Girl, 10, locked in cell for years by parents

[Harveylives]

Girl, 10, locked in cell for years by parents
November 28, 2003

Print this article
Email to a friend



A 10-year-old girl in southern China has been rescued after being locked up alone for four years in a dark cell built by her parents, a news report said yesterday.

The girl was discovered locked up in the four-metre-square shed in Jiangmen, Guangdong province, with no windows and only a few holes for ventilation in its metal door.

Her parents and older sister meanwhile lived comfortably in a nearby three-storey house, according to the Hong Kong edition of the China Daily.

The girl's parents, who run a liquor distillery, wanted a male heir and were disappointed when a second daughter was born, the newspaper said.

The girl was small for her age and talked little and her parents said they had not sent her to school because she was "stupid" and would be a "burden to teachers".

The mother said she planned to keep her daughter locked up until her condition improved. The local Women's Federation is now considering taking legal action against the parents.

DPA



How could someone do this to ANY child?

[Johnsgirl727]

The mother said she planned to keep her daughter locked up until her condition improved.
:boom: People like this shouldn't be allowed to breed!!!!

[JadedLegend3]

You know, it's stories like this that make me believe in montsters. Not the kind that as a kid you think hide under your bed or in your closet, but the kind that live next door to you and lead quiet peaceful lives until one day you discover their horrible secret. Those are the monsters of the world.


Jacqui :love:

[grinner]

:g2f:

[AyuRocks]

Aren't you only allowed one child in China? I'm sure this has something to do with that.

Ashley

[JadedLegend3]

Originally posted by AyuRocks
Aren't you only allowed one child in China? I'm sure this has something to do with that.

Ashley

My friends have adopted from there twice and here's how I understand it.

If your first child is male, that's it you're done. No more kids for you. If it's a girl, you can try for a boy. It's when there are two girls that these problems emerge. The little girls get thrown away, basically. Locked up in a cell, dropped off at a church or what-have-you.

Jacqui :love:

[Judith]

I'll complicate things a little...the one child rule is not enforced all over China. A lot of China's citizens live in very rural areas where it is impossible to enforce this very inhumane rule.

[Madre Farbot]

Originally posted by JadedLegend3
My friends have adopted from there twice and here's how I understand it.

If your first child is male, that's it you're done. No more kids for you. If it's a girl, you can try for a boy. It's when there are two girls that these problems emerge. The little girls get thrown away, basically. Locked up in a cell, dropped off at a church or what-have-you.

Jacqui :love:

I can't believe I'm living on the same planet as these people. I dunno, some people just don't deserve to be people let alone parents.

[Paul Cousins]

Another victim of China's one child policy.

[Frellster]

I have no problem with the policy. They had to do something to control population. Its worked. Now India is the most populace country, and China has things under control. The vast majority of Chinese don't abuse their kids.

[JadedLegend3]

Originally posted by Frellster
I have no problem with the policy. They had to do something to control population. Its worked. Now India is the most populace country, and China has things under control. The vast majority of Chinese don't abuse their kids.

The only problem I have with this policy is that it still favors men over women. I know that's how their culture is, but it still ruffles the feathers of this westerner.


Jacqui :love:

[Stargate2077]

My problem with the one child policy is who are all of these men going to marry when they grow up so that they can have children? Huh? Huh?

Did anyone in China think of that?

[Darth Buddha]

Cultural Excuses and Population Distortions

Originally posted by JadedLegend3
The only problem I have with this policy is that it still favors men over women. I know that's how their culture is, but it still ruffles the feathers of this westerner.
Culture is not always a summary defense. This is an atrocity... we don't have to stumble all over our "respect" for their culture in condemning this.

Originally posted by Stargate2077
My problem with the one child policy is who are all of these men going to marry when they grow up so that they can have children? Huh? Huh?

Did anyone in China think of that?
Eventually, men will start having to pay dowries for women's families in India (where abortion is used to skew the "natural" balance to as far as only 75% as many female births as males).

In China, I'm sure the value of Chinese females will also be elevated.

However, I suspect that there will be abuses like the Russian wives bit in this country. Women from poorer countries will be exploited to alleviate the effects fo the distortion as well.

[Mickie]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha

However, I suspect that there will be abuses like the Russian wives bit in this country. Women from poorer countries will be exploited to alleviate the effects fo the distortion as well.

Won't the caste system in India and the obsession with racial purity in China stop these people from 'importing' wives? Or do you think that the lack of 'suitable' women for wives will force these prejudices to give way?

I'd be more concerned with women from poorer countries being imported as prostitutes.

[Shipscat]

Historically, countries with an excess of young males go to war..

Russia better look out in a few years.

[Darth Buddha]

Originally posted by Mickie
I'd be more concerned with women from poorer countries being imported as prostitutes.
THAT is already happening, in the form of prostitution resort towns (for lack of a better word) in China, and of course in other less economically advantaged Asian countries. But the only network I've seen with the guts to actually air a story about Chin is this regard that I have seen has been PBS-The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

BUT that doesn't fulfill the need/desire to have a family and a male heir.

Originally posted by Shipscat
Historically, countries with an excess of young males go to war..

Russia better look out in a few years.
Good observation, but I think we need to be worried too. This is a totalitarian society with delusions of being the master race. Sound familiar?

[Nicola]

Originally posted by JadedLegend3
The only problem I have with this policy is that it still favors men over women. I know that's how their culture is, but it still ruffles the feathers of this westerner.


Jacqui :love:

The 'policy' is one child.

The 'culture' favours males over females.

The PTB in China are not blind and are being quite pragmatic. It is necessary to control the population; otherwise the country is looking at mass starvation, epidemics and political unrest. If unchecked, ultimately leading to invasion of other countries to access their scarce resources and various other political and economic nasties that would have unhappy consequences for the entire globe.

The PTB in China legistate policy (kind of - in the rural areas as someone previously mentioned, families are not so closely monitored), but it is impossible to legislate cultural attitudes.

Cultural attitudes can change, but slowly - over generations. And even individuals who know intellectually that it is inappropriate to favour boys over girls, are not always emotionally able to overcome the impulse.

I am sure TBTB in China are fully aware of the problems, permutations and ultimate consequences of their policy. It is just that they do not see any other choice available.

They are looking at the long term consequences of doing nothing, versus the short-term advantages of allowing people to reproduce at will. And making a very tough decision.

Unfortunately individuals will behave in a horrendous fashion with or without the one child policy. Not so long ago, a family in New York was charged with starving their four adopted sons, to the point where the 19 year old looked like a 10 year old. Their daughters were fed normally.

Child abuse is not just a 'chinese' problem, or an expression of the cultural preference for one sex over another (although it can influence the direction of the abuse).

[Shipscat]

Well, speaking practically, a surplus of males in the population will further reduce the next generation. It's the number of females that determines population growth-look at the U.S. after World War 2.

[Kalliope]

Similar, actually the same thing happened in Poland, 7 or 8 years old girl was being locked up in the cell by her parents, for the same reasons. It was discovered a month ago or so, the girl was taken to the hospital and is better now.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Frellster
I have no problem with the policy. They had to do something to control population. Its worked. Now India is the most populace country, and China has things under control. The vast majority of Chinese don't abuse their kids.

I don't know how you can justify in your mind the murder of babies and the government telling parents how many children they can have. This is eugenics in it's purest form and that makes me sick.

[grinner]

treading very touchy subjects here.

[Darth Buddha]

I may regret this

eugenics
SYLLABICATION: eu·gen·ics
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: y-jnks KEY
NOUN: (used with a sing. verb) The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Technically, the policy has nothing to do with eugenics. It IS a totalitarian approach to birth control. If nothing else is gonna work, it may be necessary elsewhere. I sure hope not, but as a race (human) we aren't very damned mature sometimes.

Moreover, the murder of babies (I'm talking infanticide of females.. that does go on.. not the banned subject) is an individual choice based on culture, not onthe governmental policy. I'd imagine that the problem will evenutally become bad enough that the Chinese government will intervene directly on the gender issue as well. Probably in an equallly totalitarian fashion.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
I may regret this


Technically, the policy has nothing to do with eugenics. It IS a totalitarian approach to birth control. If nothing else is gonna work, it may be necessary elsewhere. I sure hope not, but as a race (human) we aren't very damned mature sometimes.

Moreover, the murder of babies (I'm talking infanticide of females.. that does go on.. not the banned subject) is an individual choice based on culture, not onthe governmental policy. I'd imagine that the problem will evenutally become bad enough that the Chinese government will intervene directly on the gender issue as well. Probably in an equallly totalitarian fashion.

In a totalitarian state, individual choose does not exist.

[LadyCrais]

In no way, shape or form is it eugenics to limit the number of conceptions per breeding pair to one or two, or even three. To simply cap the number of children that ANYONE can have isn't even remotely eugenics. There is zero selection taking place. Merely maximum quantity imposed.

I heard some interesting statistics lately regarding world population growth. The number of births per woman in the world has dropped from 6 per woman 40 years ago to 3 per woman today. It coincides with the gaining of "women's rights" and "reproductive choice" in the past 40 years. When the figure has dropped to an average of 2.1 children per woman, then world popoulation stability will be reached. China is the only country that has mandated that number, undoubtedly because they are the one country that has faced the consequences of rampant overpopulation. For the rest of the world, including our own, we're relying on education and common sense, something that is unlikely to be very effective. The end result thus far has been that those with education and common sense have few children while those who don't breed like rabbits, totally skewing the population towards the least contributing members of society. That's a worldwide problem in most countries, including our own.

edited because Buddha and I posted at the same time and I forgot about the banned word. Must remove the banned word sentence! ;)

[Nicola]

Originally posted by Paul Cousins
In a totalitarian state, individual choose does not exist.

Please remember, sweeping generalisations do not address the real issues. Many rural families in China have more than one child - without penalty. Urban families also have more than one child - although they are easier to track and consequently more likely to face penalties.

Penalties such as reduced likelihood of educational advantages for their children and better career opporunities for themselves. They make those choices - not the government.

[Darth Buddha]

Shades of grey, not black and white

Originally posted by Paul Cousins
In a totalitarian state, individual choose does not exist.
An oversimplification. While that's O.K. for elementary schol children, it dichotomizes a system where there the reality is that neither pole actually exists except to define directionality of a continuum that exists between. The adult world is not so simplistic, or clear.

There is no wholly free society, nor any wholly totalitarian society. It is really just a difference in degrees of freedom (and I mean in the statistical sense, here... the variables that aren't already determined by the system, structure, model, whatever) that one has. Even anarchy has limits of freedom, and even prison life has SOME degrees of freedom (if only the freedom of one's thoughts).

Though I'll give you that the choice in this case is in part predicated on the onerous population control measures, it is still a choice, driven by cultural biases.

We have far fewer degrees of freedom in the U.S., for example, than most people are really willing to face. The rich are more free than the poor, for example.

edited to add
Paul Cousins, I hope that this doesn't obscure our fundamental agreement that the gender gerrymandering by infanticide is an abominaton. Whether governmental or culturally based, it is an atrocity, clear to any enlightened mind, no matter wha the remove. Beyond that, may I strongly suggest you check out this thread if you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15450

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by LadyCrais
In no way, shape or form is it eugenics to limit the number of conceptions per breeding pair to one or two, or even three. To simply cap the number of children that ANYONE can have isn't even remotely eugenics. There is zero selection taking place. Merely maximum quantity imposed.

I heard some interesting statistics lately regarding world population growth. The number of births per woman in the world has dropped from 6 per woman 40 years ago to 3 per woman today. It coincides with the gaining of "women's rights" and "reproductive choice" in the past 40 years. When the figure has dropped to an average of 2.1 children per woman, then world popoulation stability will be reached. China is the only country that has mandated that number, undoubtedly because they are the one country that has faced the consequences of rampant overpopulation. For the rest of the world, including our own, we're relying on education and common sense, something that is unlikely to be very effective. The end result thus far has been that those with education and common sense have few children while those who don't breed like rabbits, totally skewing the population towards the least contributing members of society. That's a worldwide problem in most countries, including our own.

edited because Buddha and I posted at the same time and I forgot about the banned word. Must remove the banned word sentence! ;)

Guys, read history.

Eugenics at it's core, it is the belief of selective breeding, selective sterization and selective killing of people to created a stronger race; survival of the fittest, it is a very Darwin belief, and I find it to be very evil.

China's one child policy is eugenics.

[Nicola]

The key word here is "selective".

The one-child policy is (supposed to be) across the board equal. And if it was eugenics, the people with the resources (i.e., those living in urban areas) would NOT be the ones facing penalities when having more than one child.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
Shades of grey, not black and white


An oversimplification. While that's O.K. for elementary schol children, it dichotomizes a system where there the reality is that neither pole actually exists except to define directionality of a continuum that exists between. The adult world is not so simplistic, or clear.

There is no wholly free society, nor any wholly totalitarian society. It is really just a difference in degrees of freedom (and I mean in the statistical sense, here... the variables that aren't already determined by the system, structure, model, whatever) that one has. Even anarchy has limits of freedom, and even prison life has SOME degrees of freedom (if only the freedom of one's thoughts).

Though I'll give you that the choice in this case is in part predicated on the onerous population control measures, it is still a choice, driven by cultural biases.

We have far fewer degrees of freedom in the U.S., for example, than most people are really willing to face. The rich are more free than the poor, for example.

edited to add
Paul Cousins, I hope that this doesn't obscure our fundamental agreement that the gender gerrymandering by infanticide is an abominaton. Whether governmental or culturally based, it is an atrocity, clear to any enlightened mind, no matter wha the remove. Beyond that, may I strongly suggest you check out this thread if you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15450

Actually if you think about it, the U.S. is a country in decline, much like Ancient Greece and Eastern Rome before they collapsed.

Ancient Greece in that lawyers are killing this country. And Eastern Rome in that we bankrupting ourselves by trying to pay off our eniemies to not attack us and/or to play nice with each other.

[Darth Buddha]

Fallacious Reason Getting in the Way

Originally posted by Paul Cousins
Guys, read history.

Eugenics at it's core, it is the belief of selective breeding, selective sterization and selective killing of people to created a stronger race; survival of the fittest, it is a very Darwin belief, and I find it to be very evil.

China's one child policy is eugenics.
Apparently I've read a bit more than you, or perhaps grasped it better.

You aren't making any sense. You define a thing (properly no less) and then call something that clearly doesn't fit that definition part of that class. There is nothing about survival of the fittest, desire to improve the race, or anything like that here. What IS there is an extreme measure of population control.

As much as I find some of your points interesting (especially your last post - which could be a lot of fun) they can't be constructively discussed without definition, reason, and logic. There' s really no point to engaging with you given that you've already seemed to demonstrate a preference for dogma.

I won't waste any more time on you.... moreover this has the feel of something that could run off the rails very easily.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Nicola
The key word here is "selective".

The one-child policy is (supposed to be) across the board equal. And if it was eugenics, the people with the resources (i.e., those living in urban areas) would NOT be the ones facing penalities when having more than one child.

Not being able to have more than one child is the 'selective' part that China's government has forced on it's people.

By the way, the one child policy is not even needed as proven by India. 10 years ago India had a birth rate of 6 children per couple. Now it is less that 3 children per couple and it's still declining.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
Fallacious Reason Getting in the Way


Apparently I've read a bit more than you, or perhaps grasped it better.

You aren't making any sense. You define a thing (properly no less) and then call something that clearly doesn't fit that definition part of that class. There is nothing about survival of the fittest, desire to improve the race, or anything like that here. What IS there is an extreme measure of population control.

As much as I find some of your points interesting, especially your last post - which could be a lot of fun, without definition, reason, and logic, there' s really no point to discussing them with you given that you've already seemed to demonstrate a preference to dogma.

I won't waste any more time on you. I'd suggest that nobody else bother either... this has the feel of something that could run off the rails very easily.

The theory of eugenics was devoloped by an American physiatrist in the 20's, this is why there were so many forced sterizations in U.S. mental wards during the 30's, 40's and 50's.

[Darth Buddha]

Your facts and defintions are fine, Paul

But your ability to apply them, and deduce from them, doesn't cut it. I'm going to unsubscribe now... good luck, everyoine.

[Nicola]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
Your facts and defintions are fine, Paul

But your ability to apply them, and deduce from them, doesn't cut it. I'm going to unsubscribe now... good luck, everyoine.

Me too.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Darth Buddha
Your facts and defintions are fine, Paul

But your ability to apply them, and deduce from them, doesn't cut it. I'm going to unsubscribe now... good luck, everyoine.

Unless you can explain how, there is no substance to your point.

[Darth Buddha]

"I would teach you, but you have square thoughts, which defy circles."

If you can't apply your own definitions logically, what chance have I of explaining anything to you?

[Frellster]

Whoa - It ain't eugenics - its population control - they arn't selectively breeding a "better" race - they are not forcing people to breed against their will or choosing their genetic partners - it's population control - a strike against individual liberties certainly, but not eugenics, and there's no doubt its working better than India's methods.

[AyuRocks]

the selective in eugenics would be like "only the people who have over 120 IQ can reproduce"..China's policy is NOT eugenics because everyone is limited to one child by the policy (how well it is enforced on the other hand is a different story)

Like Frellster and others have said, the reason behind it is population control NOT to breed some sort of superior race.

Ashley

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by AyuRocks
the selective in eugenics would be like "only the people who have over 120 IQ can reproduce"..China's policy is NOT eugenics because everyone is limited to one child by the policy (how well it is enforced on the other hand is a different story)

Like Frellster and others have said, the reason behind it is population control NOT to breed some sort of superior race.

Ashley

Okay, I see the problem, you are thinking of one type of eugenics, I am thinking of another type of eugenics.

My logic is this, the forced sterilizations in U.S. mental wards during the 30's, 40's and 50's was considered a type of eugenics.

The only difference between forced sterilization and the one child policy is that you can only have one child instead of none.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

[grinner]

This is a road that really shouldn't be traveled... :g2f:

[Judith]

Originally posted by grinner
This is a road that really shouldn't be traveled... :g2f:

What China is doing, or the current coversation? Or both?

[Carey22]

well, the subject went way off course; the depth of knowledge shared is really neat, I love reading intelligent discourse! But I think the underlying point is that human abuse is human abuse, no matter the nation, nationality, cultures, or governments.

[Darth Buddha]

Originally posted by Paul Cousins
Okay, I see the problem, you are thinking of one type of eugenics, I am thinking of another type of eugenics.

My logic is this, the forced sterilizations in U.S. mental wards during the 30's, 40's and 50's was considered a type of eugenics.

The only difference between forced sterilization and the one child policy is that you can only have one child instead of none.

I hope that clears things up a bit.
I'm beginning to think you are being intentionally dense.

Those who were sterilized were sterilized because they were undesirabled under the theory of genetic superiority of the perpetrators. In other words, the sterilizations were guided by eugenics.

The population control is not. If you get it, maybe we can discuss the other stuff. Don't let your moral outrage (which is O.K.) cloud your reason to the point you can't tell one crime from another.

[Paul Cousins]

Originally posted by Carey22
well, the subject went way off course; the depth of knowledge shared is really neat, I love reading intelligent discourse! But I think the underlying point is that human abuse is human abuse, no matter the nation, nationality, cultures, or governments.

Agreed. :)

[AgentSun]

::not butting in even though she wants to::