As two second-generation Indo-Canadian women and community activist-researchers, we have often had issues with the overly quantitative research on son preference and sex-selective abortion in our community. Not only do we feel that many studies oversimplify the issue, we also believe the media contributes to the idea that the Indo-Canadian community imports “backward” practices of son preference and sex-selective abortion into the “gender equal” Canadian society.
In April 2016, a population-based study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal which found that whereas “among Canadian-born mothers, male-female ratios were about 1.05, with negligible fluctuations by birth order, year, and province… [c]ouples involving at least one Indian-born parent had higher than expected male-female ratios at the second and higher-order births, particularly when the father was Indian-born.” This study used birth certificate records and was not disaggregated by race, religion, age, or generation for the Canadian-born mothers, nor by age, religion, or generation for the Indian-born mothers. A great deal of context was lost in both the study results and interpretation.
Reading about this study in the news, both of us remember thinking here we go again. While the research itself failed to present the context behind the numbers, the media added fuel to the fire by reporting on this de-contextualized data in a way that cast aspersions on Indo-Canadian communities.
Headlines were sensationalized and misleading, exclaiming that “sex selection migrates to Canada.” One article compared Indo-Canadian women with “women born in Canada” and described the value of gender equity as “Canadian.” An editorial about the research speculated that Indian-born parents in Canada may be contributing to “a deficit of more than 4,400 girls over two decades.” The editorial’s headline reminded readers that, “In Canada, every child is precious, girls and boys alike.” The coverage gave very little space to the voices of community members themselves, beyond a photo and a few personal quotations.
Sex-selective abortion is much more than a biomedical issue, and population-based studies typically do not provide the context that frames it.
One prominent factor, for example, is the tradition of sons bearing responsibility for taking the family name forward and for being the family’s social safety net. In many Indo-Canadian contexts, sons are expected to live with their parents after being married, in order to inherit the family assets and to become their parents’ old-age security. Daughters, on the other hand, are expected to move in with their husbands’ families and take care of their parents-in-law. These traditions are in many cases deeply normalized and carry a lot of value in our communities. In order for people to begin to question and rethink them, their context needs to be acknowledged and understood.
Furthermore, there is the deeply held notion among Indo-Canadians that it is primarily the actions of a daughter that may bring shame or dishonour to the family. It is important that this be understood rather than condemned (or reduced to barbarism) if it is to be effectively addressed. And it is not as if this idea about female shame is so foreign in Canada. Indeed, the systems of power and privilege in this country—as in so many others—continue to promote toxic masculinity and perpetuate ideas of female weakness.
Additionally, when it comes to an issue as sensitive and complex as sex-selective abortion, the communities being studied haven’t been given adequate opportunity to lead the research process let alone contribute to the interpretation of data.
But a more recent paper, published in June 2018, does incorporate community voices into the data interpretation process. This paper (which also found elevated male-female birth ratios among Indo-Canadian women) came out of a mixed-method research process, a population-based cohort study and a community-based participatory research study, and was spearheaded by researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in partnership with community leaders across the GTA, including both of us. (This study included several of the same researchers as the 2016 study.) Facilitators were hired to lead focus groups around reproductive decision-making with community members in both English and in Punjabi; community leaders, including advocates and service providers, were consulted; and interventions (in response to the research results) were co-created by both researchers and community members.
Researchers had the opportunity to communicate the data to community members. Community researchers brought a better understanding of the various sociocultural contexts framing the issue. As a result of this approach, a public awareness poster was created to try to help bring attention within the community to the causes and consequences of son preference (see below). This all meant that the research was meaningful not just for researchers, but also for the community members impacted by the study itself.
The media covered this study as well, which raises another important issue—that of timing.
By only sparking public conversation around this issue when a research study is published, the media fossilize the Indo-Canadian community and neglect important movements of resistance to daughter devaluation that are taking place both in Canada and in India. In the greater Toronto area, organizations such as Laadliyan Celebrating & Empowering Daughters, the Pink Ladoo Project, Punjabi Community Health Services, South Asian Women’s Centre, and Indus Community Services are paving the way for their communities to address these issues. Amrita began advocating against sex selection and son preference in 2008, when she and her sister Ankita started a campaign they called Save the Girls. Similarly, Laadliyan, a community-based organization founded by Manvir, engages in important advocacy work to dispel notions of female weakness, and facilitates intergenerational dialogue about the value of daughters in the family. These kinds of efforts must be supported in order to lay the groundwork for community mobilization and change.
It’s important that we refrain from pointing fingers at certain communities on an issue that is actually global in nature. Sex-selective abortion is a matter of reproductive health and rights not only in Canada but worldwide. Overly simplistic explanations of sex selection combined with sensationalized language risks scapegoating one community as “backward” and also of painting it as being the only one in need of intervention. There needs to be greater awareness and action among researchers and the media around the importance of collaborative and mixed-method research approaches, as well as balanced commentary that is inclusive of community voices and perspectives on as complex an issue as sex-selective abortion.
Infographic created by St. Michael’s Hospital research team in collaboration with community leaders.
The comments section is closed.
My, has the dialogue ever changed on this- In March 2021, CITY TV did a lengthy news segment called “Deadly Patriarchy” where the journalist reporting squarely blamed sex selective abortion in Canada on colonialism, (read white men), without identifying any other single group at all, at any point. Yes, finger pointing is ugly, but blatantly scapegoating white men for this would be laughable if it wasn’t such a blatant example of the current toxic hatred towards whites. Yes, we can always do better, but Western Europe, Canada and Australia in fact have the best record on women’s rights and
gender equality anywhere in the world. (Look up UN rankings etc) This reporter should be fired, but if anything, she’ll likely get a raise.
I didn’t understand what sex selective abortion was, didn’t know it existed! I believe every life is born of God and he has a purpose and plan for each baby born. I applaud you for your efforts in changing deep cultural beliefs in the importance of males in society to cary on the family name and inheritance, and females being lesser and just caregivers and punished if they bring dishonour on the family. Your article was well written and shame on the media for blaming your community.
Yours Sincerely Dave Miller.
Rubbish
sounds like someone is KILLING BABY GIRLS then getting upset that someone else called them backwards for doing it
Actually, it sounds like “don’t air our dirty laundry, we know it’s backwards, but we’ll handle it”. The bottom line is, a study was done showing son preference, but it offended people. So more studies were done involving the community, which… showed the same son preference. The new researchers seemed to feel that involving the community was the best way to address it, and perhaps it is. I understand if the women most hurt by this law are dependent women in terrible marriages pressured to unceasingly bear children until a son is born. That is not exclusive to Indian communities.
But it is understandable if most Canadians (including Indo-Canadians) want laws banning the practise of sex-selective abortion. It is damaging to society. It would have been more honest to say, “listen, some of these women are in distress and get these abortions in secret, because it is their health and bodies and psyches that suffer”.
Instead, we get this ridiculous quote:
“It is important that this be understood rather than condemned (or reduced to barbarism) if it is to be effectively addressed. And it is not as if this idea about female shame is so foreign in Canada. Indeed, the systems of power and privilege in this country—as in so many others—continue to promote toxic masculinity and perpetuate ideas of female weakness.”
In fact, that is what the media is highlighting – female shame IS foreign to Canada. The culture I immigrated to in Canada *was* more liberated than what my parents grew up with. Canada as a policy or a tradition never culturally condoned bride-burning, widow-harassing, FGM, child marriage, polygamy, ostracism or “honour” killing, etc. Misogyny and sexism from the past till now, sure, but it has been actively fought. Family law has changed. Access to birth control is available through socialized healthcare and is often free. This moral relativism is nonsense. This shibboleth of “toxic masculinity” is useless. This quote is saying, “yeah, we know it’s horrible, but don’t tell them, or they’ll dig their heels in, we’ll have to present it a certain way” – that’s just marketing and psychology- that doesn’t mean they fundamentally disagree with the position of the original study.
Also, there is nothing you need to “understand” about sex-selective abortion. It IS barbaric and it IS to be condemned (as is anyone pressuring women to conceive and bear child after child with the purpose of gaining a male child). If not, why do the researchers append this helpful infographic teaching the community that their held beliefs are scientifically incorrect?
Man you nailed it! Yes, it is a good idea to involve the community most being affected. What a balanced and accurate depiction of what is actually going on here.
Very interesting article. I agree that it is unwise to try to draw too firm a connection between any particular culture and the practice of sex-selective abortion. It would also be unhelpful to try to pretend that there is no such thing as a culturally driven preference that would incline a couple to want their first child to be a son.
In societies where the preference for sons over daughters is very strong and supported by tradition, there tends to develop a lopsided gender ratio. When the ratio of males to females becomes too great, history would suggest, a sequence of predictable societal problems tends to follow. Pronounced gender ratio imbalances ought to be avoided if possible. The question is how to approach the issue in a culturally respectful way.
Excellent study and information surrounding the issue. Context does matter!
I’d like to know if the attitudes and beliefs are different, depending on the ages when the couple came to Canada, or if they are second generation, or if education, or economic status changed the attitude. There is a saying in Western culture, (paraphrased)
“A son is a son until he takes a wife, your daughter is a daughter for life.”
Women often end up caregivers for elderly parents in Canada and the US, and I assume this saying is just one myth that contributes.
I mention all this because many white Canadian couples have preferences for a boy or a girl, and I have been told by Stats Can researchers that (excluding recession years) Canadians stopped having children, once they had “one of each gender”.
So two boys….they’d keep trying until they had one girl, and vice versa. I have no idea if any of these White women have had abortions….but in adoption parents get to choose the gender, and Canadian parents most often pick girls. Not boys.
Boys are seen as rowdy, poorly behaved, hyperactive, less likely to be studious, more likely to be “trouble.” Even though child development studies show that it’s gender socialization that shapes kids behaviour, and when it isn’t that, it’s developmental delays/LDs/autism/ADHD that cause those issues, and genetics says those happen in girls and boys at equal rates.
So, I look forward to seeing more research on this. I am a mother of three boys, 2 are adults, and actually one is transgender and will soon be my daughter.
Thing is, I have ADHD and so do all of they, but I was never hyperactive, I was severely distracted, same for my oldest son, the other two are more on the hyperactive scale.
The difference is that we have recieved treatment; intensive therapy and medications. And we’re doing well so far, so maybe everyone has preconceived notions about what’s it like to raise boys vs girls? :)