Four men to every woman

Submitted by David on Tue, 12/29/2009 - 22:42

Today there are more women than men in Hong Kong, but in 1853 things were very, very different

. Hong Kong's first census, taken that year, showed there were 4,184 men per 1,000 women. More than four men for every woman!

To see how long that was the case, here are the numbers from the early census returns. I'm using the simpler 'number of men per woman' figure, and only include adults in the calculation:

  All Hong Kong
1853 4.2
1872 3.4
1881 3.4
1891 3.2
1901 2.7

Over these fifty years there is a considerable improvement, though the number seems to hit a plateau during the 1870s-1880s. Still, at the start of the twentieth century there were still less than two women for every five men - not the type of place where people are planning to stay very long: Turn up, make money, go home.

What if we look at smaller groups, instead of Hong Kong as a whole? The British were the colonial power of the time. Wouldn't they be more likely to consider Hong Kong 'home' and want family around? Either as they set up business here, or were posted here for several years? Here are the numbers:

  All Hong Kong British
1853 4.2 3.6*
1872 3.4 2.6
1881 3.4 2.1
1891 3.2 2.7
1901 2.7 1.5

(* This figure in the 1853 census is for 'Europeans & Americans'. It doesn't give any further breakdown by nationality, though later censuses do.)

In 1853, British society was very male-dominated. Fifty years later, they're getting close to equal numbers of men and women, certainly at a faster rate than the population as a whole.

But was 'the British were the colonial power of the time' really the reason behind this? Here are the numbers for the Europeans & Americans, excluding British and Portuguese.

  All Hong Kong British EU & US (excl. PT & UK)
1853 4.2 3.6* 3.6
1872 3.4 2.6 2.9
1881 3.4 2.1 2.2
1891 3.2 2.7 2.5
1901 2.7 1.5 1.6

So no, since the ratios for Europeans are very similar to those for the British, we can't say being a citizen of the resident colonial power had any special effect.

But there was one group whose colonial experience did make a difference. We've already mentioned them – the Portuguese. Look at the men-to-woman ratios for them:

  All Hong Kong British EU & US (excl. PT & UK) Portuguese
1853 4.2 3.6* 3.6 1.1
1872 3.4 2.6 2.9 1
1881 3.4 2.1 2.2 0.7
1891 3.2 2.7 2.5 0.7
1901 2.7 1.5 1.6 0.8

By the 1880's there are already more Portuguese women than men in Hong Kong!

And something else that isn't clear from these numbers is the relative sizes of the different populations. Throughout the early years of Hong Kong as a colony, the largest non-Chinese group is the Portuguese. It isn't until the 1901 census that we see more British than Portuguese.

Their large numbers, combined with the equal numbers of men and women, suggests to me that whole Portuguese families were relocating here from Macau, unlike say the British, where single men were travelling here from the UK.

Finally, why are the numbers in the 'All' column so much higher than the other columns? Of course the missing group is the Chinese. They formed the bulk of the population, and had the greatest impact on the 'All' numbers.

Their men-to-woman ratio also improves over time, but more slowly than for the Europeans. Here are the numbers for the 'Chinese in Victoria', split by the land-based and boat-based populations:

  All Hong Kong British EU & US (excl. PT & UK) Portuguese Chinese in Victioria (Land) Chinese in Victoria (Boat)
1853 4.2 3.6* 3.6 1.1 4.1 3.7
1872 3.4 2.6 2.9 1 3.5 2.2
1881 3.4 2.1 2.2 0.7 3.6 2.2
1891 3.2 2.7 2.5 0.7 3.6 2.3
1901 2.7 1.5 1.6 0.8 2.8 2

Then the last curiosity is why living on land vs living on a boat should make a difference. Any suggestions?

Regards, David

PS In mid-2009 the ratio of all men-to women in Hong Kong was under 0.9. By 2033 it is forecast to drop below 0.75!

Tags

Comments

Submitted by
Tony Carroll (not verified)
on
Wed, 12/30/2009 - 19:58

Dear David,

Thanks for the very interesting email, which indicates that you've been hard at work as usual!

A few things come to mind -

(a) is the ratio of non-Chinese men confined to women of their own nationality, or to the female population in general?

(b) the imbalance in the early years must have partially explained the ready availability of Brothels - I understand certain locations existed (?Jaffe Road; Shanghai Street; Portland Street?), where the streets were lined with Brothels.

(c) your observation about the Portuguese population enjoying a healthier ratio, arising from the probability of immigration from Macau (where they had become established for several hundred years), probably explains the similar ratio for boat people, who were/perhaps still are? a distinct and separate community, and probably immigrated to Hong Kong as couples/families, from the adjacent coastal regions of China.

(d) other arrivals, both Chinese and Caucasians, were mostly here for work (as you observed), and probably had no intention of staying.  "Normal" (i.e. respectable, honourable) fraternisation of "expats." with Chinese women was frowned upon into the 1970's, with Government and Bank employees threatened with repatriation, or at least no promotion, if they flouted this protocol!

I'm sorry, upon reading the above it would seem I am telling you things you probably know far better than I, and have researched to a considerable extent!  Please treat my observations as just that - my immediate and unresearched response to your email, and forgive the style of my wording.

All the best for the New Year, Tony.

Hi Tony,

You've asked some good questions-

a) I should have made that clearer. In each column I'm comparing like with like, eg the 'British' column gives the ratio of British adult men:British adult women.

Also, the non-chinese columns use numbers from the records of 'fixed residents', as I was thinking of the peple who would be most likely to form families. Some time later it will be worth looking at the figures if we add in members of the military, naval establishments, merchant shipping etc. As you can guess, these are practically all male.

As a quick example, the British column for 1881 shows 2.1 men per women (336 men : 161 women). But add in the 1881 figures for 'British, Military' (1,107 : 84), and 'British, Naval Establishment' (2,345 : 7), then across all British citizens we end up with a ratio of 15 men per women!

b) Yes, brothels were common - think of those poor sailors in 1881!

c) I had the same feeling, that it would be more likely for boat-dwellers to have their wives with them. Move to Hong Kong with the boat, and the family moves too.

d) It's interesting that the mixed-marriage is only seen to have become respectable in more recent years. It was Sean's writing about his great-grandfather that got me started looking at the census information. John Olson had children by two different Chinese women in the late 1800s, but by the 20th century this chinese background to the family was kept quiet.

But what I think happened was that the mixed partnerships / marriages were considered quite ordinary in the early days of the colony - there simply weren't enough Western women here. Then at some later point it became not the done thing.

The census figures give a flavour of that change - from the early, male-dominated 'wild west' days, to a more balanced Victorian society by the year 1901. I'll be interested to find any other evidence supporting this change in attitudes over the years.

Thanks for the feedback, and I'm pleased to hear you found it interesting.

Happy New Year,

David

'Then the last curiosity is why living on land vs living on a boat should make a difference. Any suggestions?'

My guess is that census data could all be tied to physical household addresses on land whereas 'the water people' had to be tracked and classified differently for administration and social planning purposes to meet their special needs. Anyone else has other ideas?

Submitted by
Anonymous (not verified)
on
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 10:35

In reply to by sf (not verified)

The reason for so many Portuguese being in HK at that time was the 1874 typhoon, which killed several thousand in Macau. Many refugees fled here from there in its wake. There are so many women because they were Catholic nuns. Also, Portuguese was a fairly loose term in those days, incorporating mixed-race Macanese too. This is why they had there own category aside from the 'Europeans'.

SF, I think you're right, though I meant to ask why the boat-people had a lower men:women ratio than Chinese living on land. I agree with Tony's explanation 'c)' above.

Regards, David

That's an interesting observation, thanks. A quick comparison of the census totals for adults & children around that time show the changes:

  1872 1876 1881
British 757 699 785
Portuguese 1,350 1,718 1,869
German 186 154 188

Any ideas why the British & German populations dipped at the same time the Portuguese was growing?

Well, this is only speculation but the end of the Franco Prussian War in Europe in 1871 heralded several decades of unprecedented economic growth in Europe, so some merchants may have gone back to take advantage of that. Again, just speculation.