From: sgs1679@usl.edu (Sudhindranath Sira G)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Abortion and the status of Indian women
Keywords: India, women, West.
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:56:10 GMT
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana

In article <1992Jul29.192930.10820@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gayathri@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.195446.106984@ua1ix.ua.edu>, ngopalas@ha14.eng.ua.edu (Nath S. Gopalaswamy) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul28.184107.16452@usl.edu>, sgs@ucs.usl.edu (Sudhindranath SG) writes:
>> 
>> |> In its relatively short span of existence, the attitude of the West 
>> |> towards its women is to treat them as objects. This may sound rather 
>> |> surprising especially when the West is regarded as having "progressed" 
>> |> because it achieved "equality" of the sexes. In reality, it only resulted 
>> |> in forcing the women to fend for themselves, something that is evidenced 
>> |> by the plight of the numerous single-parent families here. (I feel that the 
>> |> number of single-parent families led by _fathers_ is relatively very
>> |> small. If anybody has any concrete information, he/she may clarify.)
>
>I'd like to make a small point here. Treatment of women as objects is not 
>true of just the west. Even disregarding the past 20 or 30 generations,
>women had been treated in just that way for a long, long time. Taking the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, when I said "30 generations", you should realize that it is
something like 1000 _years_. Even if we take it as 50 generations,
it still is only a fraction of India's existence as a civilization.

I feel that the inability to grasp such time-scales is the result
of too much of Western indoctrination...

>time when monarchy flourished in India, princesses were given away in 
>marriage just to keep peace with a powerful king even if he were old and 
>ugly or otherwise repellent to the bride. As for single-parent families,
>several women widowed in childhood had not only to run single-parent 
>families but also it was  considered "inauspicious" to see them at certain
>times or in ceratin places . Also, they had to depend on their brothers 
>or somebody else for sustaining themselves and bear all the insults. The
>wives of the time had to see to it that they pleased their husbands in
>every way and tolerate even his irrational behaviour - and were generally
>some kind of "possessions" who weren't supposed to have a mind of their 
>own, who were supposed to forgive and tolerate whatever the husband said
>or did, who had to listen either to her father (before marriage), to her
>husband or to her son (in her last years). 

I acknowledge that all this is true. I myself have heard/seen
these things. But I wish to clarify that these distortions took place
in the dark ages that started around 800 C.E.

>Oh yes, women were supposed to
>have been respected at sometime in the historic past - and there have 
>been women poets and all that - but barring few exceptions, I can't 
>remember reading of a time when women had true respect in the family and
>the freedom to choose her way of life - maybe in the B.C s ? 
>If there 
>had been such a past when ordinary women had this kind of freedom, I'd
>certainly like to hear about it.
>

Well, I wonder whether you are being derogatory when you talk of
BC. It looks like you feel that such ideas are so antiquated that
they cannot be implemented now. What _I_ feel is that certain
values are fundamental, universal, immutable and eternal. 
There is nothing foolish in trying to rediscover them.

I suggest that you read "Incorporating modernity into tradition".
I don't remember the author's (is it Hiriyannaiah ?) I don't have a 
copy with me. Otherwise I could have mailed/posted the excerpts.
It does not focus on women alone, I think but gives a pretty clear 
idea of what our approach should be when we talk about our society's 
future.

>> cultures. Our culture is unique is that women do carry a lot of respect,
>> but today's consumerist and materialistic attitude has led to an absolute
>> breakdown of that respect. The best way to work things out is to use those
>
>It's not just "today's consumerist and materialist attitude" my friend.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

Well, the hundreds of Indian women who have been burnt because they
didn't bring "enough"  dowry might disagree with you...

>Regards,
>Gayathri.
>--
>-----------------------------------------

Regards,

--Sudhi.

--
                       Sira Gopinath Sudhindranath. 
email : sudhi@usl.edu, sgs@ucs.usl.edu    Address : USL PO Box 41688,
Phone : (318)-232-2198 (r)	                    Lafayette, LA 70504-1688.
	(318)-231-6539 (o)                          USA.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian