[jt2190]

  > ... its actually good sense.

It's only "good sense" if, and this is a big if, (a) we have a strict scientific understanding of what we mean when we say "unclean" and (b) we know that we have literally no other way of mitigating this "uncleanliness."

Just as surgeons learned to sterilize themselves and their equipment once they had a scientific understanding of infection, we now have lots of scientific understanding of human menstruation and cleanliness. We should therefor look upon those that insist that women be treated as "unclean" and kept away from the village water supply and temple the same way we'd view a surgeon that insisted that there was no need to wash up before operating.

[apalmer]

No one knew scientifically for thousands of years why pigs were unclean. Or shellfish, or 80% of the stuff that was considered 'unclean' food according to the first testament. Now a days there is a particular scientific explanation for it...

traditionally it was the pig rolls around in its own feces, and smells bad, and folks seem to get sick from its meat...

the menstruation situation, its bloody, it smells bad, and the women seem to be in pain when they have it... maybe we should not have them handling or washing their clothing and rags in the communal drinking water does not seem like an irrational conclusion.

It seems pretty rational to me...

[jt2190]

Ah I see. You failed to define "village water supply" as an open stream or river.

You also failed to explain why only women are "unclean" in this scenario, since men and animals are also covered in dirt and germs when they bathe. Wouldn't all people and animals be "unclean" then? Seems like the "pretty rational" behavior of keeping women out of the water fails to account for "unclean" men and animals as well.

Please explain.

[Crake]

>Seems like the "pretty rational" behavior of keeping women out of the water fails to account for "unclean" men and animals as well.

I really doubt that they'd let a guy bleeding out everywhere do much of anything either. On a fundamental level, blood has a strong association with injury and sickness for what I think should be obvious reasons.

[sizzle]

last time I checked, these rural villagers do not have running water which affects how they bathe, clean clothes, prepare food etc. Add in religious rituals and you have some powerful persuasion to do things in a way that seems backwards to us.

[ballard]

These are the same areas that unfortunately still have honor killings. Regardless, cultural judgements are not an absolute truth, and so other ways, no matter how extreme or foreign, can be tolerated. The frontier that can be helped is hygiene and self-sufficiency. If can start a sexual equality revolution in India, build a bazillion of these machines. A 3d printer as it were.

[sizzle]

I think you have your facts mixed up. Honor killings are not an Indian ritual by any means and unheard of in even uneducated villages.

[plumenator]

Actually, he is right. Khap panchayats in the state of Haryana act as a parallel government and sanction honor killings. Recently in a village in Bengal a similar village body ordered a woman to be gang-raped by her fellow villagers.

[ballard]

There's likely global (but unprovable given nature of social science) precedent for this and similar in most every culture where fidelity and virginity were absolute sacred values. Another practice for example, rural villagers in South American will kill you no questions asked if you mess with their daughters. In the US, a "shotgun wedding" had its name for a reason. My grandparents can attest that a couple of my great-grandparents were modern comparatively barbaric farmers (Jeff Foxworthy redneck jokes all the way).