I was all in until this sentence: > Intelligence was, and still holds the top spot amongst almost all South Indian families. She can say that intelligence is

I was all in until this sentence: > Intelligence was, and still holds the top spot amongst almost all South Indian families. She can say that intelligence is highly valued, and she can say that not a single person she knows or grew up with fought the kinds of battles against sexism we're familiar with in the U.S. Likewise, I can say, "I'm familiar with battles against sexism in the U.S.," without needing to cite or defend a single thing. But the moment either one of us makes a statement to characterize some grouping of people outside of our direct experience, there almost always needs to be more than anecdotal evidence to back it up. Likewise, me saying, "blank is the single greatest problem facing U.S. corporations today," would need citations-- plus probably an elucidated theory. Otherwise I'm just stating my own personal intuition in language that is unreasonably broad. clarification: I changed "all" to "some grouping of people outside of our direct experience." I think that's a much more meaningful way to put it, as it doesn't matter whether someone is talking about "all", "almost all", "most", etc.