Probably the the saddest moment I've experienced this year is attending to a 14 year old girl in the maternity ward in a rural hospital in Southern India. She was on her second child (premature, didn't live) and she, the poor girl, was a sad shade of yellow from jaundice. It was just an awful sight.
The hospital (all volunteer! and absolutely amazing for what facilities they had) struggled with the local population because these cases are, were and will remain to be the norm.
What did they do?
You have to tackle every aspect of development and you have to make it the peoples. They opened a school catering to tribal youth (where many of these young brides come from). We continue to see that none of the girls are interested in having children in their teens (the norm) when they complete a basic elementary education which continues on into the high school level.
There are so many wonderful people trying to tackle this issue all over the country, but we're still in a sad state.
A million us dollars could literally transform an entire district worth of villages. Its sad that the central government of India would rather spend 10000 times that on 126 jet fighters. Yea, 10.5 billion for a bunch of jet fighters that I guarantee you they'll never use versus actively facilitating development and ending this.
@poachedeggs: In general from your experience (THANK YOU for sharing with us!), are these young girls married to husbands their own age, older or much older? I had always assumed the girls were being married to older men, but terms like "child marriages" make me wonder otherwise.
@JerseyGrrrl: My grandmother and aunt were both (Indian) child brides and from what I've seen, the age difference is not usually dramatic, at least in the more developed regions I'm experienced with.
My grandmother used to tell me stories about being engaged at age 6 or 7 and going over to her little husband's house and living with him like a brother or playmate for a period of years. Her mother-in-law was like her mother, essentially.
Of course, in rural areas, big age differences probably do exist but I don't think girls are expected to engage in sexual activity before like fourteen or so.
@JerseyGrrrl: Well their situation was actually a mind duck (replace the d with an f) for me when I learned about it.
In the tribal areas where I was, the young people are free to be with whoever they want to be with (usually in the same age/generation) and it is the in the girls power to leave whenever she wants to. The girls are the ones who choose between which boys they want to be with. There are rarely occasions of girls being forced to be with any particular boy due to village or family pressures.
When they are 'together' they enter into a mutual monogamous relationship.
When they are older, there is still no concept of marriage (for better or worse). Women are free to leave (cutting all strings from the relationship) whenever they want and same goes for the men.
It is fascinating to see, but there are inherent problems with this scheme.
In defense of India: They have enormous problems and this kind of culture (exploitation of children/women/poor/etc) needs to change, but when I was there I noticed a real interest among the people, no matter their socio-economic status, to be involved in the democratic process. The poor and rich, young and old alike all took their democracy very seriously. It's an attitude I rarely see even here in the US, and one that is sadly lacking in a lot of other developing countries- countries that often claim to be democracies, but are not. There seemed to be a lot of belief in India that one could change things for the better if one tried. I hope it is an attitude that will carry them through the massive changes they are currently in and the ones to come.
I remember hearing a lot about how selective abortion and femicide were messing up the male to female ratio in India. I can definitely see girls of younger and younger ages substituting grown women. I don't think this is the only contributer but I can't imagine one would have no effect on the other.
Ugh. What does one do about these things? India's made accepting or offering any sort of dowry illegal and the marriageable age is 21 for men and 18 for women. Underdevelopment and the dismissal of basic human rights require a much more complex solution than "growing prosperity." At some point, the people must do the heavy lifting.
Did anyone read White Tiger by Adiga? He talks about India's chicken coops much in the same way social anthropologists speak of crabs in buckets.
@winner: I read White Tiger, and really didn't like it. It was well written, painted an excellent picture of poverty, all of that, I just couldn't wrap my head around the plot.
Unfortunately, making something illegal, and making something enforceable are two totally different things. India's making huge progress on so many fronts, I have to hope that human rights standards will soon follow .....
For those of you who are wondering, the most child labor proportionatey is in Mali, at 805/10000 people. India has the highest number -- twice China, which trails it. 9/10 of the countries with the highest proportions of child labor are in Africa.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=135
I thought those we blood stained finger-nails for a second and began to tear up, before I realized it was polish. Then I teared up after reading the caption. I say no to weeping on Fridays.
Timmerman isn't the first 'name' intellectual to support child labor in some cases by any means. Even Jeffrey Sachs (or "Bono's pal") argued for organized child labor in his The End of Poverty.
When child labor is boycotted, the clothes still have to get made, either by another factory with better labor conditions, or by the same factory with improved conditions. Allowing dirt cheap labor in one place makes it very hard for worker unions to organize and demand fair wages in another place.
In Kerala, India, labor laws are strong, but there's no manufacturing for multinationals because those companies have the option to build factories in the north where they are free to pollute and exploit child labor. Workers lave no leverage in those places, and ancient monuments are being destroyed with the smog and acid rain. Kerala isn't a socialist utopia, but they do have local agriculture, fishing, service, and creative industries. The state guarantees people's basic needs like health care. Kids all go to school and the population is highly educated.
Consumer boycotts, along with laws and trade agreements, are one of the most effective ways of stopping this race to the bottom. I haven't read this guy's book yet, but from what I've seen in India, those factories harness children into the cycle of poverty.
@HanaMaru: Yea, I am really weary of the argument that the kids need the jobs so we shouldn't boycott the products. Of course it isn't a simple problem with a simple solution. It's a horrible affliction this world needs to be rid of. And I just don't see how we ever get rid of it by perpetuating it. And that is what we do when we buy the products that support the companies that put those factories there. There is no getting around that. And saying that the kids need the job just sounds like so much rationalization to me. Yes, these countries are extremely poor. The desperation that leads parents to put their children into such conditions are horrific. I don't see how that absolves us from exploiting those conditions and putting factories there to profit off of it so we as consumers can in turn enjoy cheap products. And then the cycle continues. And those countries can never pull themselves out of that vicious cycle. No. I'm not going to tell myself it's okay and go back to buying those cheaply made products and benefit off their little backs and tell myself it's okay, and I don't think that makes me some kneejerk reactionary. Continuing to support the companies only ensures that the cycle continues.
@Pithlit: Its not an "argument", its a documented fact that when children are fired from their factory jobs, they turn to shadow sectors of the economy that are much more dangerous. Should ever new factory that a MNC builds be safe, across the street from a school they also built, be staffed with responsible supervisors and pay its employees a liveable wage? Well, of course. But that's not going to happen.
The ILO has a convention seeking to eliminate the worst forms of child labor - slavery, prostitution, involvement in illicit activities, and most pertinently, "work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children".
I'm completely with you on boycotting companies that violate that standard, but "all child labor = bad" simply isn't accurate.
Also, children have agency. Some willingly work. Some would rather be in school, but understand their families' situations and work instead. Your concern about "benefitting off their little backs" is not so much "kneejerk reactionary" as it is "white man's burden".
Its not an "argument", its a documented fact that when children are fired from their factory jobs, they turn to shadow sectors of the economy that are much more dangerous.
@CherriSpryte: This is an interesting point. In another discussion thread I noted how when there is a en masse movement (voluntary, not forced) of children out of the labor force, the economic situation for the society as a whole improves (simply: labor supply goes down, adult wages go up). It is definitely a different case when children are forced out of jobs. Perhaps this is where we need to start concentrating our efforts - not in boycotts, but in promoting social programs, like fully-subsidized educational programs, that can lead to voluntary mass migration of children out of the labor force.
@CherriSpryte: Oh, and your comment about "white man's burden?" Utterly ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as your assertion about these children having agency. Do you propose that we start letting children opt out of an education everywhere? After all, I'm sure there are some families who could use the extra money? Times are getting tough, after all. I've heard the "D" word mentioned more than once lately in the American media. Why not? Children have agency, after all.
No, when all is said and done, it is just so much rationalization. Someone else is just going to take advantage of those children? Why not us? We're nicer about it. That's what it boils down to. Nothing "White man's burden" about that. Really, how dare you?
@Pithlit: Its nice when you prove my point for me - Children DO have agency, and you denying that proves your fundamental misunderstanding of the complexities of this problem. Who are you to say that you know what's better for a child than that child itself? When the adults in a family can support that family, obviously there's no way children should be working. But when the adults are unable to do so, and the state can't step in, children choose to go to work. You think 15 year olds in the US aren't going to start working at McD's when Dad gets downsized? By a lucky accident of birth, they can go to school and work at the same time. Ideally, for all children for whom work is a financial necessity, there should also be education alongside work. There are a lot of groups working towards making that happen.
What I was really referring to in my comments about children having agency is the fact that there are labor unions in a few different countries - Peru, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, at least - founded, operated, and ran by children. And they're not campaigning to not have to work. Here's a thing about the Peru group, and child labor in general: [www.unesco.org]
All child labor is bad, fine, but children starving to death is worse. Children getting sold into slavery and the sex trade is worse than children working in (safe) factories. Its a spectrum, and while deliberately going out and buying child-labor produced goods is ridiculous, your condescension and refusal to acknowledge the harsh facts in this issue is also not helping anything.
@trixavicious: As I mentioned somewhere else as well, there's a really good program in Brazil - Bolsa Escola - that essentially pays families in cash to send their children to school. There's a long report about it here: [www.undp.org] and its really effective in getting kids out of factories and into schools. The funding comes from taxes, which is kind of why its not feasible everywhere - Brazil's developed enough that it can raise this kind of money, and sustain it. I'm not sure what impact that's had on wages in general, but its an interesting aspect.
@CherriSpryte: No. My whole point is that it doesn't make it okay for us to exploit children because the conditions in their country are so bad. What is it about that that you don't get? We are much better off finding ways of helping those countries than we are supporting the very entities that exploit the countries and lead to their impoverished conditions.
Yes. There are child labor unions in those countries. They exist because child labor exist in those countries! Not because they're overly fond of labor. You think they'd not be better off getting an education? And you believe it's condescending for me to think so? That is 1000 ways of fucked up. That is not me refusing to acknowledge harsh facts. That is you pretending that children actually want to work instead of go to school. Those labor unions could cease to exist if their countries improved, and they could go to school. That would be a good thing. That's a goal we should be working toward.
@Pithlit: They're not going to be better off getting an education if it means their families then starve to death. or they starve to death. Yes, in a magical perfect world, all children would be allowed a full childhood and an education - and CLEARLY that's the ultimate goal, but the reality is that, all over the world, children have to work to survive. It sucks. I'm not saying for a moment it doesn't. I'm just saying there are alternatives that are worse. Of course countries developing enough that child labor isn't necessary for survival is the ultimate goal. (and PS, i'm pretty sure child labor exists in every country in this world, "poor" or not)
However, while we're working towards these fantastic goals, some children have to work to survive. Some turn down education to work when its absolutely necessary. I'm advocating safer factories and part-time education for those children, so they don't spend a lifetime in those factories and fields.
11/12/09
11/12/09
10/06/09
The hospital (all volunteer! and absolutely amazing for what facilities they had) struggled with the local population because these cases are, were and will remain to be the norm.
What did they do?
You have to tackle every aspect of development and you have to make it the peoples. They opened a school catering to tribal youth (where many of these young brides come from). We continue to see that none of the girls are interested in having children in their teens (the norm) when they complete a basic elementary education which continues on into the high school level.
There are so many wonderful people trying to tackle this issue all over the country, but we're still in a sad state.
A million us dollars could literally transform an entire district worth of villages. Its sad that the central government of India would rather spend 10000 times that on 126 jet fighters. Yea, 10.5 billion for a bunch of jet fighters that I guarantee you they'll never use versus actively facilitating development and ending this.
10/06/09
10/06/09
My grandmother used to tell me stories about being engaged at age 6 or 7 and going over to her little husband's house and living with him like a brother or playmate for a period of years. Her mother-in-law was like her mother, essentially.
Of course, in rural areas, big age differences probably do exist but I don't think girls are expected to engage in sexual activity before like fourteen or so.
10/06/09
In the tribal areas where I was, the young people are free to be with whoever they want to be with (usually in the same age/generation) and it is the in the girls power to leave whenever she wants to. The girls are the ones who choose between which boys they want to be with. There are rarely occasions of girls being forced to be with any particular boy due to village or family pressures.
When they are 'together' they enter into a mutual monogamous relationship.
When they are older, there is still no concept of marriage (for better or worse). Women are free to leave (cutting all strings from the relationship) whenever they want and same goes for the men.
It is fascinating to see, but there are inherent problems with this scheme.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Oh, wait.
10/06/09
Did anyone read White Tiger by Adiga? He talks about India's chicken coops much in the same way social anthropologists speak of crabs in buckets.
10/06/09
Unfortunately, making something illegal, and making something enforceable are two totally different things. India's making huge progress on so many fronts, I have to hope that human rights standards will soon follow .....
07/19/09
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=135
07/19/09
07/19/09
07/19/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
12/05/08
12/05/08
In Kerala, India, labor laws are strong, but there's no manufacturing for multinationals because those companies have the option to build factories in the north where they are free to pollute and exploit child labor. Workers lave no leverage in those places, and ancient monuments are being destroyed with the smog and acid rain. Kerala isn't a socialist utopia, but they do have local agriculture, fishing, service, and creative industries. The state guarantees people's basic needs like health care. Kids all go to school and the population is highly educated.
Consumer boycotts, along with laws and trade agreements, are one of the most effective ways of stopping this race to the bottom. I haven't read this guy's book yet, but from what I've seen in India, those factories harness children into the cycle of poverty.
12/05/08
12/05/08
The ILO has a convention seeking to eliminate the worst forms of child labor - slavery, prostitution, involvement in illicit activities, and most pertinently, "work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children".
I'm completely with you on boycotting companies that violate that standard, but "all child labor = bad" simply isn't accurate.
Also, children have agency. Some willingly work. Some would rather be in school, but understand their families' situations and work instead. Your concern about "benefitting off their little backs" is not so much "kneejerk reactionary" as it is "white man's burden".
12/05/08
@CherriSpryte: This is an interesting point. In another discussion thread I noted how when there is a en masse movement (voluntary, not forced) of children out of the labor force, the economic situation for the society as a whole improves (simply: labor supply goes down, adult wages go up). It is definitely a different case when children are forced out of jobs. Perhaps this is where we need to start concentrating our efforts - not in boycotts, but in promoting social programs, like fully-subsidized educational programs, that can lead to voluntary mass migration of children out of the labor force.
12/05/08
No, when all is said and done, it is just so much rationalization. Someone else is just going to take advantage of those children? Why not us? We're nicer about it. That's what it boils down to. Nothing "White man's burden" about that. Really, how dare you?
12/05/08
What I was really referring to in my comments about children having agency is the fact that there are labor unions in a few different countries - Peru, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, at least - founded, operated, and ran by children. And they're not campaigning to not have to work. Here's a thing about the Peru group, and child labor in general: [www.unesco.org]
All child labor is bad, fine, but children starving to death is worse. Children getting sold into slavery and the sex trade is worse than children working in (safe) factories. Its a spectrum, and while deliberately going out and buying child-labor produced goods is ridiculous, your condescension and refusal to acknowledge the harsh facts in this issue is also not helping anything.
12/05/08
I'm not sure what impact that's had on wages in general, but its an interesting aspect.
12/05/08
Yes. There are child labor unions in those countries. They exist because child labor exist in those countries! Not because they're overly fond of labor. You think they'd not be better off getting an education? And you believe it's condescending for me to think so? That is 1000 ways of fucked up. That is not me refusing to acknowledge harsh facts. That is you pretending that children actually want to work instead of go to school. Those labor unions could cease to exist if their countries improved, and they could go to school. That would be a good thing. That's a goal we should be working toward.
12/05/08
However, while we're working towards these fantastic goals, some children have to work to survive. Some turn down education to work when its absolutely necessary. I'm advocating safer factories and part-time education for those children, so they don't spend a lifetime in those factories and fields.
What, exactly, is your problem with that?