If Shefali Anand did live in India, especially through the 90's and the current decade, she would know that Indian women are not exactly demure as most misconceptions go. The author would have been enlightened if she had taken the trouble to actually live and meet some (so-called repressed rural and urban) Indian women[0].
[0] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1381303.cms On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:53 AM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a Dawkinsian sense the > highest payoff for a human female in such a society would come from a > faithful partner who would support her in times of vulnerability, while http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ahmedabad/Most-sex-workers-in-city-are-homemakers/articleshow/4363241.cms In the 1990's (before the online versions of TOI), a Masters/PhD student at Mumbai University had researched a similar topic as part of her thesis which claimed (among other things) that educated men with "good" jobs wanted to marry "PYT's" as the *pretty wife* would be the ladder for his career advancement. The phenomenon called "One Kkkkkapoot" obviously didnt find this story "Indian" enough. A public loss. Unfortunately the University researcher was embroiled in a quarrel over the research credits with her thesis advisor and TOI did'nt bother to publish the final storyline... whether her thesis was accepted or not. > Marriage is a human social construct in which monogamy is forced. As I have > stated earlier I believe it has social benefits that are unrecognised by > randy men and women who have access to birth control. In the absence of birth > control, the human female gets to pay a higher price for polygamy than the > male. How so? The women can still abandon the kid at an orphanage or abort them at a local illegal quack, risking her life in the process. Such 5x5cm articles were an everyday occurrence in local papers. -- .
