> Naturally. Boys are a better bet. I don't get it (which is why I've left your message attached below for context)
To me, this begs the question, which is: in a situation where *muscle power* is of monotonically decreasing importance to survival, why would the sex ratio be as skewed as it is? Udhay On 10-Apr-11 7:44 AM, ss wrote: > On Sunday 10 Apr 2011 2:34:09 am Radhika, Y. wrote: >>> One observation Shobha makes really resonates for me: if women and girls >>> are themselves made so insecure by their circumstances how can they >>> welcome girl children? I don't think it is restricted to the rural poor. > > > The mechanism is not too dificult to understand and it occurs in modern-day > Indian families. > > For starters the girl marries the family. Even if she is wooed by (or woos) > someone - the fact that her handsome hunk of man is mamma's boy may be hidden > until too late. > > The daughter in law of the family gets a position that is just above servant. > The maid goes missing and daughter in law fills in. The one life event that > can > rescue a late-teens/twenty-something girl from this life of servitude is the > birth of a boy child. Her squealing baby, little Rahul Rajkumar - the future > heir to the family honor is now the focus of attention. But little Rahul only > wants to be with mamma. So mamma needs to be looked after and pampered. As > long as little Rahul depends on mamma, mamma will be queen mother. Naturally, > the longer the dependence of Rahul on mamma, the longer the joy lasts for the > erstwhile servant/daughter in law. > > But, god forbid, if she should err and produce a girl child - then woe betide > her. > > Naturally. Boys are a better bet. > > shiv > -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
