Nowhere in this thread have I described any of my beliefs regarding Indian society, in general or in particular. This is your third or fourth attempt at mindreading by projection from what appears to be an ideological stance. So far, you have been always wrong. Time to question the ideological stance? A traditional Mormon society would make a good trial of my suggestion - it features a comparatively (re neighbors) strict regulation of female sexuality within a comparatively (re neighbors) rigid patriarchal hierarchy, a feature of some human societies which I suggest can be largely explained by the patriarchal hierarchy's power and control of community wealth in consequence. The comparatively comprehensive control of the sexuality would then, in my suggestion, be likely correlated with comparatively greater control of community doings and wealth by members of that hierarchy: i.e. adult men and especially high status ones. Is that the case?
For extra credit, similarly compare the wack-job fundamentalist Mormon polygamist colonies in northern Arizona against mainstream Mormon societies.
Your beliefs are exposed in your analysis. I profess no ideology. It is you that consistently uses terms like 'patriarchal hierarchies', 'sexual oppression' and 'oppressor'; the tired old rhetoric of post-colonial, hippie academics and their fellow travellers. You have not demonstrated any link between the oppression of female sexuality and the control of wealth. What is controlled in the societies you use as examples is the reproductive capacity, the choice of who mates with who - mate selection - which is the province of women in the West. Hence your need to tie it to something more fundamental - economics - an attempt to validate the importance of economically driven, Western policies such as women's rights.
So how do you keep getting them wrong? It sounds like you're guessing blindly. Normal terms for physical realities. Odd you would read ideology into such things - what term to you use for what most people call a "patriarchal hierarchy", say? I have argued for its plausibility as an explanation of "how does this happen" - the thread topic. It's up for discussion, not demonstrated. The argument runs from observed correlation through suggested direction of influence to explanatory power. You could argue against it very effectively by coming up with significant counterexamples to the observed correlation. Women in general, and subgroups of powerful women in particular, do not force men to mate with partners of the powerful women's choice, in the US. Mate choice for others is not the province of women in the US. You fail to distinguish between choice for oneself and control over others.
