From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Subject: Re: Arranged Marriages and Wedding Nights...
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:48:05 GMT

In <1992Nov10.231626.27646@ctp.com> pghol@ctp.com (Preeti Anissa Gholap)
writes: 

>In article <1992Nov9.175353.12060@cirrus.com> venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar) writes:
>>I can't imagine that in today's world *all* men regardless
>>of background and circumstance support this. 

>Thats not my claim at all. I wasn't talking about *all* men, i was
>merely commenting on the dynamics of arranged marriages. 
>I agree it would be ridiculous to say *all* men, *all* pigs, 
>*all* whatever. Men, like pigs, have a lot of individuality  :)

Your not *saying* it in so many words does not preclude your *implying* it.
It seems to be your stand that by not categorically stating the idea, you
are free of the implications. Unfortunately, untrue. However, now that you
say that it wasn't your claim I guess that you are qualifying your original
post with this statement. Are you?

>Most human beings, whether they like it or not, are "conditioned"
>from birth by societal and parental expectations. In your "circles"
>women and men might be conditioned to achieve independence. 
>In other circles women are conditioned to heed, while men lead.

True, but that has to be mentioned. Go back and read your original article
in this light. 

That is why I feel that people don't recognize *any* change, even if it is
small. It is only with small change that a bigger one can occur. 

>>I know that this is an individual circumstance, but at least it is more
>>*honest* than unsupported generalizations.

>Its an "unsupported generalization" to say that the arranged marriage
>market in India is a meat market where overwhelmingly,the man's
>party has the clout and "buying power" ??  I think not!

No, it is not. But, that wasn't what you wrote, Preeti. You may
*think* you said that, but the post didn't.

>It says enough that you think its "impertinent" and "feminist" 
>(as if that were an epithet) of me to point out the unequal 
>treatment women receive in India, in most aspects of life.

I could draw unsupported conclusions in the same fashion, but I won't.
Bringing personalities into a rational argument doesn't help much. 

Let me just say this. That wasn't what I found impertinent. What I found
(and stated so in my post) impertinent (not feminist) was your
categorization of all men as participating in the system. You agree yourself
that "say[ing] *all* men, *all* pigs, *all* whatever is ridiculous". But you
said just that. And I found *that* impertinent. Questions??  

>Please get real (or run the risk of joining the Alok club)

I find that amusing. And, I suspect anyone who has been on the net for a
while (and has seen my posts when I disagree with Alok) should. 

I am tired of this remark "please get real". I would suggest that you take
the trouble of saying why you think what I say is not substantiated.
Disparagement never helped. If you feel what you say is right, then say
*why* you think so, when I refute something or comment on your post. Your
flames are reminiscent of the knee-jerk reflexes prevalent in a newsgroup
like alt.flame.  
-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(510)-226-2100 X3737 
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian