India is a vast country. So I can't se why you and Sarah Hrdy can't be right at the same time. She wrote about some customs in some part of India in the 19th century. I thought those customs were an interesting illustration of how human societies can pull some principles to their extremes. I'm sure those extremes aren't representative of Indian marriage customs as a whole.
India is a vast country. So I can't se why you and Sarah Hrdy can't be right at the same time. She wrote about some customs in some part of India in the 19th century. I thought those customs were an interesting illustration of how human societies can pull some principles to their extremes. I'm sure those extremes aren't representative of Indian marriage customs as a whole.
I did some digging. Here's where Hrdy got her info. The first thing that jumps out at you, well me, are the caste names. None of them brahmins (highest caste). Several of them low-middle caste. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44143417
Then it might have been technically wrong by me to call them "high castes". As I understood it, those most into sex selective infanticide were warrior guys (that is, not the highest caste). I must admit I don't know what is really considered "high caste" in India. I just reflexively reasoned that it should be something corresponding to "high class" in Europe.
Caste and class are two entirely different things. India has class also. So the entire premise of "having nowhere to go" is tossed out the window into the trash. There are reasons that female infanticide existed, and still does, in India. Having no caste for a daughter to marry into wasn't one of them.
India is a vast country. So I can't se why you and Sarah Hrdy can't be right at the same time. She wrote about some customs in some part of India in the 19th century. I thought those customs were an interesting illustration of how human societies can pull some principles to their extremes. I'm sure those extremes aren't representative of Indian marriage customs as a whole.
I did some digging. Here's where Hrdy got her info. The first thing that jumps out at you, well me, are the caste names. None of them brahmins (highest caste). Several of them low-middle caste. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44143417
Then it might have been technically wrong by me to call them "high castes". As I understood it, those most into sex selective infanticide were warrior guys (that is, not the highest caste). I must admit I don't know what is really considered "high caste" in India. I just reflexively reasoned that it should be something corresponding to "high class" in Europe.
Caste and class are two entirely different things. India has class also. So the entire premise of "having nowhere to go" is tossed out the window into the trash. There are reasons that female infanticide existed, and still does, in India. Having no caste for a daughter to marry into wasn't one of them.