A long time male friend of mine has been a victim of this same circumstance. I hope you will keep that in mind as you read this.
I would have rather that this country have instituted a one child per family law (akin to China's former policy), coupled with anti-abortion legislation. I'm an Episcopal Christian. So, here is why I made my previous statement.
First and foremost, the Chinese "one child" laws failed for one reason and one reason only. Families would abort daughters in favor of male offspring. Because men make more money and are therefore more financially equipped to o support their parents in old age.
Secondly, had anti-abortion laws been instituted alongside the one child laws, there may have been less of a problem than actually occurred.
I say "less than" with extreme prejudice. Because being a woman is clearly still a global handicap. Yet I can't apply for social security disability based on the fact that I have female reproductive organs to compensate for income inequality.
I have female reproductive organs. I am less than because once I have a child, I will be expected to stay home as a financial burden to the male who inseminated me. This is WRONG.
Unless and UNTIL this social TRUTH is changed by employment, federal discrimination standards and social security legislations, women will continue to be second class citizens of this country and the world.
Imagine holding a newborn infant in your arms. Imagine how fragile and dependant that human life is upon you and your compatence to make sure it survives until it can provide for itself?
Statistics show that the global birth rate per female has FINALLY decreased to 2.5 children. Global over population has gone from five children per female in 1950 to two and a half current. There is only ONE cause. The education of women. Yet, in my experience, and in the experiences of many many women in THIS country, education wasn't enough. These women, including myself, were still the victims of financial abuse.
In the mid 1970's Ruth Bader-Ginsberg changed the lives of single father's in this country with the Supreme Court ruling in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld. Whereby men who were "widowed" with children could apply for social security disability. Furthermore, "Ginsburg argued that Paula's contributions to Social Security were not treated on an equal basis to salaried men, so she was also being discriminated against."
This truth hasn't changed since 1975. The time has come. Therefore, it is with further extreme prejudice that I'd like to take this moment to quote Mrs. Banks from Mary Poppins. Mrs. Banks sang, "Our daughters daughters will adore us, and they'll sing in grateful chorus. WELL DONE! Sister Suffragettes!"