Another fascinating post Alice, thank you. My paternal grandparents were married when my grandmother was just 11 years old, ten years younger than my grandfather. She remained in her parent's home till she was 14, which is Juliet's age in Act 1 of Shakespeare's play. She learned to read in her mid forties, when a tutor was hired for her youngest daughter. We did not share a language in common, but we could communicate a bit when she spoke Punjabi and I replied in Hindi. The only books I ever remember her reading were scripture. Her first child was stillborn, after which she had five live births. The youngest (mentioned above) went on to win India's third highest civilian honor, the Padma Bhushan, for her work on behalf of the developmentally disabled. Her own daughter, my first cousin, was born with cerebral palsy and my aunt has spent the better part of the last forty years building and running schools and research centers for people with severe intellectual disabilities. This is her:
I am so glad you like this piece. I think it combines two things that are totally overlooked in social science: sacrifice, and glorification (as a mechanism of cultural production).
Yes that's why I like your newsletter so much. I can recognize the economics but your are bringing in other social sciences in a way that really enriches the discussion.
My grandmother was in her early teens when she was married. Granddad was just few months older than her. She went on to have 10 kids. She taught herself to read and write while her kids got educated.
I am the elder of 2 siblings. When my sister was born, she insisted that her son, my dad, have a vasectomy. She didnt want her daughter-in-law to go through what she went through. This enabled my mother to have a career as a teacher.
You rightly emphasize the benefits of female participation in manufacturing at scale, with garment assembly a common entry point as in your photos from China. And yet legions of anti-capitalists would disparage these liberating opportunities as "sweatshop labor" and protest against them.
It's a brilliant article, no doubt. Loved studying it.
But the meaning you have given for the Bhagavad Gita verse 9.32 does not match the actual meaning given in various places, including online references.
(whether women should be mentioned here in this reference is a separate topic of discussion altogether)
"The Bhagavad Gita 9.32 describes girls and sudras (lowest caste) as lower births, born of sinful parentage, barred from Hindu moksa (spiritual liberation)."
The meaning is: (Quoting from SRIMADBHAGVADGITA TATTVAVIVECHANI (Gits Press Gorakhpur)
"Arjuna, women, Vaisyas ( members of the trading and the agricultural classes), Sudras (those belonging to the labouring and artisan classes), as well as those of vile birth (such as the pariah), whoever they may be, taking refuge in Me they too attain the supreme goal."
I think you left out a huge difference between these two countries, which is that in China there was a communist movement that aggressively shattered the feudal system and its patriarchal social norms, whereas in India this never happened. Furthermore, the communist government of China always had industrial development as a top priority, and was able to achieve it with extreme rapidity through centralized and "authoritarian" governance, whereas liberal-democratic India has lagged behind by giving reactionary patriarchal forces the freedom to hold back social and economic progress.
For some reason liberal intellectuals have an intense hostility to the idea that communists can ever do anything good, but if you compare China and India, the differential outcomes for women between liberal democracy vs communist technocracy are just too obvious.
Singapore has a gender pay gap of 6%. Hong Kong and Taiwan have also massively closed gender gaps. Communism did not destroy patrilocal clans, actually these remained in the rural areas and were key to attracting investment.
Fair, but Singapore and Taiwan were also authoritarian "dirigiste" states that emulated communist style authoritarian developmentalism to capitalist ends. The PAP in Singapore has a Leninist structure, and Taiwan was ruled for much of its postwar history by the very authoritarian KMT. In comparison, poor countries that actually try to be principled liberal democracies like India often fail to develop socially or economically. I suspect this is because if you want to develop, you can't give the forces of reaction the freedom to sabotage you!
Another fascinating post Alice, thank you. My paternal grandparents were married when my grandmother was just 11 years old, ten years younger than my grandfather. She remained in her parent's home till she was 14, which is Juliet's age in Act 1 of Shakespeare's play. She learned to read in her mid forties, when a tutor was hired for her youngest daughter. We did not share a language in common, but we could communicate a bit when she spoke Punjabi and I replied in Hindi. The only books I ever remember her reading were scripture. Her first child was stillborn, after which she had five live births. The youngest (mentioned above) went on to win India's third highest civilian honor, the Padma Bhushan, for her work on behalf of the developmentally disabled. Her own daughter, my first cousin, was born with cerebral palsy and my aunt has spent the better part of the last forty years building and running schools and research centers for people with severe intellectual disabilities. This is her:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shayama_Chona
Sorry for oversharing, but your post made vivid for me the kind of life she must have led.
People telling me about their families is a great gift. THANK YOU!
Wow. That's incredible, bravo to them.
Yes, moving to live with another family at 14, all alone, then expected to produce male heirs must be scary.
I am so glad you like this piece. I think it combines two things that are totally overlooked in social science: sacrifice, and glorification (as a mechanism of cultural production).
Yes that's why I like your newsletter so much. I can recognize the economics but your are bringing in other social sciences in a way that really enriches the discussion.
My grandmother was in her early teens when she was married. Granddad was just few months older than her. She went on to have 10 kids. She taught herself to read and write while her kids got educated.
I am the elder of 2 siblings. When my sister was born, she insisted that her son, my dad, have a vasectomy. She didnt want her daughter-in-law to go through what she went through. This enabled my mother to have a career as a teacher.
Thank you for sharing Sochta 🙂
You rightly emphasize the benefits of female participation in manufacturing at scale, with garment assembly a common entry point as in your photos from China. And yet legions of anti-capitalists would disparage these liberating opportunities as "sweatshop labor" and protest against them.
It's a brilliant article, no doubt. Loved studying it.
But the meaning you have given for the Bhagavad Gita verse 9.32 does not match the actual meaning given in various places, including online references.
(whether women should be mentioned here in this reference is a separate topic of discussion altogether)
"The Bhagavad Gita 9.32 describes girls and sudras (lowest caste) as lower births, born of sinful parentage, barred from Hindu moksa (spiritual liberation)."
The meaning is: (Quoting from SRIMADBHAGVADGITA TATTVAVIVECHANI (Gits Press Gorakhpur)
"Arjuna, women, Vaisyas ( members of the trading and the agricultural classes), Sudras (those belonging to the labouring and artisan classes), as well as those of vile birth (such as the pariah), whoever they may be, taking refuge in Me they too attain the supreme goal."
I think you left out a huge difference between these two countries, which is that in China there was a communist movement that aggressively shattered the feudal system and its patriarchal social norms, whereas in India this never happened. Furthermore, the communist government of China always had industrial development as a top priority, and was able to achieve it with extreme rapidity through centralized and "authoritarian" governance, whereas liberal-democratic India has lagged behind by giving reactionary patriarchal forces the freedom to hold back social and economic progress.
For some reason liberal intellectuals have an intense hostility to the idea that communists can ever do anything good, but if you compare China and India, the differential outcomes for women between liberal democracy vs communist technocracy are just too obvious.
Singapore has a gender pay gap of 6%. Hong Kong and Taiwan have also massively closed gender gaps. Communism did not destroy patrilocal clans, actually these remained in the rural areas and were key to attracting investment.
Fair, but Singapore and Taiwan were also authoritarian "dirigiste" states that emulated communist style authoritarian developmentalism to capitalist ends. The PAP in Singapore has a Leninist structure, and Taiwan was ruled for much of its postwar history by the very authoritarian KMT. In comparison, poor countries that actually try to be principled liberal democracies like India often fail to develop socially or economically. I suspect this is because if you want to develop, you can't give the forces of reaction the freedom to sabotage you!
Well, that’s separate from communism.
And my emphasis is in the consequences of growth; not its causes.
I’ll stay in my lane 🙂