From: smitra@sophia.smith.edu (Sramana Mitra)
Subject: Changing role of women - a woman's perspective
Keywords: Women, Liberation, India, Family, Pre-marital, Extra-marital.
Organization: Smith College
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:45:16 GMT

Hi,

I saw the issue of INDIA TODAY under discussion, but haven't yet had time
to read it.

> The article mentions that Indian women are also accepting
> new responsibilities like taking care of their parents, something
> that hitherto was supposed to be the duty of only the sons and
> not of the daughters.

I do not think this is as 'new' a phenomenon. It has been happening for quite
sometime. The difference, however, (probably) is that women are not taking
care of their own families out of the pockets of their husbands, but rather,
are using their own resources.

> There is  another aspect of the changing scene that the article
> talks about. It is mentioned that pre-marital and extra-marital 
> relationships  are no longer a "taboo" among many of these 
> liberated women. 

Personally, I think lack of pre-marital relationships both in the case of 
Indian males and females, is a disadvantage. They marry with a 'dream-world'
ideal, not realizing how difficult it is to keep up a relationship/marriage.
They are unaware of the intricacies of human mind/behaviour/emotions, and
soon the bubble bursts. Thereon, marriage becomes an attempt towards peaceful
co-existence. 

Marriages of this sort used to "work" because the Indian woman was always a 
paragon of sacrifice, and docility. With the concept of womanhood, femininity,
and desirability evolving, women are waking up to their potentials, and are
learning to aspire for much deeper emotional/professional/creative 
satisfactions. As a result, not only are Indian men having difficulty dealing
with this new "breed" of ambitious, and independent women, women of the 
previous generation (those who have kept themselves immune to this awakening
spirit) - particularly those from the males' household, otherwise used to
getting a helping hand in the kitchen via a daughter-in-law (Yes, I know,
that's rather harsh !), are having a really rough time dealing with this. I
would like to ask, why is it that women fight women? Men not understanding
women is not a mystery, but women working against women's awakening is 
something that really perplexes me. Jealousy? Suppression? Narrowness?

> movements are. But the question is : TO WHAT EXTENT do we have to 
> be influenced by events happening in other parts of the world ?

Influence is not necessary, but support is. Another thing that is beneficial,
is having role models. That way, India can provide a role model to the United
States, in that, a woman has occupied the highest office in our constitution,
while in the US, a woman president is still a far-fetched dream. 

I think that the direction women's liberation in India will take 
will depend largely on how ambitious our women can be. It
is okay to target the unattainable, and that trait of burning ambition is where
Indian women are deficient. I do not wish to make a comparison here with 
Western women and their level of ambition. I do not consider their's to be the 
ultimate. Hence, I would love to see Indian women (and men also, for that 
matter) setting their own standards of goal/ambition/drive/motivation.

> Even though I don't feel threatened by the "new" Indian woman in 
> any way, I feel particularly discomfited by all this pre-marital
> and extra-marital stuff. I feel that this surely is one of the 
> undesirable areas where our women are trying to mimic the West. 

I don't like the generalization you make. What makes you think that women
who have pre-marital/extra-marital relationships are doing it to mimic
anybody, whoever that is? How do you know, that they are not married to 
sterio-typical men, with primitive convictions, who stifle their existence,
suffocate their creativity, and make them feel DEAD? 

I'm not advocating extra-marital relationships (pre-marital, yes). Especially,
if a child is part of the picture, the situation can get very uncomfortable.

> enough, been recognised as a source of _strength_ ---- the family ? 

Yes, but what kind of a family? A family that requires submissiveness/
servility from women. Surely, that's not worth much? (I still think family
is very important, but the definition of a family, and the roles within
it also need to be redefined).

>family, i.e., taking care of the house, raising kids, etc. Today there are
>many more pressures put upon one - the pressures to succeed in society, in
>career as well as family. As marriage age rises, it becomes a natural thing
>to seek fulfillment outside marriage. 

I agree with most of the above. However, I do not think it is a question of
external pressure to succeed that pushes a woman. (At least, it shouldn't 
be). That kind of motivation does not contribute towards greater creativity,
self-motivation does.

>don't like if their wives associate with their colleages or male friends, even
> if the association is entirely a professional or platonic one. This attitude
> is prevalent all over the world, but it is more acute in India. Naturally, 
> after
> centuries of male-domination, there will a tendency to rebel if men continue
> to behave arrogantly.

You know what? I'd say that's clean bull shit... Why on earth would a woman 
seek her husband's opinion on who to associate/be friendly with? Does a man
ask his wife before choosing his secretary? :-) If a woman allows that kind
of nonsense, then she hardly deserves sympathy.

BTW, no net war, please... this is a discussion.