Women's Human Rights and Migration. Sital Kalantry
Читать онлайн книгу.
in an unnatural sex-ratio imbalance.”31 The magnitude, however, is not the same in the United States. One article found that sex-selective abortions occurring among Asian Americans has resulted in at most 1,000 “missing women” in the United States from 1983 to 2002, which is approximately 50 per year.32 On the other hand, estimates in India reach as high as 700,000 “missing women” per year.33
The preamble further notes, “an unnatural sex-ratio imbalance gives rise to … human trafficking … kidnapping and other violent crime.”34 While some empirical studies have indeed found that societies with a surplus of men are marked by more violence and instability, there is no such surplus of men in the United States. In Chapter 6, I discuss in greater detail the consequences of a sex-ratio imbalance in India.
Second, advocates for the bans believe that most women in India are forced to undergo sex-selective abortion through physical violence and mental abuse. They assume Asian American women are under that same pressure. The problem here is not only that the harm is decontextualized, but also that the understanding of what actually occurs in India is itself distorted. With globalization, information travels quickly across borders but that information is only a snapshot of the complex reality of the situation in other countries. The media often packages information in sound bites that are filtered through stereotypes about foreign peoples.
The mainstream understanding in the United States among anti-abortion advocates and pro-choice voters alike is that most women in India—through physical or emotional coercion—are forced to abort female fetuses. This coercion narrative prevails in the documentary It’s a Girl.35 This film, funded by anti-abortion advocates, has received accolades from Ms. Magazine, the National Organization for Women, and Amnesty International. The filmmakers extensively interview and depict the life of Mitu Khurana, a pediatrician who left her husband because he physically abused her after she refused to abort her female fetuses.36 The film, however, fails to depict what more commonly occurs in India: women make the choice to abort female fetuses without physical violence or overt coercion. There is no doubt that some women in India are coerced through violence, but the documentary presents no other narrative.
The depiction of women in India as coerced is then projected onto Asian American women. The federal bill to ban sex-selective abortion extensively cites from a study by Puri et al. in which she interviewed 65 South Asian immigrant women recruited from a clinic that provides sex determination tests.37 One-third of the 65 women cited past physical abuse and neglect related specifically to their failing to produce a male child.38 But while it is true—and disturbing—that many of the women experienced domestic violence, the emphasis on the women who cited coercion neglects the fact that two-thirds of the women in the study did not cite coercion. Moreover, the sample was not representative of all Indian American women; it consisted of women who specifically sought sex determination tests. The federal bill also highlights the work of the photojournalist Walter Astrada, whose documentary tells the story of a woman from India who was pressured to abort her twins, but resisted that coercion. It turns out that this is the same woman featured in It’s a Girl—who bravely refused to abort her twin girls despite her husband’s threats.39 Some state sex-selective abortion bills specifically include prohibitions on coercive abortions, sanctioning the view that coercion is a part of most sex-selective abortions.40
However, direct physical coercion is not the only explanation for sex selection in India. Women may choose to sex-select to gain status in their household. They may have empathy for the unborn girl: they do not want a girl to endure the gender-based discriminatory society they have had to endure. In Chapter 5, I describe the Indian context in greater detail to compare and distinguish it from the United States. This nuanced narrative is absent from the mainstream American media.
Third, proponents of sex-selective abortion bans point out that sex selection is discriminatory when practiced in the United States. In his submission to a House committee, U.S. Representative Lamar Smith stated: “The reason for opposing sex-selection is uniform: the desire to combat discrimination.”41 The preamble to the congressional bill to ban sex-selective abortion also notes that it is needed to promote equality.42 However, social institutions, history, and other contexts are relevant in defining something as discriminatory, and sex-selective abortion reflects social institutions in India that perpetuate inequality. Many of those social institutions are not prevalent in the United States even though other forms of gender equality still persist.
Moreover, empirical evidence in the United States suggests that the practice of sex selection as carried out in the United States by a few people does not appear to be significantly gender-biased, as discussed in Chapter 4. Some may believe that sex selection is wrong for eugenic, moral, or for other reasons—but it should not be considered discriminatory to women and girls in the United States just because it is carried out in a discriminatory manner in India and reflects unequal social norms and institutions.
Decontextualization is problematic because it homogenizes people in a number of ways. First, the discourse does not adequately distinguish between the situation in various foreign countries. For example, “son preference” is assumed to drive behavior in both India and China. Adequate consideration, however, is not given to the historical and contextual differences between those countries. For example, the one-child policy has historically influenced the behavior of Chinese parents, but India has never had such a drastic policy.
Second, the discourse assumes that all Asian Americans share the same behaviors. This is problematic, because it fails to understand the differences in behavior and values among this group. Asian Americans include Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, and others. Each of these groups is influenced by different religious, linguistic and cultural patterns. “Asian American” is a common label in the United States—it is used by scholars, advocacy organizations,43 and social organizations.44 Many universities have departments called “Asian American Studies.”45 I use “Asian American” to include people who have recently immigrated from or whose parents, grandparents or other generations have emigrated from a country in Asia. It should be noted that there is disagreement about what groups should be included under the umbrella “Asian American,” and whether the category should be abandoned altogether given the plurality of people who are swept into that category.
Third, discussions of sex-selective abortion also fail to portray a more nuanced story about what occurs in foreign countries. India is a religiously and linguistically diverse country. Indeed, many states in India do not have male-skewed ratios at all. In the Indian state of Kerala, for example, the ratio of males born to females is close to the natural range. This suggests that parental sex-selection is not occurring. There is no one fixed “culture” that prevails throughout India as the discourse implies. However, there is no recognition of intracountry variation in sex-selection practices in the mainstream American discourse.
Fourth, the discourse assumes that the “culture” of people who live in Asia is the same as the “culture” of Asian Americans. It assumes (1) people in Asia favor sons over daughters, (2) this preference is caused by culture, and (3) these same cultural patterns replicate themselves among Asian Americans. The extreme version of this viewpoint ignores the role of context in shaping people’s behavior. It fails to acknowledge that specific social norms such as dowry or employment opportunities for women also influence behavior.
Finally, the discussions relating to the bans fail to recognize and distinguish between first- and second-generation immigrants. People from Asia first came to the United States as slaves and laborers in the late eighteenth century. Later, there was an influx of Chinese immigrants during the gold rush.46 Today, 79% of Asian American adults are foreign born.47 Most of the remaining 21% are likely second-generation immigrants, which means that they were born and raised in the United States. While recent immigrants may have cultural traits in common with people from their country of origin, the longer that immigrants live in the United States, the more they are likely to take on characteristics