Thanks to Daniel Lak for his column "Sisters are doing it for themselves". Women in, say, America are economically advantaged over, say, most women in Nepal. I am fairly sure that the women of Nepal who are fighting for women's rights are relatively wealthy. Wealth does mean advantage in this case. Poor women in Nepal (or anywhere else, for that matter) won't have a snowball's chance in hell of changing their lives till they have an option to marriage. One thing I have realised on my visits to rural Nepal is that women all have to leave their homes when they get married, men stay in their homes. Thus men have a lifelong network of support in place from birth, while women, when they get married, are surrounded by strangers and live in a strange environment... completely dependant on three people (husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law). It's the luck of the draw for them.

Hilary Dirlam
by email

If you insist on having a bideshi writer on your staff, why must it be Daniel Lak? I am embarrassed by his shallow insights, his rather old school thinking, and his false modesty. It was "Sisters are doing it for themselves" (#77) that broke this camel's back. His attack on the men of Nepal does not acknowledge contributions made by many wonderful, supportive Nepali men. Women work hard, men work hard, children work hard, this is the reality of food deficits and agrarian economics that dominate the routine in Nepal's remote hill communities. If men were to spend more time with their children, would this improve the situation? That is a difficult question, but I believe Mr Lak's response would be: no.

J Watson Potter
by email