Difference between revisions of "Xiao Er Ni (China)"

Due to lack of supportive social security, traditionally rural families have raised sons to prepare for parents’ old age (Yang Er Fang Lao). Furthermore, this preference for male children is a way for families to preserve their reputation or [[Mianzi]] in the local community so as not to be ridiculed for having no male offspring. However, confronted with enforced population control, the goal of having a son may not be achieved. According to the 1.5-child policy, before 2016, in rural China, a couple was allowed to have at most two children if the first child were a girl (Scharping 2003; Greenhalgh & Winkler 2005). A family is lucky to have a son as the first child; but, if the family does not have this luck, a couple can still give birth to a son after the first daughter. However, complications arise if the second child is also a daughter. In accordance with the regulations of the 1.5-child policy, a family with two daughters is no longer permitted to have more children. Nevertheless, it is impossible for families with deep-rooted traditional fertility values to accept not having sons. Despite these families being aware that they are going against the state policy, they are unwilling to give up the ideal fertility goal.

Due to lack of supportive social security, traditionally rural families have raised sons to prepare for parents’ old age (Yang Er Fang Lao). Furthermore, this preference for male children is a way for families to preserve their reputation or [[Mianzi]] in the local community so as not to be ridiculed for having no male offspring. However, confronted with enforced population control, the goal of having a son may not be achieved. According to the 1.5-child policy, before 2016, in rural China, a couple was allowed to have at most two children if the first child were a girl (Scharping 2003; Greenhalgh & Winkler 2005). A family is lucky to have a son as the first child; but, if the family does not have this luck, a couple can still give birth to a son after the first daughter. However, complications arise if the second child is also a daughter. In accordance with the regulations of the 1.5-child policy, a family with two daughters is no longer permitted to have more children. Nevertheless, it is impossible for families with deep-rooted traditional fertility values to accept not having sons. Despite these families being aware that they are going against the state policy, they are unwilling to give up the ideal fertility goal.

When the second baby girl is born, the families are faced with a choice: either to ‘resign themselves to their fate’ (Ren Ming), accepting the situation of having only two daughters; or arrange back-room dealings with local cadres to ‘spend money to buy birth’ (Hua Qian Mai Sheng Yu). Nevertheless, a lot of families are not willing to ‘accept fate’, but also do not have the ability or the money to obtain shelter from a local cadre. Under these circumstances, hiding the second daughter becomes a possibility. Placing the second daughter in relatives’ family is a relatively conservative strategy: neither passive resignation nor aggressive resistance, instead representing a reasonable solution between a rigid policy regulation and a flexible blood bond. On one hand, this practice is cruel in that it prevents the second daughter from living with her biological parents as a new-born child. On the other hand, the practice is moderate because it does not deprive the second daughter of her life and does not abandon her completely (Chu 2001; Huang 2012; Shi & Kennedy 2016; Johnson 2016). In some families, the second daughter is adopted out temporarily and eventually returned. However, many urban families are pressured by the one-child policy to hide and adopt out their first-born daughter to relatives in rural areas.

When the second baby girl is born, the families are faced with a choice: either to ‘resign themselves to their fate’ (Ren Ming), accepting the situation of having only two daughters; or arrange back-room dealings with local cadres to ‘spend money to buy birth’ (Hua Qian Mai Sheng Yu). Nevertheless, a lot of families are not willing to ‘accept fate’, but also do not have the ability or the money to obtain shelter from a local cadre. Under these circumstances, hiding the second daughter becomes a possibility. Placing the second daughter in relatives’ family is a relatively conservative strategy: neither passive resignation nor aggressive resistance, instead representing a reasonable solution between a rigid policy regulation and a flexible blood bond. On one hand, this practice is cruel in that it prevents the second daughter from living with her biological parents as a new-born child. On the other hand, the practice is moderate because it does not deprive the second daughter of her life and does not abandon her completely (Chu 2001; Huang 2012; Shi & Kennedy 2016; Johnson 2016). In some families, the second daughter is adopted out temporarily and eventually returned. However, many urban families are pressured by the one-child policy to hide and adopt out their first-born daughter to relatives in rural areas.