5 ms·

Quite right. I think we are seeing proof of what you are saying with the childcare cost crisis in most developed nations. A good proportion of early years chil

Quite right. I think we are seeing proof of what you are saying with the childcare cost crisis in most developed nations. A good proportion of early years childcare (and often later) was "free". Now that it is being transferred into wage labour in many countries with growing labour force participation amongst women, we are learning that this stuff was very costly. Similarly, all the household tasks then would take a full working day. Also, they did have sports and games. Many of the games we play today have their origins in that period, but they weren't of the formal nature that we have today (and there were far more bloodsports). They had culture of a sort: theatre, singing, music. And they had more mass social events like festivals and market days (life today is far more atomized, back then this was a way for everyone to gather in a place and get business done). The rich didn't do organized sports either (as we conceive)...hunting of course was a huge pasttime. The "innovations" of that period passed into irrelevance when the world changed. Our "innovations" will also pass into irrelevance too. EDIT: btw, someone else has said that only the activities of the rich are recorded...this isn't right, there are lots of social history books which cover the leisure activities of workers in this period (if you Google social history or leisure history, you will find the period you are interested in).

coldtea 5y ago
>Similarly, all the household tasks then would take a full working day. Not even close. Try visiting a rural place that still lives in pre-20th century standards (not as hard as it sounds in Central Asia, Africa, etc. Heck, even in most of Europe it was the norm up around the 1950s in almost all rural areas, and in many places in Southern Europe it was quite the same up to the 1970s -- electricity and cars didn't come to lots of rural areas until that decade). In any case, household tasks were an insignificant amount of the day. (Also, contrary to the modern myth, both men and women worked. "Women not working" was a thing for richer families, in poor and rural households women worked just fine, in the same fields and tasks as men - and of course this continued in the industrial era, poor women working in factories was standard. Women "not allowed to work" was a rich-household's problem). As for the kids, aside from school (where that was compulsory, since I include here the 20th century European rural experience), after quite a small age, like 3-4 they mostly roamed around playing and were taken care for by the whole community - not many struggling "parents without nunnies" or helicopter parenting there. And after getting around 10 or so they'd start helping with some chores too. Kids in industrialized nations had it worse. In the 19th century to about 1930, from Paris and London to New York, there were 8-10-12 year old kids working in the chimneys, the factories, even the mines: https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners
- legitster 5y ago
  I have visited a pre-industrial villages in Eastern Europe and not once did I feel the urge to trade places. I have no idea what you are on about. The hosts spent two hours preparing a hearth to cook bread for us. And they ended the meal with a plead for us to help them get visas to the West. And you are vastly underestimating the child death rates where small children roam freely. Children in factories might have arguably been safer than on a farm. We need to stop romanticizing other people's poverty.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Which part of that comment makes it sound great? And if you think kids in factories were safer, you probably don't know much about how child work in factories functioned.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >I have visited a pre-industrial villages in Eastern Europe and not once did I feel the urge to trade places. Well, this is beside the point, this was about whether "household chores took the best part of the day". Not whether you would trade to rural living or not. >The hosts spent two hours preparing a hearth to cook bread for us So? I've roasted, cooked, etc. for decades, and it was never a big deal, nor you have to be over the wood-stove or grill for the whole time (when you do, the cooking is very fast, like with some meats). And if there are 3-4 persons in the household (as there always were, families lived with several children and grandparents where never far away), it's dead easy to have rounds keeping an eye on it and still be free to do whatever else. >And you are vastly underestimating the child death rates where small children roam freely. Children in factories might have arguably been safer than on a farm. You're vastly overestimating. Kids restrained is modern helicopter parent hysteria. Kids generally roamed free up until the 70s in most places in Europe, and well into the 60s in most neighborhoods, even in cities like New York. It's not some medieval phenomenon, or something associated with "high child death rates". The ocassional kid could stil e.g. drown in a lake, like the ocassional kid today can be hit by a car. But that was not where "high child death rates" came from. Increased child death rates were indeed a thing, but were in birth or small age due to the lack of modern medicine (and most of it basic stuff, like cleaning hands, penicilin, etc, not high test medicine). In any case, not something particular to "kids roaming free".

coldtea 5y ago

>Similarly, all the household tasks then would take a full working day. Not even close. Try visiting a rural place that still lives in pre-20th century standards (not as hard as it sounds in Central Asia, Africa, etc. Heck, even in most of Europe it was the norm up around the 1950s in almost all rural areas, and in many places in Southern Europe it was quite the same up to the 1970s -- electricity and cars didn't come to lots of rural areas until that decade). In any case, household tasks were an insignificant amount of the day. (Also, contrary to the modern myth, both men and women worked. "Women not working" was a thing for richer families, in poor and rural households women worked just fine, in the same fields and tasks as men - and of course this continued in the industrial era, poor women working in factories was standard. Women "not allowed to work" was a rich-household's problem). As for the kids, aside from school (where that was compulsory, since I include here the 20th century European rural experience), after quite a small age, like 3-4 they mostly roamed around playing and were taken care for by the whole community - not many struggling "parents without nunnies" or helicopter parenting there. And after getting around 10 or so they'd start helping with some chores too. Kids in industrialized nations had it worse. In the 19th century to about 1930, from Paris and London to New York, there were 8-10-12 year old kids working in the chimneys, the factories, even the mines: https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners

legitster 5y ago
I have visited a pre-industrial villages in Eastern Europe and not once did I feel the urge to trade places. I have no idea what you are on about. The hosts spent two hours preparing a hearth to cook bread for us. And they ended the meal with a plead for us to help them get visas to the West. And you are vastly underestimating the child death rates where small children roam freely. Children in factories might have arguably been safer than on a farm. We need to stop romanticizing other people's poverty.
- watwut 5y ago
  Which part of that comment makes it sound great? And if you think kids in factories were safer, you probably don't know much about how child work in factories functioned.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >I have visited a pre-industrial villages in Eastern Europe and not once did I feel the urge to trade places. Well, this is beside the point, this was about whether "household chores took the best part of the day". Not whether you would trade to rural living or not. >The hosts spent two hours preparing a hearth to cook bread for us So? I've roasted, cooked, etc. for decades, and it was never a big deal, nor you have to be over the wood-stove or grill for the whole time (when you do, the cooking is very fast, like with some meats). And if there are 3-4 persons in the household (as there always were, families lived with several children and grandparents where never far away), it's dead easy to have rounds keeping an eye on it and still be free to do whatever else. >And you are vastly underestimating the child death rates where small children roam freely. Children in factories might have arguably been safer than on a farm. You're vastly overestimating. Kids restrained is modern helicopter parent hysteria. Kids generally roamed free up until the 70s in most places in Europe, and well into the 60s in most neighborhoods, even in cities like New York. It's not some medieval phenomenon, or something associated with "high child death rates". The ocassional kid could stil e.g. drown in a lake, like the ocassional kid today can be hit by a car. But that was not where "high child death rates" came from. Increased child death rates were indeed a thing, but were in birth or small age due to the lack of modern medicine (and most of it basic stuff, like cleaning hands, penicilin, etc, not high test medicine). In any case, not something particular to "kids roaming free".