From: grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Marriage and related issues - My view
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:11:41 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services


	With all the recent postings on marriage on the net, I think I will
	share my views with you all.

	In one of Praveen's postings I think, he asked whether men insist 
	on the virginity of the wife before marriage. Well, here is one man 
	who would. In my opinion, pre-marital and extra-marital sex is a 
	sin. {Exception: when the woman is raped} Hence, whether or not my
	future wife is a virgin, is definitely my business. Many on the net
	may disagree with me on this; but a woman who is not a virgin before
	marriage evidently does not share my deeply held beliefs about the
	sanctity of marriage. Note that I am not asking my future wife to
	meet any standards which I am not imposing on myself.

	There was also a recent repost of MANUSHI article on the net from 
	Dheeraj Sanghi. So far I have not seen a single criticism of the
	article, everybody seems to be clapping all around. I will add my
	gripe about it. In it, Madhu Kishwar proposes a few guidelines for
	ensuring that dowry deaths do not take place. 

> 4. A woman should not be able to pass on to her husband or in-laws
>    property inherited from her parents. .....(*deleted*)
	
	Elsewhere in the same article she writes that the property of the
	husband should be considered to be a joint property of both the
	husband and the wife.

	[I do not have the original article in full; the above extract is
	from one of the followups which is still alive at this site]

	Now where does that leave a husband? The wife gets a share of the 
	husband's property, but the husband has no share of the wife's? 
	Granted, there are dowry deaths, I am not denying nor condoning them,
	but to pass laws like the above is certainly regressive. Such laws
	attempt to 'increase power' to the real or perceived 'underdogs',
	{read women here}; but it blatantly ignores the fact that 'power 
	corrupts'. In other words, socialism! A similar thing has happened 
	with respect to the reservations; see where did that get us. Rather
	than cure, it only exacerbated the relations between castes. Reverse
	discrimination will never achieve equality. Women can be as diabolic 
	as men when they find that the dice are loaded in their favor.

	I am not a subscriber to MANUSHI; but if an article like the above is
	a rule rather than an exception, somebody please tell me it is not so,
	I am glad that I didn't waste my money.

>From: niru@cc.gatech.edu (Niru Mallavarupu)

>In fact, a netter had actually admitted that rather than
>waste his "TIME, MONEY, ENERGY and EMOTIONS", he might as
>well have somebody arrange it for him. This epitomizes the
>ESCAPIST LETHARGIC attitude to this issue.

	You do not just seem to understand what a toll an emotional setback
	takes on human personality. I don't agree with you that such a mind
	set is 'escapist and lethargic'. This is not to liken women to
	appliances, but tell me, when you cook, would you rather have all the
	modern conveniences of gas oven etc. or would you rather cook using
	firewood and earthenware pots coughing from the smoke? If you answer
	yes to the former, would I be correct in labeling you as lethargic?

	For men and women to be treated as equals in a marriage, it is crucial
	that both have economic independence. When one partner depends on the
	other for sustenance, IMO, the bread-winning partner is justified in
	sidelining the other's point of view in case of a conflict, in taking 
	decisions that affect the family as a whole; I know I will get flamed 
	for this, but convince me why it should not be so, instead of telling
	me what a chauvinist I am without backing up your view.

	When I marry, I would seek a woman who is career-oriented; I don't
	prefer one who tends to lean on her husband. I would have only one
	request for her - that she take care of the children when they are
	born for the first few years of their lives, until they are of school
	going age. The rationale for this is that however good a father or
	a daycare nurse be, he/she can never substitute the loving care of 
	the mother.

	I have a lot of other ideas to share on these issues, but first let
	me test the waters with this preliminary.

	Discussions welcome,

	Siva Prasad.			(grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu)