Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S.....

From: [email-masked] (Umesh Thakkar)
Date: 29 Jun 91 04:40:51 GMT

I quite agree with the points made by Subbarao, Uma, and Apolak
in regard to the equity and equality (in marriage responsibility).  
They provided good arguments to the posters from Viswambara, Rama, and 
Alok V.  Yet, many people want hard facts which are difficult to get 
since marital problems are not free_for_all discussions.  From last 
summer to present there have been two or three posters on SCI asking
for advice in regard to battered woman friends.  This is nothing new
in US.  Indian women organizations in US such as Apna Ghar, AIWA, Saki,
and Manavi provide support and shelter to women from south asia. There
is no religious or political agenda attached to these humane groups. 
  I did see a recent Chinese film (Ju Dou) where the man beats his
wife 'cause he wants a son to keep his family name alive.  He shouts 
"Obey me. Give me a son."  The bride later has an affair with his 
nephew, but is afraid about traditions.  I recommend this film since 
it shows an image of 1920s similar to the one in Rao Saheb.  The point 
is that unethical and often immoral following of traditions occurs in 
many societies (as very well stated by some one earlier). Roro Mendut, 
an Indonesian epic, is perhaps the only film (that I have seen) where 
the woman outwits the traditions.  I had the very best time watching
Roro Mendut. Rushdie points out in "Is Nothing Sacred?" that "change is
a condition of art remaining art."  IMHO, one can make a similar argument
on traditions.  They must constantly evolve to form new meanings. 

[...]
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
...
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

[Blowin' in the Wind (1962) by Uncle Bob (Dylan)]

---

From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: 29 Jun 91 06:19:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (KOMANAMANA MANU) writes:
>
>I would consider a woman abandoning her child more unacceptable than a man 
>doing the same. This in no way condoning a man's act of abandoning his child,
>but what I'm saying is it is easier for a man to forget the responsibility
>than a woman. For a man, having a kid is the question of few minutes,
>but for a woman, it is the question of 10 months. I think I will have more
>attachment to anythig that was part of my body for 10 months! So what I 
>am implying is that the responsibility of having a kid is NOT the same
>for man and woman. If it were, then the pro-choice argument fails in
>some cases.. like when the husband/boyfriend takes the woman to court for
>preventing her from going thru an abortion. I think it is absurd!
>It should be the womans choice to decide whether to have the kid or not.
>( pro- choice ) Since it is her right to decide whether to have the kid
>or not, it is fair to assume that she has more responsibility to the kid 
>than the father. 

I fail to follow the logic of this argument. I can understand if you
said that "because a woman carries the child for 9 months, she may
find it more difficult to abandon the child". 

However, where should there be any external strictures saying that she
should be more responsible for the child? 

In the case of abortion, the fetus is still a proper part of the
woman's body, and as such she obviously should have soverignity over
her body. 

But, once the child is "born", why should the woman have any more or
less responsibility towards the child than the man? Could you
elaborate?

rao
[Jun 28, 1991]

ps: to Giridhar Iyengar of Umich--please don't feel compelled to have
    a sixth child just to name him/her after me. Really! (The thought
    is appreciated though ;-)