From: THAHARA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: Marriage and related issues - My view
Organization: Yale University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 20:16:05 EDT

In article <1992Apr12.161141.6943@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
 
>	on the virginity of the wife before marriage. Well, here is one man
>	who would. In my opinion, pre-marital and extra-marital sex is a
>	sin. {Exception: when the woman is raped} Hence, whether or not my
>   future wife is a virgin, is definitely my business. ...............
>...................... Note that I am not asking my future wife to
>	meet any standards which I am not imposing on myself.
 
While I do not share your views about the virtue in virginity, I have
absolutely no problem with your employing this standard.
 
About the proposed laws about inheritance to prevent dowry deaths,
I share many of your concerns regarding the inherent unfairness of the
deal.  It is a very silly attitude of treating the symptom rather than
the disease.  The way to prevent murder is by enacting and implementing
strict criminal penalties and not by providing economic disincentives.
The low value of human life (especially when it is a female) is the main
blight and that has to be addressed.  It is at the root of a lot of
problems which are mere symptoms- bride selling, burning, child brides,
selling of children for prostitution or for 'camel races', etc. etc.
 
>	For men and women to be treated as equals in a marriage, it is crucial
>	that both have economic independence. When one partner depends on the
>	other for sustenance, IMO, the bread-winning partner is justified in
>	sidelining the other's point of view in case of a conflict, in taking
>	decisions that affect the family as a whole; I know I will get flamed
>	for this, but convince me why it should not be so, instead of telling
>	me what a chauvinist I am without backing up your view.
 
Okay, I will try to convince you, without 'flaming' you.  Marriage is a
partnership of life more than anything else.  Two individuals agree to
share everything and live their lives together.  "Bread winning" is only
a small part of that partnership.  The contribution of the two individuals
to the good of the family extends way beyond any tangible things like how
much money they make or how much housework they do.  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?  Especially if you
consider that the average housewife continues working way beyond the age of
retirement?  Like I said, there is a good argument on this basis alone, and
Ram Devnathan (sp?) has also made it.  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.  You just cannot put a price on those services.  When someone is so
important in your life, (and you in theirs), how can you "sideline" their
point of view in major life decisions?  The only fair thing to do is to treat
each other with mutual respect and arrive at a consensus or compromise.  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.
 
>	When I marry, I would seek a woman who is career-oriented; I don't
>	prefer one who tends to lean on her husband. I would have only one
>	request for her - that she take care of the children when they are
>	born for the first few years of their lives, until they are of school
>	going age. The rationale for this is that however good a father or
>	a daycare nurse be, he/she can never substitute the loving care of
>	the mother.
 
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.  There are many myths regarding differential
abilities of the sexes : eg., men are better at math than women; women
are intrinsically better than men in cooking; boys do not like to play
with dolls, but they like to play with cars, which girls don't like;
girls are more graceful and can dance better; girls get scared more easily;
etc etc.  Some myths are more easily seen as ridiculous, others seem more
real because they are more deeply ingrained.
 
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?  Clearly, what you are looking for is
a wife who will "have a job and be qualified for employment" but who is not
"career-oriented" in the true sense of the word.  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.
 
May I suggest that neither parent needs to take such a long break from
work in order to raise children.  Many couples these days can time-share
with each other in looking after the children.  I agree that the parents
can usually give better care than day-care nurses, even though again, studies
show that children who spend a few hours in day care after the first year of
age are actually better adjusted and socially skilled than those with no
day-care.  I think the reason here is that in the US, it is often difficult
for pre-school kids to meet and play with others of their own age outside
the institutionalised day-care settings.  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.
 
>	I have a lot of other ideas to share on these issues, but first let
>	me test the waters with this preliminary.
>
>	Discussions welcome,
 
Same here,
 
Harsh Thaker
>	Siva Prasad.			(grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu)