Even until say a generation and half back. During my Dad's times it was quite usual for couples to >10 kids. It was considered a sign of pride!
Apart from that there are other social issues. Social security is a huge problem in India, Pension is a cruel joke. Other form of income during old age include rent from real estate or meagerly savings. Amidst all this kids are considered as a somebody who can take care of their parents.
For the west this might sound strange, but parents are a integral part of the family. In fact family means Parents, siblings and their kids included.
In all this Boys are considered cash cows. Because they are perceived as somebody who can earn and feed them in old age. Girls are considered money drains, as they marry and go away to their husbands home, to never return or contribute much. There is also a huge problem of dowry(Mandatory gifts given to girls during marriage) which makes girls look like burdens. The Indian middle class is also shy to send Girls to work.
All this contributes to 'reproduce until you get a boy' problem. The rest is left to your imagination. Especially when more population leads to more of it, merely by its very dynamics.
So you see the problem isn't that simple. Sometimes its genuine. Imagine you are old, need food, clothes, medical care. You need money for it, you see your neighbor get all the help from his son. While you get no help from your daughters.
The natural reaction is ... 'If at all, I had a son... I wouldn't be in this state today'.
It seems so weird because women are actually more valuable than men, biologically seen. It's probably crazy/outrageous, but I wonder if one day matching women from India with Men from China might become a huge success (they'll have a shortage of women in China soon I think).
But I can see how there might be a long way to go - if women could work, they could provide and so on...
There are issues preventing women from working. One direct problem is Indian households have always had a women as 'home makers'. So you have to fight a lot of cultural inertia.
There are also security issues. Indian cities haven't been very safe for women especially for women working at night. Crimes against women are common. Also there lack of affordable places like creche's and day care centers for kids preventing women from working post maternity. Most working women quit jobs for this very reason alone.
Secondly, even if women work. The situation in India is worse enough to make them spend that money on their own selves and their families, than their parents.
But I agree, with you that women must be encouraged to work more.
Well actually I think the ultimate goal is people having to work less. Getting women to work sounds like a solution from your problem description. But the real problem seems to be welfare of the elderly. If another solution (like social insurance) could be found, perhaps women wouldn't need to work. Perhaps even society would restructure itself.
Only 60 years ago it was common in the western world that women had to stay at home to take care of the family and household chores. I don't think it was only feminism that changed that, but also technology. For example washing machines probably saved a lot of time (even a bachelor can wash their own clothes these days). Not sure how widespread access to such technology is in India?
>Imagine you are old, need food, clothes, medical care. You need money for it, you see your neighbor get all the help from his son. While you get no help from your daughters.
That's incredibly sexist. As far as I can tell, it is in fact the other way around. Their sons usually try to avoid that responsibility and it is their daughters who actually spend time with them and try to work out their problems
>>it is their daughters who actually spend time with them and try to work out their problems
Alas just 'spending time' doesn't solve all problems. You need somebody who can 'spend money' too. This is not an anti-girl rant. This is the saddest reality of our country. The middle class is overly male chauvinist and doesn't like sending women to work. Once married, the girl contributes literally nothing financially to her parents.
Firstly this is not a problem among the rich and the poor. Because Rich have money and poor don't mind women working.
Its the middle class which is in this problem. If you turn blind eye to this root cause. You can give as many moral lectures as you want on why this is wrong. Nothing will change.
Because people know deep inside them old age is imminent, and they will need money/financial support to survive then. Bitter truth!
That never happens. In fact its the opposite. In India we have a huge problem of dowry and post marriage gifts and perks which the girls need to get from their parents and give it to their husbands side.
In the context of traditional weddings, I never understood dowries, considering the fact that a productive member of the family (the daughter) goes to join another family. Shouldn't it be the other way around (a bride price)?
Whenever this type of discussion comes up, I always say that I will never mind taking care of my wife's parents if they need me to. After all they will be her parents just like I have mine. (I am not married, so using future tense). You would be surprised to hear that my friends (girls and guys alike) don't believe me and think I am joking. I have had women who are in their late 30s (so exactly in the age when their parents need support) argue with me on this point. In their opinion, I don't know what I am talking about, and will not care about anyone once I get married.
TL;DR, People, even daughters laugh at you when you promise to take care of their parents equally as your own.
So when I describe my parents take on dowry (i.e. no dowry, we want a daughter, not a daughter in law etc), people think I am joking.
I would like to wish you the very best. But please don't make promises you can't keep. Because it builds false hopes which sooner or later collapses.
>You would be surprised to hear that my friends (girls and guys alike) don't believe me and think I am joking.
Not surprising at all. In fact I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously. Given how many mouths you have to feed. Your family will be really big which 2 parents + 2 parents + 2 kids(assuming) + you and your wife. That's almost 8 people. Maintaining a family of 10 people, their expenses, bills, health care is a costly business, Even if you have your own BIG home. Else add rents et al to additional expenses. Plus you have kids education + their expenses. And your own family expenditure. Unless you are earning really huge I don't see you will make it through.
Therefore even though you may want to. But still you may not be able too.
>>In their opinion, I don't know what I am talking about, and will not care about anyone once I get married. TL;DR, People, even daughters laugh at you when you promise to take care of their parents equally as your own.
that's a very good question. The fertility rate is very high amongst the poor, although they seem to have the worst means to support many children. I guess the main reason is that women were/are not empowered enough to decide how many kids they should have. Another major factor is lack of availability/knowledge of contraceptives. Also, I think children provide the only "entertainment"(using this word very loosely) when you have no TV, no books etc; there may also be a feeling that having many children gurantees that some will survive to carry their "family" ahead (many might die due to lack of access to healthcare).
Lastly, child labour.
Most of these are purely speculative though. Its what I picked up when I asked my parents precisely the same thing
> I guess the main reason is that women were/are not empowered enough to decide how many kids they should have. Another major factor is lack of availability/knowledge of contraceptives.
The Hesperian's "Where There Is No Doctor"  offered another explaination - in some parts of the world people are too poor to not have many children. A child needs few years to grow, and then it can work for the family. This makes children an investment that returns itself with profit after few years, and it is good for the family to get many of them.
While ignorance on family planning matters and entertainment stuff(Again using that word loosely) have been factors(Remember the idea mobile phone ad? Where they cite power cuts contributing the other source of 'entertainment' which in turn contributes to population. So use idea 3G and get entertained in the other way).
The actual reasons really are 'reproduce until you get a boy' or 'have as many boys as you can' so that you can have something depend on in old age.
I don't think its as simple as saying that there is "actual reason" for anything that is so complex. For example: this obsession with males might be widely prevalent in the northern part of India, but its not as strong in the southern part.
You would because, you are not 60 and you are not being forced to do small time jobs for paltry income to just afford food, clothing, shelter and medical care.
A person goes and works small time jobs, struggles to put food on his table. He spends almost nothing. Struggles to pay rents, or buy clothes. All this while his hand and legs have no strength. Yet his peer who has a son eats dal, roti and kabab at home watching television.
Go and all the best trying to lecture that person, why not having a son was OK.
Honestly if you were to ask me, merely the thought of being that person scares me. I would save like hell now, have enough money to feed me until I die than be in such a position when I am 60.
>>Honestly if you were to ask me, merely the thought of being that person scares me.
Honestly, the thought of becoming either(small time job vs comfortable living with son oldman) of those old persons scare me. I would rather be an oldman, more like Ron from "Into the wild"(think lifestyle business), than either of these. Unfortunately, i can't rely on Federal Health care or pension for that.