated workers. "They started creating a wedge between what the economic opportunities were for the less educated and the more educated." More importantly, however, digital technologies ushered in automation where firms could produce more with less labour which severed links of industrial compact, Acemoglu said. This, in turn, saw inequality exploding and the less-educated, manual workforce not keeping up. The labour that was shed from manufacturing was less educated and the labour that was needed for new industries was highly educated. This divergence accentuated the fortunes of the educated and the uneducated, creating crisis for liberalism or liberal democracy, he said. "But I think the big crisis came because post-industrial economics – in a classic political economy fashion – then was coupled with post-industrial politics ... where the highly educated group starts viewing itself as a distinct from the rest of society, and also cutting, severing its links with the rest of society." Read more: Why bitcoin and gold are rallying as bond yields hit 30-year highs Acemoglu said that the highly educated [elite] are a big part of the story of failure of liberalism. Money and status followed, as did a different set of values, especially in countries like the US and the UK, with the elite marrying among their status group. This has led to less mixing of communities and more segregation, eventually leading to to the rise of a "cognitive elite" with disproportionate influence on policy making. "Silicon Valley in the United States is one microcosm of the cognitive elite, they are much more pro-market. [They think] they're more entitled to redistribution. They think success is very much merit. And they have a number of other more right leaning ideas. Whereas if you ask people in the education sector or public administration, etc, they have very different values." The cognitive elite upended the bottom-up approach of liberalism. "That doesn't work with the nature of liberalism, because once you try from the top down to change the values of communities at the bottom, you are damaging the communities and you are destroying the basis of self-government, which is so important for liberalism and even more consequentially, perhaps you're going to create backlash. "So I think that's the basis of the crisis of liberalism." The Nobel laureate's proffered solution to the crisis was to create a working-class liberalism. "We need to create what I would like to call a working class liberalism, a liberalism that actually gets buy-in from the working classes. Read more: Why the UK's AIM is struggling 30 years on "So not a liberalism that is so centred on the educated, but much more about communities and much more about self-government at the community level." Acemoglu said that there are two elements that will make that feasible: "All of these communities want self-government. I think a lot of the discontent, a lot of the backlash is about the feeling of lacking self-government that should be part and parcel of any liberal project. "Second, they want jobs. Shared prosperity cannot be achieved without anything other than jobs. So this has to be a liberalism that is much more tolerant to the diversity of communities, especially working class communities, different religions, different traditions, different prejudices, takes their cultural concerns seriously, but also prioritises economic growth, especially job creation." Acemoglu said his next book will delve deeper into his case for "Remaking Liberalism". Acemoglu won the economics Nobel in October last year alongside Simon Johnson and James A Robinson "for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity." He's also the best-selling joint-author of Why Nations Fail, published in 2012, and Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.
