I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
The Price of a Child (2013)
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#12I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
Even from the logical point of view of if they don't love and miss why care for the child at all.
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#13I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
You can't seriously think mother's have not mourned a dead child at all times. Even from the logical point of view of if they don't love and miss why care for the child at all.
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#14I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
You can't seriously think mother's have not mourned a dead child at all times. Even from the logical point of view of if they don't love and miss why care for the child at all.
I wonder whether contemporary societies with less status for women and lower female literacy also have less formal/legal value on children. (India?)
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#15I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
Also reproduction rates. From what I understand, in hunter-gatherer societies, children were breast-fed for a number of years, and, since women generally are infertile when nursing, children were spaced out. With agriculture infants came to be fed on porridge, goats milk, etc, and so the size of families increased greatly. And this made sense economically, since children can't hunt and are of limited use gathering, b…
Fertility may be reduced but they are absolutely not infertile.
Source: a friend of my wife who got pregnant while breastfeeding and various doctors and midwives who repeated "you can get pregnant while breastfeeding" like some sort of chant in the weeks following the birth of our child.
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#16Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#17I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
Maybe not. Listening to the History of England podcast, was pointed to the poem "Pearl" https://interestingliterature.com/2016/02/03/a-short-summary... and http://www.billstanton.co.uk/pearl/pearl_new.htm which includes a father's grieving for his lost two year old daughter. So some evidence that these losses were keenly felt.
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not. Listening to the History of England podcast, was pointed to the poem "Pearl" https://interestingliterature.com/2016/02/03/a-short-summary... and http://www.billstanton.co.uk/pearl/pearl_new.htm which includes a father's grieving for his lost two year old daughter. So some evidence that these losses were keenly felt.
Another example are Laments by a great Polish 16th century poet (Kochanowski). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laments_(Kochanowski)
Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#19Re: The Price of a Child (2013)
#20I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.
It might make it slightly easier having an expectation. But indifferent seems a massive stretch.