|
|
|
|
|
|
by Confusion
6086 days ago
|
|
|
traditional methods of sanitation offer no benefits and only fools would choose not to allocate resources to a western toilet You sketch a false dichotomy: the choice isn't either 'they are fools' or 'traditional means of sanitation are just fine'. The traditional means of sanitation are emphatically not fine. I don't just think that, I know that is true. Half of our increased life expectancy comes from better hygiene and sanitation. Have you ever been to India? Let me tell you, it literally stinks there. However, not investing in western sanitation doesn't make them fools, because proper sanitation is really costly and the perceived benefits are small. It's entirely understandable they'd rather spend the money another way. How you can turn this into some cultural superiority issue is beyond me. You know, India really is behind the West in terms of things like prosperity and life expectancy. That has nothing to do with making you feel good: it's a plain fact. |
|
|
But an article about free hand sanitizer being given away at the grocery store (for example) is far less entertaining to Americans (who have a taste for stories about their cultural supremacy) than a story about men having their marriage proposals shot down unless they agree to purchase a toilet.
The story humiliates and emasculates Indian males, and puts the blame for a big public health problem on men, as if they need to be coerced to buy a toilet ... which in India is still more of a luxury good than a sanitation necessity.
Imagine a story about American men being denied marriage unless they purchased a car with front and side airbags, anti-lock brakes, and traction control, the cheapest of which costs $19K. Then the judgmental but bemused tone sounds a bit more annoying to those who don't sense it when it's about brown people... and coincidentally brown people are the ones we drop bombs on.