1. How to Build Positivity in Married Life? : Click Here
    Dismiss Notice

The "travails of being an Indian woman"

Discussion in 'Married Life' started by Rihana, Sep 24, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. coolwinds

    coolwinds Platinum IL'ite

    Messages:
    839
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Gender:
    Female
    i don't see it from the protection angle as much as from the industrialization of nations POV. it really wasn't that long ago, even here, in the west, that women were not allowed to vote, higher education or any education was for the privileged elite and even after that the ultimate goal was to get married and birth kids, accept all kinds of marital circumstance because the alternative, divorce, carried such a huge stigma. the two major wars, concurrent industrialization helped women to get out there and establish themselves in what was previously considered, a man's domain.

    Western civilization was was not a very old civilization compared to India that has deeper roots of culture. Industrialization only helped in changing the way markets operated. With machines, the importance of physical labor reduced. As processes got automated, security concerns were addressed, women got more opportunities to sustain themselves. Isn't it an extension of I am saying?? The result of the wars--was that people didnot want wars any more...compare this to a scenario, where a king's objective of ruling was to expand his empire by fighting..there are military invasions ALL the time?? I think its not hard to understand the importance of protecting women in such times. When ALL the work was labor intensive(YES!!! before industrialization!..) women couldn't sustain themselves well.

    no, you were making a point about ancient civilizations using "protection of women" as a system to keep everyone happy. merging, that and industrialization, it is not the automation of processes and sophistication of security measures that enabled women to sustain themselves in the older civilizations. after all, it took much longer for women in India to get higher education, join the workforce and make her way toward economic freedom. yet, we still have not let go of double standards where women are concerned. BTW, going nuclear has it's implications of waging war on a large scale.



    i think most people will agree that these "code of conduct" treatises were heavily biased against women. you know, things like the manusmriti. a civilized society should not have to contend with having to protect womenfolk all the time. under the guise of protection, what really happened was exploitation.

    OK....what should have they done in those times?? Given all the freedom to women. let them work, play, divorce, ...and let them deal with the consequences of everything. Lets understand, if someone kidnapped her and raped---she couldn't use forensic studies/DNA testing to establish her rapist ! She could not call for help or launch report.....even if there were police stations--I assume it would be hard to reach them. How else we expected Manu or whoever was in-charge to take care of her security. Lets understand marriage and stopping divorce , was a bigger need for women in those days, because it related to her issues of survival. government couldn't give money to all divorced women, and it was unfair to men to pay to their wives even if he was not at fault for breaking of marriage? What was the way to ensure that all women got money to survive and always stayed married??. These questions are not easy to answer. Ancient society was very different. They had to make the rules which I think made a lot of sense in those times

    with due respect, i think you are trivializing and limiting the issue. okay, let's say i agree with you about the whole 'protection of women from rape" thing and follow it up with an analogy.

    the old landowners also had a similar rationale. you don't know enough to protect yourself, or to live your own life. therefore, you are beholden to us and to do our bidding. it is a form of systematic brainwash designed to facilitate transfer of power and control.

    if protection is the main agenda, it should be given regardless of a woman's work, marital, maternal status. discriminatory, prejudiced and class/caste based codes of conduct should have NOTHING to do with it. period.



    you'd be surprised how rampant crimes against women go unchecked. acid attacks, daylight eve-teasing and molestation. worse, the stigma attached to rape is such, women would rather not put themselves through the trauma of reporting it and endure resultant name-calling and blame assignment.
    I am not surprised with the occurence of crime. But I must tell you, had we lived in ancient times with the present day way of living......the dynamics would be much worse. Imagine if its soo hard to catch culprits with the systems we have TODAY...what could have happened in those days. How could anyone have ensure safety and continued income for women?? Maybe they had to deal with issues of ensuring survival of women, rather than equality of women. If men weren't given so many privileges, why wouldn't they secretly kill their wives when their wives fought with them for privileges and equality......and called it an accident, and married another woman. In the absence of modern day evidences, how would he be tried for murder v/s accident. Why would anyone pay anything to a woman, for free, why wouldn't people just get rid of her?? If a woman left her husband, how would she get the income to survive?? Women were taught to be subservient just so that they could live as they were dealing with problems of survival. Who is to be blamed..nature for making women weaker in those times when physical strength governed society and law enforcing bodies were handicapped in terms of resources available to them to ensure continued lives of women??

    i disagree with this this whole "survival of women" at stake theory. but, please address why it is happening now, in the present?



    i think we need to ask the child brides, head shaven, white wearing, denied remarriage widows, women having to adhere to rigid, one-sided codes of conduct, how "happy" they were.

    But that is not the question.

    you mentioned, they were "happy", so that was the question/point i wished to refute.

    Who is to be blamed?? The original Hindu system of protecting women, in the absence of this code of conduct, the women would have perished?? Or the inequality, which was natural to begin with--should we go and argue with God and nature??? Its easier to blame a system, and difficult to establish the right way of doing things?? Is there any system in the world that can never be corrupted by the people?? Yes women were treated unequally, but what was the other way out to ensure their survival? Some people misused this social equality--but aren't all laws misused in every civilization, even if those laws are for the good of people. Is it wrong to have a legal system because legal systems are misused all the time?

    you are equating the legal system to that which is discriminatory, biased and prejudiced. this is not an argument about the system, but the inherent flaws within. every society needs to evolve and progress. at the end of the day, we are all human beings, just because i am biologically different it should not impinge upon the right to freedom, fair treatment and basic equality.

    "Happiness" is relative . A woman who faces the risk of dying of hunger, or being kidnapped to death would be happy to live with her dominating husband. A woman of modern day who can charge an alimony, can live in her apartment, and can survive to marry again--might get frustrated with living with a dominating man!


    why set the bar so low?


    i think it is important to focus on the question of fairness. of course, it is wrong to call your grandmother regressive just because she found contentment and happiness in her home and family.

    i think, when we talk about indian women, we need to understand that a significant part of the women populace in india exist and operate under vastly different circumstances than the subset to be found here on IL. while they may not have to live in war-torn situations, their daily life is an uphill battle against an unfair society.

    I think its a good subset because most of the women here are middle class dealing with a lot of issues and conflicts related to modern world. The women are quite aware about whats happening in the country, and can talk about it. We can't have the entire population on a discussion forum anyways

    when you speak for the population (indian women) at large, a small subset cannot represent it. that's a flawed premise.

    (my response in red)
     
  2. coolwinds

    coolwinds Platinum IL'ite

    Messages:
    839
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Gender:
    Female
    just a thought that came to mind while reading sokasanah's post: how does equality operate in an unequal world?
     
  3. Rihana

    Rihana Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    12,481
    Likes Received:
    30,224
    Trophy Points:
    540
    Gender:
    Female
    Come now!

    At the risk of hijacking - there may be silly laws, lawsuits that seem frivolous, judgement awards that are too large ($$), but the US justice system and US laws are among the fairest in the world. No? And, a person has about the fairest chance of obtaining justice.

    I have some opinions about how Roe v Wade periodically is in 'danger' of being overturned, and how women's issues and rights are always up for barter if a bigger deal is being negotiated between the 2 parties, but the U.S. justice system remains one of the better ones. At least that is what I think. Not sure which section of the forum a discussion on this would fall under. Would be an interesting one.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. coolwinds

    coolwinds Platinum IL'ite

    Messages:
    839
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Gender:
    Female
    i think we are moving to the the 'society and politics" forum, Rihana. does IL have one?
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. beanstalk

    beanstalk Gold IL'ite

    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    188
    Gender:
    Female
    All I would say is that there is a difference in wanting to do more or taking additional responsibility versus expected to do more or forced to do more.

    I like to cook extensive meals for my husband to make him happy, take my mil to spa by my choice. That is what I willingly want to do. I don't expect anything back for these other than to see them happy.
    But when I am expected or forced to cook 3-4 meals a day, wear what others want, take mil everywhere wherever I go, that is forced upon.

    I have a choice to do things when convenient to me and when I am sick or busy or inconvenient and not in mood, I don't have to. In other case, I would really not have much of a choice but start family feuds..
     
  6. Reflection123

    Reflection123 New IL'ite

    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    No, you were making a point about ancient civilizations using "protection of women" as a system to keep everyone happy. merging, that and industrialization, it is not the automation of processes and sophistication of security measures that enabled women to sustain themselves in the older civilizations. after all, it took much longer for women in India to get higher education, join the workforce and make her way toward economic freedom. yet, we still have not let go of double standards where women are concerned. BTW, going nuclear has it's implications of waging war on a large scale.

    Automation of processes, less military attacks, and women's freedom of survival are very closely related. Your MUCH LONGER is very SHORT in the history of civilization. It did not take thousands of years for women to catch up after systems became less labor centric. And yes, we are not facing military attacks in our day today lives (even with nuclear weapons !)





    with due respect, i think you are trivializing and limiting the issue. okay, let's say i agree with you about the whole 'protection of women from rape" thing and follow it up with an analogy.

    the old landowners also had a similar rationale. you don't know enough to protect yourself, or to live your own life. therefore, you are beholden to us and to do our bidding. it is a form of systematic brainwash designed to facilitate transfer of power and control.

    if protection is the main agenda, it should be given regardless of a woman's work, marital, maternal status. discriminatory, prejudiced and class/caste based codes of conduct should have NOTHING to do with it. period.

    No. The landowners charged huge interest rates and took advantage of people, which is very different from what happened with women in society. Yes protection was the main agenda. Yes, it should be given--but in those days by whom and how?? As soon as women were born or say divorced, should the government have employed one paid bodyguard for each woman and free food and clothes to her for life?? Who would pay for that bodyguard and for that woman's upkeep?? Even if we force a man to pay for her-----how would you stop him from killing her (unless she has a sponsored body guard).
    SHOULDs are nice to hear...what I would like to know--what system would you propose to ensure security and continued income for women in such primitive periods, before you put the period right there.:)



    i disagree with this this whole "survival of women" at stake theory. but, please address why it is happening now, in the present?

    I can live alone, and many women like me can live alone. I can earn my living, and many women like me can earn their living. A small percentage of women are still being kidnapped----but compare it to the number of women who are not!!!
    I am certain, in primitive times--women could not survive on their own:
    1) They couldn't hold many jobs. There werent many jobs that were NOT labor/miltary intensive. Why would anyone hire a woman, if he could hire a man for physical tasks. May be some limited jobs--but she couldn't compete with men in terms of making money or living a good life. In a perfectly competitive market, women would remain destitutes while men would grow richer.

    2) They were not safe outside a "protected" space. How would you hunt down the crimes against women in the absence of technology ???

    <This is not identical to peasants and landowners scenario. Peasants were not beautiful men, who would be attacked by gay landowners!> Women were actually threatened. And this concern was not "brain washing" but real. A woma who, say needs doctor at wee hours, could she go out without having been kidnapped??



    How could women live without making decent amount of money and without having to go outside for anything ? I am baffled to think that you feel government should have given protection to all, but howw---who would pay for so many body guards and so much maintenance. ????


    We are taking our security for granted. Yes there are crimes against women but a lot of women are SAFE these days....We are so much better off than earlier times. Lot of peolpe do not break law, because the law is actually capable of catching them!!


    why set the bar so low?

    Let go of low....if I could choose, I would set the happiness bar to zero--not just for women , but for everyone. Happiness is a choice we make--an internal choice.



    when you speak for the population (indian women) at large, a small subset cannot represent it. that's a flawed premise.

    The whole population can't speak all at once. People who are aware of issues write books representing the dynamics of millions. You can't have a population survey for every question of life.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  7. sokanasanah

    sokanasanah IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    3,959
    Likes Received:
    6,857
    Trophy Points:
    408
    Gender:
    Male
    That is the 64-million dollar question! Isn't it? (Coolwinds! you should read about John Rawls! Google 'Rawls' & 'original position')
    Equality of opportunity? What's that? "Capability" perhaps?
    Equality of 'outcome'? By what measure?
    Is it possible to achieve endless 'progress' towards perfection (individual / society)? Is such perfection even desirable? Or, does the 'tragic view of life' place limits on human and consequently, social, perfectibility?
    Do we need to agree on a conception of the "Good Life" before we can attempt any social engineering or does the Good Society emerge, on its own, out of each person having the ability, opportunity and capability to pursue their own vision of the Good Life?

    This is the stuff of social philosophy. These ideas underlie every political / moral debate including the one underway in this thread. Almost every point raised so casually en passant in this thread has profound implications and is much debated at the most sophisticated levels - so everything being said here is completely non-trivial.

    For people who want to look deeper into this, I would also recommend Michael Sandel's lecture course on "Justice". This is the most popular course at Harvard, always oversubscribed. Videos available online here:
    Justice with Michael Sandel - Online Harvard Course Exploring Justice, Equality, Democracy, and Citizenship

    If you have bright kids, say 12 and above, this is great for getting them thinking and talking!
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Reflection123

    Reflection123 New IL'ite

    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    I kind of disagree. Yes you can get a judge who won't demand bribe--but the laws are fair , I doubt.
    The taxation law is terrible. Billionaires paying nothing in the name of "capital gains", and a large section of lazy people taking away huge chunks of money in the name of unemployment, and social security . Immigration laws--so many of them do not make any sense to me--e.g. I have no idea why L-2 and H-4 women(or men) are treated differently from each other. I do not know why a guy in the guise of poverty can get free medical services (to the extent of getting a difficult toe nail chopped from the doctor!!) , and another man who is taxed heavily , pays medical insurance premiums , lives with illnesses because co-payments are too expensive to afford !!! I see people living in ' free projects' getting free parking space, and basket ball courts, ...while a person staying in the same area, who pays for that project--and pays income, social security , heavy city taxes, doesn't get a space to park his car on street. Yes , US is a rich country....but I don't think its the best country in terms of framing of laws.
     
    2 people like this.
  9. Barnowl

    Barnowl Gold IL'ite

    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Gender:
    Female
    Reflection, short reply since am travelling. And thanks for engaging in this conversation. My opinions follow.

    First, regarding burkah and other such things which pull down women, if a woman wants to be paart of such of HER OWN VOLITION w/o any threats - physical/ otherwise, all i can say to her is hun! Be my guest.

    I think you know what am driving at. Try having this discussion/thought in saudi and i'll come and gladly pick you up from the airport when you come back. Alive. Btw, the rules in saudi are also from the same 'society'.

    Second: it's disrespectful to belittle yourself, other women, both your parents and their contributions when you say that everything happened to you because of society. If it did, there would not be any dregs in the community. Society didn't/ain't gonna throw you /any person a frickin' bone.
    It doesn't care a rat's ass what you do as long as , if you're in a decent country, you don't step on others' toes.

    Am not saying to stay away from society and be a mountain goat :D. All i am saying is to take the best from any one and reject the trash. Society included. So, as a test case: what good stuff can you take away from a western society? The independence of thinking, the ability to respect others AS IS and most importantly the envt. For me, this is the dealbreaker as far as our society is concerned. Nobody is, and i most certainly am not, asking you to go revolutionary on society. Oh, one more thing - accountability. Accountability to one's conscience is way more imp than accountability to society. There's a greater chance of a good citizen being a decent human being.

    Third: what i meant by house of cards was this - a partner generally comes as sensitive, caring and oozing saccharine from all pores, before and in the initial stages of getting married. However, sometimes, their truer colours come to the fore only after the h-moon. You'd agree that there is a tempering down of expectations on both sides. As in, people become realistic. Hell, the woman is not Aishwarya rai and julia childs rolled into one, with a touch of sati savitri. Similarly, the man. Now, i agree, we'll grow up and start looking at the 'inner' person rather than the outer one over a period of time. Now, some don't. And the relationship gets buried 6 feet under. I just wanted to prevent this shock from finishing off the relationship, by taking a raincheck before the h-moon. If the inner is worse than a sewage tank which has got a whole lot of anaerobic bacteria keeping their bloodline going - and you can deduce this within a year or two - get out. Why waste time, build expectations on a scheduled h-moon? I'd like people starting off on a realistic note than a fairytale. So, imho, honeymoon immed after the nuptials would be a hincdrance to the grounding process. And so would ILs. Ideally, the newly wedded couple should be asked to get the hell out of the sight of their LOs and to set up their shop. Again, this seems a pipedream though, in most cases.

    Daily honeymoon? Sure. Why not? I'd like that after the reality check though. Assuming the relationship survives the reality check in the very beginning, things can only get better. What better way than a honeymoon :D. You'd definitely know that you'd be going back to a guy who can cook and take care of you when you're sick rather than thinking that your H is a Mills and boon type empty shell with an ego the size of his head. The same is applicable for the men. No sati savitri or chammak challo as the wife, but someone who is much more beautiful than that.

    And this might not work with ILs breathing down the neck. Not sure what the solution in that case would be. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

    To other posters, sorry if this derailed the main flow of ideas.
     
    2 people like this.
  10. Reflection123

    Reflection123 New IL'ite

    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    @Barnowl thanks to you too for talking with me --- I understand that in Saudi , women have it harder. That makes me appreciate the situation of women in India slightly more.
    Yes, Saudi too is a part of our 'larger' society....so is Norway, so is west. If we take the world at large women are doing ok, if we take subsets of the world--I feel women are doing ok in India.

    2. My parents too existed because of society...or else they would have been living the lives of apes in jungles.
    I agree society needs improvement and lot of work. But I don't separate myself from society. To me society is not my neighbors, or pedestrians walking on the road excluding me. I feel I am very much included in this word. I might choose not to be accountable to x,y,z people....but I would definitely consider the positive or negative difference I am making to the world around me by my decisions and actions.

    3. Its a good thought to begin marriage on realistic expectations. I consider honeymoon just as a "fun filled period" between a husband and wife. I would not put my husband through any test or pass any test of time, simply to enjoy with him.
    I relate to the pain of having to deal with ILs--but if they are a part of the package, I just try to optimize whatever is there :). I just do things my way...but only meet/greet them with a smile on my face.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page