From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Mon Aug 13 14:57:33 PDT 1990 Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Summary: The issue facing us is not about how to choose between two sharply divided systems of marriage, but about the need for a conscious, rather than tradition-bound, choice among a continuum of possibilities... Expires: References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Stanford University Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Status: O The following is a slightly expanded version of an article I wrote which appeared in the July 1990 issue of INDIA CURRENTS, a SF Bay area magazine devoted to Indian arts, culture and entertainment. I am posting it here with the hope of stimulating a discussion. Before you decide to junk it saying "oh yet another guy bashing tradition" please skim it and realize that it is not a criticism of the syntactic concept of "arranged marriage" but the pitfalls of endorsing the values associated with that practise. Thanks for your indulgence. Rao [Aug 11, 1990] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPLOITING AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE [What indeed is wrong with arranged marriages?] By Subbarao Kambhampati (This article is in response to the editorial, Arranged Marriages: What's wrong with them - and What's not, INDIA CURRENTS, June 1990) A US-educated professional, son of one of our family friends, was back in India, on a short trip - to get married. His parents did their homework and lined up an array of choices - he made a "selection" and the stage was set for a grand wedding. The place was abuzz with veiled praise for him--how "nice", "dutiful" and "untainted" he was by the foregin influence that he was coming back to respect the marital norms of his culture! The strong underlying consensuswas that there cannot be much wrong with a system that is endorsed by such a well-educated and well-traveled person as he. It set me thinking. Was he really making a conscious choice? Or was he just taking an easy way out? Was his decision purely personal? Or did it derive from an unjust male-dominated system? What, if anything, is wrong with arranged marriages? It is indeed naive to blame arranged marriages or any single social practice as the root of all evil in Indian society. And yes, it is the skewed and sexist value system that lies at the root of inhuman atrocities such as bride burnings. However, is there any doubt that arranged marriages, as practised by the multitude around us - from a village clerk to a Silicon Valley professional - clearly endorse and perpetuate the existing sex-inequalities in the Indian society? NON-COERCIVE ARRANGED MARRIAGE: AN OXYMORON? In defense of the prevalent system, the argument is made that there really is nothing wrong with a non-coercive arranged marriage. Indeed! However, such an argument paints an implicit picture of two well-informed individuals voluntarily entering a marital contract that just happens to have been "arranged." How many of the vast majority of arranged marriages that take place in our midst here or in India really fit this picture? We have all been witness to the specter of "3-way ticket" marriage where a single professional man on an impromptu three week visit to India, manages to return back with a bride a-stride. How is such a superhuman feat of finding a partner for life, under pressure and time deadlines, accomplished with such unerring regularity? Is it really because of the man's personality and inter-personal skills? Or is it his biased worth in a sexist society which makes it possible to parade 10-20 eligible women in front of him on short notice, a society which gives him a clear upper hand in the ensuing decision-making? It is often said that arranged marriages work because both partners have realistic (reduced) expectations. Is it really this much touted maturity of mutual compromises that fuels them? Alas, on closer examination we find that it is really the women who are conditioned into believing that marriage is one big compromise requiring constant adjustment on their part. With such brainwashing, and one-sided accommodation, almost any system can be made to give the illusion of "working"! THE "CONVENIENCE" FACTOR: When pressed, my friends talk about "convenience". Whose convenience, I ask. Let us not forget for a moment that the convenience of having potential suitors line up in droves as soon as one shows conjugal tendencies is limited at present only to Indian males. Arranged marriage was never "convenient" for women: when has being paraded in front of leering strangers, being asked inane questions, and, if selected being uprooted and whisked off like so much personal luggage been convenient for anyone? In an equal society, finding a partner will never be a cake-walk. So, the practise of arranged marriages continues unabated even among the educated and well-informed Indians, not really because of a conscious mutual choice, but largely because men know that marriage is a proposition in which they have _all_ the options, and _choose_ to exploit those options. Equally importantly, it continues because WE, the bystanders, choose to endorse the practice, or turn the other way, when it takes place in our own midst. SKEWED SOCIAL VALUES: My friends remonstrate, saying that while they are all for a more equal society, they believe that the atrocious facets of sexism such as "bride burning" are a result, not of the arranged marriage system per se, but of the skewed societal values. True. But should that not impel us all to energetically discourage the very practice that so manifestly perpetuates that skewed social policy? How else, pray tell, will social policy change? "ILL" vs. "WELL" INFORMED MARRIAGES: Lest the whole argument be trivialized as yet another attempt to demarcate the "arranged" and "love" marriage systems, let me try to make my position clear. The issue of concern is not necessarily the "arrangedness" of a marriage, but how well-informed and consensual is the decision of the participants? How far is it perpetuating or endorsing unjust societal norms? How far is it exploiting the boons of a biased societal structure? The issue facing us is not about how to choose between two sharply divided systems of marriage, but about the need for a conscious, rather than tradition-bound, choice among a continuum of possibilities. It is unlikely that there will be an immediate and large scale change in the centuries-old marital practises of a society as large and diverse as India, but is it too much to expect the "educated" populace to be better informed? We reexamine our accent and dress code after coming face to face with a new culture; should we not do the same for our customs and actions? When we endorse a social practice that requires a man to spend significantly less time in getting married than in buying an automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the marginalization of an entire gender, it is over-sanguine to expect that the deep-rooted inequalities between the sexes will disappear as a matter of course. Let not our indifference take us to a stage where the abhorrent atrocity of a burning bride is the only injustice that is capable of enraging our sense of equality. ------------------------- "Above all, man is never merely a product of the world around him. He is always capable of striving for something higher no matter how systematically his ability is ground down by the world that exists around him." -Vaclav Havel (Inaugural address) President of Czechosovakia and Playwright From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!venky Sat Aug 11 21:43:00 PDT 1990 Article: 4658 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!venky From: venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Summary: the views expressed are well taken but it was "biased" Message-ID: Date: 12 Aug 90 02:40:19 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: venky@pawl.rpi.edu Distribution: usa Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 42 Status: O Hi Netters : Mr. Kambhampati's article clearly speaks of loop-holes in the arranged marraige system of our country. But the article was a little biased towards totally criticizing without even mentioning a single benefit of such a system. Personally I believe that the present practices in selecting a partner are plagued by elders making the "choice" rather than the candidates themselves. I have come across morons who possess little education or wealth, but have taken pride of "interviewing" even upto 200 matches (an astronomical figure by any standards I suppose). When I go for shopping, I shall choose a shop where I'm sure of finding something I'm looking for (say a suit piece). I can make the attendant show all varieties and make a big pile and finally leave the place not liking any one of them !!. This is exactly what many do. Period. But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. But on a lighter vain, let me pointout that: 1. In India, we only "see" the girl instead of "sleeping" with the girl 2. In India, dowry is demanded prior to marraige instead of suing later 3. In India, marraige is a life-long union and not a simple contract or a bond to be exchanged every now and than as in stock market. 4. In India, the concept is to "love a person whom you marry" and NOT necessarily "marry a person whom you love". Finally, as with many other cases, it the fault of the persons who take undue advantage of the system (of arranged marraiges etc.) than the system itself. Hence, I would appreciate if you, my friends, express your views and suggestions on preventing the misuse of the system rather than finding fault with the concept of the system. " Shop, but shop wise " with regards venkatesh From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!udel!udel.edu!siva Sun Aug 12 13:21:01 PDT 1990 Article: 4677 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!udel!udel.edu!siva From: siva@cis.udel.edu (G. Sivakumar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Message-ID: <27242@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 16:54:18 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Reply-To: siva@cis.udel.edu Organization: Univ of Delaware, CIS Department Lines: 95 Nntp-Posting-Host: slowpoke.cis.udel.edu Status: O Thanks, Rao [@sunrise.stanford.edu], for raising some important issues that should hit close to home for many s.c.i.-readers. I agree with the main thrust of your arguments, and the points/criticisms below, of your article, are not meant to detract from or trivialize the main issue, but only to contribute more perspective to the discussion. It is very fortunate that Dheeraj Sanghi posted this same weekend the excellent analysis by Madhu Kishwar, from which I shall borrow some key points. ====== First, we should draw a clear distinction between A) the "3-way ticket" arranged marriages of NRIs, and B) the arranged marriage system in India among resident Indians. Yes, the two share many similarities, and raise similar concerns. But, there are also some siginificant factors and differences that necessitate this demarcation. While (A) is indeed relevant to a very large portion of s.c.i-readers, they comprise a very very small proporiton of India. Drawn almost exclusively from the upper crust (top 5-10% income bracket), urban, educated class. Any serious analysis of (A) cannot ignore significant factors irrelevant to (B) like the vestiges of the colonial mentality, the "phoren" craze, the stark contrast in living standards & resource consumption, the absence of interfering in-laws and relatives. These are factors why educated women and their parents willingly go through the parading and demoralizing procedure exploited by NRIs. While not condoning (A) in any way, one should also examine what choices are available to the NRIs, who are permitted to come and settle here by the US-government. Almost exclusively highly qualified professionals, and predominantly male, the NRI-s who go through (A) have few other realistic options. What suggestions can one offer to NRIs, if one desires (A) to decline? Do you have any? ----- Regarding (B), Madhu Kishwar's excellent analysis of "dowry-deaths" posted by Dheeraj, addresses broader issues than just how a marriage is arranged, including root causes of the gender inequalities that you write so eloquently about. Let me quote briefly-- > Only by ensuring that no woman is condemned to a life of crippling dependence > on marriage, that every woman is capable of becoming self supporting, and will > not be socially ostracized for living without such a marriage, can we lessen > this slaughter. ......... > Most women including women from educated middle class families, are not equipped > economically and educationally, to get even a moderately paying job on their > own strength. They need help in the form of contacts which male relatives > must provide. Many have only domestic work and childcare skills. I think this changes the perspective from why "men exploit their unjust advantage", to why women are forced be in this disadvantegous situation. While her analysis is very incisive and perceptive, the 5 points she offers as solutions do seem a little more simplistic (change the culture, indoctrination, ideal of womanhood) and I'm not sure how they can be effectively achieved. There are severe economic issues involved. We are a very poor country and stable economic developmnent/growth is painfully slow given the exisiting crunch on resources and foreign exchange (mainly for energy resources) that we need. To quote again from Geeta Somjee's, "Narrowing the Gender Gap" > Indian society is > highly segmented, diverse, and hierarchical, its women require a > variety of efforts to be able to overcome its traditional gender gap > and that any attempts to think in terms of simple, institutional, > public policy, economic or legal rights solutions to their problems > would not be enough. Much more needs to be done. What and how is the difficult question? ---- Finally, should one not challenge the institution of marriage itself, which Madhu Kishwar does in her article, as perpetuating inequality and patriarchy? Best wishes, Siva (siva@cis.udel.edu) From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!descartes.math.purdue.edu!pramath Sun Aug 12 14:49:47 PDT 1990 Article: 4684 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!descartes.math.purdue.edu!pramath From: pramath@descartes.math.purdue.edu (Pramathanath Sastry) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <12952@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 20:58:50 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu Reply-To: pramath@descartes.math.purdue.edu.UUCP (Pramathanath Sastry) Distribution: usa Organization: Purdue University, West Lafayette Lines: 99 Status: O In article venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala) writes: * Hi Netters : * * Personally I believe that the present practices in selecting a * partner are plagued by elders making the "choice" rather than the * candidates themselves. I have come across morons who possess little * education or wealth, but have taken pride of "interviewing" even * upto 200 matches (an astronomical figure by any standards I suppose). * * When I go for shopping, I shall choose a shop where I'm sure of * finding something I'm looking for (say a suit piece). I can make the * attendant show all varieties and make a big pile and finally leave the * place not liking any one of them !!. This is exactly what many do. Period. * But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and * choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. Choosing a life partner is not the same as shopping. I think, however, that the point you wish to make with your anology is -- One ought to have a clear idea of what one wants from a spouse. I wish you'd said so in so many words rather than used your offensive analogy. I have a question. Even if you do have an idea of what you want from your wife, how will you go about finding the "best" within the framework of the Indian Arranged Marriage System ? Surely this will involve a parade, something the original poster finds sexist. You go on to write -- * But on a lighter vain, let me pointout that: * * 1. In India, we only "see" the girl instead of "sleeping" with the girl * * 2. In India, dowry is demanded prior to marraige instead of suing later * * 3. In India, marraige is a life-long union and not a simple contract * or a bond to be exchanged every now and than as in stock market. * * 4. In India, the concept is to "love a person whom you marry" and * NOT necessarily "marry a person whom you love". * * Finally, as with many other cases, it the fault of the persons who take * undue advantage of the system (of arranged marraiges etc.) than the * system itself. Hence, I would appreciate if you, my friends, express your * views and suggestions on preventing the misuse of the system rather than * finding fault with the concept of the system. You have not addressed the issues raised by the original poster. Let me refresh you. The original article says-- (a) The process involved in "arranging" a marriage is sexist, and favours the male. (b) This inherent bias cannot be the basis of an equal partnership later, and is perhaps the cause of the dowry deaths. (c) The reason an arranged marriage "works" is tied up with the above points. It is the woman who makes all the compromises and adjustments, as she has been conditioned to in our society. And in the view of the original poster (whose name I have forgotten), this cannot be a civilised way of ensuring stability. Since I do not wish to sit on the fence, let me come out and say that I agree with the original article. You have raised some points (for some reason you think they have a light vein to them). I do not understand the point of your first point. And so I will not touch on it. Your second point astonishes me. Dowry in India is always paid by the Bride's side, whereas "suing later" here is mostly done by the wife. If you think dowry is the reason there is no "suing later" in India, you must be naive. If anything it should act as a catalyst for suing later, for according to the arranged marriage theory, dowry is paid to ensure a fair treatment for the bride, and hence any inequity in treatment should raise the shackles of a spirited woman. The fact there are very few divorces could mean one of (a) An inordinate number of Indian males are very considerate. (b) Indian women are willing to compromise. I find the the phrase "inordinate number" in the first option hard to believe. The second only shows how far the stem has rotted. As to your third point. You seem to think that arranged marriages have no commercial intent. I must have lived in a different India. The whole point of the exercise seemed to be to ensure a few things. Arranged marriages were regarded as the guarantees of certain treaties between families. The marriages ensured that property stayed in the hands of a few families. It reeked of commercialism and the woman was simply a mute observer. I have nothing to say about your fourth point. You could be right, but I do not see the advantage of one over the other. Finally you go on to talk about a noble system that has been abused. I find it hard to distinguish between the working of a system and the system itself. If it pleases you the attack was on the way the system works. And what is being attacked is not merely the selection process that is demeaning to women, but the very way society ensures that arranged marriages "work". > > " Shop, but shop wise " This is of course in line with your non-commercial view of marriage. > with regards > venkatesh Pramath From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!agate!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!husc6!m2c!umvlsi!umaecs!mohamed Mon Aug 13 07:00:43 PDT 1990 Article: 4702 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!agate!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!husc6!m2c!umvlsi!umaecs!mohamed From: mohamed@ecs.umass.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: ARRANGED MARRIAGES. Finding a partner Message-ID: <10442.26c590e0@ecs.umass.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 17:24:48 GMT Lines: 30 Status: O The article titled "Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians" by was well written, in my opinion. I do think that so called 'well educated' or 'professinal' Indians still subscribe to this pratice of an arranged marriage because of many of the reasons pointed out. I thought that maybe there was another reason. How many Indians (or Indian students) really get to know a person from the opposite sex well enough to decide mutually on his/her marriage ? Many among us direct all or most of our mental resources towards a 'professional' career, that we do not devote enough time for an active social life. There is latent discouragement for such activity in Indian society. Could it be because, illicit sex is presumed to be part of such association ? I have no idea. Arranged marriages are scary to me, because, I believe they rely on the concept that one (the woman) has to change and become compatible to the man. I think that's reprehensible and it scares me because I can't envision having a person change herself for my sake. You can argue that the male changes too, but I didn't find this trait in any Indian males, a generation before mine. If it does happen, that both the male and the female change to accomodate to the other, I guess, the evil in arranged marriages is considerably reduced. It also scares me because, the person is a total stranger (for all practical purposes). She might not be an ax-murderess, but, someone whose thought processes are diametrically opposed. Of course, the same holds good for the female.. -Asad [mohamed@ecs.umass.edu] From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!prasad Mon Aug 13 10:57:36 PDT 1990 Article: 4712 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!prasad From: prasad@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Vishwanath Prasad) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Summary: How can you eradicate it ? Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Message-ID: <1990Aug13.125314.11644@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 13 Aug 90 12:53:14 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: Raghu Murtugudde Reply-To: ragu@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu Organization: Columbia University Lines: 130 Status: O In article <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >The following is a slightly expanded v........ > > > > EXPLOITING AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE > > [What indeed is wrong with arranged marriages?] > > By Subbarao Kambhampati A major assumption is already made in saying that everybody who goes thru arranged marriage is doing it with the express intent of juicing the last drop out of his resume', a major achievement on it being that he works in the dreamland -USA. Well, how many professionals here are in fact pained by the dilemma the face when the time comes to settle down and how many of them have unsuccessfully tried to find a girl on their own ? Is our system really conducive to guys finding their own girls like in a western society ? That is a whole different can of worms and I think eradicating the system of arranged marriages *is* very much related to million other things in the Indian system like keeping the girls well protected from all the guys when they are growing up. And I have seen more and more guys who are really ashamed of going thru arranged marriage, but they are stuck here and the chances of finding a suitable mate here is like looking for a needle in a hay stack, what with the ratio of guys to girls here ! > NON-COERCIVE ARRANGED MARRIAGE: AN OXYMORON? > > I don't think this is true. Let me give two examples from my family. My father is an uneducated businessman ( middleclass) and I have two sisters. I have had serious problems with the way my first sister had to go thru the deal of being 'seen' by a prospective groom. But, she wasn't the kind to fight my parents and she settled down with the first guy who wanted to marry her and as far as I have seen there have been no problems in the marriage so far and she pretty much controls the show. The second sis is a bold one and she threw out a few guys before she agreed to marry one she liked and she is happy so far. My brother on the other hand said that he was going to meet just one girl after going thru the photographs of the girls he received and marry her. Sure enough that's exactly what he did ! He is well settled now and has two kids. Does this prove anything ? I am not sure, but, I have tried hard for years to look around and see how many of these arranged marriages are utter failures and are just a charade. Frankly speaking, I am not really convinced that the western system has produced more successful marriages. May be your experience is different. > > THE "CONVENIENCE" FACTOR: > I know this still tends to barbaric for some girls in very conventional families and education has nothing to do with it. But, I think, at least among the Indians who have come here and then gone back to look for a girl, majority have been more civilized and have talked to the girl personally and have had a mini-date ( may be a few hours ) and then decided on marriage. Now does this make it any easier for the girl involved ? I don't know and I hope somebody from the other side can shed some light on that. I would really be interested in a detailed opinion from educated girls who have gone thru this deal (ordeal ?) and bachelorettes. Are the girls now confident enough to venture into relations that may not necessarily lead to a marriage in the end and if they are, then how liberal are the guys and how they handle a girl who has come out of another relation ? > > SKEWED SOCIAL VALUES: > Ultimately the fight for their rights has to come from those who perceive themselves as oppressed - in other words, I can tell somebody to fight for their rights and I may even stand up for them. But, if they are not ready to face the consequences of their fight then we have a problem on hand. To put simply, I was advising my sister that she shouldn't get into a marriage if she doesn't want it and she felt the same for a while and then she couldn't handle the thought of being an unmarried woman in the society. So she started crumbling and made up her mind that she will get married. This tradition continues. How many mothers out there can tell their daughters that they will stand by her even if she chooses to stay unwed ? How many moms twist the bride's family's arms for dowry ? How many women out there ridicule unwed women, even if their marriage is a hell on earth ? > > "ILL" vs. "WELL" INFORMED MARRIAGES: > This again requires a lot of guts from the bride's family and the bride herself. I think the bottom-line is that women have to be the ones in the frontline of this battle for changing social values and men have to be told that they can not get away with something that women can not tolerate. As long as there are scabs among women, the battle is going to be undermined and there will be men taking advantage of the situation. Somebody posted an article on India-l (on bitnet - India interest group) that there is nothing in a guy listing out all the requirements he has, for any aspirant who wants to be his wife. Well, what do you say to a guy who says, I want a good looking girl, who loves to cook and never gets a headache and I will look around till I find one ? I think the society is now such that he will find a girl with all his requirements because, not all mom's will stand up for their daughters. > >------------------------- > > "Above all, man is never merely a product of the world around him. He > is always capable of striving for something higher no matter how > systematically his ability is ground down by the world that exists > around him." > > -Vaclav Havel (Inaugural address) > President of Czechosovakia and Playwright I have basically tried put forth my confusion about this whole thing because my personal experience has taught me that it takes two to tangle and only men couldn't have sustained such a system over centuries. I think women have either been too passive or they have actually abetted the perpetrations by men. I am against arranged marriages in principle, but would like to see a viable alternative which gives a chance for everybody to find their own partners. That is easier said than done. There was an effort on sci by somebo- dy to form a group of people interested in finding a suitable match. May be we need more of those and the lack of response to such a thing need not necessar- ily be washed off as chauvinism, I personally feel slightly diffident about it and I feel it is because of my failure so far to find a mate for myself. Raghu. To: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Hi Rao, Read your interesting article on sci. Just wanted you to notice a little bit more about the arranged marriage scene and so am sending it to you instead of posting it on sci. I felt your article stressed on the inequality aspect of the sexes when it came to choosing a partner. And I think you tried to say that it was the worst thing about it. I agree with you on this but I feel it isn't as bad in the middle class families as it is in the lower income and the rich families. In an arranged marriage, the only criterion that the person going to get married has in his/her hands is the PHYSICAL LOOKS of the possible partner; all the rest being taken care of by the parents and relatives. So to make the final choice based on this criterion, every man lets quite a few brides parade before him (using your words). But from what I've seen till now among my relatives and friends, everything doesn't get fixed when the man makes his choice. The engagement or whatever takes place only when the bride-to-be feels okay about it. I've seen a number of cases where things didn't proceed further when the girl straight away said 'No' after having one look at the guy. This happens much more often if the girl is educated and/or is earning. So 'rejection' is experienced by both sexes in middle class families. And maybe, except for the fact it's the guy who goes to the girl's house to see her and enjoy her hospitality, the inequality of sexes aspect is not that relevent. Both the members suffer nearly equally. Maybe what's more important is the way two fully grown individuals are made to choose their life-partners. What's surprising is that the only means of entertainment for the common man till recently have been movies and movie songs. 99.9% of them deal only with love and romance and the guy and the girl falling in love and living happily ever after. Even this extremely heavy dose hasn't made an iota of difference in the society. What will? To: rao%sunrise.stanford.edu@RELAY.CS.NET Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians In-Reply-To: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Cc: Status: R Your article is biased in many ways, particularly re the exploitation of women. Men abroad are also regarded as simple sources of income by many people, and many women who want to go abroad without the rigours of an engineering eduacation or whatever find it an easy way out. Regarding the ignorance of the people getting married, i don't believe that until you are marreid you know a person properly. also don't forget that in an arranged marriage, people can also fall in love and keep it going, thus cancelling all the previous perhaps unsavory reasons for the marriage. At least it is all up front. Of course I am not for one form of marriage or another- all depends on the individuals and God/luck/circumstances. Dear Subbarao: I read your article on the issue of arranged marriages. I agree that most of the points that you mentioned are valid. No, I do not have a prospective bride to arrange a marriage with you but I was just curious if you are married. Theoretically--in terms of the "marriage license"--No. But practically, yes. But that is still besides the point.. In my opinion an ummarried person is only half equipped to evaluate the merits/demerits of either of the two systems. A married person will discover several more advantages/disadvantages of the two systems. Possible. But notice that I am not saying that enlightened "arranged" marriages are NOT possible. I am merely pointing out that the _prevalent_ system is very sexist and depends on the marginalization of women. I have much less problem with the syntactic "arrangedness" of the marriage (and most of that might be coming from a preconceived romantic notions) and would be satisfied if these were taking place among two EQUAL parties. Try as I may, I (and others) have not been able to convince myself that the women play an equal part in the typical marriages (and certainly not in the 3-way ticket marriages--WHERE IS THE TIME?). rao Hi Mr. Rao: Your article on the so-called arranged marriages, its so-called convenience and its rationalizations was no doubt good. But if it was meant to be thought-provoking, I think you were addressing the wrong audience. What makes you think that people like us, who represent a minority of the top Indian class and typically the more powerful castes have any kind of rationale for justifying unfair trading practices? Dont you know that we Indians, no matter how hard we try to blur reality, thrive on inequality, glorify the injustice in our society? If you have ever lived in a hostel, you would have a fair idea of how sexist our society is.... Probably the most useful thing anyone can do in such a setup is to put into practice as much of one's own ideals as possible. Anyway, good luck with your ambitious endeavour. Dear Subbarao, Did you say you have written a letter to Manushi? Do you have a copy ? Will appreciate one. sure. I have the version I sent, which I will send you in my next mail. They published an edited version of it; I don't have an electronic copy of that. Because of this splurge of postings, I have had many changes of heart. Now, I no longer know what to think. My own marriage was non-traditional (I married my classmate, a non-Telugu, a North Indian in fact), but I had a tolerant regard for the more traditional ways of going about the whole thing. Over the years I lost this regard, and by the time your article arrived I was firmly against the way we in India go about things (cf. my defense of your posting while replying to Venkatesh. BTW have you heard from him ? I haven't). Now nothing seems totally clear. My wife (the one whose opinion should count) always had ambivalent feelings about my attacks on tradition, and now so do I. All I know is that I will not be indifferent to this problem, even if I never find a solution. Well, I think it is futile to see what is the "right" way--we _have_ to grant that beyond a certain lower bound, these things become extremely personal matters. One thing I learnt over a period of time is to separate "romantic" considerations from "extra-personal considerations" when discussing these issues. Here is my favourite "palo-alto bar" scenario COnsider the following scenario: if a friend of mine tomorrow puts a notice infront of the Paloalto bar, and finds an appropriate person and gets married in 20 hours, I will not get as agitated as I am with the three-way ticketers. The fact of the matter is that there is large empirical evidence to believe that while the person who may respond to your ad in palo alto vwould have done so on their own accord, the person who responds to your overtures in India would be doing so as a not-completely-independent person. In the latter case, there is a lot of pressure on them to say yes irrespective of whether or not they really wanted to take part in such marriages. Going through arranged marriage system, knowing all this, in my opinion is wrong in that it perpetuates the secondary status of the opinions of the women by giving your indirect endorsement to the existing biased system. That is why, in my posting I carefully skirted around the issue of "traditional" vs. "modern" and concentrated on the question of the practises one endorses. I have no doubt in my mind that the current system is rabidly sexist (successful marriages notwithstanding). I will however not say that enlightened "non-bartering" versions of arranged marriages are not possible. What I am objecting is not so much the "arrangedness" of the marriage but the "exploitativeness" of the marriage. I would have to admit that my reservations won't hold in special cases where both parties concerned actually made an honest effort to prove to themselves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no exploitation involved. (afterall how you got introduced to each other makes scant difference in the long run--what matters is HOW you came to your final decision...) (Ofcourse, this option might very well mean that the blighter cant get back in 3 weeks time, and that is usually considered a NO-NO in terms of the his silicon-valley career objectives, apparently..) -rao From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Mon Aug 13 14:57:33 PDT 1990 Article: 4715 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1990Aug13.174128.22973@portia.Stanford.EDU> Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <27242@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 17:41:28 GMT Status: O [Even though I am responding to Siva's posting, I am addressing some issues raised by other posters, as well as those who sent me email -rao] In article <27242@nigel.ee.udel.edu> siva@cis.udel.edu writes: > >Thanks, Rao [@sunrise.stanford.edu], for raising some important issues >that should hit close to home for many s.c.i.-readers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hey, count on me! ;-) >Regarding (B), Madhu Kishwar's excellent analysis of "dowry-deaths" >posted by Dheeraj, addresses broader issues than just how a marriage is >arranged, including root causes of the gender inequalities >that you write so eloquently about. > >Let me quote briefly-- > >> Only by ensuring that no woman is condemned to a life of crippling dependence >> on marriage ... I completely agree with Madhu Kishwar's analysis (infact, see my letter to Manushi in the current issue, where I say the same thing, if not as eloquently). The main point of my article is NOT at all that all facets of sexism derive exclusively from arranged marriages (see the third para), but that it is endorsed and perpetuated by the prevalent system of arranged marriages to a greater or lesser degree. > >I think this changes the perspective >from why "men exploit their unjust advantage", >to why women are forced be in this disadvantegous situation. I do not mean to advocate "non-arrangedmarriages" as the panacea for sexism in Indian society. I am fully aware of the inter-connectedness of the problems and the deeper reasons for why women are forced into this disadvantageous situation. However, my intention is to START the change, START a conscious dialogue about the pluses and minuses of the prevalent norms. After all what use is our overwhelming yearning for equality of sexes, if we practise gleeful indifference and exploit our advantages? Conscious marriages are definitely not the cure-all for the ills of the society--but what rational grounds are there to believe that one who is so indifferent as to fully exploit a marriage system so completely biased in their favour will stop to think carefully about other issues of sexism!? "WAITING FOR COMPLETE CHANGE VS. STARTING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION" >While her analysis is very incisive and perceptive, the >5 points she offers as solutions do seem a little more simplistic >(change the culture, indoctrination, ideal of womanhood) >and I'm not sure how they can be effectively achieved. Precisely my point. The deep and complete change can be achieved effectively only at a personal level and over a long period of time--I can make sure that my children are free from the pervasive conditioning; but I can't do that on a global scale. So, if you wait on "COMPLETE" change, you are essentially going to suspend this generation's grief on the promised bright future of the next generation. Even this promise is really only illusory, if the current generation does not start consciously questioning its endorsements. Thus, by being selective about the societal norms that we endorse--rather than wait for some messiah to come and change the world--we can start the ball of change rolling in the right direction. One of the important endorsements that needs to be introspected, in my opinion, is that of the sexist marital norms. "EMPOWERING VICTIMS VS. INTROSPECTING ENDORSEMENTS" In every problem of social repression, there are two broad ways of bringing about change. By empowering the victims, and by the "spectators" withholding their endorsement to malicious practises. These two ways are really complementary--any longterm solution WILL have to involve both. [In my opinion, during the initial stages of change, the second plays a more important role, while soon, the first takes over as the empowered victims defend themselves]. In my article, I was addressing the second type of solution--viz, withholding endorsement. But, I by no means imply that the first is any less important. "AREN'T WE A DROP IN THE OCEAN OF INDIA" I am acutely aware of the fact that even if all the potential 3-way ticketers do the right thing, it will still be a drop in the ocean. But, I believe in the efficasy of a few good examples and in the concept of transitive closure... I am not a big fan of refrom by hypocrisy, neither am I naive enough to legislate that expatriate indians somehow have higher responsibility in curing the ills of Indian society than others. But, at the same time, it is naive to think that societies change because everybody suddenly realizes the intrinsic merit of good things. They change because some people who had a chance to see good from bad help make the bad "unfashionable". This will have the effect of eradicating the symptoms in the short term, and the disease in the longterm. If the people who have had the MOST chance to change and introspect their biases, the people who had the MOST chance to question their actions and conditioning--if these people themselves choose to practise rank indifference towards the maladies arising from their endorsements, where, pray tell, does the change come from? "THE POSITION" To summarise, the main point of my article is NOT that stopping arrangedmarriages will magically make the society better. It is NOT that everyone embracing that practise is a fulminating fiend in human shape. It is NOT even that there cannot be any good "arranged marriages" or that the mere presence of people other than the couple in the decision making process makes the marriage black and white BAD. It IS that the prevalent practise leaves a lot to be desired, and that being a group of people who had been given the most chance to change and question our conditionings, we should consciously weigh the ramifications of our endorsement of the prevalent system against any temporary convenience such a system gives us. This attempt to "think" consciously about the problem and how your own actions exacerbate or ameliorate it is really the first step towards change! We may not all completely disavow the prevalent system. But I am sure, all of us will make variations in it that will reduce the sexism involved in the practise [Mayhaps, some of us might decide NOT to parade people, NOT to try to complete the Search-and-Consummation in under a week, to reorder our priorities in life to reduce our endorsement of malicious practises--and who knows, might even feel damn thrilled with it all!]. [[The last few sentences above are the beginnings of my answer to the much advertised question "But what really are the choices of poor NRIs?" The right question is not whether they have any choices (they do), but whether they have tried to take a careful look at the choice space. If we artificially prune the search space with inflexible constraints such as you HAVE to get married acc. our parent's wishes, HAVE to do so in under 10 days, and HAVE TO get married right after MS just before joining JOB so we can maximize visa chances and so on and on and on, it is no darned surprise that we have no more choices than indifferently exploiting a biased societal structure!!]] The ensuing minor changes in the norm will go a long way in setting good examples in the prevalent tradition-bound society. If nothing else, individuals trying to fight the system in India would not have to worry about the question "So why is arranged marriage which served Ajay Palvayantheeswaran, that much educated and much traveled gentahlman from pittsburgh, is particularly distasteful to your royal highness??". How do I know people don't do this consciously right now? I can't go into peoples minds, of course. But, the astounding uniformity in the marital practises of the people surrounding me gives me little rational basis to believe that there is any conscious introspection involved in their decisions. >Finally, should one not challenge the institution of marriage itself, >which Madhu Kishwar does in her article, >as perpetuating inequality and patriarchy? Yes, we should! But, more importantly, we should MAKE a start and individually introspect our current practises--rather than waiting for some WHOLESALE change... >Best wishes, > >Siva (siva@cis.udel.edu) Regards Rao ----------------- "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. " -Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!veena Tue Aug 14 15:26:14 PDT 1990 Article: 4810 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!veena From: veena@cs.utexas.edu (Veena A. Gondhalekar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Message-ID: <1351@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Date: 14 Aug 90 20:49:56 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 145 Status: O In article <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) talks of > EXPLOITING AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE [.. article not reproduced ] An excellent piece. While most of (almost all) what's written in the article is undoubtedly true and widely prevalent, I don't believe that all arranged marriages are coercive, though it might be true for a large percentage. There is no doubt that the woman's wishes are secondary or ignorable (in the eyes of the parents/elders) most of the times, yet society has changed somewhat in letting the woman have some say in her marriage. Speaking entirely from personal observation may not be a justification for my conclusions though. Female relatives and friends of mine who got "married through arrangement" got a definite say in the choice of their husbands even though some of them belong to extremely MC households and are not, IMO, liberated enough. Here I'm talking of women born during or after mid/late 50's. Of all the arranged marriages, those between US residents of Indian origin (GC holders or equivalents) and Indian women in India seem the most deplorable considering the manner in which one goes about them in most cases (I haven't yet heard of a female Indian GC holder going to India for a couple of weeks and returning with a hubby). These guys have nothing to their merit (except a GC) that local guys don't/couldn't have. And this little piece of paper gives them so much power. In the circumstances, I do not know how much the guys can be blamed for exploiting the situation (if one condones exploitation of any degree and any form at all) but what I find appalling is the consent of the women and their families to such a proposition. Is the attraction of a foreign land stronger than one's self-respect? Since this exploitation is perpetuated by the "most enlightened" people of our society, how could one point one's fingers at the deeds of the less enlightened ones? The question is what choice do Indian males have here if they do not wish to get married to a non-Indian woman. Considering the extreme imbalance between the male and female population of Indians here, this question does not obviously have an easy answer. But a 3-way ticket marriage is definitely NOT IT. People often TALK very disdainfully of the institution of arranged marriages but ultimately do nothing different when it's their turn and even go in for a 3-way ticket kind. If done the right way, there's nothing wrong with arranged marriages. But hardly ever does anyone go about it the right way and therein lies the need for change. Some specific comments : > When we endorse a social practice that requires a man to spend > significantly less time in getting married than in buying an > automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the > marginalization of an entire gender, it is over-sanguine to expect > that the deep-rooted inequalities between the sexes will disappear as Couldn't have made a more astute observation. The fact that the time spent on buying an automobile is more than that on selecting a life partner seems all the more incomprehensible when getting rid of an automobile that one may later find unsuitable is so much simpler (and definitely not tragic for anyone concerned) than getting rid of a spouse (I regret putting it so indelicately). > Let not our indifference take us to a stage where > the abhorrent atrocity of a burning bride is the only injustice that > is capable of enraging our sense of equality. Let us not only get rid of this indifference but also avoid the unquestioned continuance of practices performed because it is more "convenient" and, more or less, universally pacifying to conform to the norm than to pause, reflect and challenge - acts which are likely to cause more than a few ripples of disapproval among a mojority around us. ****** On the same issue, venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala) observes # I have come across morons who possess little # education or wealth, but have taken pride of "interviewing" even # upto 200 matches (an astronomical figure by any standards I suppose). And more likely than not, given no specific reasons for rejecting all those matches beyond perhaps the apparently most popular one of "incompatibility of horoscopes", in their heightened expectations from prospective brides under illusions of bloated self-worth. # But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and # choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. There is much more to a human being than, say, to a suit-length. If you get the shop attendant to show you all possible materials, colours and what have you and then reject every one of them finally, I'm sure none of these suit-pieces is going to mind [the sales attendant might mind though and (if (s)he is a ghati) express hir disgust in no uncertain terms, perhaps tell you how a "kanjoos" (miser) like you should never go shopping and doubt your honest intentions of buying anything in the first place :-) ]. And I'm equally sure that every single one of these rejected women does mind, especially when there is no apparent reason other than the horoscope-mismatch, which, I assume nobody really believes. # " Shop, but shop wise " Inherently wrong when applied to human beings. So long as one half (approx.) of the human population constitutes the shoppers and the the other half the objects on sale, this can never be an acceptable system. If both halves get an opportunity to play the dual roles of shoppers and items on sales, then maybe yes. ****** In article <1990Aug13.125314.11644@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Raghu [prasad@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Vishwanath Prasad) ??] adds % Ultimately the fight for their rights has to come from those who perceive % themselves as oppressed - in other words, I can tell somebody to fight for % their rights and I may even stand up for them. But, if they are not ready % to face the consequences of their fight then we have a problem on hand. % To put simply, I was advising my sister that she shouldn't get into a % marriage if she doesn't want it and she felt the same for a while and then she % couldn't handle the thought of being an unmarried woman in the society. So % she started crumbling and made up her mind that she will get married. This % tradition continues. How many mothers out there can tell their daughters % that they will stand by her even if she chooses to stay unwed ? How many % moms twist the bride's family's arms for dowry ? How many women out there % ridicule unwed women, even if their marriage is a hell on earth ? Aptly put. There is no doubt that women share a major responsiblity in bringing about these changes but considering the way "power" is currently bestowed on males in our society, I am not sure how much can be achieved without the cooperation of men. ****** Veena From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Tue Aug 14 15:28:21 PDT 1990 Article: 4816 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Dating and other premarital relationships Message-ID: <1990Aug14.222539.22989@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <1920@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 22:25:39 GMT Lines: 23 Status: O In article <1920@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> ramesh@uns-helios.nevada.edu (RAMESH VISWANATHAN) writes: > >Changing behavior and practices must be accompanied by changing attitudes. It >is alright to have idealogies on dating and premarital sex *if* you have the >mental maturity to deal with the pragmatic issues. > Beautifully put! And I can vouch for the importance of such conscious thinking of it, having seen some friends "devastated" to learn that their potential partner had serious relationships before. Conscious introspection, rather than "Jumping cultures" is the desired goal. However, let me hasten to add that, while I personally am for a completely broad minded approach to the issue of cohabitation, what I proposed in my article was a much lower bound on acceptable behavior-- by those standards, anyone who tries to reduce the exploitation involved in the system (say by taking longer time, going for more enlightened, and less "automated" forms of arranged marriage) is going in the right direction, while anyone who tries to squeeze the last drop out of it for convenience or indifference (as most of us are currently), is going in the wrong direction. -rao From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!uwm.edu!rpi!venky Tue Aug 14 22:19:36 PDT 1990 Article: 4840 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!uwm.edu!rpi!venky From: venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Is it getting tough for men to find a life-partner ? Summary: aspirations and demands of women are also pretty high Keywords: dowry,property,job,degree etc. Hi Netters: While the discussion on "3-way ticket and arranged marraiges" continues, I have some comments about the otherside of this coin: Message-ID: Date: 15 Aug 90 04:09:01 GMT Sender: venky@pawl.rpi.edu Followup-To: none Distribution: usa Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 65 Status: O As everyone realize, it is a tough and competetive world out there. Though we talk about the advantageous position (in the society) of men over women, I should add that men are also put under tremendous pressure to achieve the so called "independency" while the women (not all) seem to make a half hearted attempt in taking up serious careers. Few observations: (Note: I donot intend to generalize, so bear with me) 1. Women demand that their husbands be more qualified and well placed then themselves. Though it is hardly stated directly, you will rarely find an M.D. or PhD. or LLB woman marrying an MBBS or B.Com man unless he happens to be damn rich or much handsome. 2. In most of the cases, groom's party is better placed financially than the bride's. Heard of parents uttering " Hammari laDhki ko Amir khandan me *HI* denge?". 3. Now a days educated girls want dowry less marraiges, but would consider before hand how much assets the boy would be inheriting. Now WHY AND WHY NOT: a) Why is it that you invariably find brothers fighting for proper division of assets while you rarely get to see two sisters doing the same? b) When the present law allows women equal share in the property, why is it they donot demand and fight for it with their parents or brothers ? (and stop cribbing about men taking the dowry or other bullshit). Among all the propaganda about improving the status of women, many are ignoring that the changing conditions and societal values are putting tremendous pressure on less successful and unlucky men. It is no different from feeding one person by snatching bread from the other !!!. What is changing is not only the status of women but also their aspirations and demands. A few questions: 1) How many men without proper income are getting offers from rich and well settled women ? Well, viceversa cases are plenty. 2) How many parents give their daughters without considering the INHERITED (and already earned) riches of the boy? Again, I would encourage work for reliable statistics :-) Certainly less than the dowry demanders.Period. Frankly, (what ever may be the circumstances) women have perpetrated the higher handedness of men by always choosing men better placed than themselves. The so called compromises arise because ones demands are equally high. Remember, the value of any commodity that has demand ONLY increases. Finally, a small advice: Before rejecting any match either at the consideration stage (especially) or at the decision stage, try to figure out what your requirements and priorities are and then take the responsibility of achieving some of those demands by your own effort rather than seeking it from the other party. People with adapting nature and spirit will always succeed and be happy no matter at what position of the ladder they stand. with regards Venkatesh ------------------------ venky@pawl.rpi.edu ------------------------ From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!fornax!mahajan Wed Aug 15 07:00:21 PDT 1990 Article: 4853 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!fornax!mahajan From: mahajan@fornax.UUCP (Sanjeev Mahajan) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1070@fornax.UUCP> Date: 13 Aug 90 19:19:06 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada Lines: 54 Status: O In article , venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala) writes: > > Mr. Kambhampati's article clearly speaks of loop-holes in the > arranged marraige system of our country. But the article was a little > biased towards totally criticizing without even mentioning a single > benefit of such a system. And, pray tell what the 'benefits' of the system are. > But, I believe that viewing a particle make or shade or price range and > choosing the "best" among them is what everybody should learn. I am sorry, I don't understand this. Could you perhaps rephrase this? > > But on a lighter vain, let me pointout that: Does this mean that we should not take the ensuing points as a joke? I personally do not see any humor in them. So I will respond to them seriously. > > 1. In India, we only "see" the girl instead of "sleeping" with the girl Is 'girl' a passive object to be either seen or slept with? > > 2. In India, dowry is demanded prior to marraige instead of suing later I am puzzled about this. Are you saying that, although in the West they do not demand dowry, after the marriage they (I mean, the husbands) start suing for dowry? This is totally nonsensical, but then it perhaps, wasn't your point. Could you please clarify. > > 3. In India, marraige is a life-long union and not a simple contract > or a bond to be exchanged every now and than as in stock market. Well, the point is that it is worse than a contract. I think it is one of the worst dehumanizing experience for the bride to be. > views and suggestions on preventing the misuse of the system rather than > finding fault with the concept of the system. I think, Subbarao's article was quite balanced and very well-thought out. I don't think that he was trying to find fault with the system just for] the sake of finding fault. > > " Shop, but shop wise " What does this mean in this context? Sanjeev From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!siemens!demon.siemens.com!samaddar Wed Aug 15 10:44:28 PDT 1990 Article: 4878 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!siemens!demon.siemens.com!samaddar From: samaddar@demon.siemens.com Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <37100@siemens.siemens.com> Date: 15 Aug 90 12:46:41 GMT Sender: news@siemens.siemens.com Lines: 68 Status: O veena@cs.utexas.edu (Veena A. Gondhalekar) writes: >for my conclusions though. Female relatives and friends of mine who got >"married through arrangement" got a definite say in the choice of their >husbands even though some of them belong to extremely MC households and >are not, IMO, liberated enough. Here I'm talking of women born during >or after mid/late 50's. I tend to agree. > Of all the arranged marriages, those between US residents of >Indian origin (GC holders or equivalents) and Indian women in India seem >the most deplorable considering the manner in which one goes about them >in most cases (I haven't yet heard of a female Indian GC holder >going to India for a couple of weeks and returning with a hubby). These Ok, here is one. An Indian girl I know grew up in Kenya, and came to US for graduate and post-graduate studies. She wanted to get married to any Indian, but nothing worked out (most attempts were for "arranged" marriages where the "guy" and "gal" could "interview" each other also.). Finally, she was told about a doctor in India (my wife's aunt's cousin ..) who wanted to come to US. After some correspondence and photo exchange etc., the marriage was okayed by both concerned !! The girl involved didn't even have a Green card yet. (She is on an H-1). In fact, I believe that the decision was taken by the bride and the groom and NOT by their parents. >guys have nothing to their merit (except a GC) that local guys >don't/couldn't have. Conversely, these GC guys don't lack anything that the local guys have. >> When we endorse a social practice that requires a man to spend >> significantly less time in getting married than in buying an >> automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the >> marginalization of an entire gender, it is over-sanguine to expect >> that the deep-rooted inequalities between the sexes will disappear as > >Couldn't have made a more astute observation. An automobile is much easier to judge than a prospective spouse. It usually has a track record. There are millions of (nearly) identical copies produced earlier. If the "test drive" feels good, perhaps the car IS good. As far choosing an "arranged" spouse, no matter how much you want to, it is not easy to judge a person's character, temperament, etc in a few meetings. Can you really figure out if your to-be-wife is going to tolerate a slob-of-a-husband [that you are :-)] or if your to-be-husband is going to be pleased with a lazy-no-household-work-of-a-wife [that you are :-)]? I know a girl whose husband is too lazy to drive anywhere for sightseeing. etc. etc. How do you figure these traits out over a chinese dinner or in a brief movie-date? Apart from asking, can you really figure out if your spouse really shares your interest in your type of music, etc? > The question is what choice do Indian males have here if they >do not wish to get married to a non-Indian woman. Considering the >extreme imbalance between the male and female population of Indians >here, this question does not obviously have an easy answer. But a >3-way ticket marriage is definitely NOT IT. We all agree that we would like to know our to-be-spouse well before marriage, but apart from going steady in college for a few years (at least months), I can't think of a way. Beating up on a 3-way ticket marriage is not going to help. A 10-way ticket marriage is probably going to be as much of a gamble. Sumitro Samaddar From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Wed Aug 15 11:58:39 PDT 1990 Article: 4870 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1990Aug15.145017.4100@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 14:50:17 GMT Lines: 53 Status: O In article <5008@druco.ATT.COM> bish@druco.ATT.COM (Biswadip Ghosh) writes: > >I think what you have written applies to the RURAL environment in India and >also to the ECONOMICALLY backward sections in Indian society. > Huh? I am sorry to point out that my article was written for and applies to the so-called highly educated Indians. Unless you for some quaint reason have classified the silicon valley professionals, the MS and PhD graduates of Indian origin at US universities as representative of RURAL and ECONOMICALLY backward communities of India. If you are, please explain why.. > >Of course, the above two sections account for 75 % of India's >population. But in the remaining 25%, who are outside the above >the practice of arranged marriages work fine; in fact several ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >magnitudes better than any other marriage practice in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >world. Please explain why you think they work "Fine"--what measures are you using to come to this conclusion? And please try to resist the cliched "oh, we have such a small divorce rate" type arguments. > >So, the custom of arranged marriages is not the root of the problem, My original article pointed out clearly that I do not believe arranged marriages to be the root of the problem (see third para). > neither is it a part of the problem. Oh, really! Please explain why it is not a part of the problem, in particular, it would be educative for all of us if you can refute the parts of my article that argue to the contrary at a great length. >Education must be directed to the RURAL and ECONOMICALLY backward >sections for their upliftment. > >Bish I remember the saying "physician, heal thyself"--if we who are supposedly well educated can't sort out the good, the bad and the ugly of our practises, what right do we have to talk in these condescending terms about the RURAL and ECONOMICALLY backward [sic]? THe latter atleast have the excuse that they were not given as much chances to change and introspect their practises which the former, the educated section, do not have! -rao [Aug 15, 1990] From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!sitaram Wed Aug 15 14:22:28 PDT 1990 Article: 4895 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!sitaram From: sitaram@cs.washington.edu (Sitaram Raju) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <12788@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: 15 Aug 90 17:17:55 GMT References: <37100@siemens.siemens.com> Reply-To: sitaram@june.cs.washington.edu (Sitaram Raju) Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Lines: 23 Status: O In article <37100@siemens.siemens.com> samaddar@demon.siemens.com writes: >veena@cs.utexas.edu (Veena A. Gondhalekar) writes: > ..... ..... ..... >>> When we endorse a social practice that requires a man to spend >>> significantly less time in getting married than in buying an >>> automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the >> As opposed to a social practice that is endorsed here, namely spending less time in a married state/cohabiting than in automobile ownership. It is quite common to come across statements like 'My ex-SO and I had a meaningful and satisfying relationship for two years'. People typically own automobiles for about half a dozen years before trading/selling it. Let's not quibble about the difference between cohabitation and marriage (in this country). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sitaram Raju Dept of Comp Sc and Engg, Univ of Washington, Seattle From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!agate!darkstar!saturn.ucsc.edu!vikram Wed Aug 15 14:28:52 PDT 1990 Article: 4903 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!agate!darkstar!saturn.ucsc.edu!vikram From: vikram@saturn.ucsc.edu (Vikram Duvvoori) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Love in Arranged Marriages...(60 lines long) Summary: Attitudes, sensitivity and love are the keys. Keywords: marriage, love, happinness Message-ID: <6033@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Date: 15 Aug 90 18:50:26 GMT Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 60 Status: O There has been a spate of articles recently on arranged marriages and their flaws and virtues. In his original article, Rao made some excellent points about the highly deplorable attitudes and societal values reflected in the functioning of todays arranged marriages. I totally agree with him on that. However, I do not feel that it necessarily follows, that this is CAUSED by the practice of arranged marriages. (Rao did NOT imply that either). The success or failure of a marriage depends on the partners, the sensitivity they have towards one another and their willingness to understand each other, and change if necessary. Just before I got married, I got a letter from a close friend of my wife who was very supportive. She gave me the etymology of compromises (promises made with each other), and wished us a life of exciting compromises. That I think has been the key to a very loving marriage. To us mutual understanding and sensitivity has been the key. It just incidentally happens to be that I have been enjoying a happy `love' marriage. But we both feel that even if it had been arranged (accross the continents) it wouldnt have made much of a difference for the two us. As long as the two individuals approch marriage with a willingness to share life completely with an open mind I think things can be worked out. If the institution of an arranged marriage, is merely a practice to bring together people of potential compatibility, I hope it has a place in a society. There are usually two different kinds of criticisms of this institution - 1) It works badly in practice, because of the subjugation of women by man. 2) It can never work in principle, because it doesnt allow two people to know each other. I generally tend to agree with the first criticism. Regarding the very principle of arranged marriages, I strongly feel that much of the criticism is based on varying expectations from a life partner. DOES ONE NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING about the other person before deciding to get married? From my experience with a fairly large sample of educated, upper-middle class marriages, it doesnt seem to be necessary. The more important factor seems to be the `meta'- factor. How do you perceive that person's general sensitivity, thoughtfulness and flexibility? Judging this is usually very situation specific, and may take a few minutes or several life times. But there is nothing inherently limiting in a relaxed setting, where there is an equal respect and openness and a better availability of information. Many of the repugnant practices like parading the girl, subjecting her to humiliating cross-examinations etc. are products of our skewed societal values. They need to be addressed in the overall perspective, and not in the specific context of arranged marriages. Wishing everyone a happy (married or single) life... Vikram Duvvoori (Vikram@cs.ucsc.edu) From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Wed Aug 15 15:28:25 PDT 1990 Article: 4917 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1990Aug15.222715.3422@portia.Stanford.EDU> Summary: Issue is about endorsing exploitation--not about love vs. arranged. or US vs. Indian system Keywords: TRY TO SEPARATE PERSONAL "ROMANTIC" CONSIDERATIONS FROM EXTRA-PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF "EXPLOITATION: Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <37100@siemens.siemens.com> <12788@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:27:15 GMT Lines: 112 Status: O [Responses to Mr. Sitaram@june.cs.washington and others who expressed support for prevalent practises based on their evaluation of "Indian" and "western" marital norms] In article <12788@june.cs.washington.edu> sitaram@june.cs.washington.edu (Sitaram Raju) writes: >>veena@cs.utexas.edu (Veena A. Gondhalekar) writes (quoting rao@sunrise): >> > >..... >>>> When we endorse a social practice that requires a man to spend >>>> significantly less time in getting married than in buying an >>>> automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the >>> > >As opposed to a social practice that is endorsed here, namely spending >less time in a married state/cohabiting than in automobile ownership. >It is quite common to come across statements like 'My ex-SO and I had >a meaningful and satisfying relationship for two years'. People >typically own automobiles for about half a dozen years before >trading/selling it. Let's not quibble about the difference between >cohabitation and marriage (in this country). > What are you trying to say here? That relationships here don't last as long as they do in India, and so the prevalent practise in India is just as good? Ultimately, what two INDEPENDENT, CONSENTING ADULTS do about their PERSONAL-LIVES is completely their business. If they want to do the whole schmeal in 2.5 minutes, so be it, if they want to take divorces for what might appear to you as frivolous reasons, so be it, if they want to have an open, closed, half-open, 3/4ths-closed or air-tight closed relationship so be it. None of us have the locus-standi to tell others about their personal tastes. However, we do have the grounds (and a social obligation) to cry foul, when those tastes thrive on exploiting the prevalent unjust system. The point of my original article was not to make a blanket judgement on the merits of Indian vs. Western notions of marriage (as if the space of possibilities is really binary!), or to say that the concept of "arranged marriages" can never be as good as other marriage systems in an objective sense. [read Vikram Duvvoori's excellent comments on that in a separate article titled "love in arranged marriages"]. The point instead is about THE EXPLOITATION INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT WIDESPREAD PRACTISE OF ARRANGED MARRIAGE. The point is that the seemingly personal choices about whether or not you want to go for a 3-way ticket marriage, have a significant amount of extra-personal ramifications in terms of endorsement to the prevalent exploitation. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: if a friend of mine puts a notice in front of the Paloalto bar tomorrow for a ready-made spouse, (and by fortuitous coincidence) finds an appropriate person and gets married in 20 hours, I will not get as agitated as I am with the three-way ticketers. Why? Becasue while there is large empirical evidence to believe that while most people who may respond (at all) to my friend's ad in palo alto would have done so on their own accord, most people who respond to a 3-way ticketers overtures in India would be doing so as a result of coercion and conditioning and as "non-independent" persons. In fact, an overwhelming reason why such a practise gets so much of response in the Indian context is PRECISELY THAT IT FULLY EXPLOITS THE PREVALENT UNJUST BIASES OF THE SOCIETY! There is a lot of pressure on women to say yes irrespective of whether or not they really wanted to take part in such marriages. Despite all the white-washing, the women's opinions are DISTINCTLY secondary (how many 3-way ticket marriages have you seen in which any major decision such as whether or not the woman wants to come to USA like a piece of luggage is given significant weight?). Going through arranged marriage system, knowing all this, in my opinion is wrong in that it perpetuates the secondary status of the opinions of the women by giving your indirect endorsement to the existing biased system. You see, being a thinking person involves not just being "legal", but a conscious introspection of the implicit ramifications of ones actions. That is why, in my posting I carefully skirted around the issue of "traditional" vs. "modern" and concentrated on the question of the practises one endorses. I have no doubt in my mind that the current system is rabidly sexist (successful marriages notwithstanding and please don't furnish single point statistics about how your friend had an ideal arranged marriage--if they did, congrats to them--but that still doesn't change the overall picture!). I WILL HOWEVER NOT SAY THAT ENLIGHTENED "NON-BARTERING" VERSIONS OF ARRANGED MARRIAGES ARE NOT POSSIBLE. What I am objecting is not so much the "arrangedness" of the marriage but the "exploitativeness" of the marriage. I would have to admit that my reservations won't hold in special cases where both parties concerned actually made an honest effort to prove to themselves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no exploitation involved. (Ofcourse, this option might very well mean that the grooms cant get back in 3 weeks time, and that is usually considered a NO-NO in terms of the their career objectives, apparently..) -Rao [Aug 15, 1990] --------------------------- "THE ISSUE FACING US IS NOT ABOUT HOW TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO SHARPLY DIVIDED SYSTEMS OF MARRIAGE, BUT ABOUT THE NEED FOR A CONSCIOUS, RATHER THAN TRADITION-BOUND, CHOICE AMONG A CONTINUUM OF POSSIBILITIES." -rao quoting rao ;-) "[Shopping for spouses] is inherently wrong so long as one half (approx.) of the human population constitutes the shoppers and the the other half the objects on sale, this can never be an acceptable system." -Veena Gondhalekar From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Wed Aug 15 15:29:44 PDT 1990 Article: 4917 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1990Aug15.222715.3422@portia.Stanford.EDU> Summary: Issue is about endorsing exploitation--not about love vs. arranged. or US vs. Indian system Keywords: TRY TO SEPARATE PERSONAL "ROMANTIC" CONSIDERATIONS FROM EXTRA-PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF "EXPLOITATION: Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <37100@siemens.siemens.com> <12788@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:27:15 GMT Lines: 112 Status: O [Responses to Mr. Sitaram@june.cs.washington and others who expressed support for prevalent practises based on their evaluation of "Indian" and "western" marital norms] In article <12788@june.cs.washington.edu> sitaram@june.cs.washington.edu (Sitaram Raju) writes: >>veena@cs.utexas.edu (Veena A. Gondhalekar) writes (quoting rao@sunrise): >> > >..... >>>> When we endorse a social practice that requires a man to spend >>>> significantly less time in getting married than in buying an >>>> automobile; a practise, which in its most popular form, thrives on the >>> > >As opposed to a social practice that is endorsed here, namely spending >less time in a married state/cohabiting than in automobile ownership. >It is quite common to come across statements like 'My ex-SO and I had >a meaningful and satisfying relationship for two years'. People >typically own automobiles for about half a dozen years before >trading/selling it. Let's not quibble about the difference between >cohabitation and marriage (in this country). > What are you trying to say here? That relationships here don't last as long as they do in India, and so the prevalent practise in India is just as good? Ultimately, what two INDEPENDENT, CONSENTING ADULTS do about their PERSONAL-LIVES is completely their business. If they want to do the whole schmeal in 2.5 minutes, so be it, if they want to take divorces for what might appear to you as frivolous reasons, so be it, if they want to have an open, closed, half-open, 3/4ths-closed or air-tight closed relationship so be it. None of us have the locus-standi to tell others about their personal tastes. However, we do have the grounds (and a social obligation) to cry foul, when those tastes thrive on exploiting the prevalent unjust system. The point of my original article was not to make a blanket judgement on the merits of Indian vs. Western notions of marriage (as if the space of possibilities is really binary!), or to say that the concept of "arranged marriages" can never be as good as other marriage systems in an objective sense. [read Vikram Duvvoori's excellent comments on that in a separate article titled "love in arranged marriages"]. The point instead is about THE EXPLOITATION INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT WIDESPREAD PRACTISE OF ARRANGED MARRIAGE. The point is that the seemingly personal choices about whether or not you want to go for a 3-way ticket marriage, have a significant amount of extra-personal ramifications in terms of endorsement to the prevalent exploitation. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: if a friend of mine puts a notice in front of the Paloalto bar tomorrow for a ready-made spouse, (and by fortuitous coincidence) finds an appropriate person and gets married in 20 hours, I will not get as agitated as I am with the three-way ticketers. Why? Becasue while there is large empirical evidence to believe that while most people who may respond (at all) to my friend's ad in palo alto would have done so on their own accord, most people who respond to a 3-way ticketers overtures in India would be doing so as a result of coercion and conditioning and as "non-independent" persons. In fact, an overwhelming reason why such a practise gets so much of response in the Indian context is PRECISELY THAT IT FULLY EXPLOITS THE PREVALENT UNJUST BIASES OF THE SOCIETY! There is a lot of pressure on women to say yes irrespective of whether or not they really wanted to take part in such marriages. Despite all the white-washing, the women's opinions are DISTINCTLY secondary (how many 3-way ticket marriages have you seen in which any major decision such as whether or not the woman wants to come to USA like a piece of luggage is given significant weight?). Going through arranged marriage system, knowing all this, in my opinion is wrong in that it perpetuates the secondary status of the opinions of the women by giving your indirect endorsement to the existing biased system. You see, being a thinking person involves not just being "legal", but a conscious introspection of the implicit ramifications of ones actions. That is why, in my posting I carefully skirted around the issue of "traditional" vs. "modern" and concentrated on the question of the practises one endorses. I have no doubt in my mind that the current system is rabidly sexist (successful marriages notwithstanding and please don't furnish single point statistics about how your friend had an ideal arranged marriage--if they did, congrats to them--but that still doesn't change the overall picture!). I WILL HOWEVER NOT SAY THAT ENLIGHTENED "NON-BARTERING" VERSIONS OF ARRANGED MARRIAGES ARE NOT POSSIBLE. What I am objecting is not so much the "arrangedness" of the marriage but the "exploitativeness" of the marriage. I would have to admit that my reservations won't hold in special cases where both parties concerned actually made an honest effort to prove to themselves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no exploitation involved. (Ofcourse, this option might very well mean that the grooms cant get back in 3 weeks time, and that is usually considered a NO-NO in terms of the their career objectives, apparently..) -Rao [Aug 15, 1990] --------------------------- "THE ISSUE FACING US IS NOT ABOUT HOW TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO SHARPLY DIVIDED SYSTEMS OF MARRIAGE, BUT ABOUT THE NEED FOR A CONSCIOUS, RATHER THAN TRADITION-BOUND, CHOICE AMONG A CONTINUUM OF POSSIBILITIES." -rao quoting rao ;-) "[Shopping for spouses] is inherently wrong so long as one half (approx.) of the human population constitutes the shoppers and the the other half the objects on sale, this can never be an acceptable system." -Veena Gondhalekar From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!wuarchive!uunet!ogicse!partha Wed Aug 15 15:32:28 PDT 1990 Article: 4908 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!wuarchive!uunet!ogicse!partha From: partha@mse.ogi.edu (R. Parthasarathy) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: 3 way ticket and arranged marriages Message-ID: <11384@ogicse.ogi.edu> Date: 15 Aug 90 19:51:17 GMT Sender: news@ogicse.ogi.edu Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute, Material Science & Engineering Lines: 114 Status: O >From: venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala) > While the discussion on "3-way ticket and arranged marraiges" > continues, I have some comments about the otherside of this coin: > As everyone realize, it is a tough and competetive world out there. > Though we talk about the advantageous position (in the society) of men > over women, I should add that men are also put under tremendous pressure > to achieve the so called "independency" while the women (not all) seem > to make a half hearted attempt in taking up serious careers. > Few observations: > (Note: I donot intend to generalize, so bear with me) > 1. Women demand that their husbands be more qualified and well > placed then themselves. Though it is hardly stated directly, > you will rarely find an M.D. or PhD. or LLB woman marrying > an MBBS or B.Com man unless he happens to be damn rich or > much handsome. If we compare the number of well qualified Indian men and women, the latter are not as numerous. When their number is negligibly small, the influence of their up bringing and society fills their minds when it comes to choosing partners. This way, selecting a man of superior status, seems to be more `secure', whatever be the hardships - this is what our scoiety brain washes them into believing. Think of divorce. Not many Indian women, however much well educated, will come forward to seek divorce, when life becomes miserable after marriage. They'd always like to wait and bear with the sufferings, hoping that some day the men will change their attitudes. Divorce is not the first option for our women. But look at the number of divorce cases in western countries. We can clearly see the strong social influence in the minds of our women. More women should get higher education. Our government should scrap the reservation quotas for backward classes and introduce reservation in education for our women, because however low a caste in India is, women are treated miserably even within such communities. Exposure to higher education will help them decide for themselves and even be rebellious if coerced. > 2. In most of the cases, groom's party is better placed financially > than the bride's. Heard of parents uttering " Hammari laDhki ko > Amir khandan me *HI* denge?". Once again the social attitude is the cause for this. > 3. Now a days educated girls want dowry less marraiges, but would > consider before hand how much assets the boy would be inheriting. > I don't think we can generalize this. Some cases are like this. There are lots of cases where the grooms' parents and the grooms calculate how much wealth can be milked out of girls' parents. I also have an additional point. When women get married, their crib about having to pay dowry is justifiable. But when they become mothers, they tend to forget the hardships they and their parents have gone through and demand dowry for their qualified sons! I think women are equally responsible for the evil brought by the dowry system. > Now WHY AND WHY NOT: > a) Why is it that you invariably find brothers fighting for > proper division of assets while you rarely get to see > two sisters doing the same? I can show you cases where sisters fight either directly or indirectly through their husbands for property rights. I don't think we can generalize this either. > > Among all the propaganda about improving the status of women, many > are ignoring that the changing conditions and societal values are > putting tremendous pressure on less successful and unlucky men. It > is no different from feeding one person by snatching bread from the > other !!!. What is changing is not only the status of women but also > their aspirations and demands. > True. > A few questions: > 1) How many men without proper income are getting offers from > rich and well settled women ? > Well, viceversa cases are plenty. > 2) How many parents give their daughters without considering > the INHERITED (and already earned) riches of the boy? > Again, I would encourage work for reliable statistics :-) > Certainly less than the dowry demanders.Period. > > Frankly, (what ever may be the circumstances) women have perpetrated > the higher handedness of men by always choosing men better placed than > themselves. The so called compromises arise because ones demands > are equally high. Remember, the value of any commodity that has demand > ONLY increases. > > Finally, a small advice: Before rejecting any match either at the > consideration stage (especially) or at the decision stage, try to > figure out what your requirements and priorities are and then > take the responsibility of achieving some of those demands by your > own effort rather than seeking it from the other party. People with > adapting nature and spirit will always succeed and be happy no matter > at what position of the ladder they stand. > I agree with these points. > with regards > Venkatesh Definitely reasonable points of view. I am glad that both sides of the coin have been considered in this discussion. Partha sarathy From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!spot!mum.wrc.xerox.com!mantha Thu Aug 16 16:24:34 PDT 1990 Article: 4994 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!spot!mum.wrc.xerox.com!mantha From: mantha@mum.wrc.xerox.com (S. Mantha (co-op)) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <488@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> Date: 16 Aug 90 15:13:04 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1070@fornax.UUCP> Sender: news@spot.wbst128.xerox.com Reply-To: mantha.wbst128@xerox.com Distribution: usa Lines: 27 In article <1070@fornax.UUCP>, mahajan@fornax.UUCP (Sanjeev Mahajan) writes: |>Well, the point is that it is worse than a contract. I think it is one |>of the worst dehumanizing experience for the bride to be. Wow! Let's not get carried away now. I had a hate-marriage myself :-). Ofcourse, there weren't all those hundreds of women lined up for me. Actually not even two! Felt a little cheated, I did. I couldn't even be a lout in style! I consoled myself with the thought that the quorum, at least, had been established. Need at least one, you see. Also, my bride seemed to hold herself much better than I did. The pandit, ofcourse, lost all interest in the proceedings on learning that I was a poor graduate student without the magical green card in my possession. He was used to marrying sons and daughters of expatriate lawyers and doctors. But, yes. We (my wife and I) were both terrified at the prospect of having to live and share everything with a perfect stranger (a year of correspondence having confirmed my initial suspicions that people caught in strange situations lie desperately.) The more perverse among the supporters of the "system" would cite the sense of "mystery" and "adventure" as a plus. It ain't so. But, hey, I survived. And the last time I looked, my wife seemed to be alive too. cheers Surya [in the market for the right dogma] Mantha From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!pidapart Thu Aug 16 20:30:41 PDT 1990 Article: 5008 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!pidapart From: pidapart@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Rama Krishna Pidaparti) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Message-ID: <1330@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> Date: 17 Aug 90 00:23:13 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1351@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Reply-To: pidapart@enuxha.eas.asu.edu.UUCP (Rama Krishna Pidaparti) Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe AZ Lines: 93 Status: O In article <1351@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> veena@cs.utexas.edu (Veena A. Gondhalekar) writes: > >In article <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> > rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) talks of > >> EXPLOITING AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE > > Of all the arranged marriages, those between US residents of >Indian origin (GC holders or equivalents) and Indian women in India seem >the most deplorable considering the manner in which one goes about them >in most cases (I haven't yet heard of a female Indian GC holder >going to India for a couple of weeks and returning with a hubby). These >guys have nothing to their merit (except a GC) that local guys >don't/couldn't have. And this little piece of paper gives them so much >power. In the circumstances, I do not know how much the guys can be >blamed for exploiting the situation (if one condones exploitation of >any degree and any form at all) but what I find appalling is the consent >of the women and their families to such a proposition. Is the attraction >of a foreign land stronger than one's self-respect? Since this I know of one case where the girl to be married was well educated(CA) and from very welthy family, was not married and a lot of matches were rejected by the mother of this girl as the mother was hell bent on marrying her daughter(2nd) to a PHOREN Indian. She did achieve it, though the girl had to wait for a few years before her mother's dream came ture. I know the girl and her family considerably well and I don't know what the girl felt but this PHOREN attraction was very disturbing especially when it is the parent(s) who insists. It was finally an arranged marriage and I don't know if the guy should be blamed for wanting to marry an Indian girl. I don't mean that Rao or any body finging the loopholes in the system are wrong but like Veena asks now that we know quite a few loopholes/problems in the system we got to see if we can have *good* solutions for these desi bhais who want to mearry desi behens only. I dont' think that bride burning can in any way be attributed as an offshoot or any thing like that to arranged marriage system. It is inherently from greed of the parents and/or the guy marrying. And most importantly, the guy not behaving like a MAN when he himself doesn't subscribe to the idea of demanding the dowry. Not rebelling against his parents if they are *demanding* dowry is the serious problem. If it can help I wouldn't mind giving my personal story in this regard. I come from a big family(6 children) and there have been 5 marriages out of which 4 of them were arranged(including mine). The marriage which wasn't an arranged one was between my sister and a very distant(if any) ralative but a close neighbour(2 houses away). This too was not arranged in the sense that they knew each other since childhood and nothing more. Though they had the advantage that parents on both sides approved it very easyly. That would be an altogether a different problem if they had anyone parents'(or Both) disapproval and I am sure it would have been hell for them for some time at least. The 4 marriages(arranged) in my house were a strange coincidence or a conscious effotr but all of them had only one *interview* after going though the photographs, horoscopes etc., and yes all of them are at least graduates(both spouses of the all the 5 couples) if being educated(possessing a degree) counts. Now the qeustion is don't these marriages have any problems? Yes they do have the usual domestic middle class family problems due to sometimes misunderstanding and/or ego hastles but none of them have any problems involving *dowry* or any wealth/assets' related problems. So from this I think that the system itself is not the main culprit but the people who take advantage of it. Especially coming from a society like ours where dating or other similar concepts are not very much in vogue at least if you ignore the big cities(like Delhi, B'bay, Cal, B'lore Mas etc.,). So when in a society where knowing the partner before marriage is not so easy and/or acceptable *arranged marriages* do happen and of course nobody should take any undue advantage out of the system. >Couldn't have made a more astute observation. > >The fact that the time spent on buying an automobile is more than that >on selecting a life partner seems all the more incomprehensible when >getting rid of an automobile that one may later find unsuitable is so >much simpler (and definitely not tragic for anyone concerned) than >getting rid of a spouse (I regret putting it so indelicately). There is a lot of difference between automobiles and spouses although you find some people more attached to their cars and other material things than their spouses or people in general. >Veena From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!veena Thu Aug 16 20:30:46 PDT 1990 Article: 5007 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!veena From: veena@cs.utexas.edu (Charudutta S. Palkar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Summary: hypocrites Message-ID: <239@rodan.cs.utexas.edu> Date: 17 Aug 90 00:22:11 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1351@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Organization: GTE Telecom, Inc. Bothell, WA Lines: 27 Status: O [The following posting is on behalf of someone who could apparently not get it successfully posted from hir site. All flames to hir] In article <1351@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> veena@cs.utexas.edu writes: > >In article <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> > rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) talks of >These guys have nothing to their merit (except a GC) that local guys >don't/couldn't have. Do you really think having a GC is a merit for getting married ? All I can say all you guys in SCI are looking at marriage as some commodity were you / girl are for sale. Or to be more blunt you guys are looking for free *screws* , in your own styles. Since you guys cannot manage them here you all run back home and talk about your 'GC' and '$`s' and how you miss home food etc. But you dont mention that you went to 42nd St or its equivalent. You all may be offended by what I have said but this is the truth. csp - csp@gtenmc.UUCP "As the Iron turns to RUST you great men will turn to DUST" SORRY MAMA. From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!unsvax!uns-helios!prakash Thu Aug 16 20:30:55 PDT 1990 Article: 5010 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!unsvax!uns-helios!prakash From: prakash@uns-helios.nevada.edu (PRAKASH PHALKE) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Keywords: arranged marriages, boons of an unjust society, endorsement Message-ID: <1926@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> Date: 17 Aug 90 01:12:26 GMT References: <14120.26c2799f@max.u.washington.edu> <1295@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1351@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Sender: news@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU Reply-To: prakash@uns-helios.uucp (PRAKASH PHALKE) Organization: Univ of Nevada System Computing Services - Las Vegas Lines: 44 Status: O Arranged Marriages: Is there a solution ? First of all I am not advocate of arranged marriages and secondly choices for getting married by other means are very limited for majority of us. I think one of the objective of starting this discussion on net is/should be to find/come up with solutions which can effectively be used to avoid arranged marriages. It is my opinion that women should raise and fight for this issue. Men alone will never change this system, but they can be very effective in helping women, if they agree. NRI's go for arranged marriages because they cannot find suitable partner here: first of all they cannot date effectively as they are far behind in this area compared with the girls they plan to date. To my knowledge every Indian student wants to date an American Girl and many of us want to get married to an American Girls (no hassal to go through ? to obtain GC). I have seen many Indian girls dating non-Indians but very few mens. It seems that girls have better chances to date than mens here. Again these are my opinions and should be not taken seriously. To me, American system of dating is not ideal choice to replace the arranged marriages( Indian morality, The divorce rate in US etc. etc.). Also it seems to me that arranged marriages issues should be raised in India and not in US. As the NRI's getting married through this system get married in India. Though there are very few NRI's (compared to INDIAN Population) they have great impact on the overall system as many people respect NRI's mainly from US. As indicated earlier the women can play great role in changing this system. The solution I am proposing is based on Chinese system and it seems to fit Indian quite well and women can be very effective in this system: The idea is that respectable and/or known person(such as teacher, doctor) in the society introduces you (he or she) to the other person. He knows both of them and believes that these two people can be good couple. After that they start getting to know each other through social functions, letters, phone and so on. If there is enough interest from the both sides they start dating and try to know each other. All this can be accepted in our society if it is known and some one known and/or respectable person is involved. Depending on each persons need, they can get married very soon or they can continue dating till they are comfortable in their relationship or try other. This is not great solution neither new but will stimulate the discussion and other might come up with better solutions. ----P From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!att!cbnewsi!alok Thu Aug 16 20:34:17 PDT 1990 Article: 5011 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!att!cbnewsi!alok From: alok@cbnewsi.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Arranged vs Love marriages Summary: Good Observation Message-ID: <1990Aug15.220241.20305@cbnewsi.att.com> Date: 15 Aug 90 22:02:41 GMT References: <1990Aug14.191639.2755@cbnewsi.att.com> Distribution: usa Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 46 Status: O In article <1990Aug14.191639.2755@cbnewsi.att.com>, satyam@cbnewsi.att.com (satyan.y.bheemarasetti) writes: > Several factors count towards shaping of a person's > personality - home, family, friends, education etc, > all the more it is not consistent. While choosing a > life partner, one atempts to judge the other person > with the available information. Through arranged marriages, > the elders try to analyze all the influencing factors and > come to a decision. In a love marriage, one tries to know > the other through direct interaction. None of the above > processes is foolproof. A person's true colours come out > when he has to share responsibilities. I think that is the > reason why marriages tend to fail (need not necessarily end > up in divorce). Failure or success of a process in some cases > should not lead to any general conclusions. My experience is > Success of a Marriage does not depend on whether it is Arranged > or Love. > > - satyam > It pretty much sums up what I have to say about the topic. Success of a marriage does not depend on whether it is arranged or love based. In arranged marriages committment is made first and then love is expected to develop after marriage, while in love marriages, love is the basis for marriage and committment is expected to develop as the marriage progresses. After a few years, one would expect the two types of marriages to lead to a convergence. I also agree with Satyam that a person's true colours come out when he/she has to share the responsibilities. In arranged marriage negotiations, people discuss such sharing of responsibilities beforehead. In love marriages, which usually take place after a year or two of knowing each other, the persons concerned would have practised sharing responsibilities to a minor extent before the marriage and would thus havave a pretty good idea of who is going to do what. The most important thing in a marriage is honesty to oneself and each other. Honesty leads to trust. Trust is the basis for both - committment and love. Thanks Satyam, for pointing out some of these subtle points about arranged and love marriages. I fully agree with you. Alok Vijayvargia ***** I am still around in case you were wondering. From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Thu Aug 16 23:50:37 PDT 1990 Article: 5019 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Fatalism in attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility [Re: Exploiting] Message-ID: <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> Summary: fa.tal.ism \-,iz-m\ n (1678) :a doctrine that events are fixed in advance for all time in such a manner that human beings are powerless to change them; also: a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine-- fa.tal.ist \-st\ n -- fa.tal.is.tic \,ft-<\e>l-'is-tik\ adj -- fa.tal.is.ti.cal.ly \-ti-k(-)l\ adv Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 06:49:47 GMT Lines: 216 Status: O [[[[[I am again breaking from the main thread to address two important points (viz. "marriage is a gamble anyway", and "Compromise is the way to go") that are being consistently raised by those people who want to compare their concepts of "arranged" marriages with their conception of "love" marriages and say they are funcitionally equivalent. Before I start, let me repeat my main spiel again: I think that the "dichotomy" of "love" vs. "arranged" marriage is ARTIFICIAL and trite; (enforced typically for the express purpose of evading the issue or making everything into a discussion of "OUR (indian)" values vs. "THEIR (western)" values). What we really are faced with is a CONTINUUM of possibilities. There are a SPECTRUM of arranged marriages and a SPECTRUM of what you may want to call love marriages. Let us decide individually which point in that spectrum is best for us and go with it rather than be befuddled by LABELS. The issue is how well-informed is the marriage, not how to pigeon-hole the darned thing. Having said that, let me go to the main item of business, yep the fatalism thingie.]]]]]]]] FATALISM IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE, COMPROMISES AND COMPATIBILITY (please excuse the somewhat pedantic tone of the following; and please let it not deter you from getting the main point(s). I wanted to communicate my ideas in as unambiguous a way as possible --ed) We have often been told by those people whose business it is to characterize the "national psyche" (I am refering to the T. Vaidynathan, Nirad C. Chaudhari kinda blokes), that Indians are "fatalistic" in their outlook--that the "WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WILL HAPPENAY HAPPEN" brand of philosophy permeates their thinking, decisions and actions. I generally dismiss such blanket characterizations and cannot really say whether this particular one has any statistical truth to it. But I am startled by its applicability to a number of people who have taken time to express their views in the "Exploiting unjust advantages" thread. Let us follow a typical argument in favour of the currently prevalent arranged ("pre-packaged") marriages. It starts by saying that "compatibility is more important than romantic "love" in determining the success of a marriage." Fair enough. Adds that "Compatibility can never be judged cent percent" again true. But then it over-extends itself to say "at least in arranged marriages the "phyamilies" look into the compatibility issue rather thoroughly, and what is left for us is to jhust fall into love ("In India we fall in love AFTER marriage" aka raavirala et al), make a few compromises and everything will be fine and dandy." See the obvious fallacy in the third step? But when you point this out to people, they resort to the arguments such as the one in the following quote [from Sumitro Samaddar's posting] (and by the way, you only need to flip back the postings to see tons of other people saying very much the same thing): >> Beating up on a 3-way >> ticket marriage is not going to help. A 10-way ticket marriage is >> probably going to be as much of a gamble. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What this type of attitude essentially amounts to is the following: I will first assume that the function I am dealing with is a binary vaued one. Second, since I cannot tell FOR CERTAIN the exact outcome of this binary valued function for any given choice, I might as well be indiscriminate about my choices. (****) But this is ridiculous--in life--be it academic, professional or personal--we are always faced with situations where we cannot tell the outcome with certainity. And we are called upon to make educated decisions with incomplete information. We don't always resort to such cynically indiscriminate choices (if you do GOD help you!)--so why suddenly now???? Unlike consonance with your primary views etc., which can be determined in a reasonably short acquaintance period, compatibility is a long term property which is difficult to decide COMPLETELY a priori FOR ANYONE. But that doesn't mean that there is absolutely no room for individual initiative in "estimating" compatibility! Fer cryin' out loud, it is neither a 0 1 kinda thing nor a completely random function! [What is more, to think that your parents (or worse yet, horoscopes) will know more about compatibility with (N+25-odd-year-old) you, rather than you yourself--is rather quaint, and shows a willingness to delegate important and complex decision of your life to someone else or to "Phyate", so you can happily escape any responsibility.] The real culprits are an inability to distinguish between DEGREES, an insistence on "guarantees," and a proclivity for looking at everything in black and white. And the same inability shows up in the arguments that unconditionally glorify role of "COMPROMISES" in a successful marriage; several of which appeared in this thread, notably Mr. Satyam, Mr. Alok, Mr. Raavirala, Mr. Pidaparti (and probably completely unwittingly by Vikram Duvvoori). Before jumping on the bandwagon of "Compromises nature as the vehicle of successful marriages," it is imperative that we develop an understanding of what SORTS of compromises are out there and introspect our yardsticks for judging the success of a marriage. Consider: * If I like to sleep on the left side of the bed, and my spouse also wants to sleep on the left side, and I compromise--that is one kind of compromise. * If I want to take part in social service, and my spouse hates it and is bent on actively discouraging me, and I compromise, THAT is another form of compromise * If I want to hit my spouse every other day to discipline hir, and my spouse (bless hir soul) doesn't really like it but accommodates, that too is a compromise --of yet another sort. Some of the compromises--like the first--are trivial and they do not take off anything from your essential persona; some compromises like the second might be "compromising your values" and as such affect your essential persona; and finally there are compromises like the third one above, which are none less than sacrificing your persona entirely. If the inability to make the compromises of the first sort [No way Jose! I am not gonna give up my left side, if you insist, I will call my lawyer, I will keep Appeswararao and you can keep Mangataayar with you] shows an immaturity of the parties concerned; an indiscriminate willingness to make the second and third type of compromises to "keep" a marriage demonstrates equally clearly the OVERLY diminished expectations and the fatalistic view of the marriage that couple harbor. Yes, any darned union can be made to work if one or both of the parties are willing to compromise indiscriminately; there is no question of prejudging compatibility. And if we judge the "Success" of a marriage SOLELY BASED ON ITS LONGEVITY, we will say that all such marriages are higly successful!! If on the otherhand, we start seeing the degrees of compromises being made by the parties, we might start revising our initial opinions about the success of various marriages in our culture, and our highbrow pronouncements on the "triviality-driven divorces" in some other culture. MORE IMPORTANTLY we will start noticing the importance of making well-informed decisions: If we start with NO knowledge of the other person, there is a high PROBABILITY that we will wind up making compromises of second and third sort to "keep" the marriage going. Any knowledge that we glean about the other person will DECREASE this probability. Notice that we are no longer talking about GUARANTEES, but increasing probabilities through our actions. [in other words, palvayantheeswaran and padmavathi might wind up having a perfectly ghastly marriage, inspite of their prolonged courtship, while Ramshands and Sitamaalakshmi might live a completely happy life even though they went through the completely pre-packaged version--but your willingness to use such isolated instances to justify indiscriminate choices shows an elementary lack of understanding of probability and decsions under uncertainity.] So, what is the punchline? One sign of maturity is to stop looking at the world and your choices in a binary black and white fashion and start contending with the grayness and uncertainity. A 10-trip marriage (at least in the way samaddar meant it [though I do like veena's interpretation ;-)]) provides 10/3 times higher probability of judging compatibility, and a correspondingly lower probability that you will have to make compromises of second and third types, as compared to a 1-trip (3-way ticket) marriage. Any amount of extra time you spend in making a well-informed decision will COUNT-- thus giving you a SPECTRUM rather than an artificial dichotomy of choices. -Rao [Subba"Phooey, There goes another night"rao Kambhampati] Ps: (Veena (@cs.utexas.edu) reflects these same points in her response to samaddar, if a bit more concisely--Hey, who ever accused me of terseness and taciturnity, right?) (****) for a telling if hilarious example of the the ridiculous outcomes of such indifference based decisions in the face of uncertainity, see Martin Gardner's "Life on Mars" parable. ------------- "Dear Asian mail-order bride #203006, I am deeply in love with you. I am very handsome--kinda like Don Johnson ...." [Hope it reminds you of the hilarious Bloomcounty cartoon strip featuring Steve Dallas and the aforementioned #203006 ...] "Planning is the activity of INCREASING the PROBABILITY OF GOAL SATISFACTION" [From a AAAI-90 talk] "Gaalilo deepam petti, devudaa kaapaadu anadam moorkhatwam" [It is foolish to place a lamp in the wind and start praying to god to keep the lamp alive] [My mother] From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Fri Aug 17 00:05:02 PDT 1990 Article: 5020 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Arranged vs Love marriages Message-ID: <1990Aug17.070424.18001@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <1990Aug14.191639.2755@cbnewsi.att.com> <1990Aug15.220241.20305@cbnewsi.att.com> Distribution: usa Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 07:04:24 GMT Lines: 47 Status: O In article <1990Aug15.220241.20305@cbnewsi.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes: >In article <1990Aug14.191639.2755@cbnewsi.att.com>, satyam@cbnewsi.att.com (satyan.y.bheemarasetti) writes: > >I also agree with Satyam that a person's true colours come out when he/she >has to share the responsibilities. In arranged marriage negotiations, >people discuss such sharing of responsibilities beforehead. In love marriages, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >which usually take place after a year or two of knowing each other, >the persons concerned would have practised sharing responsibilities to a minor >extent before the marriage and would thus havave a pretty good idea of who is >going to do what. What?? In the few hours of "negotiations" that precede a typical arranged marriage, how do you even know the complete space of responsibilities to decide who shares what? UNLESS 1. we are talking at a sufficiently highlevel such as "who takes care of home" and "who wins bread" (the good ol' system), OR 2. one party is "gamely" volunteered to do all the "sharing" and adjustment (as is again the case in typical systems) OR 3. All humanbeings are by nature SO accommodating that any arbitrary pair of them when closeted can compromise and live happily ever after (the romantic picture of the "Indian Way" aka Venky Raviraala), it is highly unlikely that the typical arranged marriages compare favourably with well-informed marriages in this respect. So, you tell me which of the 3 assumptions above are you making to comeup with this conclusion! >***** I am still around in case you were wondering. ***** I am sufficienty disappointed, in case you are curious. ;-() --------------- "Well-informed decisions, for life is not a spectator sport" From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!sumax!ole!ssave Fri Aug 17 01:51:00 PDT 1990 Article: 5016 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!sumax!ole!ssave From: ssave@ole.UUCP (Shailendra Save) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Is it getting tough for men to find a life-partner ? Message-ID: <1629@ole.UUCP> Date: 17 Aug 90 01:24:19 GMT References: Distribution: usa Organization: Seattle Silicon Corp., Bellevue, WA. Lines: 155 Status: O >From article , by venky@pawl.rpi.edu (venkatesh ravirala): > > As everyone realize, it is a tough and competetive world out there. > Though we talk about the advantageous position (in the society) of men > over women, I should add that men are also put under tremendous pressure > to achieve the so called "independency" while the women (not all) seem > to make a half hearted attempt in taking up serious careers. Everyone rises to his or her level of incompetence. Therefore it stands to reason that anyone who ends up making a half-hearted attempt, also rises only half as much as he could have. Or she could have. Then the pressure that the man feels is the one which he imposes on himself for the achievement that he feels he himself should have in order to make himself successful, not only in his own eyes, but in the eyes of others as well. That women don't (which is not quite a fair generalisation), should not bother you, since these women don't feel the need to assert their "independence" and are happy to live under the shadow of their husbands. > > Few observations: > (Note: I donot intend to generalize, so bear with me) Then don't. > 1. Women demand that their husbands be more qualified and well > placed then themselves. Though it is hardly stated directly, > you will rarely find an M.D. or PhD. or LLB woman marrying > an MBBS or B.Com man unless he happens to be damn rich or > much handsome. Demand? :-) That is one thing. Actually getting them is another. Who will marry the woman who makes a decision on the basis of the number of high level degrees that one has at the end of their name, or on the basis of the amount of money they have. However, it is quite right to find the best possible spouse for yourself, is it not? The criterion for making this decision is not always based solely on the three things that you have mentioned above: degrees, money and looks. > 2. In most of the cases, groom's party is better placed financially > than the bride's. Heard of parents uttering " Hammari laDhki ko > Amir khandan me *HI* denge?". Why? Should the bride's parents say "We'll give our daughter to only a poor family"? Let me point out that this is not the only thing that they look for in the family. They usually look at "Honhar ladka hai" and many other related facts of the same type. > 3. Now a days educated girls want dowry less marraiges, but would > consider before hand how much assets the boy would be inheriting. > Everyone want easy money nowadays. Wasn't there some discussion on the net about the philosophy of Ayn Rand? Only this tends to be a sort of mooching. > Now WHY AND WHY NOT: > > a) Why is it that you invariably find brothers fighting for > proper division of assets while you rarely get to see > two sisters doing the same? Ever since the older times, the daughter was not considered as the part of the family once she got married. Reason two: if she was not married, she would expected to be looked after by at least one of the brothers, who would give what their sister wanted. If you mean that there are only two sisters in the family, then the mother would most naturally take over the entire assets (I think you mean inheritance) and look after them both. > b) When the present law allows women equal share in the property, > why is it they donot demand and fight for it with their > parents or brothers ? (and stop cribbing about men taking the > dowry or other bullshit). > Tradition. Though more and more people (women) are exercising their right today. Also it depends who has worked for the property. Most indian women stay at home and the men work at their business and bring in the money, so the women do not find it right to fight for something that is not earned by them . Again, maybe it is with the understanding that they will be taken care of either way. > Among all the propaganda about improving the status of women, many > are ignoring that the changing conditions and societal values are > putting tremendous pressure on less successful and unlucky men. It > is no different from feeding one person by snatching bread from the > other !!!. What is changing is not only the status of women but also > their aspirations and demands. > Where do you find the analogy of snatching bread from one and give it to the other? As for the last line, and since you are one who is worried about how much dowry you are going to get, ask yourself this question: Aren't your aspirations to get the highest amount of dowry, the most educated woman, the most beautiful woman? Then by what right do you speak of pressure? And success? Are you worried that you now have to prove yourself to be a better person? Remember one thing, my friend. Values at their most basic level never change. What does change is the way that they are looked at by different people. > A few questions: > 1) How many men without proper income are getting offers from > rich and well settled women ? > Well, viceversa cases are plenty. Let me counter that with this: How many men take a woman without proper income that does not have any other quality? Why should he? And to answer your question, why should she? The fact and the traditional belief that the man is the bread earner, still is instilled in our minds. Take it from there. > 2) How many parents give their daughters without considering > the INHERITED (and already earned) riches of the boy? Numerous. Though what you say exists, is sad and is true. > Again, I would encourage work for reliable statistics :-) > Certainly less than the dowry demanders.Period. > > Frankly, (what ever may be the circumstances) women have perpetrated > the higher handedness of men by always choosing men better placed than > themselves. The so called compromises arise because ones demands > are equally high. Remember, the value of any commodity that has demand > ONLY increases. Ever played on the stock market, my friend? What will happen to the woman who thinks that she needs a highly educated man with a lot of money, only how highly, and how much money is still not quite defined, and the value of men required only rises until the woman is 30+ looking for a still wealthier man, with one more degree than the previous one..... Ever seen a Wall street crash? You are also talking like a "bania". And are un/intentionally taking the literal meaning of the words like being on "the market" for marriage. Since when have men become "commodities"? > > Finally, a small advice: Before rejecting any match either at the > consideration stage (especially) or at the decision stage, try to > figure out what your requirements and priorities are and then > take the responsibility of achieving some of those demands by your > own effort rather than seeking it from the other party. People with > adapting nature and spirit will always succeed and be happy no matter > at what position of the ladder they stand. > Well put. Though this makes me think that the perception you have of a marriage is more like a business deal. I can get this, and I can give this. Deal. Adapting nature and spirit is the basis on which most of the marriages in India survive, independence and rigid ways of life are what makes for the better part of the divorce reasons here. > with regards > Venkatesh --Shailendra ....!uw-beaver!ole.uucp!ssave From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!robobar!stl!servax0!sersun0.essex.ac.uk!ghosr Fri Aug 17 01:51:33 PDT 1990 Article: 5018 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!robobar!stl!servax0!sersun0.essex.ac.uk!ghosr From: ghosr@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Ghosh-Roy R) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Mixed_Marriage/Parents Message-ID: <4005@servax0.essex.ac.uk> Date: 16 Aug 90 14:33:51 GMT Sender: news@servax0.essex.ac.uk Reply-To: ghosr@sersun0.essex.ac.uk (Ghosh-Roy R) Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK Lines: 19 Status: O Its really nice to know in details of all the possible situations of arranged marriages. It includes the parental consent which comes by quite easy. However getting the parental consent in a mixed marriage or love marriage is something very questionable. I am particularly interested to hear about the experiences of those who are either married or hoping to get married to a lady from the west. It seems to me that often the Asians split up with their partners because their parents may not agree to such mixed marriages. (I don't wish to know how they behave *innocent* back HOME!!). Any comments?? Rana ghosr@essex.ac.uk (0206) 87 22 97 National From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!udel.edu!siva Fri Aug 17 08:21:26 PDT 1990 Article: 5029 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!udel.edu!siva From: siva@cis.udel.edu (G. Sivakumar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: 3 way tickets Keywords: broaden debate, crucial questions Message-ID: <27724@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: 17 Aug 90 13:38:45 GMT References: <11384@ogicse.ogi.edu> <426@cypress.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Reply-To: siva@cis.udel.edu Organization: Univ of Delaware, CIS Department Lines: 55 Nntp-Posting-Host: braindamaged.cis.udel.edu Status: O Like much of the debate, let me focus on the 3-WT phenomenon in this article. ["India is NRIs. NRIs are India." :-] It'd be a pity, if after so many well-reasoned & eloquent articles, we still skirt some very basic and very difficult questions. When an NRI-male makes the following two decisions- 1) To make his career abroad. {US of A, let's say} 2) To get married to a woman in India and bring her over. the boat is already sunk. Yes, there still remains a WIDE SPECTRUM in the CONTINUUM of ways to do this, but that seems to me to be akin to the debate of which of hanging, electrocution etc. is the most humane death penalty. The cold reality is that 1) and 2) constrain the NRI-male to find some one willing to give up her entire career (if any), way of life, and goals. Challenging (1) and (2) seems essential to this debate. In the context of (1), I appreciate the series of impassioned articles by Ravi Kiran Nagunoori titled "Why am I in the USA?" [though I disagree with the analysis and solution] and will try to respond to those soon. And now, for some more QUOTES, to test Rao's hypothesis that they generate more reasonable debate. ------- Kaa te kanta? kas te putra? [who's your spouse? who're your children? Kasya tvam? Kuta ayaatah? whence are you? where headed? tatvam chintaya tadiha Braatah. Ponder these, O sibling ] ------ All women are born free, some get married! ------- "Love is the quintessential pretence, an elgeant lie which can transform copulation into courtesy, biology into culture." ------ A long time back when we were first in love our bodies were always as one later you became my dearest and I became your dearest alas and now beloved lord you are my husband I am your wife our hearts must be as hard as the middle of thunder now what have I to live for --- Sanskrit poem -------- Love is not for the sake of the husband, but the sake of the SELF in the husband. -- Upanisad ------ Siva (siva@cis.udel.edu) From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!siemens!neeraj Fri Aug 17 09:46:52 PDT 1990 Article: 5033 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!siemens!neeraj From: neeraj@axon.siemens.com (Neeraj Bhatnagar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: The sensibilities prevailed for the first time. (Re: Arranged vs Love marriages) Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 90 14:23:13 GMT References: <1990Aug14.191639.2755@cbnewsi.att.com> <1990Aug15.220241.20305@cbnewsi.att.com> <1990Aug17.070424.18001@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@siemens.siemens.com Reply-To: neeraj@learning.siemens.com Distribution: na Organization: Siemens Research and Technology Laboratories Lines: 27 In-reply-to: Too many to count. Status: O Hi everyone: I shall like to congratulate Rao for leading a nice discussion on the topic of type1 vs. type2 marriages. This is the first time that a long series of discussion continued on the net without getting diverted into asides, getting lost in flames and without being limited to exchanges between a very small set of people. I think that we all learned something from it and our opinions get modified to some extent as we analysed the posted articles. I think Subbarao Kambhampati gets a lot of credit for initiating the original discussion and for breaking into it every now and then. Do many of you agree with me that this series was one of the best ones on the net in many years in terms of the quality and usefulness of what was written. regards, Neeraj Bhatnagar PS: The UNIX-C article was a good piece of humor on the topic. Is SCI graduating into a sensible magazine or I am just being too optimistic? -- From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!rbhatia Fri Aug 17 11:54:37 PDT 1990 Article: 5039 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!rbhatia From: rbhatia@uts.amdahl.com (Raj Bhatia) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 90 17:13:50 GMT References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Reply-To: rbhatia@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Raj Bhatia) Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 39 Status: O I have been reading this thread for a while now, and have noticed some inconsistencies. First of all, very few NRI men holding h-1/GC/citizenship go to India to get married do it in a 3 week period. They might start out with 3 weeks but usually extend it to 6-8 weeks depending on whether they expect to find someone suitable. I myself spent 7 weeks. And that was after a number of people were already at work in India, and all I had to do was meet the girls/parents. Second, nobody expects to search, meet, interview and get married in three weeks. Most people have relatives who should have done the appropriate ground work. Third, how is an educated NRI male/female of marriagable age holding h-1/GC/etc different from a well-educated very-well-paid employee in India (someone on the fast-track) or an educated person from a very well-to-do business family ? What is the difference, given the last two types may spend a little more time selecting, they will probably make exuberant demands on the girl's family, that an NRI will not because he does not want material things to take back. In general I have found NRIs to be less demanding (not to condone the practice) then their Indian counterparts. A lot of girl's parents know that and appreciate it. Fourth, as NRIs we have a certain advantage, that does not mean all of us exploit it. Indian parents generally look for a boy that is better qualified then their daughter, in terms of finances, at least. Girls themselves prefer to marry someone better off then them income-wise. So, who is exploiting who ? Even in India, the guys that are doctors and engineers get the better looking girls, because they have an advantage. So why should we be ashamed of our advantage ? We have worked hard to get where we are. Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage trip. Raj Bhatia From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!neon!sankar Fri Aug 17 12:01:00 PDT 1990 Article: 5044 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!neon!sankar From: sankar@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Sriram Sankar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Love vs. Arranged Marriages Message-ID: <1990Aug17.174456.11422@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 17 Aug 90 17:44:56 GMT Sender: sankar@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Sriram Sankar) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 75 Status: O Here's my 2 cents worth on this topic: 1. This comparison to buying a car is totally meaningless. If were to buy a car the three-way ticket style - i.e., let my parents do the first level of screening, and then choose from among the remaining few cars, I'd make my choice in at most an hour. And I guess most of you would too. I believe the majority of guys here have spent more effort (albeit too little) choosing wives than cars. 2. Which marriages are more stable - arranged or love? I think I agree that the two have about the same chance of success given that (a) its the first marriage in both cases, and that the all involved are relatively inexperienced. If its a second marriage, I think the a love marriage has far greater chances of success than arranged marriages. I guess most love marriages amongst Indians are with their "first love"s - i.e., they are still inexperienced. However, most marriages amongst Americans are after they get relatively more experienced - they know better what they are looking for, and they know better how to make the other person happy. Before I get flamed on this, take note of the word *relatively* in the above statement. Someone may say, "Then why do you have more divorces here?". The answer is simple - divorce is tabooed in India. If divorces were as acceptable in India as it is here, I'd guess a large number of the couples in India would have been divorced by now. 3. What kind of marriage would I advocate? I had a love marriage and have a wonderful relationship with my wife - so I may be biased. But there is one thing that love marriages have that arranged marriages don't - the natural development of a beautiful relationship with a person of the opposite sex. There are surely exceptions, so don't flame me that "I had an arranged marriage and developed that natural, beautiful relationship". 4. What's the solution for those of you who are not yet married? Unfortunately, our society is such that it taboos relationships with a person of the opposite sex beyond certain limits. Consequently, a large number of men and women in India and those who have come here are extremely shy of interacting with people of the opposite sex. I guess, therefore, that the majority of you would go through arranged marriages. Given that the girls usually are under more pressure in these situations, my 2 cents suggestion here is that the girl and the boy come up with a combined decision as to whether or not they want to get married - especially if the answer is no from the girl's side. Just say "We decided NO and thats it". 5. What's the solution for all of us who are/will bring up our kids and watch them grow up? How will you like them to get married? I think this is a difficult question, but I believe that the solution lies here - chances are that our generation is already over the hill (see 4), and so we can make amends with the next generation. I think girl-boy relations should be encouraged at an early age, though limits may certainly need to be set. I don't think there is anything wrong with this. Nice attitudes towards dating, romance, etc. need to be developed as early as possible. I'd expect that once these girls and boys get to the age when they decide its time to get married, they'll know more what they want and they'll know more how to give. I strongly feel that this will help reduce the male-female differential a lot. For example, I believe it is easier for society to suppress sexual desires in girls than in boys. i.e., I believe that the Indian society, by tabooing girl-boy relationships at an early age, is contributing to at least one aspect of the male-female differential which goes against girls. I have heard women say things like "I can live without a man, blah blah blah" and be quite proud of it. Which I find very unfortunate. As I said, (5) is a tricky situation - I have my own feelings, but it will be nice to hear what others think. Sriram. From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!spica!vikram Fri Aug 17 13:38:41 PDT 1990 Article: 5048 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!spica!vikram From: vikram@spica.ucsc.edu (Vikram Duvvoori) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Exploitation in LOVE and ARRANGED Marriages Summary: Women exploited in many love and arranged marriages Message-ID: <6118@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Date: 17 Aug 90 18:34:47 GMT Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu Reply-To: vikram@cs.ucsc.edu (Vikram Duvvoori) Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 55 Keywords:women, mariage, exploitation, love Status: O Amidst all the discussion on arranged and love marriages are we losing sight of extensive exploitation of women in marriages, `love' and `arranged'? In principle, all relationships can be wonderful if there is enough flexibility and love. But the question is, how many practical marriages in India, even amonst the younger generation accept equality of partners? I have had experience with families from the rural villages, to mega cities in India, and in very few have I found marriages where women are treated on par with the man. I do not want this to be confused with happy marriages. I have seen and come accross multitude of happy marriages, where both the partners seem to believe in assymmetry. The most blatant forms of the exploitation of women are ofcourse the obvious ones - DOWRY, Inspection as a commodity, judgement on the basis of physical appearance etc. But this obvious exploitation of women,is based on millions of subtle forms of subjugation, all of them with the common underlying assumption - women are not equal to men, in social status. Most of my male friends from schools and colleges, IITians and non-IITians, northies and southies, believe in their God given right to superiority at home. Most of the female friends, seem to be resigned to the `realities of life'. What saddens me is how the expectations, are lower to even begin with. When we went to India, after getting married here, all my relatives thought we were `cute' because we cooked together. A friend of mine, (who has had a `love' marriage) thought it was very funny that I wanted to ask my wife if we could go to his house for dinner on a certain date. People took me aside, and asked me in lowered tones, if it was an American custom to `consult' with wives for `minor' decisions (Frankly, they were not minor at all). I replied very seriously, that to get a visa you need to pass a course where they test all these things. The point I am trying to make, is that in most marriages there is rarely equal respect for both partners. This is not due to the lack of love. One frustrated husband in a slightly troubled marriage once said in exasperation, "Why does she keep complaining, it is for her own good that I take these decisions on matters of the REAL WORLD". (Both are doctors, currently in North America - he really loves her). The most saddenning part to me is that, after prolonged societal pressures, even very independent highly-educated women I know, start assimilating these skewed values. I can think of examples of people very close to me. I am sure everyone of us has enough examples to relate to. Looking forward to a future Indian society, where men and women in a marriage (or men and men, or women and women) are the best of friends with no hierarchies, in the kitchen or outside. Vikram Duvvoori (Vikram@cs.ucsc.edu) From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!pshah Fri Aug 17 13:39:56 PDT 1990 Article: 5049 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!pshah From: pshah@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Pankaj Shah) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Love in Arranged Marriages...(60 lines long) Message-ID: <7950174@hpcupt1.HP.COM> Date: 17 Aug 90 01:14:22 GMT References: <6033@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Lines: 37 Status: O For what it's worth: Having come to the U.S. at a fairly impressionable age of 17 (more than 10 years ago), I had mixed feelings about this "arranged" marriage system. The fact that I wasn't too big a fan of the institution of marriage to begin with didn't help matters much. So, when I last went to India (20 months ago), I was sure that I will return back single. Well, I didn't. Actually, we did not technically get married in India, but that's another one of these silly INS stories. The big "change" came when I started to consider marriage as a means to join with someone in a special manner that will provide for mutual social dependence. The questions of children (in the distant future) as well as other social concerns immediately followed! *I* personally have never felt as happy (and generally fulfilled) as I do now and done so for the past year-and-a-half. Even after making the commitment and coming back alone from India, I wasn't sure this would work out. I suddenly started thinking about things I didn't know about her, etc. However, for as skeptical as I was about the whole "arrangement", things have worked out MUCH better than any 'ideal' relationship I can imagine out here (whether with an Indian or otherwise). One BIG difference, of course, was that the marriage wasn't quite arranged for us. Our relatives arranged our first meeting, and let things develop among the two of us. We then approached them AFTER having decided that we'd like to get married. In fact, I called my folks after having arranged the engagement ceremony -- I was in a real hurry, as I had used up most of my vacation. So, believe what you want. But try to keep an open mind as to changes that might come forth with your future endeavors. I believe that that made my most recent trip to India as soul-stirring and rewarding as 10 weeks in India could ever be. I also tend to go with my feelings much more than the typically analytical people I associate with, so I still can't imagine such turnaround among others around me. Pankaj "Hewlett-Packard didn't say the above, *I* did" Shah. From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!mimsy!mimsy.umd.edu!pjn Fri Aug 17 16:02:47 PDT 1990 Article: 5063 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!mimsy!mimsy.umd.edu!pjn From: pjn@brillig.cs.umd.edu (P. J. Narayanan) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 90 20:20:21 GMT Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Distribution: usa Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 183 Status: O Much has been said on this issue. Even though there were attempts to trivialize the issue or analyze it peripherally, the overall level of discussion has been remarkably high. I think Rao, Veena, Siva, Parthasarathy and others whose names I cannot remember now have done a wonderful job of presenting and analyzing the situation. There is hardly anything that I can say which has not already been said more beautifully than what I can hope to. But, I am here to state some of my thoughts and will do it anyway :-( On the fallacy of the most common argument given ------------------------------------------------ The most common argument given when such a discussion ensues is something like this: "My chacha had an arranged marriage. Since they are sooo happy, nothing must be wrong about it!". This argument suffers from (at least) three counts. One is the invalidity of statistical argument based on one or two samples. Another reason why the argument is wrong is that the causality is misplaced. It is not the "arrangedness" that made chacha's marriage work, but the reduced expectations and the willingness to compromise on EVERYTHING. Another facet of this argument, which I consider is the most important, is that it is an explicit act of perpetuating the system as a whole, suggesting that no change is needed even when opportunity for change exists. This demonstrates Rao's claim loudly that one is endorsing the system and perpetuating inequality when one opts for an arranged marriage and NOT JUST MAKING A BAD PERSONAL DECISION THAT CONCERNS ONESELF. One doesn't HAVE TO BE concerned about sending the wrong messages to others, but as enlightened individuals we should strive to send only the right messages to those who will consider us role-models. On having no other options (or the convenience aspect) ------------------------------------------------------ The typical question is: "What other options does one have? Since the other party involved (the woman and her family) don't consider any injustice is being done it is not as if we are *really* exploiting the system, is it?" It is clear that to anyone who bothers to ponder for a moment that the arranged marriage system is skewed in favour of men. It is the manifestation of centuries of cultural brainwashing that people have gone through, one that considers "Girls (sic) are the property of others and until it is given back, the feeling of indebtedness bothers one" [Kanvamaharshi about Shakunthala in Kalidasa's Abhigyanashakunthalam]. This, coupled with the societal norms that consider being married as the ultimate goal and virtue, has made women the unequal players in the game of marriage. The traditionally male-dominated human societies have all (with few exceptions, if any) evolved this way. Ill informed marriages[IIM] (I like this term better than arranged marriage) have worked to the convenience of both men and women ("I will sign on the dotted line if that frees me of tense situations that are common in a relationship") except that it perpetuated the system through and through. In other words, the bias didn't shift qualitatively as generations went by and the society remained anti-women. Thus the IIM system is very disadvantageous to women on the whole, though the aspect of convenience is enjoyed by both men and women. [Of course, being paraded in front of stangers and being asked inane questions is not exactly convenient. It is not even clear if that is preferrable over the tensions of (possibly many) relationships!] Arguing that the system is OK to follow because there aren't any good alternatives is as ridiculous as the question that a South African white can ask that if apartheid is abolished, who will do the dirty jobs so cheap? The system has been groomed to the man's advantage over the years so much so that one has stopped seeing the alternatives. Arguing to continue the system to maintain that convenience is silly and selfish. You cannot advocate for a system that is plain unfair to one of the parties involved because we haven't YET been able to find a reasonable alternative. On women's responsibility in the matter --------------------------------------- Venkatesh has indicated that women are responsible for the state of affairs to a large extent. I have to agree that women do share the blame, in as much as any victim shares the blame in an unjust situation for not crying out loud and taking all steps in their capacity. But it is more revealing to probe the issue deeper to realize why this happens. A society that considers women as commodities (that are to be shopped for -- wisely if you have the time) and pageant contests as an honourable way of life, provides practically zilch opportunities to the women to see the injustice and to get out of it. The brainwashing during the childhood (glorifying duties to the husband, paathivrathyam and the like) and the knowledge that life is practically hell if one choses not to marry complete the process. {We see women continuing on extremely abusive relationships because they fear a life as a divorcee}. As a result, blaming the women doesn't throw any light on the matter or help solve the problem (other than pacifying one's conscience :-). The appeal is to the educated and enlightened ones to take the first step in the right direction. Changes aren't brought about by distant prophets -- each of us has to take the first, even if small, steps to ensure things change. On this problem and US Indians ------------------------------ Why single out Indians in the US? They are not being singled out. The discussion is focusing on a problem that most of us can relate to better. Also, the Indians in the US have had opportunities to see "both sides" (sorry Rao for the binary implication) well and belong to the educated and `enlightened' class of people. Thus there is every reason to believe that they will see the reason more than someone in an Indian village (or city for that matter). Also, the worst form of IIMs are the ones that also involve time pressure (such as the 3 week vacation the phoren person has!) because it gives even less time for the parties to know each other. It is a moot point if, as Siva says, the damage is already done when an Indian living here decides to get an spouse from India (and bring hir to this country like a piece of baggage). We have to think if the spouse's willingness to settle abroad is an individual decision based on independent thinking, and not a mere reflection of parents' and/or society's values. About participating in the system and criticizing it ---------------------------------------------------- Is it true that we always follow the best option available? In other words, is it necessary to support (or remain silent about) the IIM system because one opted for it oneself? I don't think so, if one believes in the continuum of options theory. It may be that one opted for (or is likely to opt for) the IIM system as THE LAST RESORT. I liked whatever Surya Mantha had to say about it earlier. [This argument is getting difficult obviously, but I hope you all can see the point] I draw this analogy with NRA and gun ban issue. It might well be possible that the neighbourhood you live in necessitates carrying a gun with you for safety. But, one can simultaneously support a gun ban, if one is convinced that it will reduce the criminality in the society. In case of IIMs, one can reduce the stereotypicality of it by spending considerably longer amount of time before committing, thus improving the chances of both parties not having to compromise on "core" issues, although the decision might be considered suboptimal by one's own most ideal standards. (I always find that defending the system even partially a difficult task, as the awkwardness of the above argument demonstrates.) I bring out this issue because I think there are many people on the net who are not married (like myself :-) who are afraid or reluctant to take a side in this discussion because they fear IIM may be their only alternative, and don't want to be seen as contradicting their own well-advertised position. In summary, I think each of us should be concerned about this grave problem. Solutions (long term) include encouraging the interaction between boys and girls right from school (and not consider "not talking to boys" as a great virtue in girls and vice versa) and instilling the idea in children that they ARE RESPONSIBLE in finding their own mates. Short term solutions are harder to suggest. But weighing the H-1 multiple entry visa criterion as very important or get-a-wife-after-degree-before-job-because-F2s-are-easier attitude are certainly not worth sympathizing with. Many of Indians, for the lack of real contact with persons of the opposite sex, lack a clear idea of what they expect from a spouse, which is not commendable either. If one is clear about the above two points, one can find one's niche in the "continuum of possibilities" that essentially gets rid of the exploitation. *But, the lack of viable alternatives cannot in anyway justify the endorsing of an unjust system*. I think this discussion has matured enough [and shown (for the first time according to Neeraj Bhatnagar) that SCI *can* have mature discussions :-)]. The next avenues to be explored are (in my humble opinion): 1. A discussion on what options the male-dominated Indian students and professionals in the US realistically have. 2. The points brought about by Vikram Duvvoori about the inequality of the partners in many marriage (and the inequality of women in general, particularly among Indians in America). Sorry for such a looooong article, when the same could have been said in a far shorter a piece...... P J Narayanan ------------- "She didn't consult the elders before making | Sorry for the terrible the decision, neither did you | translation by me, But about a decision by two mature people, | from a poor recollection what more have we to say?" | of the original slokam. -- Shakunthala's "elders" to Dushyantha in Shankunthalam. (when they bring her to the court) From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!midway!mimsy!mimsy.umd.edu!pjn Fri Aug 17 16:03:54 PDT 1990 Article: 5066 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!midway!mimsy!mimsy.umd.edu!pjn From: pjn@brillig.cs.umd.edu (P. J. Narayanan) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 90 20:45:50 GMT References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 70 In-reply-to: rbhatia@uts.amdahl.com's message of 17 Aug 90 17:13:50 GMT Status: O >First of all, very few NRI men holding h-1/GC/citizenship go to India >to get married do it in a 3 week period. They might start out with 3 >weeks but usually extend it to 6-8 weeks depending on whether they expect >to find someone suitable. I myself spent 7 weeks. And that was after >a number of people were already at work in India, and all I had to do >was meet the girls/parents. > >Second, nobody expects to search, meet, interview and get married in >three weeks. Most people have relatives who should have done the >appropriate ground work. There are literal meanings to sentences and arguments and there are "inner senses" to it. Seems you haven't understood that concept too well, while most others have had no trouble! If you think that people are getting agitated because NRIs take three weeks or less to get married and will look other day if they spend 22 days or more in India, I have nothing to tell you sir! >Third, how is an educated NRI male/female of marriagable age holding >h-1/GC/etc different from a well-educated very-well-paid employee in >India (someone on the fast-track) or an educated person from a very >well-to-do business family ? What is the difference, given the last >two types may spend a little more time selecting, they will probably >make exuberant demands on the girl's family, that an NRI will not >because he does not want material things to take back. In general >I have found NRIs to be less demanding (not to condone the practice) >then their Indian counterparts. A lot of girl's parents know that >and appreciate it. The difference between the two classes you mentioned is indeed very little in this issue (apart from the longer time period that you mentioned). But, the NRIs have seen another side of the issue and can't deny that she or he knows better. Most NRIs "adopt" what they think are the good things about American society (like informality, accents, work culture). Shouldn't they learn something about finding their life partners, given that an arranged situation is risky, the convenience notwithstanding? >Fourth, as NRIs we have a certain advantage, that does not mean all of >us exploit it. Indian parents generally look for a boy that is better >qualified then their daughter, in terms of finances, at least. Girls >themselves prefer to marry someone better off then them income-wise. >So, who is exploiting who ? Even in India, the guys that are doctors and >engineers get the better looking girls, because they have an advantage. >So why should we be ashamed of our advantage ? We have worked hard >to get where we are. I have addressed this issue in another article that I posted today. The gist is: The custom of women (or their parents) looking for `someone better off' is the product of the brainwashing of the male-dominated society that considers the men as the guardians and the women as `supplementing the men' etc. If that is clear, it is easy to see why men have as greate a responsibility in effectivating a change, if not greater. (this is not to say that women should keep quiet if this is not forthcoming). >Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage >trip. Not entirely true. Nobody has suggested any alternative that is *as convenient* to men as the 7-week deal is. The bottom line is: finding one's life partner is not meant to be easy. Indians have been given the wrong notion that it is. That notion is wrong and should change. An alternate (and fairer) system WILL evolve once this is realized. We can discuss on what that could be, in the meanwhile. >Raj Bhatia P J Narayanan From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Fri Aug 17 16:16:34 PDT 1990 Article: 5072 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1990Aug17.231359.6781@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <33051@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 23:13:59 GMT Lines: 48 Status: O In article <33051@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> kskumar@acsu.buffalo.edu (kishore s kumar) writes: > >In article pjn@brillig.cs.umd.edu (P. J. Narayanan) writes: >>.......................................... The bottom line is: finding >>one's life partner is not meant to be easy............ > >Probably it is meant to be easy. > >Finding the right person is difficult because defining the 'right >person' is difficult. So, if you agree to give up the idea of the >'right person' as a myth (or say as an ideal and hence non-existent) >this difficulty vanishes. > >That means you invariably marry the wrong person. If you realize >this, then finding a life partner becomes easy (if anyway I am >marrying the wrong person, selection becomes that much more relaxed). > >Does marrying the wrong person make any sense? It sure does. You now >are faced with the task of making the 'wrong' person the 'right' >person over ,say , the next 50 years. (That sounds interesting, >doesn't it?) > >Kishore Kumar Do *I* have an article for you, sir! Yes! Just for you--all posted and ready to go--read the article titled "fatalism in the attitudes about marriage, compromises and compatibility" that was posted JUST yesterday night. After reading it, do tell us if you still believe in your theory of "find any old wrong person first, and modify them to fit your needs". -Rao ps: looks like you have a REALLY flexible modification strategy--we oughtta talk.. ---------- "The CRUX of AI is to get the considerations underlying the Test phase into the Generate phase [so costly Debugging can be avoided]" -On Generate, Test and Debug as a successful problem solving metaphor [Minsky?] From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!spot!mum.wrc.xerox.com!mantha Fri Aug 17 19:23:12 PDT 1990 Article: 5084 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!spot!mum.wrc.xerox.com!mantha From: mantha@mum.wrc.xerox.com (S. Mantha (co-op)) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Fatalism in attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility [Re: Exploiting] Message-ID: <490@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> Date: 17 Aug 90 17:08:47 GMT References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@spot.wbst128.xerox.com Reply-To: mantha.wbst128@xerox.com Lines: 15 Status: O Yo Subbulu -- I may call you that may I not -- lighten up dude! You may actually start taking yourself seriously. On a more pragmatic note, you could probably make some money as a counsellor to brothers on the brink of matrimony in the bay area. Makes more sense than dishing out advice in language that has me scurrying to the dictionary embarassingly often. And ofcourse, there is always the danger of letting one's professional prejudices (PLANNING and so forth) take the fun out of one's life. "Just do it" I say, as others have said and done before me. cheers Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!max!ngrjn Fri Aug 17 19:23:44 PDT 1990 Article: 5086 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!max!ngrjn From: ngrjn@max.u.washington.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Fatasm in attitudes towards Marriage,.... Message-ID: <14163.26cc1ad4@max.u.washington.edu> Date: 17 Aug 90 23:27:00 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA Lines: 92 Status: O In an excellent and well-articulated article rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: ..... " 'at least in arranged marriages the "phyamilies" look into the compatibility issue rather thoroughly, and what is left for us is to jhust fall into love ("In India we fall in love AFTER marriage" aka raavirala et al), make a few compromises and everything will be fine and dandy.'...... "What this type of attitude essentially amounts to is the following: ....But this is ridiculous--in life--be it academic, professional or personal--we are always faced with situations where we cannot tell the outcome with certainity. And we are called upon to make educated decisions with incomplete information. We don't always resort to such cynically indiscriminate choices (if you do GOD help you!)--so why suddenly now???? ....... ..."Some of the compromises--like the first--are trivial and they do not take off anything from your essential persona; some compromises like the second might be "compromising your values" and as such affect your essential persona; and finally there are compromises like the third one above, which are none less than sacrificing your persona entirely..... ....."Yes, any darned union can be made to work if one or both of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^ **** Brilliant ! Ah, the subtleties this writer-par-excellence **** employs ! (According to Websters, to darn is to mend, to patch) parties are willing to compromise indiscriminately; there is no question of prejudging compatibility..... ..."And if we judge the "Success" of a marriage SOLELY BASED ON ITS LONGEVITY, we will say that all such marriages are higly successful!!...." -Rao Well put! Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was not only "convenient" but also important that the parents and aunt, uncle and other assorted ilk needed to check out the bride/groom for compatibility (from their point of view, that is. They only know you (my good reader) as son or daughter and cannot know how good a husband or wife you would be). After all, they all had to live together and the woman (in rare cases the man too) married into the family. When extended families have become as rare as good humor on SCI, your parents 'checking out' the prospec- tive spouse on your behalf is ludicrous. A practical alternative to meet your prospective spouse is through 'match-making' (no, not the Sivakasi type). It is fairly common among the jews of New York, for example. The couple get to know each other and if they feel ready they can get married. The difference between just dating and match-making (here I am just guessing) is that in the latter the two are actively looking to get married but that in itself does not imply a commitment to each other. There is a high likelihood that they'd marry if they liked/loved each other enough. In another (thoughtful) article vikram@spica.ucsc.edu (Vikram Duvvoori) says: ...." One frustrated husband in a slightly troubled marriage once said in exasperation, "Why does she keep complaining, it is for her own good that I take these decisions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ on matters of the REAL WORLD". (Both are doctors, currently in North America - he really loves her). " ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Vikram Duvvoori (Vikram@cs.ucsc.edu) Sounds unmistakably like ownership. - Nagarajan ******************************************************************* .... that false secondary power by which In weakness we multiply distinctions, then Deem our puny boundaries are things That we perceive and not that we have made. - Wordsworth ******************************************************************* From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!uscacsc!baparao Fri Aug 17 19:25:11 PDT 1990 Article: 5090 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!uscacsc!baparao From: baparao@uscacsc.usc.edu (K.V. Baparao) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <2087@uscacsc.usc.edu> Date: 17 Aug 90 23:56:41 GMT References: Reply-To: baparao@uscacsc.UUCP (K.V. Baparao) Distribution: usa Organization: USC ACSC, Los Angeles Lines: 44 Status: O This has been an interesting debate... While I understand the social problems involved, I am uncomfortable with the idea of turning a life decision into a revolutionary statement. Arranged marriages are a boon to the shy Indian male, and I feel that it is unfair to close off that option. (Yes, I am aware that the discussion has been refined enough to make this objection a straw man, but I thought I'd say it anyway.) My feeling is that the problem lies not in the "arrangedness" of the marriage, but the anti-woman assumptions behind the arrangement, namely that the girl is to be, literally and legally, kicked out and kept out of her parents' family at all costs. It is this assumption that should be attacked and removed. An Indian Male Marriage Prospect (MMP) has considerable clout which he can use for this purpose. 1. Concerning the marriage arrangement itself, the MMP should insist (as a condition of marriage) that his FMP be treated exactly on par with her male siblings with respect to inheritance, and further enter into a legal contract with the FMP to the effect that her share of the parental inheritance will be at her sole disposal. 1.5 On the flip side, a man can insist that his sisters share the parental property equally with him and his brothers, and offer this arrangement to prospective brothers-in-law in lieu of dowry. Where no property exists, there is always "vidya-dhanam", which should also be shared equally by insisting on equal educational opportunities for his sisters and himself. 2. The "viewing" process is qualitatively not different from having a number of "first dates", which bring with them their own prospects for humiliation and disappointment for both parties. The MMP can help mitigate the indignity of the proceedings by defining in advance the structure of the process (e.g., no decision to be made until after a certain minimum number of contact hours etc.). He can also place limits on the behavior of the "elders" of both parties, with respect to types and number of rude questions, amount of fawning &c. Needless to say, both 1 and 2 should, ideally be undertaken in full and equal consultation with the FMP. However, with the present power imbalance, the MMP has more initiative at his disposal and should make use of it. Bapa Rao From portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Sat Aug 18 13:51:13 PDT 1990 Article: 5101 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: Re: Fatalism in attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility [Re: Exploiting] Message-ID: <1990Aug18.205047.17595@portia.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University References: <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> <491@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 20:50:47 GMT Lines: 67 Status: O In article <491@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> mantha.wbst128@xerox.com writes: > > You may actually start taking yourself seriously. > [...] > >And ofcourse, there is always the danger of letting one's professional >prejudices (PLANNING and so forth) take the fun out of one's life. Hay, hay, hay! Thanks for the advice man! Makes sense of course! The right thing to do is to make partitions in your life and be very strict about letting anything from one partition get into another partition. Otherwise, how can we continue our glorious "cattle sale" (ooops arranged marriage) traditions, while still pouring good money to see billions of "romances" in hindi movies? How can we do pooja to Rahu and Kethu during eclipses while mugging everything about the theory of eclipses? How can we get hitched up to complete strangers while knowing fully well (in theory) that it can be a traumatic experience for all concerned? How can we continue to be completely irrational and simplistic in our personal lives while writing a paper a day on the virtues of rationality? So, to continue the status quo, to feel completely thrilled that we have "survived" inspite of our asinine indifference all through, we DEFINITELY do need to continue not taking ourselves seriously, live as if everything is a big game, and PARTITION our lives such that the complete inconsistencies in our outlooks are swept under the rug by saying "hay--that is movie reality" "hay--that is just for science books" >"Just do it" I say, as others have said and done before me. "Just do yit"--hmmm--great brand of philosophy--just let me know when your "yit" has been reified. > >Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha ciao Rao [seriously considering Surya's suggestion of becoming a member of schizophrenics church Ps: By the way, I did take note of your "counselling" suggestion. If I do start it, the first visit is FREE for you! (Do get your LIFCO "children's dictionary" along though). Pps: By the way, your whole response, revolving as it does around "don't take yourself so seriously, MYAN!" is a completely novel way of argumentation that shows that you have thought through and through about the issue under discussion. You have just scratched the surface of the uses of this argument--its potential is unlimited, I tell you. Pps: Here is a nice little glossary, made especially for you, so you don't have to run to your dictionary "embarassingly often" re.ify \'r--,f, r-\ vt re.ified; re.ify.ing (1854) [L res thing -- more at REAL] :to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!mephisto!udel!haven!mimsy!portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Sat Aug 18 15:39:30 PDT 1990 Article: 5105 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!mephisto!udel!haven!mimsy!portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Fatalism in attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility [Re: Exploiting] Message-ID: <26069@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 18 Aug 90 20:57:42 GMT References: <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> <491@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Reply-To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University Lines: 88 Status: O In article <491@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> mantha.wbst128@xerox.com writes: > > You may actually start taking yourself seriously. > [...] > >And ofcourse, there is always the danger of letting one's professional >prejudices (PLANNING and so forth) take the fun out of one's life. Hay, hay, hay! Thanks for the advice man! Nice of you to come just in the nick of the time and open these eyes of mine. What all you say makes sense of course! The right thing to do is to make partitions in your life and be very strictly forbid anything from one partition seeping into another partition. Otherwise, how can we continue our glorious "cattle sale" (ooops arranged marriage) traditions, while still pouring good money to see billions of "romances" in hindi movies? How can we do pooja to Rahu and Kethu during eclipses while still mugging everything about the theory of eclipses? How can we get hitched up to complete strangers while knowing fully well (in theory) that it can be a traumatic experience for all concerned? How can we continue to be completely irrational and simplistic in our personal decisions while still writing a paper a day on the role of rational reasoning in intelligence? So, you are RIGHT! To continue the status quo, to feel completely thrilled that we have "survived" inspite of our asinine indifference all through, to ensure that nothing bothers us unduly, we DEFINITELY do need to continue our good practise of not EVER taking ourselves seriously (and what is more, form cadres to discourage anyone else trying to break this canon!); live as if everything is a big game; and PARTITION our lives very strictly such that complete inconsistencies in our outlooks can be swept under the rug with such evergreen arguments such as "hay--that is movie reality" "hay--that is just for science books" "hay--that is all AI hogwash" "hay--that is well and good for USA, but we do it different in India" "hay--too much concern about these things takes FUN out of life" .....(adinfinitum) >"Just do it" I say, as others have said and done before me. "Jhust do yit"--hmmm--sounds great and catchy of course--just let me know when you get around to reifying your "yit". Oookay? > >Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha ciao Rao [seriously considering Surya's suggestion of becoming a member of the Church of Rational Schizophrenia and Indifference] Ps: By the way, I did take note of your "counselling" suggestion. If I do start it, the first visit is FREE for you! (Do get your "LIFCO children's dictionary" along though). Pps: Also, your whole response, revolving as it does around "don't take yourself so seriously, MYAN!" is a completely novel way of argumentation that should definitely be added to the chest of rational dialectics. You have just scratched the surface of the uses of this argument--its potential is unlimited, I tell you. Ppps: Here is a nice little glossary, made especially for you, so you don't have to run to your dictionary "embarassingly often" [Note: other readers can safely skip this part -ed] re.ify \'r--,f, r-\ vt re.ified; re.ify.ing (1854) [L res thing -- more at REAL] :to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing di.a.lec.tic \,d--'lek-tik\ n (14c) [ME dialetik, fr. MF dialetique, fr. L dialectica, fr. Gk dialektik, fr. fem. of dialektikos of conversation, fr. dialektos] 1: LOGIC 1a(1) 2 a :discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specif: the Socratic tech niques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b: the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas can.on \'kan-n\ n (bef. 12c) [ME, fr. OE, fr. LL, fr. L, ruler, rule, model, standard, fr. Gk kann] 1a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council 1b: a provision of canon law From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!hercules!fernwood!oracle!news Sat Aug 18 15:39:41 PDT 1990 Article: 5108 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!hercules!fernwood!oracle!news From: vchaudha@oracle.com (Vikram Aaditya Chaudhary) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Weekend Special (with a different twist) Message-ID: Date: 18 Aug 90 01:21:05 GMT References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> Sender: news@oracle.com Reply-To: uunet!oracle!vchaudha Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA Lines: 36 Status: O In article rbhatia@uts.amdahl.com (Raj Bhatia) writes: [ Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage [ trip. Why man, the only *real* alternative for us high-flying NRIs is the 1-weekend marriage trip. For us playboys of the desi order, accustomed to the grind of the week and living for the weekend, this is the perfect solution. Work hard during the week, then, when Friday arrives, play hard in India. Relatives would have already done the groundwork, as Raj suggests. But in this case, they will have to be warned that this is no run-of-the-mill 7-week marriage trip. This is serious stuff, the only marriage trip worth our yuppie lifestyles, the weekend special. So the relatives must be forewarned and foreskin... uh, forearmed. Since this is a special trip, all the usual formalities will be dispensed with. No need for a visit to the woman's...oops, girl's parents house. We can do away with the tamasha of watching the girl walk across the room, listening to her parents expound on what subzis she can cook blindfolded, etc. All the info you need will be provided on pre-recorded video casettes. And to return home fulfilled and yet make it to work on Monday morning, I sugest you fly Cathay Pacific (no, this is not going to be a Khalistan joke). They provide beds for you to sleep on so the marriage can be consummated in-flight. Of course, remember to save the sheets and send them back to your Mom to assure her that all your blushing bride had ever done before marriage was blush. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vikram Aaditya Chaudhary Tools & Graphics Development uunet!oracle!vchaudha (415)506-6172 Oracle Corporation Headquarters My opinions are...uh... company policy. Really. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!eos!amelia!eagle!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!fornax!mahajan Sat Aug 18 15:55:49 PDT 1990 Article: 5114 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!eos!amelia!eagle!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!fornax!mahajan From: mahajan@fornax.UUCP (Sanjeev Mahajan) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians Message-ID: <1098@fornax.UUCP> Date: 18 Aug 90 00:39:12 GMT References: <1990Aug11.221734.23518@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5008@druco.ATT.COM> <1930@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada Lines: 6 Status: O I think Raj Bhatia's and Ramesh Vishwanathan's postings are a few of the postings on this topic that have the dubious distinction of being embarrassing and juvenile. Sanjeev From portia.stanford.edu!portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Sat Aug 18 16:11:31 PDT 1990 Article: 5122 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!portia.stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Writing for Idjitrao) Subject: Idjitrao Speaks! [was Re: Exploiting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages & Educated Indians] Message-ID: <1990Aug18.225507.23044@portia.Stanford.EDU> Lines: 82 Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Reply-To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University References: <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> <1930@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 22:34:43 GMT Lines: 84 Status: O In article <1930@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> ramesh@uns-helios.uucp (RAMESH VISWANATHAN) writes: >In article rbhatia@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Raj Bhatia) writes: >> >>because he does not want material things to take back. In general >>I have found NRIs to be less demanding (not to condone the practice) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >This is a cop-out. Take a stand on either for or against arranged >marriage. Yeah, Mr. Bhatia! Listen to our all knowing friend Ramesh Viswanathan. You JHUST gotta take a FOR/AGAINST decision.It is Either "arranged marriages are COMPLETELY GOOD" or "arranged marriages are STINKIN' ROTTEN"-- there IS no middle way. Don't you see--It is a Dharma Yuddham out here. And there is no compromise allowed. No grayness. All black and white, zero one binary world (that George Boole would love to inhabit!). [phurther more, this makes the argument easy--we can jhust count off the "GOOD GUYS" and the "BAD GUYS"!) >At the risk of sounding a "tad" harsh let me pose this question. How >many women (subjected to the 3 WT) are complaining? Can life be all >that hard when you have to deal with driving a nice car, and living in >a nice house? Even if she is relegated (!) to cooking and keeping house, >which she might have been anyway back home, it is not quite that bad. I >do all the house-cleaning now and have a certain way of doing it. Surely >after getting married, I would insist on still doing the work for the >same reason. And once again, as Raj Bhatia pointed out, *most* NRIs >are usually less demanding. > >So although arranged marriages may be "deplorable", I not convinced >that the women are always getting the short-end of the stick. The stick >may be even shorter if they chose to wed a desi and remain home. > > > or 3-week >>Fifth, nobody has suggested any alternatives to the 7-week marriage trip. > ^ >Right again. All I have read so far is whining from some (disillusioned ?) >people. If these people have the "perfect" solution why not share it with >others. Like the saying goes, put up or shut up! > >Ramesh Viswanthan Grreat bola, tum ne! Ramesh bhayya! "Put up or shut up"--nice ring to it! Tring tring-- "Yelloo?" "Yelloo, Ramshands? This is Pal. Hey listen, your house is burning" "What do you mean my house is burning? I don't see no flames" "No, it is burning from the center" "So? My bedroom is still cozy and cool--why do I care if the house is burning!"" "Ramshands, I see a strong wind. It is dangerous. Do something about it, fer godssake!" "Hey, listen Pal! STOP whining, you disillusioned fellow! Either tell me what EXACTLY I should do, or just SHUTUP!" "Bbbut but, Ramshands, it is YOUR HOUSE" "SO? It is not like *I* need to worry about *MY* problems. I didn't even KNOW that my house was burning until YOU started whining! So, like the saying goes "JUST PUT UP OR SHUTUP"! -Idjitrao [with due apologies to mr25+] ---------------- "Don't worry, be happy" From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!max!ngrjn Sun Aug 19 00:46:43 PDT 1990 Article: 5133 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!max!ngrjn From: ngrjn@max.u.washington.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Exploting an Unjust Advantage: Arranged Marriages &c. Message-ID: <14170.26cd81c6@max.u.washington.edu> Date: 19 Aug 90 00:58:30 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA Lines: 42 Status: O In his reply to Subbarao Kambhampati, bish@druco.ATT.COM (Biswadip Ghosh) writes: "...It is totally absurd to consider social values as unjust biases. If this were the case, society would have disintegrated long ago. "...And there is absolutely no pressure on women to say yes when they do not want to. This may be the case in the BACKWARD sections, but the source of the problem lies elsewhere. "....What is the relationship between this and the stuff you wrote in your original article about the so-called "evils" of arranged marriages ???" Bish Granted that a tradition is not automatically to be consigned to the trash can (just because it is a tradition); such a practice is reactionary, unhealthy and destructive. But by the same token any unexamined tradition warrants a healthy skeptical look. I think that is what we are doing here. (Although there is, as usual, a certain amount of ad hominem culture- bashing, very much in the tradition (!) of our color-complex.) An inveterate tradition that existed in China for nearly ten centuries that, I think, stands as a classic example of stupid, unexamined tradition in human history: that of foot-binding where a woman's feet were tightly wrapped since childhood to stunt the growth of her feet (mangled bones and all) so so that her feet would be erotically stimulating. Did the women accept it ? You bet they did. Sort of like the masochistic practice of wearing high heels today except orders of magnitude worse. Here was a tradition that ANY BODY today (including the high-heeled women) would denounce as barbaric but was the norm until the middle of this century. So you see, sometimes traditions unexamined lull us into accepting them even if they happen to be atrocious. Arguing that to judge past practices on the basis of today's norms would not quite work in this case. If anything it should make us wonder what it is that we are doing today that we might wake up fifty years hence and deem barbaric. - Nagarajan From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!mcnc!anay Sun Aug 19 00:50:34 PDT 1990 Article: 5137 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!mcnc!anay From: anay@mcnc.org (Anay S. Panvalkar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: The REAL ISSUE. (Was Re: Fatalism in attitudes towards marriage...) Message-ID: <6998@alvin.mcnc.org> Date: 19 Aug 90 02:51:52 GMT References: <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> <490@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> <1990Aug18.022302.17010@portia.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: anay@mcnc.org.UUCP (Anay S. Panvalkar) Organization: Microelectronics Center of NC, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 69 Status: O As a 'johny-come-lately' in this debate, I would like to say to all concerned not to use the "but-my-cousin's-brother-in-law's-uncle's-arranged -marriage-has-been-great-for-34.3419 years" line so U shee arranged marriages work!! Even if it's your own sister or brother, how do YOU know that their marriage has been free of problems? Also, can the arranged-marriages-are-good believers come up with a better supporting point than the longetivity of the marriage?? I think the most imp. point that needs to be mentioned here is that a 45-year long marriage does not automatically mean a "successsful" marriage. More often than not, it was only because the woman chose to be indifferent to her pati's wayward ways and silently endured, was the marriage so long-lasting. Let's go no further than last year- Sudha Chandran, the leading lady of 'Mera pati-mera parameshwar (or some such crap title)' informed us with authoritive knowledge that it is our 'great Indian tradition' that the wife must always "sacrifice" for her husband and try to bring him TO the right path. No kidding! I wish to highlight one more point that went unnoticed. In Veena's very insightful and thought-provoking article, she mentions that the worth of a woman is much more in the lower strata of our society than in the so-called educated class. I have never been in more agreement about anything than this observation. It is a BIG MYTH that as one goes higher up the social and educated ladder one finds more respect for the woman as an equally responsible partner in a marriage, or even as the newborn female child. Infact, the richest people of India would probably be more tradition-bound than anybody else. The winds of change, if we are to see the end of such dehumanizing traditions, must come from the women- for it is their sacrifices which allow such things to continue. 'Traditional' education is NOT the answer. The process starts right at the birth of a baby girl- a society that is so heavily biased for the male child as to allow selective abortions of the female foetus will obviously consider equal say to a woman's opinion a complete non-issue. It is here that the battle must start. (In a small town in Rajasthan, for ex., only one female child was born in two years- amidst dozens of male children. Fate? Naah, just willing doctors and parents. This, appeared in India Today a year or so ago.) There was an excellent Marathi street-theater play which became very popular thruout Maharashtra- "Mulgi Zhali Hoe" (Alas! A girl is born.) which also did a first-rate job in highlighting how discrimination starts even before a girl is born. Forget trying to correct the practice of arranged marriages, forget equal oppurtunities for women, forget women's rights- a society which does not even allow the female child to be born is not even concerned about such non-issues. That, my friends, is the stark reality and indeed the raison-d'-etre for ALL those issues which we are discussing. Btw, the above statement "does not allow to be born" may not be taken too literally- the connotation is :A society that so overwhelmingly "PREFERS" a male child to a female one. >From "Mulgi Zhali Hoe"- (I saw this play several times, and also know a few of the actors. I *personally think* there has never been a better play on this subject in India.) Woman defending her pref. for a son, "Mulga manje vaushacha diva..." Her friend replying, "Kiti ujed padalay paha...." Loose translation: 1st woman: A son is the torch-bearer of the next generation.... 2nd woman: Look at all the light around us.. ( Sorry, the punch is evident only in Marathi!) Anay. -- =============================================================================== E-mail:anay@[alvin or natasha or simon].mcnc.org Among the things MCNC and I agree on, this posting Nostalgia isn't what it used to be! does not count. From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!spot!mum.wrc.xerox.com!mantha Tue Aug 21 12:08:04 PDT 1990 Article: 5244 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!rutgers!rochester!spot!mum.wrc.xerox.com!mantha From: mantha@mum.wrc.xerox.com (S. Mantha (co-op)) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Fatalism in attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility [Re: Exploiting] Message-ID: <492@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> Date: 20 Aug 90 18:04:14 GMT References: <1352@ebirah.cs.utexas.edu> <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> <491@spot.wbst128.xerox.com> <26069@mimsy.umd.edu> Sender: news@spot.wbst128.xerox.com Reply-To: mantha.wbst128@xerox.com Lines: 77 Status: O Hello everybody (and Mr. Rao in particular), It's apology time, I guess. First, for the unwelcome (that it was unwelcome was conveyed in no uncertain terms!) expression of familiarity (yo Subbulu). Can't say, I didn't ask for that one. As for the rest, it was not my intention to "trivialize" the discussion in anyway, though I seem to have accomplished exactly that. |>So, you are RIGHT! About what? In trying to inject a little humour into the thingie. Apparently not, since it seems to have backfired in a rather grand way. |>To continue the status quo, to feel completely thrilled that we have |>"survived" inspite of our asinine indifference all through, to ensure |>that nothing bothers us unduly, we DEFINITELY do need to continue our |>good practise of not EVER taking ourselves seriously (and what is |>more, form cadres to discourage anyone else trying to break this |>canon!); live as if everything is a big game; and PARTITION our lives |>very strictly such that complete inconsistencies in our outlooks can |>be swept under the rug with such evergreen arguments such as Strong words these, uttered --undoubtedly-- in a moment of passion. To take a few remarks made in jest and paint a horrible picture of a callous, despicable creep requires dishonesty and lack of integrity on a grand scale. Anger alone would suffice as well. From what little I know of Mr. Rao through his postings, I dare say it is the latter. Whether his response shows an unreasonable degree of sensitivity and moral "hauteur" or a passionate faith in the principles he espouses is a moot point and not at all the purpose of this article to determine -- or question for that matter. The tone and contents of my previous posting seem to have agitated him not a little. I am sorry. Now, whether I would have apologized if my remarks had not drawn such a sharp response is an interesting question. It is not at all obvious that I would've. But on some thought, I realize that independent of Mr. Rao's real and perceived peeves with my attitudes (as evidenced in his posting), my flippant and irresponsible remarks could have damaged an interesting and thoughtful discussion on what marriages should and do mean to us. While I have reservations on the tone -- the verdict is already in : guilty; now let's decide on the sentence -- adopted by some, the only purpose my posting would've served would have been to sabotage the debate and reduce it to exchanges not very different from "Don't tell me what to do", "How can you even contemplate such a disgusting thing as an arranged marriage, you loathesome cockroach!" and so on ... |>"Jhust do yit"--hmmm--sounds great and catchy of course--just let me know when |>you get around to reifying your "yit". Oookay? A perfect instance of what I was saying above. I am sorry I started it. |>>Surya [member of Alonzo's Church] Mantha |>Rao [seriously considering Surya's suggestion of becoming a member of |> the Church of Rational Schizophrenia and Indifference] The virtues of "indifference" are many and the universal applicability of "rationality" is at best suspect. But that is not relevant to any of this. |>Pps: Also, your whole response, revolving as it does around |> "don't take yourself so seriously, MYAN!" is a completely novel |> way of argumentation that should definitely be added to the chest of |> rational dialectics. |> You have just scratched the surface of |> the uses of this argument--its potential is unlimited, I tell you. It serves admirably, if what one wants to do is to kill all serious debate (and it's effectiveness has been recognized for some time now). That, however, was not my purpose. sincerely Surya Mantha From portia.stanford.edu!shelby!riacs!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!mani Wed Aug 22 14:17:27 PDT 1990 Article: 5348 of soc.culture.indian Path: portia.stanford.edu!shelby!riacs!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!mani From: mani@shodha.dec.com (Mani Subramanyam) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: The Arranged Introduction alternative... Message-ID: <1573@shodha.dec.com> Date: 22 Aug 90 07:53:03 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Colorado Springs, CO. Lines: 182 Status: O Well, here is yet another read-only person jumping in: rpmunni@ucla.sscf.edu.bitnet (Munira) writes about her experiences and/or "ordeals" with 10+ guys that she has met or talked to. In the midst of all this "Arranged Marriage in India" discussion, I didn't see anyone discuss the alternative, i.e. try to meet and commit to someone right here in the USA, by one's own effort. I am specifically referring to "Single India-raised Males" (SIRMs) and "Single India-raised Females" (SIRFs) here. They could be students (typically grad students) or professionals. How does one go about it ? What must one be prepared for ? What things change when the scene shifts from India to the USA ? What are certain "non-issues" in the typical "Arranged Marriage" scenario that could be "issues" here, and vice versa ? How does one go on one's own over here ? I figured I would share my thoughts on this. I am certainly not Mr Perfect. And I am still single. But I have been through a few "turbulent" periods of my own. And have perhaps something to offer to the SIRMs and SIRFs out there as suggestions..... Here are some things that come to mind: a) A "blind" date is not a good idea ! We all know how the situation is re: SIRMs and SIRFs and their distribution. Someone you know is bound to offer you an introduction to some SIRM/SIRF who they think is "compatible" to you. This "go-between" could be a good friend, a really close relative, whatever. It can get quite delicate, but it makes a lot of sense to insist on exchange of photographs, whoever the person might be. Of course, this is when the SIRM/SIRF didn't/couldn't run into each other in a casual setting, such as a party or something that they both get invited to.... Try as they might to keep things casual and without pressure, the typical SIRM/SIRF put pressure on "themselves" when they meet/talk to someone new. especially when the BIG-TWO-FIVE approacheth for SIRFs, and the BIG-THREE-O approacheth for SIRMs..... Nothing wrong here at all. This is just reality. Almost the "conditioning" of our culture back home, and expectations of parents, family, etc. b) Looooong phone convs before meeting someone is not a good idea ! When you meet someone, the feeling is totally different than when you were talking on the phone. Also, the personality could be quite different in person. Things said on the phone are also more easily liable to be mis-understood, or mis-interpreted. It's hard to guage moods, expressions, tone, intent etc over the phone.... c) SIRMs need to rein in some of that ego deep down inside them .... The typical SIRF here is intelligent, smart, and has more of a mind of her own than the girl you might meet on a trip home. Just as we SIRMs change and evolve over the few years that we are here (especially the first couple of years), they do too ! They are usually quite committed to whatever studies they are doing. It is unfair to expect them to give up "their" years of hard work, when they have a year or two left on their PhD, or whatever. It is also unfair to expect they give up the reward for all that work, in terms of a career at the level that would make them happy.... It's really hard, but there is more tension here. There are many situations where there are two strong personalities involved. Many SIRMs find that hard to deal with. Perhaps a good sense of humour, honest/frank talk and always "being oneself" are all the more important here, for the two people to connect (versus the typical scenario back in India) > Munira Says: > MY EXPERIENCE: > I have met or talked on this matter so far with at least TEN+ guys. > Ordeal indeed. Because I wish to continue my doctorate, in political > science, I use to "proceed" the talks only with those guys who CLAIMED > that they were interested in PROFESSIONAL GIRLS I don't think it makes sense to see these as "ordeals". After all, the typical "encounter" in our case is a meeting, and a discussion of what the SIRM/SIRF's goals, interests, expectations are. I used to get upset myself initially. But then, that's life. At least we are honest about it. The encounter is short enough that both people can move on. And both people would still have a lot to give to the long-term relationship that they finally settle for.... d) The SIRM professional - SIRF student scenerio.... This is fairly common. And it's tough sometimes. The first tough issue that usually pops up is, "Who will move/switch/change job/univ ?" Remember that the SIRM is usually quite committed and unwilling to switch jobs/careers, sometimes for immigration reasons. And the SIRF is unwilling to switch univs, so close to theses and final research time....How long does this go on ? The reality is if something such as this could become an issue, be prepared to discuss this up front, so that there is minimal mis-understanding, minimal unnecessary effort, energy, emotions expended by either party. And be very honest and break it off. Now when you break off, do you keep in touch ? My experience has been, nope, you don't ! SIRMs and SIRFs are "conditioned" to have either real "friends", or a real SO (significant other). When you go on an emotional roller-coaster with someone, however short, if it doesn't work out....you are better off with a clean break. No phone calls. No contact. No casual meetings. Sure, you two could possibly be "great" friends, because you have so many things in common ! But nevertheless, you are better off going your separate ways until at least one of you is all set !!! e) One-on-one vs casual dinner with friends. The typical SIRM is better off meeting a SIRF that he has never met before in a "group" setting, rather than a 1-on-1 setting. Probably with say another couple who are good "friends" of the SIRF and NOT any sort of person related to either party. That is great, because it's natural that we all have a different side or personality to us, depending on it being a social outing with friends, versus an outing with a total stranger (which can get quite awkward, really !) The 1-on-1 outings can follow "later", if both feel comfortable, and would want to do that..... I have heard from more than a few SIRFs that they are intimidated by the idea of a 1-on-1 date with a SIRM, so they bring along a brother, cousin, uncle etc for the initial meeting ...That can cause a lot of discomfort to the poor SIRM !!! So suggesting a couple (who are just friends) is a great improvement on that ! > As far as MY EXPERIENCE goes I have found that indian guys are somewhat > intimidated by the idea of a truly professional wife. They want an > educated "independent" wife but at the same time are not willing to change > their role or their responsibilties which comes with a fulltime working > wife. Well, there are all kinds of guys. Some would find it hard to handle the situation where their spouses do much better professionally and monetarily than they do ! Perhaps the majority of SIRMs feel that way. But again, that is life ! That's again "conditioning", and certainly not specific to "Indian" guys..... The only thing SIRFs can do in this situation is search longer and harder for the SIRM who meets "their" expectations ! The more educated they are, the more intelligent they are, it's gonna be that much harder to meet that "compatible" SIRM. SIRFs will have to shed certain inhibitions (about going through friends, looking through those matrimonials - and believe me, there are a lot of really decent guys out there. Sure there are jerks everywhere. But then, you only hear about that one jerk ! And not about those 10 decent guys !!!) > With all fairness to indian guys I want to mention that their fears are not > totally unwarranted. So far we have been always protected by the society and > major decisions in life were made for us by either our parents or guardians. > Although we did grumble at times, we did perpetuate the systme for one reason > or another. Yes, it's really hard to break out of the "system" and do your own thing. Because you will have lots of people trying to dissuade you. And trying to convince you that the regular "arranged marriage" route is the way to go. Especially when I hear not-so-good-things about SIRFs based in the USA from say someone who went back and got married (which has happened on more than a few times), it doesn't seem right at all..... > Now the problem with our generation is that we are forced due to circumstances > to make major decisions by ourselves. No matter how WESTERNISED we think we > have become we are still not able to take the responsibilities that goes with > the freedom of decision-making. You are right. Finally, it's about making decisions. I guess we all try to do the best we can. And consequently, are thrown into new situations that we wouldn't have to deal with if we just decided to go with the status-quo, and do the "3-way-ticket" deal !!! > WITH BEST WISHES > MUNIRA Enjoyed reading what you had to say ! Comments on what I've written in here are most welcome..... Thanks, Mani Subject: Fatalism in attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility [Re: Exploiting] Status: RO It turns out that all the things I wound up saying were exactly my opinions in this regard even before I entered the sci discussion (this is not to in anyway undermine the importance of the stimulation of this discussion--it is just that I have thought about this topic for a long time; have tons of exchanged letters with me. ) Further, with all my diatribes against black and white thinking, I will be a complete fool if I were to look at arranged and love marriages in the black and white perspective. I agree with you on one thing though--it took me a loooong time to come to the current position (and even longer to make a coherent presentation of it). Your point that my first article might be seen as an all out attack on the arranged marriages is well taken. It was written with the specific purpose of "shaking" people and asking them to see if they are endorsing practises completely anti-thetical to their values. My idea was to draw people into the discussion with that, and then start talking emphasizing the "spectrum" and the "Conscious decision" parts to make people realize that what i and others are suggesting is NOT AN UNREACHABLE AND IMPRACTICAL GOAL! Finally, regarding your encouraging words about the last (fatalism) posting-- I appreciate the compliment. I too consider this last one the most difficult article that I had to write in this series--given that it is about abstract considerations underlying people's decisions. It always bothered me when people looked at things in this binary fashion, but it took a long time for me to formulate the right criticism of that line of reasoning. And just 4 hours (from 8pm to 12pm) to compose that semi-coherent article :-( -Rao [Aug 17, 1990] Interesting article! I have come to know about you via Dheeraj who spent a weekend's day with me discussing various things, late last month. I agree with your viewpoints (By and large). I have a couple of questionS however. Your argument mostly deals with "Arranged marriages (3way) are not good; instead, go for love or semilove marriages". But I dont require, fortunately, any justfication for that; instead I feel that we should be able to provide platform for such "love/semilove" marriages to happen. Given the social setting, the chances are so low. How do you propose to deal with this? I proposed one to my friends/whatever. Take teh guy and gal to a place like "beach(coming from vizag, that is the first thing that hits my mind)", or "temple's avarana" or park, and let THEM talk to each other, while th e chaperon(s) hang around. After a couple of hours, they can come back and go home. If you repeat this often enough, then one may get a better choice of spouce. what do you think?... Finally, "galilo deepam ..." is a Folklore statement. I guess you should give credit to that austrian scientist Mr.Folklore (:-) rather than plagiarizing (:-):-) A personal question: (If you are not YET married), how do you plan to take it? (REASON: I am a student and went home (vizag) once, felt "YUCK" about the arranged marriage and hence did not go for it. I dont understand how to deal with it. So, I thought your opinion may be of some use. YOU MAY CHOOSEE NOT TO ANSWER THIS). kumar. -- Rao: your latest article was a very good one. Your punch line was very close to what is likely to be the truth. Thanks for leading a good discussion on the net. And, thanks for not shirking away and participating in it all through. I felt that your first message was all-out in favor of love marriages (not that you essentially believe in the complete supremacy of love marriages but so it sounded in your first message.) As the discussion continued your opinion altered sloghtly and seemed more moderate. I think that this change was excellent and this is what discussions are for. I completely agree with your last (so far!) message. regards, Dear Rao, In article <1990Aug17.064947.17484@portia.Stanford.EDU> you write: .......< stuff deleted > .... >The real culprits are an inability to distinguish between DEGREES, an >insistence on "guarantees," and a proclivity for looking at everything >in black and white. > >And the same inability shows up in the arguments that unconditionally >glorify role of "COMPROMISES" in a successful marriage; several of >which appeared in this thread, notably Mr. Satyam, Mr. Alok, Mr. >Raavirala, Mr. Pidaparti (and probably completely unwittingly by >Vikram Duvvoori). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It was an excellent article. I agree with both the central theses you have presented on the issue of arranged marriages: that they often involve a lot of exploitation, and that one should approach them without dichotomizing issues (Complete vs. incomplete, apriori information) but should appreciate the whole spectrum of possibilities. I had originally planned on writing an article placing all the ideas that have come up so far, in my overall perspective. However, the unusually large number of articles on the subject that have already appeared on SCI, discourage me from doing so. I think the marginal utility of this issue, seems to be diminishing, as I notice a lot of fatigue, in private and public responses. Hence the resort to the email medium. I wish to clarify my views and expressed ideas, in the context of the reference made above. I had neither intentionally nor `unwittingly' tried to glorify compromises at the COST of better initial understanding. In my article I took great care to stress the fact that the exploitation has to be judged in the context of the prevelant attitudes in the society. The logical implication of this, is that exploitation is avoided when the skewed values are eschewed. So an obvious solution to the problem under discussion, is to be consciously aware of such attitudes within us. The words I used like sensitivity, understanding, care, mutual love, etc. are to me very potent and pregnant with meaning. These words cannot be used in the context of some of the situations you have referred to in your article. I did NOT assert that any marriage would succeed, provided the right compromises are made. I only asserted, that once a basic understanding of the other person is achieved, then the other smaller issues can be worked out through compromises. So the situations like partner A believes in working for social development while B believes in making money, or A believes in Bashing while B doesnt etc. are not meaningful situations to apply what I have said. I think any such argument to discredit the value of compromises, is only putting up a straw-man. We have both been rooting for the same spread of spectrum. Personally I would not like to see any exploitation of one human being by another, whether in marriages or elsewhere. Where social institutions are involved, I believe that I can always suggest extreme solutions but their acceptance will be based on realistic understanding of human attitudes. So, while advocating the ideal of a perfect loving marriage, I am willing to think of means to use the existing institutions for social change. In any loving marriage I believe that compromises are necessary. I think many of us, who do spend some thought in our responses, see the obvious spectrum of possibilities for compromises. There are some compromises that one cannot make, and some that one can. When many of us, stress the need for compromises, we say it keeping this spectrum in mind. There is always as implicit assumtion that some compromises are not possible.(Any of the persons, who has written thougtfully on this, and has been quoted by you, I am sure would confidently say that they never implied compromises like bashing, total incompatibility etc. ) > >So, what is the punchline? > >............. A 10-trip marriage (at least in the way >samaddar meant it [though I do like veena's interpretation ;-)]) >provides 10/3 times higher probability of judging compatibility, and >a correspondingly lower probability that you will have to make >compromises of second and third types, as compared to a 1-trip (3-way >ticket) marriage. > >Any amount of extra time you spend in making a well-informed decision >will COUNT-- thus giving you a SPECTRUM rather than an artificial >dichotomy of choices. > >-Rao >[Subba"Phooey, There goes another night"rao Kambhampati] > I totally agree with you that additional efforts spent in judging compatibility will yield better results. I hope that the calculations were made in a humorous vein. I am sure that you do agree with me that attempts to quantize emotional judgements are not often successful. I think it is better that qualitative statements be made with in a qualitative way. Why do we need to use numbers? How can one assert that the probability of judging compatibility is directly proportional to the time or effort spent in doing it? I do not intend to be picking up on a small detail. I do object to attempts at quantizing human emotions and judgements. Thank you for your excellent articles. It has been interesting to follow the discussions generated. Vikram p.s. I might post an article on these issues on SCI, in a revised version on the net. Obviously, the focus then would be different. p.p.s. I lapped up every single article written by Hofstadter under the `Metamagical Themas' series. In fact, the first book that my wife presented to me 4 years back, was the book published >from the collection of these essays!! From ennews!news Sun Apr 19 14:28:04 MST 1992 Article: 22675 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: ennews!news From: rao@parikalpik.eas.asu.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) Subject: AM: Another netter's response to one netters reply to the first netters questions to [Re: One nettor's reply and questions.( Re: Arranged marriages..) Message-ID: <1992Apr19.202554.7222@ennews.eas.asu.edu> Sender: news@ennews.eas.asu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Arizona State University, Tempe References: <1992Apr17.232005.27681@doug.cae.wisc.edu> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 20:25:54 GMT In article <1992Apr17.232005.27681@doug.cae.wisc.edu> One netter [whose name we would rather not refer to, so as to protect their privacy and national security, but who, just for the records, happens to be balarama@cae.wisc.edu (Prabhu Balaraman)] writes: > All the information that has been presented so far regarding this has >been of the following kind : > >" I know MANY Indian males who confine spouses to spice racks " >" MOST Indian males treat women as property." >" Indian guys just import brides from India " >" 90% of the guys ....", etc, etc ... > It is interesting that some feel that these are the *only* kind of criticisms of AM that have been presented on the net. Indeed, it is this temptation to label any criticism with its extreme version, ignoring all constructive parts of that criticism, that is at the heart of the communication problem in this debate. > It also makes me wonder how a simple and unsophisticated >cause and effect relationship has been deduced in respect >of Arranged marriages and the woeful >status of women in India. Is it really the case that all criticisms against AM can be compltely categorized under this rubric? Why is one ready to reache a conclusion that everyone who says anything against the majority practice of AM system is ipso facto saying that arranged marriages are the root cause of all evil, downplaying the role of all constructive criticisms? When one is so insistent in their demands that whole-sale generalizations be not made on AM system, and that gradations in the practice of that system be explicitly recognized, shouldn't one also show the same eagerness in evaluating the criticisms of the system? Shouldn't one make an effort to sift through the information separating the extreme categorical condemnations from other constructive criticisms? Why is one so tempted to call any criticism at all of AM practice as "insensitive", "highhanded", "self-righteous" etc.? Won't such an instinctive and indiscriminate defense mechanism be self-defeating in the long run since all desirable change comes by someone questioning the current practice? >Is it a case of rare insight that led >some proponents to believe that Arranged Marriages are solely responsible >for disrespect and trivialization of women in India? No doubt this >system as practised by SOME ( and NOT ALL ) people might be ONE of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the causes. ^^^^^^^^^ To the extent that we really believe that a non-trivial SOME of the AM embracers do _help_ (whether directly or indirectly) in perpetuating a particular undesirable inequality in the society, equanimity dictates that we be deliberative in sifting through the arguments for and against such a system. A temptation to associate every criticism of the system with its extreme variants seems to be just as self-defeating as the propensity to see all maladies of the society as originating from AM practice. > Are there any compulsive reasons as to >why the rather low level of educational and economic independence >of Indian women haven't figured as one of the causes for their >lowly status, if at all one is to believe that this malady is endemic >across all strata of Indian society? Are there any compulsive reasons as to why one has chosen to believe the assertion that the "economic independence" factor of Indian women has been purposefully ignored, in spite of the fact that it is indeed brought up repeatedly on this very same forum? Can't one rightfully criticize AM for its own part in the overall problem, without constantly reasserting that AM is not the only, or even the most important cause of economic inequality? >I CANNOT respect my spouse if I go in for an arranged marriage? A question such as "how can you accuse me of not being able to do the right thing just because I did do one particular thing that could be considered "undesirable" in the past?" is somewhat rhetorical. Anyone in the world can do the "right thing" in the future irrespective of what they have done up until that point in their life (and believing otherwise is somewhat prejudicial--this, I concede). A more relevant question is whether all criticism of a practice be completely suppressed because "people can always do something better later". Here is an analogy, which might make sense if the reader is not automatically assuming that the analogy is being concocted to "get them". Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and was also a man who many people have no compunction as labelling one of the foremost liberals of his time. If someone criticizes the fact that Jefferson owned slaves, should that be taken to mean that that person is ipso-facto downplaying the humanness of Jefferson? Should all criticism of Jefferson based on this aspect of his personality be stifled just because we want to be "sensitive"? Should the fact that Jefferson went on to become the most respected liberal politicians of his life be used to justify each and every practice he endorsed either consciously or unconsciously, including owning of slaves? >..and why it is NOT possible to get to know, adjust to and respect >a person whom I have met only for a few hours? It behooves us to >respect the diversity of the human mind and let people choose >what is best for them. If someone thinks they can adjust to a >total stranger why not let them do so. There are two types of criticisms that can be made, and have been made, with regard to the AM system, as it is practiced. The first have to deal with the romantic considerations, and the second to deal with extra-personal ramifications. The completely legitimate argument that people have different personalities and that should be allowed to lead their lifes they see fit applies quite well to the criticisms of AM based on romantic considerations. However, that argument doesn't apply as convincingly to criticisms of AM based on its extra-personal ramifications. Our temptation to confuse both types of criticisms under one blanket and offer the "everyone to his/her own tastes" argument is just as closed-minded as someone's crusade to change AM system because they personally, for romantic reasons, find that systems unpalatable. >Why not let people wear >colored glasses of their choice and especially so when we ourselves >wear one? Why this compulsive desire >to exhort others to follow one's directions? And why this delusion >that one's methods are more civilized than the neighbour's? To end on an equally rhetorical note, why this crippling fear that anyone criticizing a particular aspect of a current societal practice is automatically out to uproot the whole system with utmost contempt? Why not see the criticism as an attempt to improve the current practice, instead of panicking and attempting to label it as a subversive tactic concocted by those who hold tradition in contempt? When we are so adamant about differentiating between the good and bad arranged marriages, and insisting that the baby be not thrown out with the bath water (and rightly so, IMO), can't we also differentiate between the blanket generalizations and incendiary rhetoric against AM, from a constructive attempt to criticize the ramifications of current non-minority AM practice in perpetuating certain undesirable inequalities in the Indian society? Why should we be credulous enough to subscribe to the foolish dichotomy that the extremists of either faction in the AM debate (or any debate for that matter) would like us to subscribe to? Can't we recognize the symmetric self-defeating nature of such dichotomy? cheers Rao [Apr 19, 1992] -------- A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as commonsense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self respect and inherent human dignity Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese freedom fighter & 1991 Nobel Laureate for peace Freedom from fear and other writings Penguin, 1991.