Is China’s Kid Policy So Wrong?

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


In a word: Yes. From feminist Courtney E. Martin to a reader of the ongoing population forum:

Kristi writes “So, aside from China’s widespread human rights violations and the lack of freedom of expression, just in regards to this particular policy, what are people really so against?” A one-child policy enforced from on high is not only “an infringement on human rights,” as Aditi Raychoudhury rightly put it, but a slippery slope. You start telling people how many children they can have, and you don’t have to cover much ideological, not to mention legislative or judicial ground, before you’re telling them how or when to have that one child. Plus, children don’t, despite the lingering stork theories, manifest immaculately. They come from women’s bodies, and women deserve ultimate control over those bodies. Controlling reproduction becomes controlling women’s bodies becomes a total compromise of the reproductive justice that feminists have been fighting so long to achieve (unfinished business, to be sure). Plus, Kristi, do you really believe that femicide and the other not-so-small side effects of policies like these wouldn’t happen outside of China? According to April 2009 findings, there is now a gap of 32 million more males than females under the age of 20 in China. Not. Okay.

Why do you think population is such a radioactive topic? Mix it up with Courtney and the rest of us today and Friday at the MoJo Population Forum, here.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate