From: giand@opencon.com (Deepak S. Gianchandani)
Subject: Mrs. Last Name ( Re: A Feminist Problem )
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian
Summary: Hello
Organization: OpenCon Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:48:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.121144.21458@lut.ac.uk> lssk@lut.ac.uk (S Karnavar) writes:
>
>                                                                                      
>  I have been following the discussion on the plight of Indian women on this
>net. But this posting is addressed to a different observation. I find that
>there are many enlightened ladies in this network. The names I found to be
>very interesting: Uma SUBRAHMANIAN, Sylvia D'CRUZ, Shyamala PARAMESVARAN,
>Aruna MAHADEVAN, etc. I do not understand what these gentlemen: Subrahmanyan,
>D'Cruz, Paramesvaran, Mahadevan, etc are doing here. All these ladies are
>fighting commendably many of the social evils. But they do not fight the real
>evil, the PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY. Women are taking(or given) the father's name
>in the beginning(Even this is a later introduction in India) and then append
>the husband's name after marriage. Latha Kunjiraman becomes Latha Panchabanan
>after marrying the great PANCHABANAN. But Panchabanan never becomes Panchabanan
>Latha. In that 'hell' called India Latha Panchabanan remains Latha Panchabanan
>because the marriage lasts longer inspite of quarrels and 'snoring', due to
>the 'boorish' social customs there. In the 'heavenly' country, Mrs.Maggy Wilson
>becomes Mrs. Maggy Watson the next year and the following year she may be Mrs.
>Maggy Dodson, all because of the marriages. Is she a commodity to display
>the OWNERSHIP LABEL each year? I am not against divorce or re-marriage. But,
>this PROPRIETORY APPENDAGE carried with pride by women is really outrageous.
>  If Sunanda Subrahmanian writes a scholarly paper, half the credit goes to
>Subrahmanian without any contribution from his side whatsoever. When Subrahma-
>nian writes his article the full credit rests with him. There is no sharing.
>I should like to point out that this is unfair by all means. Women should have
>their own names and it should be consistent.
>
>Somasekhar
>
>
>

	Excuse me, but did the concept of "Marriage" ever come to you
mind or you don't care to think about that. (Thinking? What a
concept). Marriage's part of "Kanya Dan", i.e. "Giving away of the
bride". The girl is given to the Groom as a "DAN", i.e. DONATED. The
Groom also Promises to protect and provide her, which he wows to the
brides Father. In Christianity,  remember that EVE was "made" for ADAM, 
so that Adam would no longer be lonely. Eve was MADE from Adam's 13th
(or 12th, I forgot the number) Rib.  How about the concept of Two
bodies joining as ONE, and being ONE from that point on??? Remember,
that in Hinduism, that a girls life begins after her marriage.

	Fine, if don't want the girl to change her name, I have no
problem with that, BUT then also change the traditions of Marriage,
Don't have the "Kanya Dan".  Deprive the Father of giving her daughter
away, and in return, the Groom doesn't have to promise anything back
because he is no longer taking a "Donation", so the Groom is no
longer Greatful to the Bride's Father for the "Lakshmi" (Godess of
Wealth) that he is now getting.   

	I can go on for pages on this topic, about religion, 
	traditions, etc. but I will stop for now.

	It does help if people realize what they are saying and
realize the complete ramifications of the problem -- but NOOO, we just
have to talk because it make us feel great! Right 
>
>Somasekhar
>
>
	And not for nothing, But are you married?? 
	

-- 

Deepak S. Gianchandani
E-mail:giand@opencon.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian