In a message dated 97-07-13 07:40:11 EDT, Lesley_Hall@MSN.COM (Lesley Hall)
writes:
> Large families (pre mid-C19th) were largely not a matter of choice, though
> there is fairly strong evidence that, in certain cultures--C18th France in
> particular--family sizes were being restricted for economic reasons
(across
> the board, class-wise, so that inheritances would not be split up).
It's my understanding that small families haven't always been a matter of
choice, either. (My source for this is an educational "tour" kind of thing I
took in Alice Springs a few years ago; since this is not the most reliable of
sources, I'd greatly appreciate any corrections.)
In times in which women live in semi-starved condition, they often are not
fertile. If body weight falls below a certain level. menstruation ceases and
the woman will not be able to conceive. (I believe this happens to
anorexics.) In the aboriginal group covered in the tour, in the past it had
been typical for a woman who married at age 13 (a common age for marriage)
and lived to post-menopausal years to have only three or four children. And
of course, not all would live to adulthood.
On a related note, the birth of twins was considered to be the result of an
evil spirit disrupting the normal way of things. One of the infants would be
killed. Although unthinkable to most of us today, this policy actually had a
practical basis -- it was unlikely that two infants could be supported,
primarily because the mother was so poorly nourished that it was catch-and-go
whether she could produce enough milk to keep even one baby alive.
To put this firmly on-topic, has any sf been written that utilizes the
inability of undernourished women to conceive?
Anny
AnnyMiddon@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:26 PDT