Because they went out in the villages and coerced (sometimes through threats and violence) poor and uneducated people into the procedure. I am not saying “male sterilisation” is the answer but:
> In the conditions of generalized poverty that prevail and will continue indefinitely to prevail for the great mass of Indians contraception is totally impractical.
How can you be raising issues of practicality when one of your own suggested adaptations is male homosexuality (to handle the lower female population)?
I think you are focusing on the wrong angle here:
> Undoubtedly many women who selectively abort female fetuses do so for that reason, which under Indian conditions (not about to change short of thoroughgoing social revolution plus Chinese-type improvement in living standards) makes perfect sense. […]
>
> When a woman makes a choice that she believes is best for her and that in fact is best for her society, what right has anyone to denounce her choice as "abhorrent?”
We do not know at all that this is “undoubtedly” the woman’s choice! What we do know is that the number of women in the population has faced drastic reduction. To me, this is not a “pro-choice” issue. It is an issue of a culture (for whatever sociobiological or other reason) that chooses to undervalue the presence of women.
On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:34 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> OK. They didn't work for pay. But don't they work in the husband's family?
>
Yes, of course, but that’s not “valuable”.
—ravi
> Joanna
>
> ----------------------------
> You are mostly right. Small correction: traditionally women didn’t work (for pay, that is!), so a girl is a burden for the husband’s family; hence the dowry, which in turn makes her a burden for her own parents. The boy on the other hand takes care of the parents in old age, so he is cherished.