Week One: Negative Diction One way for an author to keep an audience entertained in an argumentative, nonfiction work, is to focus on diction. Mara Hvistendahl in Unnatural Selection uses negative, skeptical diction to criticize those neglecting to acknowledge the lack of balance of sex in populations in Asia. Hvistendahl addresses the "rampant demographic masculinization" and "potentially grave effects for future generations" (Hvistendahl 20). Using "grave,", Hvistendahl not only portrays that the effects of this epidemic are detrimental, but also the word hints at the amount of girls that are killed and put in the "grave" to support this epidemic. "Rampant" is used appropriately as something unpleasant spreading around the world, which works well because Hvistendahl is arguing the problems with this epidemic. Within one paragraph, words like "sinister"(20), "absent"(20), "blatant"(20), "silent"(20), "imbalance (20), and "impassioned"(20) serve to demonstrate Hvistendahl's tone on the issue, and shows that she will not be presenting this argument objectively, but with a larger amount of resentment and disdain. However, her argument is backed up with facts and is not completely led by opinion and feeling. She presents many statistics throughout Part 1 that give her reason to use this negative diction and present such an angry tone.
I agree that the author continually uses strong negative diction throughout the novel. Her opinion is strong in many instances and that is one of her weaker qualities while writing I believe is that is lacks the open mind of an educator and author. In my book (phone version), she uses words with a negative connotation such as "pervasive" and "termination" (33) when describing the large amounts of abortions taking place throughout Asia due to sex selection. I agree this is a "dig" like Natalie said at the women playing the role of God in deciding to murder their daughters since it isn't male.
Week One Hvistendahl's argument is a bit cloudy. So far she has provided a wide variety of statistics from different sources to back up her opinions but she seems to shy away from answering the overall question. She claims that because this imbalanced sex ratio is happening all over the world and not just in Asian countries that cultural preferences cannot be the cause. "Sex selection happened among Hindus, Muslims, and Christians; among ethnic and political rivals; in economic powerhouses and in countries just on the cusp of development. Sexism might be an obvious culprit for imbalance if it weren't so universal." (10). She seems instead to focus on advancements in technology such as the ultrasound and other ways to learn the baby's sex earlier or determine your baby's sex as the main cause for the imbalance. However there's a problem. People are still using this technology to choose male babies over females. So if it's not for cultural reasons... then what is the reason? She says countries with gender imbalances are "developing rapidly" and "prenatal screening is widely available" and "abortion is pervasive". But she doesn't answer why these methods cause people to choose boys. Hopefully this will be investigated more in the other parts of the book because right now her argument is lacking and it is leaving me frustrated.
If you get closer to Part Two, Hvistendahl begins to address why people are choosing boys, rather than repetitively state over and over the statistics of the gender imbalance from several countries. It seems that this is almost overkill, as most of the first two chapters are her just proving to us that there is a problem here. However, this could be done intentionally as a structure technique to hook the reader and then explain. I do not think that she is arguing that these methods of technology CAUSE people to choose boys, but rather that they aid in allowing families to have boys. However, the problem is that she contradicts herself. As you mentioned, she states, "Sex selection happened among Hindus, Muslims, and Christians; among ethnic and political rivals; in economic powerhouses and in countries just on the cusp of development. Sexism might be an ovious culprit for imbalance if it weren't so universal" (10), suggesting that cultural preferences are not causing this imbalance. However, she later goes on to explain how in India many people of higher castes want boys because their daughters are not able to marry based on social rules. This is an example of a cultural cause to gender imbalance and does not match with her original argument.
Using an online text therefore pages are off In Mara Hvistendahl's non-fiction story of the horror gender based selection she focuses on the lack of women world-wide. The riding epidemic of the lack of women is globally unemphasized. Mara's use of logos throughout strengthens her argument to the issues many countries are facing due to the rising number of abortions and post-birth infanticide. Her focus in the beginning of the novel is on mainly India and China but also smaller nations. Approximately 160 million women are "missing" due to the want for male children, "If 160 million women were missing from the U.S. population, you would notice- 160 million is more than the entire female population of the United States." (27) The outcome is stunting growth and reproduction of these countries. I had assumed that the reason for the need/want for a son would be for additional workforce or support for the family, but Mara concludes her findings uncover the elite class often are the ones with the higher gender gap, I assume for legacy reasons. The elite have more access to the ultra sounds and other technology in order to discover the gender of the baby and dispose if not meeting their wishes, hence higher number of abortions. "Guilmoto found sex selection typically starts with the urban, well educated stratum of society." (34) The author's use of strong diction, reiterated factual evidence and supported claims, and repetitive statistics her argument is clear- the "missing" women of the world is a large epidemic that is globally unrecognized and that her argument must be heard. Through Hvistendahl's use of logos her argument is well backed and the issues are brought to light.
I definitely agree with you that Hvistendahl's logos is very effective in portraying the magnitude of the issue, especially with the comparison to America that she mentions. That comparison provides a shocking truth that grabs American readers and evokes sympathy in the readers, also working as pathos, to draw them further into her argument. Her findings with the elite class gender imbalance was interesting, and not only do they have more access to the technology and information, but in India at least, "women marry up" (Hvistendahl 80). Lower classes could "raise their status by marrying a daughter into a more prestigious family" (80), however those of higher castes were forbidden to marry within the caste and therefore would never marry, becoming a burden to the family. While this logos was not a statistic, it was informational and factual, and helped develop her argument as to why this problem does not only exist with those struggling economically. One thing I did notice closer to the end of Part One is how here gender imbalance statistics are presented differently. Originally she presents these as how many boys for 100 girls, however this changes to amount of females per 1000 males. This can be misleading and cause problems of comparison for the reader.
While I agree that the storytelling can take away from the statistical parts of her argument, I think it makes the reader become more engaged in the story by making the material more interesting than just a bunch of facts and figures. I think it makes her argument a lot more "readable" if that makes sense? I'd rather learn her point of view and understand her argument through stories and details than numbers. That's why I think the beginning of the book fell a little flat for me when she was just mentioning the male to female birth ratios for several countries. It reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell too but I like the way he writes so it was a plus for me!
I agree that Hvistendahl does a good job at bringing up many different sides to the argument even if the facts or stories she brings up are as you said "incriminating for women". She says, "Women have become, in a sense, their own worst enemies. Development, remember, was supposed to improve the lot of women -- and in many areas it does. But when it comes to reproduction the opposite: women use their increased autonomy to select for sons"(27). These multiple points of view increase the validity of her argument. But I also agree with Kavita's comment below and think that her use of negative diction does put a biased slant on the other opinions she brings up to make you more apt to agree with her.
I agree that Mara establishes her ethos early in the novel. As Leah said, the chapter titles provide her argument from multiple stances exposing her range of opinion from different professional angles such as "The doctor", "The parent", ect. As well, I believe she establishes her ethos through her many encounters she personally experienced as well as people she interviewed in her research. “Guilmoto found sex selection typically starts with the urban, well educated stratum of society.” (36) She bases not only her opinion on her own experiences but also credible researchers such as Guilmoto. This expands her argument emphasizing that others opinions coincide with her own. This expands the ethos of the author and validity of her opinion.
In Unnatural Selection, Mara Hvistendahl presents facts and research to back up her argument of the dangers of sex selection. These statistics are good, however I find that the most effective part of her argument is the use of her shocking stories. The first story the author tells is gruesome. A medical student, Bedi, makes his way to the government hospital to do his first work in an actual hospital rather than in the library. Hvistendahl tells the horror story moment: "A moment after he stepped into the doorframe and caught his first glimpse of the labor room, he says, a cat bounded past him with a bloody blob dangling from its mouth" (167). Hvistendahl's contrast between her logos and this story helps establish some pathos, evoking disgust within the reader. Her relaying of statistics is quite boring, and the stories she tells are very detailed and help draw the reader more towards her side. This is a way more effective method than simply saying that sex selection is bad. Another detailed story she tells is her interview with Ehrlich: "a certain mad scientist vibe permeates the room. Scattered across an L-shaped desk, a large library table, and the bookshelves lining the walls is an odd assortment of objects--a pair of crutches, two empty Dr. Pepper bottles, a jar that reads ASHES OF PROBLEM STUDENTS" (220). These strong detailed descriptions once again contrast greatly to the dry statistics that she previously presented. It seems that she may be suggesting that the sex selective world we live in is almost more like a story then reality, and that is something I wish to explore more as I continue to read.
I agree with you Kavita. I think her more anecdotal style of writing where she relies on stories or personal accounts is much more effective than some of her previous logos based arguments. She includes so much detail that it seems like you're reading a fictional story. When describing Draper in the chapter titled "The General", she says, "An arrogant man with thick horn-rimmed glasses and a crooked smile..." (124). She doesn't just grab the reader's attention, she keeps it. And I think that's a very important aspect when developing a strong argument. Your reader is not going to agree with you if they get bored and close the book before they're finished reading.
Focusing specifically on your quote, "A moment after he stepped into the doorframe and caught his first glimpse of the labor room, he says, a cat bounded past him with a bloody blob dangling from its mouth" (167) Although it is a non-fiction novel, I found this element of the story symbolic for the fetus and women. The cat running out of the operating room I believe is symbolism for the unimportance of women, they are virtually just meat. The cat devours and destroys the fetus and vanishes with the fetus similar to how society is consuming women and ending their lives with fetal infanticide. I found this personal account the most memorable thus far due to the graphic detail and use of pathos the medical student evoked.
Week 2 While I do agree with Hvistendahl's argument that the amount of sex selective abortions is a problem that needs solving, a major weakness in her argument is how she doesn't address what would have happened if all of those babies wouldn't have been aborted. On pg 103 Hvistendahl mentions John Postgate and Berelson who both thought sex selection was an effective way to control the population. "Women might have to be locked up, or forced to marry multiple men, or traded like commodities, but sex selection was advisable, he suggested, for 'the only really important problem facing humanity to-day is over-population,' particularly in 'under-developed unenlightened communities.'" (p.103) Hvistendahl strongly disagrees with their opinion but she fails to address what would have happened if the 160 million or so "missing girls" were added into the population. China and India today already have an over population problem. How much worse would it be without these abortions? What could have been done besides the abortions to prevent it? Would it not have been a problem in the first place and people were just overestimating? I think if she would have included the answers to these questions her argument would have been much stronger.
I definitely agree with your argument Molly. Hvistendahl argues that sex selection is such a bad thing but gives evidence on how it has actually helped slow the population down which was the initial main concern. She does present alternatives to keep slowing down population growth, such as birth control and a wider use of contraceptives, but she does not allow this idea to grow, as she explains how in many countries, contraceptives were simply not an option compared to abortion, stating "the racist application of birth control was no longer confined to the developing world" (213). The problem here is that these countries are taking birth control and contraceptives to an extreme: "suggested flying planes over India once a year to spray it with a "contraceptive aerial mist" (213). She presents alternatives that simply are too far fetched, and could not actually be implemented, therefore leaving her argument weak and ineffective as to how to change this sex selective culture.
While reading Unnatural Selection, Hvistendahls's claim becomes much clearer and more focused. Although the purpose of her novel is indeed to convince the reader of why sex selection is horrific and detrimental to the world, she fails to address the socioeconomic factors that would have occurred if these women would still be alive. “While fertility decline can spur development, economic progress can also prompt people to have fewer children." (77) The author continually goes into detail supporting the negatives of it but fails to recognize how it has drastically controlled China's population along with the 1 child policy. The effect of the 1 child policy and secs election has boosted both China and Indianas economic realm. But what would the economy be like with over 65 million females added? The author goes against her claim in the fact that it has had positive influences on the economy of the nations and created more of a "middle class" presence. Her lack of understanding this in the novel hurts her argument and ethos.
I agree that in Part two, the information that she gives is more effective in helping the reader understand her argument than the logos in part one. In Chapter 8: The Geneticist, Hvistendahl presents the history of how sex selection came about through technology and science growth. We see that the first known sex selection was against males, as mothers would abort their boys to prevent them from living with a disease only passed down to boys. We meet the Danish duo who "made possible, for the very first time, sex selection" (234). This history seems like it would be better suited in the first part of the novel, so readers can fully understand how it came about and how it has changed since. I think Hvistendahl expects the reader to know more about the topic initially than I actually do, therefore she does not see the pertinence in putting this in the first part.
I think something that makes Hvistendahl's argument better is how she really delves into the history surrounding her topic. She discusses the history behind the technology used and the cultural practices of the major countries she explores. "The technology that ultimately became the dominant method for sex selection around the world began as a tool for navigation. It's story dates to 1794, when an Italian biologist curious about how bats find their way in the dark discovered sonar..." (115). The historical information makes it well known that Hvistendahl has put a lot of hours of research into this topic which greatly strengthens her ethos.
“People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, hand horn squawking, the dust, noise, heat, and cooking fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our hotel? All three of us were, frankly, frightened." This is how Ehlrich decribed driving through Delhi with his family. Delhi, being one of the more populated developed cities in India. Hvistendahl's argument is often about the development of the nations experiencing the sex ratio imbalance due to sex selection, but one topic I feel she doesn't focus on enough is how seriously under developed these areas still are. As she said in section 1, these ratio imbalances often take place due to "modern capabilities and old prejudices." (105) While these areas are developing rapidly, they still are very culture and tradition based. It, in my opinion, is unrealistic for multiple countries to be asked to stop sex selection because it is ethically wrong. These nations are so under developed that in instances it would be difficult for them to understand the repercussions of their abortions. Although there is an issue with overpopulation and these abortions are helping, they must campaign differently than they are to open the eyes of the Indians and Asian countries.
Week 3: Comparisons with Our Culture In Part Three, I have noticed that some of the aspects Hvistendahl describes about Asian culture and community are strangely similar to what we experience here in the US. When describing the buying and selling of wives, the author states "men browse photos of the various agencies' merchandise--often full-body shots showing thin, demure near-girls balancing in high heels on bare cement floors" (178). Men in the United States often view the same sort of pictures for pleasure, not for buying a wife. Because this is so normalized in our culture, it actually weakens her argument about how disgusting it is in Asia. Similarly, Hvistendahl attempts to portray how missed women are in Vietnam by describing what she sees at a local hang out: "One of the bystanders wears a white T-shirt adorned with a sketch of a naked woman in profile. The caption reads, 'What Men Want'" (192). In truth, the men literally do want more women, but it is ironic that you could most likely see someone in the United States wearing a shirt like this as well, even with a gender balanced community. Rather than weakening her argument, I can see why she puts this information in there, almost as a wake up call. While some men in the US want women for pleasure, men in Vietnam simply want to have women. The contrasts of what these countries are wanting shows the extremeness of the situation in Vietnam.
I agree with your statement. Some of the aspects that Hvistendahl focuses on as obscene in the Asian cultures due to the gender imbalances are semi-normal both there and here in the United states. Not only does the prostitution aspect relate to the united states current situation but many other aspects as well. "Unlike bride buying,polyandry,or even a sudden spike in prostitution, rising violence and unrest cannot so easily be pinned on the skewed sex ratio at birth" (279) Due to the imbalance of the male population and high levels of testosterone both crime and rape have increased. I found it interesting how they compared this directly to studies done in the United states. Once again the similarly of the two areas is large and in areas with more males, there is often for rage and disruptive actions. "The incresing male-ness of the young adult population" in China, they wrote,"may account for as much as a third of the overall rise in crime." (180) So therefore as we have seen in areas in both Asia and the United States, male dominant areas are not only detrimental for growth in population but also crime.
Week 3 In the last section of the book, Hvistendahl focuses on the effects of a society with a greater proportion of men or "surplus men". The effects are ultimately very negative. "Crime rates across the continent, to be sure, have soared over the same period that the share of males in the young population spiked." (221) In addition, rape cases, abductions, and other instances of violence has risen. Hvistendahl focuses on all the negatives of a society with more males, but I thought it would be more interesting if she also talked about areas with a higher number of females. Martinique (a Carribean island) has 84.5 males for every 100 females. Russia has 86.8 males for every 100 females. Are these areas better off than China and India? I think it would make her argument stronger if she had a comparison of the two.
That is a very interesting idea I had not thought of. The comparison would provide some perspective on why it needs to be equal, because as of now she is ignoring the lack of balance in the other direction. The last section of the book is what I expected the whole book to actually be about. From this, I believe her title is very misleading: "Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men." This seems like an inappropriate title because she only addresses the second part of that statement for a third of the book. The other two thirds is spent drilling into the readers' mind that there is actually a problem (which is unnecessary and a problem within itself). Personally, I wish Part three was enhanced and a larger part of this novel.
Throughout the final section of the novel I feel Hvistendahl's argument revolves around the "Happy ending" of South Korea's apparent reversal order selection. The thing I feel she attempts to brush over is that Korea's fertility is the true reason of there now balanced sex selection. “Fertility decline has been too rapid,” explains Doo-Sub Kim, a demographer at Hanyang University in Seoul and head of the Population Association of Korea. “So couples’ number preference has become a little bit stronger than their sex preference.” (298) I feel that Hvistendahl should have not tried to reach the happy ending but instead emphasized how nothing is truly reversing. Although they are now balanced it is because they are just thankful to be having children, not as focused on the sex. I believe hvistendahl thinks these new policies are in fact causing change in societies but it reality I don't believe they are. As well in previous chapters the author focused on how the parents avoided daughters because they were too expensive (I.e. Endowments in India) Possibly if we as a society made having a girl cheaper and feminine products reduced in price people would more willingly have a girl and not avoid it for the financial burden.
Yes, factually, I think the comparisons to the United States makes the argument more understandable and maybe even more interesting because we can relate it to our society. Similarly, I believe cultural similarities between Asia and the West helps to actually define the true differences in the region. For example, Hvistendahl mentions, "In an ostensible attempt to reduce sexual harassment, several colleges in Uttar Pradesh recently banned female students from wearing jeans and other Western clothes" (245). We find similarity in this because in school we are not allowed to wear anything we want because it may distract the boys apparently. However, her argument becomes effective when you continue reading: "In Haryana, meanwhile, parents worried about their daughters' safety are withdrawing the girls from school" (245). Now, upon reading this, we see the huge difference between the cultures and can really start to understand the problem over there. I think this method is very effective.
I agree that in section 3 of the novel Hvistendahl emphasizes the pathos of the novel more than in any other section. Although she continually used logos and ethos in section 1 and 2, I think it made her argument stale and uneventful. By the first section I understood the large issue at hand, but didn't feel a hundred or so more pages were necessary to reiterate the same general information. Her emphasis on the protitution, trafficking, crime rates had the largest impack on me and probably most reader because of the diction and pathos. With the story of Lam who had to me rescued from her pimp who she "Lost her virginity to the man that purchased it" (235) was very upsetting to read, especially to a young women in society. Also lines such as when Hvistendahl says "If you look at the vistims(...) their ages are becoming younger and younger. (...) Some are just eleven or twelve,(...) even ten." (236) I felt here both pathos and logos were used in the telling of ages of girls being sold as brides. Girls that are ten or eleven would be going into fifth or sixth grade are being forced into having sex with grown men and married off for the rest of their life. This was eye opening and showed the suffering of these women. This shows how the horrible effects of the sex imbalance are effecting adolescent girls and hurting them just because of parents issues with pride and status.
I thought her critique of the United States was interesting because she suggests that violence in the US has stemmed from historic and cultural roots: "...the United States is torn by violence today because the geographical and industrial frontier zones that shaped so much of American identity were predominantly settled by men" (205). Wait a minute... did Hvistendahl just suggest that historical and cultural roots could be the cause??? I thought it was all about technology! Mara Hvistendahl, please stop contradicting yourself.
In addition, Hvistendahl talks about the correlation between marriage and health in China: "...unmarried men in China are 11 percent less likely to describe themselves as being in good health than are married men" (223). She also says unmarried men have a lower life expectancy and experience negative effects on psychological health. While I think being bought as a bride, forced into prostitution, or being physically abused are all worse than feeling a little unhappy or having a lower life expectancy, I do appreciate how Hvistendahl explored both sides.
Week One: Negative Diction
ReplyDeleteOne way for an author to keep an audience entertained in an argumentative, nonfiction work, is to focus on diction. Mara Hvistendahl in Unnatural Selection uses negative, skeptical diction to criticize those neglecting to acknowledge the lack of balance of sex in populations in Asia. Hvistendahl addresses the "rampant demographic masculinization" and "potentially grave effects for future generations" (Hvistendahl 20). Using "grave,", Hvistendahl not only portrays that the effects of this epidemic are detrimental, but also the word hints at the amount of girls that are killed and put in the "grave" to support this epidemic. "Rampant" is used appropriately as something unpleasant spreading around the world, which works well because Hvistendahl is arguing the problems with this epidemic. Within one paragraph, words like "sinister"(20), "absent"(20), "blatant"(20), "silent"(20), "imbalance (20), and "impassioned"(20) serve to demonstrate Hvistendahl's tone on the issue, and shows that she will not be presenting this argument objectively, but with a larger amount of resentment and disdain. However, her argument is backed up with facts and is not completely led by opinion and feeling. She presents many statistics throughout Part 1 that give her reason to use this negative diction and present such an angry tone.
I agree that the author continually uses strong negative diction throughout the novel. Her opinion is strong in many instances and that is one of her weaker qualities while writing I believe is that is lacks the open mind of an educator and author. In my book (phone version), she uses words with a negative connotation such as "pervasive" and "termination" (33) when describing the large amounts of abortions taking place throughout Asia due to sex selection. I agree this is a "dig" like Natalie said at the women playing the role of God in deciding to murder their daughters since it isn't male.
DeleteWeek One
ReplyDeleteHvistendahl's argument is a bit cloudy. So far she has provided a wide variety of statistics from different sources to back up her opinions but she seems to shy away from answering the overall question. She claims that because this imbalanced sex ratio is happening all over the world and not just in Asian countries that cultural preferences cannot be the cause. "Sex selection happened among Hindus, Muslims, and Christians; among ethnic and political rivals; in economic powerhouses and in countries just on the cusp of development. Sexism might be an obvious culprit for imbalance if it weren't so universal." (10). She seems instead to focus on advancements in technology such as the ultrasound and other ways to learn the baby's sex earlier or determine your baby's sex as the main cause for the imbalance. However there's a problem. People are still using this technology to choose male babies over females. So if it's not for cultural reasons... then what is the reason? She says countries with gender imbalances are "developing rapidly" and "prenatal screening is widely available" and "abortion is pervasive". But she doesn't answer why these methods cause people to choose boys. Hopefully this will be investigated more in the other parts of the book because right now her argument is lacking and it is leaving me frustrated.
If you get closer to Part Two, Hvistendahl begins to address why people are choosing boys, rather than repetitively state over and over the statistics of the gender imbalance from several countries. It seems that this is almost overkill, as most of the first two chapters are her just proving to us that there is a problem here. However, this could be done intentionally as a structure technique to hook the reader and then explain. I do not think that she is arguing that these methods of technology CAUSE people to choose boys, but rather that they aid in allowing families to have boys. However, the problem is that she contradicts herself. As you mentioned, she states, "Sex selection happened among Hindus, Muslims, and Christians; among ethnic and political rivals; in economic powerhouses and in countries just on the cusp of development. Sexism might be an ovious culprit for imbalance if it weren't so universal" (10), suggesting that cultural preferences are not causing this imbalance. However, she later goes on to explain how in India many people of higher castes want boys because their daughters are not able to marry based on social rules. This is an example of a cultural cause to gender imbalance and does not match with her original argument.
DeleteUsing an online text therefore pages are off
ReplyDeleteIn Mara Hvistendahl's non-fiction story of the horror gender based selection she focuses on the lack of women world-wide. The riding epidemic of the lack of women is globally unemphasized. Mara's use of logos throughout strengthens her argument to the issues many countries are facing due to the rising number of abortions and post-birth infanticide. Her focus in the beginning of the novel is on mainly India and China but also smaller nations. Approximately 160 million women are "missing" due to the want for male children, "If 160 million women were missing from the U.S. population, you would notice- 160 million is more than the entire female population of the United States." (27) The outcome is stunting growth and reproduction of these countries. I had assumed that the reason for the need/want for a son would be for additional workforce or support for the family, but Mara concludes her findings uncover the elite class often are the ones with the higher gender gap, I assume for legacy reasons. The elite have more access to the ultra sounds and other technology in order to discover the gender of the baby and dispose if not meeting their wishes, hence higher number of abortions. "Guilmoto found sex selection typically starts with the urban, well educated stratum of society." (34) The author's use of strong diction, reiterated factual evidence and supported claims, and repetitive statistics her argument is clear- the "missing" women of the world is a large epidemic that is globally unrecognized and that her argument must be heard. Through Hvistendahl's use of logos her argument is well backed and the issues are brought to light.
I definitely agree with you that Hvistendahl's logos is very effective in portraying the magnitude of the issue, especially with the comparison to America that she mentions. That comparison provides a shocking truth that grabs American readers and evokes sympathy in the readers, also working as pathos, to draw them further into her argument. Her findings with the elite class gender imbalance was interesting, and not only do they have more access to the technology and information, but in India at least, "women marry up" (Hvistendahl 80). Lower classes could "raise their status by marrying a daughter into a more prestigious family" (80), however those of higher castes were forbidden to marry within the caste and therefore would never marry, becoming a burden to the family. While this logos was not a statistic, it was informational and factual, and helped develop her argument as to why this problem does not only exist with those struggling economically. One thing I did notice closer to the end of Part One is how here gender imbalance statistics are presented differently. Originally she presents these as how many boys for 100 girls, however this changes to amount of females per 1000 males. This can be misleading and cause problems of comparison for the reader.
DeleteWhile I agree that the storytelling can take away from the statistical parts of her argument, I think it makes the reader become more engaged in the story by making the material more interesting than just a bunch of facts and figures. I think it makes her argument a lot more "readable" if that makes sense? I'd rather learn her point of view and understand her argument through stories and details than numbers. That's why I think the beginning of the book fell a little flat for me when she was just mentioning the male to female birth ratios for several countries. It reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell too but I like the way he writes so it was a plus for me!
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hvistendahl does a good job at bringing up many different sides to the argument even if the facts or stories she brings up are as you said "incriminating for women". She says, "Women have become, in a sense, their own worst enemies. Development, remember, was supposed to improve the lot of women -- and in many areas it does. But when it comes to reproduction the opposite: women use their increased autonomy to select for sons"(27). These multiple points of view increase the validity of her argument. But I also agree with Kavita's comment below and think that her use of negative diction does put a biased slant on the other opinions she brings up to make you more apt to agree with her.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mara establishes her ethos early in the novel. As Leah said, the chapter titles provide her argument from multiple stances exposing her range of opinion from different professional angles such as "The doctor", "The parent", ect. As well, I believe she establishes her ethos through her many encounters she personally experienced as well as people she interviewed in her research. “Guilmoto found sex selection typically starts with the urban, well educated stratum of society.” (36) She bases not only her opinion on her own experiences but also credible researchers such as Guilmoto. This expands her argument emphasizing that others opinions coincide with her own. This expands the ethos of the author and validity of her opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn Unnatural Selection, Mara Hvistendahl presents facts and research to back up her argument of the dangers of sex selection. These statistics are good, however I find that the most effective part of her argument is the use of her shocking stories. The first story the author tells is gruesome. A medical student, Bedi, makes his way to the government hospital to do his first work in an actual hospital rather than in the library. Hvistendahl tells the horror story moment: "A moment after he stepped into the doorframe and caught his first glimpse of the labor room, he says, a cat bounded past him with a bloody blob dangling from its mouth" (167). Hvistendahl's contrast between her logos and this story helps establish some pathos, evoking disgust within the reader. Her relaying of statistics is quite boring, and the stories she tells are very detailed and help draw the reader more towards her side. This is a way more effective method than simply saying that sex selection is bad. Another detailed story she tells is her interview with Ehrlich: "a certain mad scientist vibe permeates the room. Scattered across an L-shaped desk, a large library table, and the bookshelves lining the walls is an odd assortment of objects--a pair of crutches, two empty Dr. Pepper bottles, a jar that reads ASHES OF PROBLEM STUDENTS" (220). These strong detailed descriptions once again contrast greatly to the dry statistics that she previously presented. It seems that she may be suggesting that the sex selective world we live in is almost more like a story then reality, and that is something I wish to explore more as I continue to read.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Kavita. I think her more anecdotal style of writing where she relies on stories or personal accounts is much more effective than some of her previous logos based arguments. She includes so much detail that it seems like you're reading a fictional story. When describing Draper in the chapter titled "The General", she says, "An arrogant man with thick horn-rimmed glasses and a crooked smile..." (124). She doesn't just grab the reader's attention, she keeps it. And I think that's a very important aspect when developing a strong argument. Your reader is not going to agree with you if they get bored and close the book before they're finished reading.
DeleteFocusing specifically on your quote, "A moment after he stepped into the doorframe and caught his first glimpse of the labor room, he says, a cat bounded past him with a bloody blob dangling from its mouth" (167) Although it is a non-fiction novel, I found this element of the story symbolic for the fetus and women. The cat running out of the operating room I believe is symbolism for the unimportance of women, they are virtually just meat. The cat devours and destroys the fetus and vanishes with the fetus similar to how society is consuming women and ending their lives with fetal infanticide. I found this personal account the most memorable thus far due to the graphic detail and use of pathos the medical student evoked.
DeleteWeek 2
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with Hvistendahl's argument that the amount of sex selective abortions is a problem that needs solving, a major weakness in her argument is how she doesn't address what would have happened if all of those babies wouldn't have been aborted. On pg 103 Hvistendahl mentions John Postgate and Berelson who both thought sex selection was an effective way to control the population. "Women might have to be locked up, or forced to marry multiple men, or traded like commodities, but sex selection was advisable, he suggested, for 'the only really important problem facing humanity to-day is over-population,' particularly in 'under-developed unenlightened communities.'" (p.103) Hvistendahl strongly disagrees with their opinion but she fails to address what would have happened if the 160 million or so "missing girls" were added into the population. China and India today already have an over population problem. How much worse would it be without these abortions? What could have been done besides the abortions to prevent it? Would it not have been a problem in the first place and people were just overestimating? I think if she would have included the answers to these questions her argument would have been much stronger.
I definitely agree with your argument Molly. Hvistendahl argues that sex selection is such a bad thing but gives evidence on how it has actually helped slow the population down which was the initial main concern. She does present alternatives to keep slowing down population growth, such as birth control and a wider use of contraceptives, but she does not allow this idea to grow, as she explains how in many countries, contraceptives were simply not an option compared to abortion, stating "the racist application of birth control was no longer confined to the developing world" (213). The problem here is that these countries are taking birth control and contraceptives to an extreme: "suggested flying planes over India once a year to spray it with a "contraceptive aerial mist" (213). She presents alternatives that simply are too far fetched, and could not actually be implemented, therefore leaving her argument weak and ineffective as to how to change this sex selective culture.
DeleteWhile reading Unnatural Selection, Hvistendahls's claim becomes much clearer and more focused. Although the purpose of her novel is indeed to convince the reader of why sex selection is horrific and detrimental to the world, she fails to address the socioeconomic factors that would have occurred if these women would still be alive. “While fertility decline can spur development, economic progress can also prompt people to have fewer children." (77) The author continually goes into detail supporting the negatives of it but fails to recognize how it has drastically controlled China's population along with the 1 child policy. The effect of the 1 child policy and secs election has boosted both China and Indianas economic realm. But what would the economy be like with over 65 million females added? The author goes against her claim in the fact that it has had positive influences on the economy of the nations and created more of a "middle class" presence. Her lack of understanding this in the novel hurts her argument and ethos.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in Part two, the information that she gives is more effective in helping the reader understand her argument than the logos in part one. In Chapter 8: The Geneticist, Hvistendahl presents the history of how sex selection came about through technology and science growth. We see that the first known sex selection was against males, as mothers would abort their boys to prevent them from living with a disease only passed down to boys. We meet the Danish duo who "made possible, for the very first time, sex selection" (234). This history seems like it would be better suited in the first part of the novel, so readers can fully understand how it came about and how it has changed since. I think Hvistendahl expects the reader to know more about the topic initially than I actually do, therefore she does not see the pertinence in putting this in the first part.
ReplyDeleteI think something that makes Hvistendahl's argument better is how she really delves into the history surrounding her topic. She discusses the history behind the technology used and the cultural practices of the major countries she explores. "The technology that ultimately became the dominant method for sex selection around the world began as a tool for navigation. It's story dates to 1794, when an Italian biologist curious about how bats find their way in the dark discovered sonar..." (115). The historical information makes it well known that Hvistendahl has put a lot of hours of research into this topic which greatly strengthens her ethos.
ReplyDelete“People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, hand horn squawking, the dust, noise, heat, and cooking fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our hotel? All three of us were, frankly, frightened." This is how Ehlrich decribed driving through Delhi with his family. Delhi, being one of the more populated developed cities in India. Hvistendahl's argument is often about the development of the nations experiencing the sex ratio imbalance due to sex selection, but one topic I feel she doesn't focus on enough is how seriously under developed these areas still are. As she said in section 1, these ratio imbalances often take place due to "modern capabilities and old prejudices." (105) While these areas are developing rapidly, they still are very culture and tradition based. It, in my opinion, is unrealistic for multiple countries to be asked to stop sex selection because it is ethically wrong. These nations are so under developed that in instances it would be difficult for them to understand the repercussions of their abortions. Although there is an issue with overpopulation and these abortions are helping, they must campaign differently than they are to open the eyes of the Indians and Asian countries.
ReplyDeleteWeek 3: Comparisons with Our Culture
ReplyDeleteIn Part Three, I have noticed that some of the aspects Hvistendahl describes about Asian culture and community are strangely similar to what we experience here in the US. When describing the buying and selling of wives, the author states "men browse photos of the various agencies' merchandise--often full-body shots showing thin, demure near-girls balancing in high heels on bare cement floors" (178). Men in the United States often view the same sort of pictures for pleasure, not for buying a wife. Because this is so normalized in our culture, it actually weakens her argument about how disgusting it is in Asia. Similarly, Hvistendahl attempts to portray how missed women are in Vietnam by describing what she sees at a local hang out: "One of the bystanders wears a white T-shirt adorned with a sketch of a naked woman in profile. The caption reads, 'What Men Want'" (192). In truth, the men literally do want more women, but it is ironic that you could most likely see someone in the United States wearing a shirt like this as well, even with a gender balanced community. Rather than weakening her argument, I can see why she puts this information in there, almost as a wake up call. While some men in the US want women for pleasure, men in Vietnam simply want to have women. The contrasts of what these countries are wanting shows the extremeness of the situation in Vietnam.
I agree with your statement. Some of the aspects that Hvistendahl focuses on as obscene in the Asian cultures due to the gender imbalances are semi-normal both there and here in the United states. Not only does the prostitution aspect relate to the united states current situation but many other aspects as well. "Unlike bride buying,polyandry,or even a sudden spike in prostitution, rising violence and unrest cannot so easily be pinned on the skewed sex ratio at birth" (279) Due to the imbalance of the male population and high levels of testosterone both crime and rape have increased. I found it interesting how they compared this directly to studies done in the United states. Once again the similarly of the two areas is large and in areas with more males, there is often for rage and disruptive actions. "The incresing male-ness of the young adult population" in China, they wrote,"may account for as much as a third of the overall rise in crime." (180) So therefore as we have seen in areas in both Asia and the United States, male dominant areas are not only detrimental for growth in population but also crime.
DeleteWeek 3
ReplyDeleteIn the last section of the book, Hvistendahl focuses on the effects of a society with a greater proportion of men or "surplus men". The effects are ultimately very negative. "Crime rates across the continent, to be sure, have soared over the same period that the share of males in the young population spiked." (221) In addition, rape cases, abductions, and other instances of violence has risen. Hvistendahl focuses on all the negatives of a society with more males, but I thought it would be more interesting if she also talked about areas with a higher number of females. Martinique (a Carribean island) has 84.5 males for every 100 females. Russia has 86.8 males for every 100 females. Are these areas better off than China and India? I think it would make her argument stronger if she had a comparison of the two.
That is a very interesting idea I had not thought of. The comparison would provide some perspective on why it needs to be equal, because as of now she is ignoring the lack of balance in the other direction. The last section of the book is what I expected the whole book to actually be about. From this, I believe her title is very misleading: "Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men." This seems like an inappropriate title because she only addresses the second part of that statement for a third of the book. The other two thirds is spent drilling into the readers' mind that there is actually a problem (which is unnecessary and a problem within itself). Personally, I wish Part three was enhanced and a larger part of this novel.
DeleteThroughout the final section of the novel I feel Hvistendahl's argument revolves around the "Happy ending" of South Korea's apparent reversal order selection. The thing I feel she attempts to brush over is that Korea's fertility is the true reason of there now balanced sex selection. “Fertility decline has been too rapid,” explains Doo-Sub Kim, a demographer at Hanyang University in Seoul and head of the Population Association of Korea. “So couples’ number preference has become a little bit stronger than their sex preference.” (298) I feel that Hvistendahl should have not tried to reach the happy ending but instead emphasized how nothing is truly reversing. Although they are now balanced it is because they are just thankful to be having children, not as focused on the sex. I believe hvistendahl thinks these new policies are in fact causing change in societies but it reality I don't believe they are. As well in previous chapters the author focused on how the parents avoided daughters because they were too expensive (I.e. Endowments in India) Possibly if we as a society made having a girl cheaper and feminine products reduced in price people would more willingly have a girl and not avoid it for the financial burden.
ReplyDeleteYes, factually, I think the comparisons to the United States makes the argument more understandable and maybe even more interesting because we can relate it to our society. Similarly, I believe cultural similarities between Asia and the West helps to actually define the true differences in the region. For example, Hvistendahl mentions, "In an ostensible attempt to reduce sexual harassment, several colleges in Uttar Pradesh recently banned female students from wearing jeans and other Western clothes" (245). We find similarity in this because in school we are not allowed to wear anything we want because it may distract the boys apparently. However, her argument becomes effective when you continue reading: "In Haryana, meanwhile, parents worried about their daughters' safety are withdrawing the girls from school" (245). Now, upon reading this, we see the huge difference between the cultures and can really start to understand the problem over there. I think this method is very effective.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in section 3 of the novel Hvistendahl emphasizes the pathos of the novel more than in any other section. Although she continually used logos and ethos in section 1 and 2, I think it made her argument stale and uneventful. By the first section I understood the large issue at hand, but didn't feel a hundred or so more pages were necessary to reiterate the same general information. Her emphasis on the protitution, trafficking, crime rates had the largest impack on me and probably most reader because of the diction and pathos. With the story of Lam who had to me rescued from her pimp who she "Lost her virginity to the man that purchased it" (235) was very upsetting to read, especially to a young women in society. Also lines such as when Hvistendahl says "If you look at the vistims(...) their ages are becoming younger and younger. (...) Some are just eleven or twelve,(...) even ten." (236) I felt here both pathos and logos were used in the telling of ages of girls being sold as brides. Girls that are ten or eleven would be going into fifth or sixth grade are being forced into having sex with grown men and married off for the rest of their life. This was eye opening and showed the suffering of these women. This shows how the horrible effects of the sex imbalance are effecting adolescent girls and hurting them just because of parents issues with pride and status.
ReplyDeleteI thought her critique of the United States was interesting because she suggests that violence in the US has stemmed from historic and cultural roots: "...the United States is torn by violence today because the geographical and industrial frontier zones that shaped so much of American identity were predominantly settled by men" (205). Wait a minute... did Hvistendahl just suggest that historical and cultural roots could be the cause??? I thought it was all about technology! Mara Hvistendahl, please stop contradicting yourself.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Hvistendahl talks about the correlation between marriage and health in China: "...unmarried men in China are 11 percent less likely to describe themselves as being in good health than are married men" (223). She also says unmarried men have a lower life expectancy and experience negative effects on psychological health. While I think being bought as a bride, forced into prostitution, or being physically abused are all worse than feeling a little unhappy or having a lower life expectancy, I do appreciate how Hvistendahl explored both sides.
ReplyDelete