From: grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Marriage and related issues - My view
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:44:06 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

From: THAHARA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
______________________
[....] There is a good
argument that a housewife contributes in a tangible and material way to the
family by giving her body to bear and nurse children, and do housework.  Ever
try to calculate how much money you would have to pay someone for providing
all those services over a lifetime?  Especially in the US? [....]
----------------------

From: ram@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ram Devanathan)

========================
The phrase "When one partner depends on another for sustenance" could mean:
a) One partner is a complete invalid or
b) One partner doesn't earn money but instead stays home taking care of
   cooking, laundry and other activities which can be labelled "home-making".
     In the case of a), what you are saying is acceptable.
In scenario b), the partner who stays home provides services that are
essential for running the family. In such a family, the partners have
assumed (or have been forced into) roles that complement each other.
The partners depend on and benefit from each other. It would, therefore,
be dishonest for one partner to claim more importance, or as you
suggest sole importance, for his or her role in the family. 
========================	

	To Ram D: I am speaking of scenario B ONLY.

	1. About the wife giving her body to bear and nurse children:

	[Assumptions: The husband is the only bread-winner] 

	In my opinion, sex between the marriage partners should be practised
	ONLY WHEN BOTH AGREE. Neither partner has any right to insist on sex;
	I do not know of Indian laws but US laws clearly define that even in
	marriage, sex when one partner is unwilling can be defined as 'rape'.
	And I heartily agree with that definition. So sex has mutual and
	equal consent AND therefore mean equal responsibility of both the 
	partners.

	With that preamble, the wife DOES NO FAVOR to the husband in 'giving'
        her body; as far as nursing children goes.  The decision of when to
        bear children and how many SHOULD be reached at a mutual consensus.
        After that a mother has to play a role nature devised for her. And a
        father do what fathers are supposed to do.  {Like taking care of the
        mother throughout her pregnancy and during the lactation period, where
        the woman is physically weak and cannot be realistically expected to
        participate in other domestic chores} That is equal responsibility and
        true equality. Granted, there is a greater pain for the woman than it
        is to man; but is it the man's fault? Since it is clearly not, why then
        the tendency to undermine the man's importance in the family circle
        and elevate the woman's? My position is that the wife can only suggest;
        but it is completely the husband's prerogative whether to follow it.
	And if a wife wants equal say in domestic matters, she has to earn.
	Plain and simple.

        2. About the point on the wife doing all the household work.

        IFF it is really so, then I do not have much argument :-) {I still
        have a few objections, I will save it for the time being} But didn't 
        you read women on the net screaming 'stop treating us like chattel',
        Rao's comments of 'confining to spice racks' whenever it is {not so
        gently, I will admit} suggested that the women play their traditional
        roles of mothers and home-makers? Those who did suggest it, have been
        promptly labeled as 'MCP's!!!

        Women nowadays are expecting their husbands to take turns in cooking 
        and share other household chores. If domestic chores ARE equally shared
        where then is the justification for the wife to sit down at home and
        YET ask for EQUAL say in the domestic matters? Nothing.

        {Reverting to the objections I have; see above.}

        Is doing the household chores really so big a deal? Let's see what the
        so-called 'household chores' consist of.

        Cooking - is it a big deal? I am good cook myself; I can tell you
        that it isn't. Even the most delicious meal need not take more than
        2 hrs. And if ever my wife says that she would cook for me and asks
        me to support her for a life time, I would say it's a mighty expensive
        proposition for me and I can cook for myself, thanks but no thanks.

        Laundry - assuming a middle class family, moderately well equipped
        economically, it should not be too difficult to buy a washing machine.
        Costs aprrox. $500 in US and Rs.5000+ in India. After that what is so
        big a deal about it? Just dumping clothes and washing powder in it.
        And best of all, {potently offensive stuff follows}, DOES NOT YAP AND
	CUTS ME NO FEMINIST CRAP!!!!!!!

	Can't think of any more household duties. Gardening? Maybe, but if you
	are luxurious enough in the first place to have one.

From: Harsh Thaker
--------------------------------
[......] However, more important in my mind is the fact that spouses provide
moral and emotional support to each other in all phases of life.  When things 
are not going well at work, when someone close to you dies, or at any crisis, 
little or large, it is your spouse who is there by your side.
--------------------------------

        Companionship - It is a mighty fallacy that only the husband benefits 
	from the companionship of the wife. It's not just a one way. A man 
	needs a woman, AND A WOMAN ALSO NEEDS A MAN. Anybody who tells you
	differently, is just plain lying. So the deal has evened out already. 
	So, no excess compensation from the man. Crises do not single out any
	single partner; {Like when someone close dies} when they do happen,
	the wife will be there for the husband; ALSO THE HUSBAND WILL BE AND 
	SHOULD BE THERE FOR THE WIFE. That is after all, the marriage vow.

From: Harsh Thaker
----------------------------------
If you think that you are entitled to a greater privilege just because you are
the bread-winner or because you are older or any other thing, you are just
kidding yourself.  You may get away with it because our society sanctions such
an attitude towards the housewife, but that doesn't make it fair.
----------------------------------

	Partners contributing unequally to the family environment (how this is
	so by the simple fact of being a bread-winner is, see above), YET
	getting equal say while taking decisions is equality in your opinion?
 
From: Harsh Thaker
-----------------------------------
First of all, it is a great myth of society that the father cannot give the
same loving care as the mother.  It is natural for us to think so because
none of our fathers have really performed those functions in our childhood,
and we have no examples that we can think of.  However, there have been
sociological studies to show that fathers are capable of the same kind of
bonding with the children if only they invest their energies in the same
kind of way as the mother.  
-----------------------------------

	Funny, I think I have read studies saying that the mother's role is 
	THE MOST CRUCIAL one in an individual's life, especially in the early
	childhood. And asserting that it is even more than that of the father.
	The one or two books I read, back in India, were of early 1970's. 
	Sorry that I do not remember the titles. I have been very interested 
	in psychology stuff; as an aside, I have also read books on stuff like 
	how birth order influences the individuals' life roles. Admittedly, 
	these books are rather old. But, they also came out in a generation 
	when feminism was at its highest peak in USA, when sexual revolution 
	has taken place, and single motherhood has become somewhat fashionable
	{just to prove a point by the feminists} then. A study in such a period
	has a lot of credence, IMO. But, if it is really what you say, then I
	won't argue and I would withdraw that request.

From: Harsh Thaker
------------------------------------
Secondly, how can you expect any career-oriented woman to give up at least
five years of her working life, usually right at the middle or at the
crucial early stage of her career? [......] Assuming you consider
yourself to be career-oriented, can you imagine what would happen to your
career if you took a 5 year break from, say, 1993 to 1998?  There are only
a few careers these days where someone can take that long a holiday and
not suffer for it.  I think that the same laudable equality of standards
should apply in this aspect as it should regarding virginity.
-------------------------------------
 
	You do have a major point here. Hence my word 'request', rather than 
	'expect'. If she grants my request, I can only thank her, and see no
	way of compensating. However, I will attempt a feeble support of my
	argument. 

	When a woman is about six months pregnant, working obviously will be
	impossible. So, anyway, she has to take a vacation from a job, say
	of 6-7 months easily. There isn't any employer who would hold a job for
	that long; the point being there is an unavoidable break in her career
	at this time. Why not make the break a little bit longer? Again, I will
	only suggest this; it is up to her to decide. No arguments from me. 

From: Harsh Thaker
-------------------------------
[....] If time has to be taken off from
work, I suggest that both partners decide between themselves whose career can
most easily withstand a break, the father, mother, or both at different times.
--------------------------------

	Good suggestion, I agree whole heartedly.

	Siva Prasad.

 PS:	If anybody else wishes to follow up, please do so without any name
	calling and with civility. Tell me where I am wrong and why.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian