From: J.Ainikkal@massey.ac.nz (J. Ainikkal)
Subject: Re: More About India
Summary: Womyn Rights
Keywords: Womyn Rights
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:54:14 GMT

by J. Ainikkal@massey.ac.nz 
|> Can U believe that some womyn are happy just being at home and
|> taking care of the house?
|> Can U believe that womyn do not have to have a career to be
|>happy?
|> Can U believe that happiness is relative to the person?
|>  
|> The above three questions may sound anti-feministic - but they
|>are
|> not. All I am trying to say is that all of us search for
|>happiness
|> in a way that society has made us believe we can reach
|>happiness.
|> Indian womyn in India might find themselves less socially
|>isolated
> and happier with themselves than U are.

Ms Sudha writes:
>I could believe those three questions above, but doesn't that just
>bring
>us back to the same issue?
>isn't it fundamentally wrong to have different expectations and 
>because of those expectations to relegate/restrict any class of 
>society to particular roles?

Not once did I propogate the need for all Indian womyn to 'cook,
clean etc.etc. And I do not think that I missed the point. My need
to voice my opinion came when I heard statements making
insinuations like "womyn in India are generally unhappy", and
"Indian men are less evolved" than their American counterparts.

To the second part - Americans are 'more evolved' all I have to say
is that if American men could get away with sexual harrasment they
would behave like some (the majority would be what U would say) of
the scum at home (India). If all the public transport systems in
the U.S. were packed like a can of sardines then there would be
many more cases of men doing things to womyn without their consent.

As to the first - I am gonna give U my view point. 

Society defines to us from a very early age the things we need to
do to attain happiness (I am assuming we are all striving for
happiness). By the time we have reached a mature age we have all
these prejudices already deeply emedded in our mind. It takes
education and 'radical' thought and 'new' experiences to break
these shackles. If we do not know better and live with our
ignorance we could be happy. Its when we start breaking these
shackles and fighting supression that we 'get unhappy'. Ignorance
is bliss. My point here is - just 'cause many of us are fighting
supression it does not necessarily mean that we are happier than
those who have accepted it as part of their lives. I am not
advocating ignorance either but all I am saying is that it is a
misconception to boldly make statements like all womyn in India are
unhappy.

If indian womyn were brought up with the expectations to 'cook,
clean etc. they could attain happiness doing such things. I in no
way am advocating such a role. All I am trying to say is just
'cause U and others have a different notion of happiness that does
not mean your notion is a)right  or b) the only way.

>you seem to have missed the point of fighting against
>discrimination 
>and class and gender barriers -- its just that because you are a
>woman
>you should be happy at home, or that because you're black and a
>woman
>become a maid. etc...

I cannot agree more - but if your 'ignorance'(if I may use the
word) leads to U into believing that U will be happy being a maid -
 so be it. Womyn rights should give womyn - the opportunity to
Choose. A choice which will make them happy. Not a role advocated
by feminists which tries to redifine happiness and give U's the
right way. I will state again that I am 'pro - feminist'.

>but i am not willing to admit that i (as a woman) shouldn't
>be as happy making a career and never seeing the inside of a
>kitchen as
>.a man would be.  [ this is outside of unchangeable biological
>roles] . 

No argument

>or that some men just might be as happy as some women are to be
>home-makers(sic).  i don't even think that those things are true. 
>they
>are just norms foisted by a male dominated society.

Because the men were the more powerful sex they did set the rules
and they did build the prejudices that U and I have. I have no
argument against womyn having equal opportunity to choose.

>  and they will
>change since the requisites for success in todays world are no
>longer
>dependent only on physical power.  

Thankfully power structures are changing. 

>at the same time, as a woman, i must
>admit that we have the odds stacked against us -- its definitely
>true
>that women have to face more physical agression like rape etc and
>are at
>a disadvantage there.  

I cannot comment as I have never been 'teased' or felt in imminent
danger and felt helpless. 


>but i don't think that its unnatural to try to
>overcome those kinds of obstacles and achieve what a male could

Good on U and every one actively involved in the fight.

Before I finish there is a couple of things I have to say. 1) Every
time someone argues with a womyn on the net its this great big plan
to 'supress' womyn. Its not always true. If womyn want to change
the prejudices against they have to fight. IMO, I am, in my own
way, helping people understand their prejudices. 2) There are a few
womyn who get on the net and argue for 'equal' rights but also
expect to be treated with kid gloves or their 'sensitivities' will
be hurt. Well I for one am not discriminating against any sex.  U
might get some condescending views from some men on the net who
think they have to put U's on a pedestal and worship U. Sorry thats
just not me. 3) White America was never 'poor'. This is not an
excuse for the pathetic condition of womyn in India but it is
plausible reason for the lack of attention on such issues at home.
One has to meet his/her basic needs first before one moves up the
ladder (Maslow) to meet other needs. Between the two crimes
'poverty' and 'womyn rights/abuse' we might be spending our scarce
resources fighting the the bigger of the two.

>Sudha

John Ainikkal
'Aotearoa' - Land of the long white cloud