From: dey@gaia.cs.umass.edu (Jayanta K. Dey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: part 2 on another IIW's views on recent posts
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:42:32 GMT
Reply-To: dey@gaia.cs.umass.edu (Jayanta K. Dey)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr10.175444.20234@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> uxa@po.CWRU.Edu (Unnati Amin) writes:
>
>hi, sorry had to cut short my earlier post,but I'm back to append
>to my already lengthy monologue! 
>----As to the specifications in matrimonials: If you were choosing
>somebody--"cold", wouldn't you prefer the person to be as
>compatible as possible? Why would you want to have a lot of domestic
>hassles, when you don't even know the person well enough? It's
>almost like choosing a room-mate,except with more "intimacy"! The
>better thing to do would be to allow both men and women to have 
>more contact with the other person than just the customary
>"1 month before the wedding". 

I guess if I were to choose a person "cold", I would be ready to make a lot of
compromises because I would like to start off without any expectations, so that
anything that works out is positive.  On the other hand I absolutely agree that
the process, in general, is like that of choosing a roommate, and one would
like minimum problems on that account.  In that respect, I fully agree that an
extended, or even a live-in relationship prior to marriage is likely to reduce
tension afterwards because the traditional "one-month" or whatever
fixed-period is not enough to get intimate with a person.  Of course, one
cannot generalize this, a lot of this is really dependent on how much a person
wishes (or often in the case of Indian women, trained) to compromise - so I
guess this is a personal statement.

>Again, the pressure does exist from
>parents and relatives to try and compromise as much as possible,
>since the"match" would have already been chosen very carefully and 
>one as good as this would be very difficult to come by again. 

Seconded without second thoughts.

>Contrary to the earlier IIW's opinions, all Indian men are not
>pigs(not exactly her words, I forget), but what do you do when you
>are 25 and still have not found a mate on your own (falling in love)?
>But you do have manly, paternal and husbandly urges and"NEEDS"!
>A male-friend told me that it would not be that difficult to get 
>along with an arranged match since you didn't know that many girls,
>anyway!!  

Yeah, even I have a number of friends who have grown up in a very
restricted/conservative society and I fell, for them it is the manly/husbandly
urge, as well as the feeling that "I have to marry anyway", which is the reason
for their choice to marry.  They are uncomfortable/shy with women, and I cannot
blame many of them because it is really how they have been brought up.  And
certainly, as Unnati points out, most of them are not "jerk"s, many are
loving/caring people.  But, several do continue to adhere to the social
structure set up in India that wives should not work and that "I have struggled
all these years, so let's take a break after marriage, let my wife do most of
the household chores, and my duty is that of bread-earner".  Several of the
reasons cited are inadequate child-care for working couples, women are
genetically supposed to be the mother-role playing person, etc etc.  

>Getting on to another track-- A lot of Indian men(all men,actually)
>have big ego hassles like--"she cannot work,she cannot earn more
>than me,she cannot be more qualified than me,she cannot be older,etc..
>Also,"I have cooked/shopped/cleaned enough in my student years, why 
>should I do that after marriage,too?"well, what can I say? 

Ego hassles, of course.  But, would finger-pointing be enough to cure this
syndrome?  We need much more awareness in the entire society so that boys are
not reared into this mould.  I really cannot blame anybody personally for such
ego problems, that is what they have seen in their environment in India.  We
should make a conscious effort that our future generations do not turn out this
way.  And as Unnati mentions, the effort has to come from both sexes, for only
a constructive effort will allow change to happen.  

>In conclusion,(FINALLY!) it seems that it is not any one sex's
>or culture's fault, only the system and society that we let
>control our lives and choices to blame, and to wonder in
>the future, who makes this society and who is happy letting it 
>take our lives?
>-- 
>                                        UNNATI AMIN

I also wonder how society dynamically structures itself with time, or more
precisely, how certain people structure society.  Without going into another
lengthy diatribe, I have noticed (when I say noticed I have read about them or
found through discussions with some friends in the social sciences)  or that in
most societies which are more than 1000 years old, there are clearly defined
roles for men and women.  Noticing that the societies are relatively stable
than a western society which promotes or claims to promote personal freedom and
choice, I just sometimes wonder what is the right way to go.   Before anybody
flames me, I am not trying to promote conservative societies.  I have a lot
more to talk about than this, but I am not posting anymore about it in this
thread, but anybody who wishes to discuss this is welcome to do so through
email/Usenet.

Before closing, I must repeat that this is an excellent poting by Unnati.
--jayanta


Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:14543 soc.culture.sri-lanka:505 soc.culture.asean:2958