From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Mother/Father roles (was Re: Indian women in the Workplace India v/s USA)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:29:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct13.024400.17303@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c150-bt@po.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.231942.27132@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> 
> >This emotional and physical closeness of the mother and the child makes
> >it logical that they would spend more time together.
> 
> The danger in such "functional" arguments is that you use the status quo
> to support an argument for what ought to be rather than what already is.
> 

No. The argument used was that mother carries the child for nine months
in her womb and that child likes breast feeding because of physical
closeness (as opposed to from a bottle).

I did not use the status quo to support an argument. I used an argument
to support the status quo.

> In other words, just because in many human societies, women spend more time
> in child rearing than men do, doesn't make it necessarily right, or
> advantageous, or equal, or fair.  
> 
You are going of a tangent. Nobody said that just because women spend
more time in child rearing in some societies (in fact most societies,
they spend more time in child rearing as compared to the men), that it
is right, advantageous, or equal, or fair.

> The same goes for cooking food for the family, cleaning up around the house,
> and other duties that women currently shoulder.
> 
You are going of a tangent again. 

> I have heard it argued by II parents that women are "naturally" more suited
> for child-raising because they're "naturally" more caring.  Beyond the
> male and female extremes of muscularity or aggression,
> much of what people take for granted as biologically natural is actually
> culturally conditioned.  

What makes you so sure about that ?

> There are some societies in which women are 
> aggressive and warlike, and men are passive and nurturing.  (Example from
> any basic Anthropology course.)

Nowhere in the world the men are carrying the baby in their wombs 
(they don't have one !), nor are they 'breast-feeding' anywhere.

> In traditional Indian families, women have become the way they are due
> to many influences from the Indian culture.
> 
Fine.

> For example, secretaries are perceived positively as caring and people-
> oriented, and negatively as praise-dependent and lacking leadership.  These
> traits are derived specifically from their work environment and role
> in corporations.  (Example from WOMEN AND MEN OF THE CORPORATION, a
> classic sociological study by Rosabeth Moss Kanter.)

Are these examples of women in traditional Indian families ?!

> 
> Responding to Alok et al. who have accused me of wanting to deny Indian
> culture altogether:

You gave a perception in your previous posts that there is hardly any good
in Indian culture..

> If I didn't acknowledge my Indianness, why would I be wasting my time
> on acuai?

What you have been doing so far is the following:

1) Bashing II parents
2) Promoting 'American' ultra-liberal cultural values among IA/IIs, 
3) and now 'attacking' Alok ...

Whether you consider wasting time or use of your time, that is YOUR
BUSINESS. I dare not say anything about that :-) 

> If I didn't care about the issues, why would I argue with Alok?

Right now you seem to be 'attacking' me as opposed to arguing ...

> If I wanted to throw out the culture entirely, why would I take the
> trouble to point out its good as well as its bad?  (Though, admittedly,
> that hasn't been for a couple of weeks :-)  )

I have hardly seen any of good pointed out by you.
May be I have forgotten. Remind me what good of Indian culture you
have pointed out so far on acuai.

> What I want is modification of the culture: more tolerance, more liberal
> attitudes, without losing the integral family strength.  Some American
> families have achieved this; why can't IA families?

And I fully agree with you on this one.  I am not kidding.

> Let's work together to advance our community.

I appreciate your stating this in this forum.

> Manish
>                                           /-\o /-()  -- -  --   -
>    Manish Vij    ::    '89 EX500          \_/ \\/ )  -- -    --
>    mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu                       |/_\  -- -  --   - 
>                                                 \_/.  .  . . ........
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian