

The Youngest Are Hungriest - clarkm
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/the-youngest-are-hungriest.html

======
VMG
> India’s patrilineal traditions dictate that the eldest son care for his
> parents in old age and inherit property, while the dowries paid to marry off
> daughters can be expensive. The result is sex-selective abortion and an
> underinvestment in girls so common it has popularized a Hindi motto: “beti
> to bojh hoti hai,” meaning, “a daughter is a burden.”

This explanation has always been unsatisfying for me. At least it seems
incomplete. The system is obviously unethical, but I don't understand how the
economics work here.

If only the eldest son inherits, why are the the following sons valued? Given
that the practice creates a surplus of unmarried men, shouldn't unmarried
women become an asset instead of a liability? Shouldn't unmarried men be a
huge force against the dowry system?

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
Blame the british. In pre-colonial India women had extensive rights, including
property rights. The dowry is exclusively controlled by her so that she can
have economic independence if she needs it.

In post colonial india property rights were taken away from women so that the
dowry was transformed from something to help your daughter to a payment to
your son in law.

~~~
davidtanner
While I certainly believe you, I'd still love to see a reference for my own
curiosity.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
Sure:

[http://www.hitxp.com/articles/history/origin-dowry-system-
br...](http://www.hitxp.com/articles/history/origin-dowry-system-bride-woman-
india-british/)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=dowry+pre+colonial+india&oq=...](https://www.google.com/search?q=dowry+pre+colonial+india&oq=dowry+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.1391j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8&qscrl=1)

------
apsec112
"Over 40 percent of those 5 and under are stunted — meaning they are in the
bottom 2 to 3 percent of the worldwide height distribution for their age and
sex"

Argh. It really bugs me when newspapers can't do simple arithmetic. Especially
in the lead paragraph.

India is about 17-18% of the world's population. It has a slightly above
average fertility rate, so it will have disproportionately more children. So
about 20% of the world's children are Indian.

If 40% of Indian children are stunted, therefore, _at least_ 8% of children
worldwide must be stunted (not including Africa, China, etc.). 8% of children
cannot be in the bottom 2-3% of the world's height distribution. That is not
how statistics works.

If this obvious an error was put in the lead paragraph, how can we trust that
the other facts are accurate?

~~~
DanBC
The world food programme list their methods here.
[http://www.micronutrient.org/nutritiontoolkit/ModuleFolders/...](http://www.micronutrient.org/nutritiontoolkit/ModuleFolders/13.Manuals_and_resources/WFP_Measuring_and_Interpreting_Malnutrition_and_Mortality/3\)_Chapter_1_-_Defining_&_measuring_malnutr_\(pgs_15-32\).pdf)

The CDC and NCHS developed data that was adopted by WHO and then WFP.

> To determine a child's nutritional status, you need to compare that child's
> status with a reference for healthy children. References are used to compare
> a child's measurement(s) with the median for chil- dren of the same sex and
> age for height- for-age and weight-for-age, or to children of the same sex
> and height for weight-for- height. The internationally accepted reference
> was developed by the CDC and its National Center for Health Statistics
> (NCHS) using data collected from a popu- lation of healthy children2.

> The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the NCHS reference curves for
> international use. Evidence has shown that the growth patterns of well-fed,
> healthy preschool children from diverse ethnic backgrounds are similar and
> consequently are applicable for children from all races and ethnicities.
> These references are used by agencies involved with nutritional assessments
> and analysis, including WFP.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
It seems like "worldwide height distribution for [healthy children of] their
age and sex" would have been clearer phrasing. Either way, the ambiguity does
not discredit the article's findings.

------
McCoy_Pauley
I'm not sure if this is the place for an anecdote, but here we go. And just to
give a warning, this is from an American perspective.

I am the first born. My mother has told me that she would could the amount of
protein she would get each day during her pregnancy with me. If she didn't get
enough she would each more or drink a large glass of milk to try and
supplement her diet. She didn't drink soda either.

With my younger brother she tried to make sure she ate enough protein, though
she gave up not drinking soda.

With the youngest, my sister, she was working part time during her pregnancy
and wasn't able to watch what she ate like with either me or my brother.

This all being said, we are no where near malnutrition. There is a
considerable size difference between me and my siblings. I am 6'4" and have
considerably larger bone structure than my siblings. (I'm not fat/obese/heavy.
I only weigh 193 lbs.)

My brother is just a 6' and considerably smaller than I am. My sister is
smaller than my brother and has a similar bone structure.

Might there be a biological imperative to ensure that the first born is
healthy. Then with the later children parent lose the need to ensure their
children are as healthy.

~~~
Udo
_> My brother is just a 6' and considerably smaller than I am._

That is already very large, please don't interpret this as a sign that your
brother is less healthy than you. If you are considerably larger than 182cm,
then by some measures you'd be viewed as being _less healthy_ than your
siblings because you're prone to all the problems large people have.

It is very likely you all three maxed out the size range available to you
genetically and epigenetically by receiving adequate nourishment, as is common
in industrial nations.

 _> Might there be a biological imperative to ensure that the first born is
healthy_

Probably not as such, but the psychological effect you're describing might
create that impression: first-time parents obsess about everything because
they don't want to make any mistakes. With subsequent children they realize
they've been overthinking everything and they consciously apply what they
learned the first time, instead of indiscriminately following through on every
little thing that comes to their minds (like giving up soda).

It's also a very first-world way of thinking about children.

 _> Then with the later children parent lose the need to ensure their children
are as healthy._

Again, I think you're postulating purpose where none exists, because you see a
correlation between your "better" health and the amount of attention your mom
applied to arbitrary details when she was carrying you to term.

Instead, evidence suggests that increased survival pressure in humans leads to
an increase in the amount of children a couple has, and attention to
individual children (including first born) goes down drastically.

My own anecdotal impressions of wealthy industrial societies imply that while
first-time parents sweat arbitrary details, it's really the _last_ child a
couple has that receives special attention. Partly because the parents have
better skills, but probably also because they know it's the last chance "to do
everything right".

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Children are like making pancakes. You totally ruin the first one; the 2nd is
almost right; 3rd one - perfect.

------
fgt
The South African Indian population has, apart from easily distinguished
recent migrants, been in the country for 100+ years, and is relatively large
(more than 1 million people). Due to apartheid, assimilation was limited, and
the population was drawn from all over India. It would make an interesting
comparison group, matched for socioeconomic status. If the pattern persisted
in South Africa, then further research would be needed - South African Indians
generally rely on pensions/savings to support them in old age.

------
im3w1l
This is an interesting example of a market without speculators. Future demand
will be high, but current demand is low, so production remains low. In a
market with speculators this would lead to stockpiling in anticipation of
price increases.

------
slurry
_open defecation, which is more widespread in India than Africa,_

For real? It's astonishing that India - a second world country, alleged rising
star - could get beaten out in sanitation by Africa.

------
dropit_sphere
Devil's advocate, which is why I have this account: why is it not a gender
equality issue that the sons are expected to care for their parents and not
the daughters?

I'm not saying everything is hunky-dory in India. I'm saying that if someone
thinks the fix is "Oh just apply Americanism in this particular aspect" then
that someone is naive.

~~~
nilsimsa
The dowry system has already been illegal by law in India for 60 years but of
course it is not well enforced. Secondly due to family dynamics, things are
not equally divided as you might think. It maybe the oldest son that gets the
property but another son who takes care of the parents. It maybe a daughter
who is the caring one while the sons go of on their own.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Even in US its traditional for bride's family to pay for the wedding. That's
not appreciably different from a dowry.

~~~
filmgirlcw
Yeah it is. First, the bride paying for the wedding may be tradition, but it
isn't absolute. In other words, in the United States, you won't see two people
NOT get married because the wife's family can't afford a wedding. If your
culture expects a dowry, what you can afford may influence who you are allowed
to marry or whether a marriage can happen or not.

Second, the tradition of the bride's family paying in the U.S. has
significantly lessened over the years. More young people pay for their own
weddings or share the cost with their parents.

My parents's paid for the bulk of my small wedding (which despite being
deliberately small and my hack of avoiding having to pay for the location, was
still probably $20k once my dress, the reception, airfare/hotel for my parents
and sister, flowers, photos and other assorted pre-wedding meals were dealt
with -- weddings are just fucking expensive), and were happy to do it (and
were happy they were able to do it), but if they would have been unable to
cover the bill, my husband and I -- or his family -- would have stepped in, no
questions asked. Like, it wasn't even a concern.

