South Korea prefers baby girls over baby boys now-What's changed and why are the first Asian country to do so?

Once baby boys were preferred in South Korea. Now, it's baby girls.

The New York Times reported today that one of Asia's most patriarchal countries has had a shift in preference in the sex of their offspring.

According to an October World Bank report, "South Korea is the first of several Asian countries with large sex imbalances at birth to reverse the trend, moving toward greater parity between the sexes."
The ratio of sexes in 2006 was 107.4 boys born for every 100 girls, down from 116.5 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990.

Before giving birth to boys was considered a blessing as it was a duty for women to bear sons who would succeed the family name. Having a girl was considered unlucky, so many had abortions or gave them up for adoption, a situation similar to the one in China.

But all that has changed, now that the patriarchy has subsided and women were allowed to enter the workforce due to a "radical shift in the economy," the article says. As a result, women are now considered as valuable contributors to society.

Excerpt from the article: "Demographers say the rapid change in South Koreans’ feelings about female babies gives them hope that sex imbalances will begin to shrink in other rapidly developing Asian countries — notably China and India — where the same combination of a preference for boys and new technology has led to the widespread practice of aborting female fetuses."

According to the United Nations Population Fund, the ratio in China was 120 boys born for every 100 girls in 2005. India recorded about 108 boys for every 100 girls in 2001, but that ratio is expected to balance out as there is a seven-year lapse in the census.

While this is good news for South Korea and the women and young girls who call it home, something rubs me wrong about this. And it's not just about South Korea. It's a type of occurance that has happened almost in every country when women were given the option to work.

Money problems now saw women, once forced to be babymakers, as valuable assets. But, when it comes down to it, shouldn't women be always considered valuable assets because they actually give birth and contribute to society by supplying its citizens?

In ancient times, and I mean in Upper Paleolithic period, about 30,000 –7,000 b.c.e, women were worshiped for their fertility and the ability to give new life. They had value then, so what changed that the ability to give birth became more of a requirement than a sacred act?

I guess in South Korea (and in countless other countries), the family is structured around the males and appoints them as the ones to carry on the genetic legacy. That's why women were under-appreciated and why they didn't want baby girls because of the well-expressed under-appreciation.

But the argument is, why is a woman now considered worthy and equal in that she contributes financially when she has contributed physically? What makes one better than the other?