Thread: What happens when there aren't enough girls? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024545
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
A chart on this page startled me. 35% more boys than girls in Punjab.

In that kind of imbalance, do many boys just assume they'll never marry? Or kidnap each other wives?

I've read speculation that historically excess males means war because that's how the men work out their wife-less frustrations. Have we had other times historically when regions lacked women?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've read in the past that when there are a superfluity of women (as in the UK after WW1) they are valued less highly as people because they are not required for marriage, and then, when there are fewer women, they are valued less highly as people because, presumably, they are seen as commodities.
We can't win.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In that kind of imbalance, do many boys just assume they'll never marry?
As the chart shows, that extreme imbalance is localized.

The nature of males is that they will search far and wide for a match.

Much easier for them to do this than if there were to be a commensurate undersupply of males.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've read speculation that historically excess males means war because that's how the men work out their wife-less frustrations. Have we had other times historically when regions lacked women?
Recent history over the last 70 years would suggest there's a fair case for stating it's actually an oversupply of women which leads to war, not an oversupply of men. The world's top two warmongering countries in the 70 years since WWII currently have total sex ratios of 0.97 and 0.86, meaning that there are only 97 and 86 men in the USA and Russia respectively for every 100 women. Compare this with China (1.06) and India (1.08) which both have a military history in that time almost exclusively comprised of border skirmishes.

The sex ratio in China is of concern to the Communist government there, as they fear that the outlet for the "wife-less frustrations" will be a rampant spread of homosexuality, which is viewed as a decadent Western vice.

[ 09. January 2013, 18:37: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
There have been wars which slaughtered vast numbers of men. In the U.S. after 1865 or in Britain and western Europe after 1918, I imagine there was a major of imbalance, more women than men. What effects were seen?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
I think it would have been the absence of men who were deployed which would have had the greater overall effect in terms of society changing, definitely for Britain and the USA which got off quite lightly in terms of casualties from WWI and WWII (2.2% of 1914 population for Britain, <1% for USA in WWI, Britain in WWII and USA in WWII).

Particularly in WWII, there was a strong effort in these nations to get more women filling the roles left by the men who were overseas, as these nations had to commit their full energy to the fight rather than just sending over an army. This created a significant degree of social upheaval in immediate post-WWII Australia, when men returned to find many of "their" jobs were being done by women.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
I've heard that in India and Pakistan that baby girls when born are often instantly killed as the family can't cope with them, as they are not the ones who will earn money and will have to pay if they get married. It's a problem, but not done by everyone.
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
Well, given that in Asia, and on the sub-continent, girls born are often unwanted and still (yes, still) disposed of, those ratios are not surprising. It will be several more generations before those attitudes change - and desirable parts of the planet to inhabit may be more contested than ever by then.

It is inviting to think our world is becoming better able to appreciate the gifts and service of both men and women, and that men are becoming less destructive on the whole - but I don't see much evidence of that.

And I'm an optimist by nature. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
I too am generally an optimist but apparently, even in Canada, babies from Indian families, all girls unless a mistake is made, are aborted at a much higher rate than any other nationality. Ultrasound clinics in the USA near the Canadian border cater to these families as the Canadian hospitals won't generally disclose gender. I can't begin to understand it.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
There are parts of the UK where health authorities won't reveal the gender of a baby form scans.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
The OP link seems to answer the thread title very clearly, as to what happens when there aren't enough girls, in some areas of the world. The story and its implications are utterly depressing.

When there are aren't enough women, they're kidnapped by or sold off to those who want their 'services'. IIRC, there are occasional stories in the UK media about young Indian/Pakistani girls being sent off on 'holiday' and never returning to Britain.

When there are too many, they're either aborted, killed at birth, removed from education for home duties, or sent off as sex workers to provide funds for families back home. In this context, it's easier to see why some societies consider it honourable - rather than appalling - for some parents to punish disobedient girls with death, or serious assault. When you've gone to the trouble of nurturing a less valuable child, brought up for a specific purpose, you really don't want her developing ideas of her own!
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There are parts of the UK where health authorities won't reveal the gender of a baby form scans.
Are there? I've heard that many times, but no one ever seems to have 1st hand experience of it.

(I think revealing the gender prior to the birth takes something away from the birth event, but that's a whole nother issue.)
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Are there? I've heard that many times, but no one ever seems to have 1st hand experience of it.
My local maternity won't, but they say that it's because the sex isn't always obvious at 20 weeks (depending on the position of the umbilical cord), and they don't want people complaining later that they painted a nursery pink / blue and spent a fortune on pink / blue clothes only to have a baby of the opposite sex.

There is (or was) a notice up in the waiting room for scanning, showing a baby with a bit of umbilical cord between its legs saying "This is not what you think it is!" and explaining why they wouldn't answer questions about the baby's sex.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
When there are too many, they're either aborted, killed at birth, removed from education for home duties, or sent off as sex workers to provide funds for families back home. In this context, it's easier to see why some societies consider it honourable - rather than appalling - for some parents to punish disobedient girls with death, or serious assault. When you've gone to the trouble of nurturing a less valuable child, brought up for a specific purpose, you really don't want her developing ideas of her own!
And we are supposed to be enlightened and respect their cultures and values, rather than calling them savages and barbarians and trying to intervene to stop them.

No wonder I feel sick when people complain we shouldn't involve ourselves in other countries affairs.

I also wonder how many times we are asked to recognise that parents who lose children to starvation are affected as much as we in the west would be, if the child who died was a girl, who had food withheld to feed a boy? Is that a factor anyone has come across? It may not be a reality, but it feels like it could be to me.

Excuse me for the hellish response, but I have a daughter and the idea that someone could deliberately kill a girl simply for being a girl fills me with hate and nausea, and I have no desire to hide it, explain it or apologise for it.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
I've heard that in India and Pakistan that baby girls when born are often instantly killed as the family can't cope with them, as they are not the ones who will earn money and will have to pay if they get married. It's a problem, but not done by everyone.
On the other hand, I know of cases where UK men with special needs are taken to the sub-continent for an arranged marriage. The wife then comes over and either disappears (perhaps she is only married in the eyes of religious groups), or she settles down and then her family come over. I've limited experience of both scenarios.

BTW, isn't it baby boys who eventually result in a dowry? In Islam, the parents of boys are required to pay for weddings (except, of course, the money goes round and round so maybe families are not so worse off?).
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
BTW, isn't it baby boys who eventually result in a dowry? In Islam, the parents of boys are required to pay for weddings (except, of course, the money goes round and round so maybe families are not so worse off?).
You're thinking of mahr where the groom presents the bride with money/jewellery for her own personal use - since fiancial/poliical matters are dealt with by the men I would probably class it as somesort of allowance in event of death, divorce, some sort of personal wealth with which the woman can buy her hijab/burka/niqab etc., but a more enlightened Islamic Scholar may quibble with my views on it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As the chart shows, that extreme imbalance is localized.

The nature of males is that they will search far and wide for a match.

Much easier for them to do this than if there were to be a commensurate undersupply of males.
Unfortunately the chart suggests an oversupply all over - except, ironically, Assam, which is exactly where many Indian families wouldn't encourage their sons to look for a wife given fairly widespread racial prejudice against the Assamese in the rest of North India.
 
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There are parts of the UK where health authorities won't reveal the gender of a baby form scans.
Are there? I've heard that many times, but no one ever seems to have 1st hand experience of it.
My local hospital (in Belfast) won't reveal the gender unless there's some reason (eg if a family is at risk of a genetic illness or problem which affects a particular gender). It has always been said that it's in case they are sued for making a mistake, but I've never heard the official reason.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The OP link seems to answer the thread title very clearly, as to what happens when there aren't enough girls, in some areas of the world.
I'm thinking if the situation is new, if this is the leading edge of a generation of boys who won't have enough girls, the immediate reaction "go kidnap one" may have to change. There won't be enough girls to kidnap, or girls will be kept locked up to prevent kidnapping, then what happens?
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
There's some evidence that among white Americans, it seems to be the opposite of SE Asian countries: most parents who choose the sex of their child want a girl.

Article

Edited to fix scroll lock.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host

[ 10. January 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I recall an acquaintance in the international development world who, on hearing these stats, thought that the best thing would be to encourage polyandry in such countries.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The world's top two warmongering countries in the 70 years since WWII currently have total sex ratios of 0.97 and 0.86, meaning that there are only 97 and 86 men in the USA and Russia respectively for every 100 women.
In what alternate reality are the US and Russia the top two warmongering nations? The US comes way behind Britain, and probably behind a few others as well. Russia probably isn't in the top 20. Maybe not the top 50.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The world's top two warmongering countries in the 70 years since WWII currently have total sex ratios of 0.97 and 0.86, meaning that there are only 97 and 86 men in the USA and Russia respectively for every 100 women.
In what alternate reality are the US and Russia the top two warmongering nations? The US comes way behind Britain, and probably behind a few others as well. Russia probably isn't in the top 20. Maybe not the top 50.
It depends on how you define 'warmongering' and the resultant behaviour.

If warmongering is a perceived threat of action under certain conditions then the US and Russia might well be at the top of that list.

Is it based on the consequences of military action a country might take?

Do you count action taken in respects of NATO and UN mandates?

Do you count technological warfare in this, in which case China I would imagine is quite high up the list, not only in pure military personel strength but in it's frequently reported 'cyber-attacks.'

Do you count each conflict, regardless of the length of time as one conflict, or is it some other form of measurement/countign you use to determine 'warmongering'?

There are many issues around the word you are using... I personally don't think the the UK has been 'warmongering' that much, most (apart from Iraq) conflicts the UK has been engaged in since the end of WWII appear to have been peace-keeping for NATO and the UN or maintaining the sovereignty/right to self-determination of territory that has asked for assistance...
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The OP link seems to answer the thread title very clearly, as to what happens when there aren't enough girls, in some areas of the world.
I'm thinking if the situation is new, if this is the leading edge of a generation of boys who won't have enough girls, the immediate reaction "go kidnap one" may have to change.
Gee, you think? [Paranoid]

It's not new. Tribes, nations, families, dynasties have been raiding other people's larders for their own harems for ever. Remember Howard Keel in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers with 'Those Sobbin' Women'?

Mankind has always tended to go out and get what it wants and doesn't have. Even if it doesn't belong to them. The challenge is how to reform thousands of years of good old tradition/it was good enough for my grandfather crap, so these things are perceived from within communities as unacceptable. But I'm sure there are many human rights groups who are trying to do precisely that, who would be happy for our support in their work.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A chart on this page startled me. 35% more boys than girls in Punjab.

In that kind of imbalance, do many boys just assume they'll never marry? Or kidnap each other wives?

I've read speculation that historically excess males means war because that's how the men work out their wife-less frustrations. Have we had other times historically when regions lacked women?
Many men will choose to leave their village to search for a wife in the city. Such wives would then not want to return to the family village. Many villages now, having been around for centuries, are dying out as the young single people leave and only the old remain.

In terms of national society, more numbers often equals more power and rights. When women are scarce they are controlled by society (not just men, often mothers provide the strongest support for societal controls), to 'protect' them as a valuable resource that needs to be controlled and hoarded. When their numbers increase relative to men, such as after WWI for instance, they get more freedom and jobs in industry and commerce. Therefore they are seen to be worthwhile as more than just wives. They are allowed by society to do more dangerous or busy jobs since the thought of losing them from the marraige pool through death or career doesn't make people think society is on the brink of collapse.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
There was a disturbing programme on Radio 4 this morning about 'the abduction of tens of thousands of young girls in India for forced marriages. Thousands more are sold as prostitutes and domestic servants. [The investigator] follows the route of the traffickers, who take girls from destitute households in places like West Bengal to wealthier areas in Northern states, where a shortage of women is blamed by many on sex-selective abortions.' (quote from prog notes).

One of the most disturbing things was that girls are still forced to abort female foetuses, and one young mother said sadly that she had had 2 forced abortions but would try and refuse to do it again - but how the hell do they think things will improve if there is an even greater imbalance of girls/boys by continued female infanticide and abortion?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WhyNotSmile:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There are parts of the UK where health authorities won't reveal the gender of a baby form scans.
Are there? I've heard that many times, but no one ever seems to have 1st hand experience of it.
My local hospital (in Belfast) won't reveal the gender unless there's some reason (eg if a family is at risk of a genetic illness or problem which affects a particular gender). It has always been said that it's in case they are sued for making a mistake, but I've never heard the official reason.
I don't know about the UK, but just yesterday I was talking with a mum-to-be about the sex of her baby. While visiting family recently in South America she originally turned down the opportunity to be told the sex of her child - they offered but she said no. So was very surprized when subsequently an Irish hospital told her they couldn't give her that information, when she decided she might as well find out! Something about 'things not being very clear'.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There are parts of the UK where health authorities won't reveal the gender of a baby form scans.
Are there? I've heard that many times, but no one ever seems to have 1st hand experience of it.

(I think revealing the gender prior to the birth takes something away from the birth event, but that's a whole nother issue.)
About 6 years ago I met a woman from a north eastern uk town - forget which one. She was pregnant and when I asked if she knew what she was having, I was told that her health authority had a policy of not revaling gender.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Hawk, I think you make some really interesting points. But I think I'm right in saying that in Victorian times there were many more women than men around, and the result was pretty much a tightening up of what was acceptable female occupation and behaviour. It seemed that with so many women, obviously unable to be provided for by menfolk, having to live independently, and to work etc, it was felt necessary to reiterate the 'ideal' of the domestic goddess, the stay-at-home housewife and mother. As well as underlining the old cant(kant?) of how limited women were intellectually, emotionally blah, blah.

Similarly, after both World Wars the girlies were very quickly removed from their war-time posts (no doubt for some, it was a relief, and no doubt it was arguably a justifiable priority to have an increase of men back in the workplace again), because the natural order had to be restored. And if one scans the cultural signs of post-war Britain and America, especially after WWII, it seems clear that a woman's place was once again in the home as dutiful wife and mother - and not thinking too hard.

I guess what I'm saying is that actually numbers of women don't matter. Whether there are too many are too few (too many or too few for what?) It's the underlying attitude towards the female sex that lays the foundation for injustice. We saw that with attitudes (racial and otherwise) towards enslaving others.

The conquerors needed their slaves to fulfil their ambitions. And if it's utilizing others that puts and keeps you on the top of the pile, well, there are never going to be enough of the others, are there? You don't necessarily want to produce slaves from your own family - because they are, after all, only utilities - but you need to get them from somewhere.

It's kind of the same principle, imo.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Hawk, I think you make some really interesting points. But I think I'm right in saying that in Victorian times there were many more women than men around, and the result was pretty much a tightening up of what was acceptable female occupation and behaviour. It seemed that with so many women, obviously unable to be provided for by menfolk, having to live independently, and to work etc, it was felt necessary to reiterate the 'ideal' of the domestic goddess, the stay-at-home housewife and mother. As well as underlining the old cant(kant?) of how limited women were intellectually, emotionally blah, blah.
My PhD is on career women in Victorian Scotland, so I could bore you senseless about the "surplus women" situation in Victorian times. Yes, there were "surplus women" in Victorian times. The term "surplus women" was bandied about, particularly in the aftermath of the 1851 census, which was the first census which allowed the "surplus" to be accurately counted; the issue of surplus women was accepted as "problem." I think what happened was that a lot of "independent female" occupations were described in an "domestic" way; e.g. being a spinster schoolmistress was described as meeting a woman's need for a maternal role; nursing was described as a "nurturing" occupation, a certain amount of social-work type occupations were also described as "nurturing" etc etc. It's difficult to know what the women themselves thought; were they using the language of patriarchy as a cover to lead independent lives, or was that how they saw themselves? It's interesting that some of the campaigners for higher education of women referred to the "surplus woman" problem as a reason for improving female education.

Victorian women did a lot more outwith the home than they are generally given credit for.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Thanks for that, North East Quine. I once did several study modules on religious and social aspects of Victorian society, which included issues around women. But it was a LONG time ago, and I can only vaguely refer to things I half-remember. Maybe more of it has stuck than I thought!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'd say women don't seem to be too highly prized in the subcontinent, given the recent stories in the news about rape, especially gang rape, and the government's non-response.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I've dug out some figures: almost a third of Scottish Victorian women never married, and I believe the figure was similar in England. One suggestion was simply to ship the surplus out to the colonies, which were full of young men in need of a wife! There actually were schemes to enable women to travel free to the colonies.

There was an interesting rhetoric around education, which was seem as something which helped a man be upwardly socially mobile. However, it was argued that women needed an education to prevent an unmarried woman from becoming downwardly socially mobile, and a possible cause of shame to her family.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I've dug out some figures: almost a third of Scottish Victorian women never married, and I believe the figure was similar in England. One suggestion was simply to ship the surplus out to the colonies, which were full of young men in need of a wife! There actually were schemes to enable women to travel free to the colonies.
I guess my great grandmother and her sister were two of the women who took advantage of that scheme. She and her sister went out South Africa in I think the 1880s (I can check I have the date at home as she was given a bible when they went). She and her sister had been orphaned at a fairly young age in the Isle of Mann and raised by relatives. She was working as a hat maker in Bolton before they emigrated. She did fairly well out there and I think had seven sons and no daughters.

Jengie
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The OP link seems to answer the thread title very clearly, as to what happens when there aren't enough girls, in some areas of the world.
I'm thinking if the situation is new, if this is the leading edge of a generation of boys who won't have enough girls, the immediate reaction "go kidnap one" may have to change.
Gee, you think? [Paranoid]

It's not new. Tribes, nations, families, dynasties have been raiding other people's larders for their own harems for ever. Remember Howard Keel in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers with 'Those Sobbin' Women'?

Mankind has always tended to go out and get what it wants and doesn't have. Even if it doesn't belong to them. The challenge is how to reform thousands of years of good old tradition/it was good enough for my grandfather crap, so these things are perceived from within communities as unacceptable. But I'm sure there are many human rights groups who are trying to do precisely that, who would be happy for our support in their work.
I think the fundamental challenge is just to convince people - everywhere - that women aren't things to be wanted or owned or stolen.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I think the fundamental challenge is just to convince people - everywhere - that women aren't things to be wanted or owned or stolen.
Your mouth to God's ears.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
There's some evidence that among white Americans, it seems to be the opposite of SE Asian countries: most parents who choose the sex of their child want a girl.

Article

Edited to fix scroll lock.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
It may be the opposite in terms of gender, but this quote from page 3 of the article makes me suspect that motives are not that far apart:

quote:
“My husband and I stared at our daughter for that first year. She was worth every cent. Better than a new car, or a kitchen reno.”
"My Last Duchess," anyone?
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
Given the rise of the world wide web - especially in India - one would hope that some healthier channels for finding a mate will eventually become the norm.

When the practice of shoving rice grains up unwanted Asian babies noses is outlawed and obsolete; when the ritual genital mutilation of pubescent girls is considered anathema across Africa and Arabia; and when young girls are no longer sold as sex slaves and kept in holes in the ground, locked in containers or chained to their beds throughout India, Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia then I will feel there is some hope for the world.

Unfortunately that requires a great many men to act somewhat differently than they do now. I doubt I'll live to see it happen.

I am just extremely thankful my daughters and grand-daughters were very much wanted, and loved and by God's grace born in a country where that is the norm.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
Given the rise of the world wide web - especially in India - one would hope that some healthier channels for finding a mate will eventually become the norm.

When the practice of shoving rice grains up unwanted Asian babies noses is outlawed and obsolete; when the ritual genital mutilation of pubescent girls is considered anathema across Africa and Arabia; and when young girls are no longer sold as sex slaves and kept in holes in the ground, locked in containers or chained to their beds throughout India, Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia then I will feel there is some hope for the world.

Unfortunately that requires a great many men to act somewhat differently than they do now. I doubt I'll live to see it happen.

I am just extremely thankful my daughters and grand-daughters were very much wanted, and loved and by God's grace born in a country where that is the norm.
Preach it loud lady! Amen.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I guess my great grandmother and her sister were two of the women who took advantage of that scheme. She and her sister went out South Africa in I think the 1880s (I can check I have the date at home as she was given a bible when they went). She and her sister had been orphaned at a fairly young age in the Isle of Mann and raised by relatives. She was working as a hat maker in Bolton before they emigrated. She did fairly well out there and I think had seven sons and no daughters.

Jengie
Interesting - I wonder if they were orphaned by cholera (either the 1830's or '60's). Without you giving too much about yourself away I was wondering if it would be possible to get your grandmother's maiden name for some local history interest that occassionally gets thrown up when looking through the family tree...
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I've dug out some figures: almost a third of Scottish Victorian women never married, and I believe the figure was similar in England. One suggestion was simply to ship the surplus out to the colonies, which were full of young men in need of a wife! There actually were schemes to enable women to travel free to the colonies.
A fascinating topic. The women left mostly of their own accord though, rather than being shipped out as surplus, since they were desperate for a husband. For the majority of women in Victorian society, marraige was the most desired, indeed, only goal. Without marrying, a women's prospects were almost nothing. Unless very rich they would become a spinster, living on the charity of relatives, earning a pittance and pitied or despised by those she worked for and their servants. There were few prospects available for gently-brought-up middle-class women. They had almost no education, and were barely allowed to do anything even if they had one. And those that did work had such low wages that, with no opportunity to save, and no pension, old age was a terror.

A facsinating book on the subject is The Fishing Fleet by Anna Coulson, about the annual migration of single women to India to find an eligable husband among the well-paid civil servants of the British Raj. You can read the introduction on Amazon which is very interesting analysis of the 'surplus women situation' of the time.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
My PhD is on kick-ass Victorian women who did have an education, career and (limited) prospects, so I'd not agree entirely with that, Hawk. I'd argue that at least some of the "angel of the home" mythology about Victorian women was a subsequent construction to create a nostalgia for the "good old days" to encourage women back into the home post war.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I guess my great grandmother and her sister were two of the women who took advantage of that scheme. She and her sister went out South Africa in I think the 1880s (I can check I have the date at home as she was given a bible when they went). She and her sister had been orphaned at a fairly young age in the Isle of Mann and raised by relatives. She was working as a hat maker in Bolton before they emigrated. She did fairly well out there and I think had seven sons and no daughters.

Jengie
Interesting - I wonder if they were orphaned by cholera (either the 1830's or '60's). Without you giving too much about yourself away I was wondering if it would be possible to get your grandmother's maiden name for some local history interest that occassionally gets thrown up when looking through the family tree...
Yes. Great Mothers Maiden Name is Isabella Kaighin and she went out to South Africa in 1889. given that she was probably in her twenties then, I think it unlikely that she lost her parents in the 1830s but maybe 1960s. The Kaighin family website knows of her but none of my family carry her family name (her and her sister being female) although it has been used as a middle name passed down through eldest son. There is also some indication of people being "bleeders" in the family (Mum used to say Haemophilia but it was an Uncle of my Mum's who died before she was born).

Jengie
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Just get themselves a boyfriend.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0