From: grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Marriage and related issues
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:09:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <167C9BAC7.THAHARA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, 
THAHARA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
> dkulkarn@mozart.helios.nd.edu (Dinesh Kulkarni) writes:
>>
>>	Marriage is a non-pro-rated partnership in which the contributors
>>do what it takes to have a successful family (should be a mutually agreeable
>>state of affairs)....The say you get is by virtue of being my partner and 
>>not because you have contributed X dollars (or Rupees) or Y hours of work.
>  
> HEAR HEAR!  My sentiments exactly!  This was exactly what I was trying to 
> drive at in my earlier response on this topic .......

	This is exactly where I differ. In Harsh Thaker's personal example,
	both the partners earn [Note that I did not say earning equally even
	before. Unless there is substantial difference in earnings like twice
	or thrice as the other partner, it is okay]; a case with which I do
	not have any problem with. And Harsh, only in a case like yours, does 
	the nett responsibilities get evenly distributed over a long period of 
	time.

	In a scenario like when a woman gets married to an earning man, and
	just does plain nothing except sitting at home, atleast until the
	kids arrive, the deal is blatantly loaded in favor of the women. If
	a man proposes such a deal, and yet treats his wife on equal terms,
	I would think whether he has lost his marbles. If a woman does, I
	have every reason to be suspicious of her motives. Such a deal is
	very much justified in olden days, or in families which cannot afford
	the modern machines [below upper middle-class] and where manual
	labor is very much needed. I also propose that a man help the wife
	in such cases occasionally, because IT IS AN OVERLOAD for the woman.
	But in an average upper middle class, I presume most of the netters
	belong to, the household work is ridiculously simple. 

	Face it, feeding another human being nowadays is a very expensive 
	proposition. [This reminds me of something - just the other day, my 
	roomie and I calculated what it takes to bring up a new-born kid and 
	make him self-sufficient. Estimated time period - 22 years (from self 
	experience) and we put in all very approximate figs. for various
	expenditures. Guess what - we ended up with nearly 1 MILLION $$!!
	This is for USA, based on present day rates and not accounting for
	inflation. So folks, remember, every American citizen is worth a million
	dollars! :-) :-)] It may be of comparable value to the Indian case too.
	Thus, the issues of whether to marry or not, whether to raise kids or 
	not, are MILLION DOLLAR DEALS! Because of personal reasons/ideas/
	convictions, may be some of you are willing to put up with it. None 
	of my business, but by God, _I_ am NOT willing to get into such a 
	losing proposal. Call me materialistic, but there it is. If I do get
	into such a deal, isn't it reasonable for me to ask for a _greater_
	(but definitely NOT absolute) say in domestic matters? Don't I even
	DESERVE it? Even if I do get it, IMO, it is still pennies on the dollar.

	[Flamebait : Actually I think, a man in such a position, can compromise.
	Well, folks, the spelling of compromise starts with a D! :-)]

	Let me stop at this on the 'say' thing and move on to other related
	issues.

	Alimony : I did not bother much about this in India, so I do not know
	much about Indian situation. But in the west, again, I find, the
	laws are biased towards the women. 
	
	[Admittedly, my knowledge is only gleaned from TV shows like LA Law, 
	Reasonable Doubts, Matlock and other stuff which deals with court room 
	scenes. So I am open to correction on this.]

	Why is it that whenever a divorce takes place, regardless of whose
	fault it is, regardless of who instigated it, it is the man who has
	to pay the alimony to the wife? This so, even if the man gets the
	custody of the children. I know that if the woman remarries, the
	alimony payments can stop. And there are a lot of women out there, 
	who exploit this as long as they can; case in point, the recent news
	report courtesy Ms. Sylvia D'Cruz about a case before the Supreme
	Court of Canada. A few years ago, I read in Reader's Digest that a
	woman divorced her husband for the simple reason that he 'snores'
	while sleeping!! And granted her a divorce immediately PLUS ALIMONY!!
	Another case - Brigitte Nielsen and Sylvester Stallone's case.
	Sometimes I wonder, if American men are really nuts, to marry when
	there is a high probability [1 in 2] of failure of marriage and they
	may have to pay a share of their earnings for no apparent return;
	especially when there is a general social acceptance of live-in
	situation here [sic].  

	Got to go now; more on this later.

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