From leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Wed Jun 26 19:54:10 PDT 1991 Article: 27826 of soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S... Message-ID: <579@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 27 Jun 91 01:42:02 GMT References: <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Distribution: na Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 110 [Unmindful of the rank stereotype of himself that he is helping to perpetuate, rao goes for the bait...] In article <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Viswambara) writes expressing doubts about "these liberated women": >I have also observed that those women who think they are the independent >kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones since they take their >sense of independence and convert it into a unbending and non compromising >attitude which if married kills the marriage or else if unmarried they become >extremely closed to compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting >more and more cynical about Men. But again all these are general observations >and personal experience. Hmm.. Let's see--it stands to reason to assume that there are at least as many men who think they are the independent kind as there are women who think that way, right? And yet, you seem to imply that marriages fall apart only if the women are the independent type! Is it possible that independence, even if it is of the "uncompromising variety" is supported in men, but punished in women? >Is this what our Modern India coming to? >Are we socially suited for taking on this kind of Marriage -Divorce >on finding small Compromisable faults. >No I am not talking of keeping >marriage alive where there is physical or Mental Abuse on either side >constantly, But breaking up on trival issues or for convienence seems This seems to be the familiar ploy of "Are we ready to endorse freedom of choice for women, 'cuz if we do, then, Aiiyyayyo we will have OOODLES OF DIVORCES in our midst"!! First, let me ask if Mr. Viswambara can point out some portentous statistics that would convince us that marriages are falling apart for trivialest of reasons because of the "independent" women? Second, let me add that the pitfalls of this type of argument are many. Suffice it to say that I would rather stay with a system where people are "free" and divorce rate is slightly higher, than a system that provides artificial stability by denying freedom of choice to half the population! Finally, let me get to the first para of his message.. > I would though >like to know how many of these woman have successfully managed >their career and their Family life? I have come to know of lots >of women have had either to give up one or another and they have >always seemed to do this with some regret. If Mr. Viswambara ever asked himself the same question about men, then he would have realized the glaringly lopsided state of affairs. The fact of the matter is that for generations upon generations, men were able to have career *as well as* family!! They were able to do that because women *by societal pressure or out of choice*, stayed at home and took care of everything. Now that women have fought for and got a chance to exercise their freedom of choice vis a vis their careers--we are turning back and telling them: "look, we are all for your career etc, of course--but we hope you take care of all the family matters that you used to take care of before!!" In other words, to exercise their freedom of choice, women have to be "superhuman"! This after all is the message that is drummed in by the popular media--such as a Femina interview where Mrs. X. says that she has built her 100M business, but still puts her family first before her business. All this succeeds remarkably well making "career-women" (yet another play of words--did you ever hear an appellation "career-men"?) feel guilty about their choices. What is more, we are quite good at telling them that it is all somehow *their* fault--that the anguish and guilty feelings that they are having to deal with are things that they had brought upon themselves! [** I heard an interesting anecdote on a radio interview with an NYT columnist recently. Apparently, this woman (whose name I forgot), used to write a family advice column for NYT and was quite well received by her readers. That is until the day when she wrote in her column that she has a baby sitter to take care of her infant and toddler for several hours of the day, when she is at "WORK". Suddenly, she got angry letters from her readers saying that she should be *ASHAMED* of leaving such small kids with babysitters that way, and that they would no longer take her family advice seriously. This woman wonders: "When do these people think I write the advice column? At 3 AM in the morning, after all my family goes off to sleep??***] Is it any surprise then, that more and more women, who can't afford to be superwomen, are faced with the "Sophie's Choice" of family or career--a choice that men never had to make? This state of matters will not change as long as we continue this position of "If women want careers, women can get careers--as long as they don't ask us men to change our life styles because of them". Equality should mean equal responsibility. Things aren't going to be "the same" for men. We cannot afford to cling on to the lifestyles and work-place ethics that were designed to suit an eigteenth century man! Men should be just as responsible for their families, and bringing up children etc. as women should be. The quandaries of juggling family and career should be SHARED by both the partners. Rao [Who, even as we speak, is dashing towards Amex Travel Services office for booking his tickets to go to Alok V's July 4th party in New Jersey] From leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Thu Jun 27 10:32:42 PDT 1991 Article: 27863 of soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <580@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 27 Jun 91 16:31:13 GMT References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Distribution: na Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 56 In article <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Viswambara) writes: > >In article <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu >(Viswambara) writes expressing doubts about "these liberated women": >In response to Mr. Rao's Posting, Sorry I lost Most of it. > >>First, let me ask if Mr. Viswambara can point out some portentous >>statistics that would convince us that marriages are falling apart for >>trivialest of reasons because of the "independent" women? > >...[viswambara gives some cases] >(Names used here are ficticious) > >Y, Love at first sight, Marry Guy bombay Business man, Man busy , Lady bored, >She basically gave up studies for Man and Marriage, Complains about his work, >He asks her to continue studies, she does and gets job after completion, >Takes a Job in Delhi in spite of possiblity in B'bay, Reason she no >like B'bay, Possible, Files for divorce, Granted what grounds ??? No Idea. >I met her at U.S, New York. Studying. Don't tell me that these are what you consider "trivialest" of resons!! [Did you happen to see umbarta/shubah?] Looks to me that the only case where you would condone divorce would be when the wifey is getting physically abused day after day! Anyways, for every one of these "X Y" stories that you can dish out, I can give you a 100 more with the men/women rolese reversed! The only difference in the stories would be that there may not have been a final divorce because women were taught to make all the compromises to keep the marriage afloat (exactly by the misguided philosophies such as yours). So, where does that leave your argument? > >generations , What we find is most of the earlier women knew how to devote >equally to their children and their Career, They have done a good Job in both. >Look the situations those days were much worse in India as far as Household >work was concerned than To day (Mean Lack of Modren Appliances) >Those days also Men used to Help, Personally I think Dad is better cook You obviously have not read the third part of my message. Try to read it more carefully before employing all these familiar platitudes in your arguments! >In any case I am very Much still Unsure how Safe / Unsafe am I from >my Indian Women????? > Seems to me that a more relevant worry is should be how safe/unsafe "Indian Women" (sic) are from *you*! cheers Rao From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Thu Jun 27 16:43:34 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 16:37:17 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!rice!sawwhet.rice.edu!apo >From: apo@sawwhet.rice.edu (Apolak Borthakur) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <1991Jun27.203129.17868@rice.edu> Date: 27 Jun 91 20:31:29 GMT Article-I.D.: rice.1991Jun27.203129.17868 References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Reply-To: apo@sawwhet.rice.edu (Apolak Borthakur) Distribution: na Organization: Rice University Lines: 47 |> Yes True, I agree to Your observation, Now Last generation That's my Mums |> Gang , got their freedom and they were (My Mum and her Gang from College) |> pretty much exposed to World in sense they were working etc, Now they were |> also mighty Independent considering that generation before them women hardly |> went out. Now look at our generation, They have all the freedom since Birth |> , Most of the Folks I knew never treated a Girl in House any diff than the Son |> (I have basically stayed in Major cities only) , Now let's compare, the two |> generations , What we find is most of the earlier women knew how to devote |> equally to their children and their Career, They have done a good Job in both. |> Look the situations those days were much worse in India as far as Household |> work was concerned than To day (Mean Lack of Modren Appliances) Well,I hate to sound like one of those `knights in shining armor' defending the cause of women and all that,but I personally feel that the women who have to combine the role of being a career-woman as well as a housewife don't get a very fair deal.The social scene in India is such that the woman has always been expected to mind the house,which was probably fair enough earlier when they didn't work,but then this notion has carried through even now,when women work. You imply that Indian women are beginning to demand more of equality-I don't think that thats really happenning in India(you're talking of women who've lived most of their lifes in India),and if it is,isn't it time it did? |> Now I am also for free society where no one is bounded to another |> for life and Come Easy GO easy kind of Attitude, This is in West and we |> are here so let's go for it , But how practical is it??? |> In any case I am very Much still Unsure how Safe / Unsafe am I from |> my Indian Women????? Every sane person should agree that divorce is a pain in the ass;leads to a lot of trauma,etc.But how can you hold only the woman responsible for the divorce?Things can go wrong in so many ways,and often the husband(esp in India) is at fault. Indian society is used to having the husband as the boss,and the wife is expected to adjust to his needs and desires.Is such an attitude always right? Well,enough of sermonising.Now its time to live up to my old school motto: Facta,non verba. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Thu Jun 27 18:36:47 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 18:33:56 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!unixhub!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!cindy!vivek >From: vivek@ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R Prabhu) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <1991Jun28.000702.4033@ecst.csuchico.edu> Date: 28 Jun 91 00:07:02 GMT References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1991Jun27.203129.17868@rice.edu> Sender: news@ecst.csuchico.edu (no news is good news) Distribution: na Organization: California State University, Chico Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu In article <1991Jun27.203129.17868@rice.edu> apo@sawwhet.rice.edu (Apolak Borthakur) writes: In fact women in India have now started more actively campaigning for their rights than before, and that is certainly a healthy sign. Before the question was that Indian women were regarded as prepared to fight with their husbands for what they wanted, and stay in the same house rather than leave them and go away as they do here. That too was a good thing, since they got whatever they wanted and were able to get their husbands to do their bidding. Now the case is slightly different, since a man still has to do the bidding of his wife in order that she stay with him as his wife, as otherwise he has to end up paying things like alimony and maintenance, a thing which he would like to avoid. The one advantage which Indian families hold over American families, and that to a very significant one is that the progeny atleast know who their biological parents are as opposed to the younger generation here, who are often the products of mixed/divorced/separated/ legitimate/illegitimate relationships etc. Vivek. Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao >From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 28 Jun 91 02:52:56 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 91 In article <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: >I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of >marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here. Is >there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown >up in the States or lived over 10 years here. I am concerned >about adjustment, etc. > >Thanks, >Surajit Mukherjee Hi Surajit: It is great that you are taking these precautions and enquiring a priori about all possible eventualities. After all, as they say, an ounce of prevention is as good as a kilometer of cure. It makes sense to figure how these deshi acquisitions fare in this country! I remember the time when my friend Laksminarayanarao went and acquired a Khaitan Ceiling fan in India. Boy, the trouble he had adjusting the fan to his apartment. It would keep falling off from the ceiling. If only he had taken some elementary precautions! The trouble of it all is that you can't really ask a Deshi ceiling fan whether it thinks it can adjust to this country. phew. Anyways, at least he had a warranty on it, so he could return it. True, Ceiling fans are not exactly the same as girls--but it can't really be that different. Now, coming to the maintenance problems involved in marrying a deshi girl (or two, for that matter) and bringing her along here: First, let me assure you that you have definitely come to the right place--many many many of my friends have done this. There is actually a pretty standard procedure as far as getting the girl itself is concerned (definitely more standardized than getting a multiple entry H-1 visa--I can tell you *that*!). But, I am sure you know about the procedure as well as anyone else. So, let me get to your particular question of post-facto maintenance, and adjustment problems--I think they are generally easy to maintain and can be adjusted quite well. However, it does depend a lot on various operating conditions. Thankfully for you, I have already done a survey of many of my friends and I do have some advice to offer you: o The first thing is of course, to check with the girl's previous owners as to her correct operating conditions, and the past repair history. Make doubly sure as to what is the operating temperature for the equipment, err. I mean the girl. Palvaynatheeswaran got one girl and she just couldn't adjust to the cold temperature of Pittsburgh. Boy, he had such trouble! o Be sure to check on the return policy. As I told you, in Lakshminarayanarao's case, it was the return policy on the deshi fan that saved him. o If possible get girl who has already done all the basic undergraduate computer science courses (such as Fortran for Foreigners). Many of my friends had trouble when their girls were in economics or Math or some such arcane field. It took them quite a while to de-program the girls, and send them off to university college for computer science courses. o And last but not the least, make sure that the girl is not one of those independent types--these have a tendency to get adjusted too darn much (if you get our drift--wink wink)--as various higly respected and objective surveys from Pittsburgh point out. You don't want to have to acquire a new girl all over again, do you? Do let us know how your's adjusts. I think this type of frank exchange of consumer problems with various brands of equipment and so on would go a long way in ensuring that we get satisfactory performance from the deshi girls that we bring here. If you need any information about where you can get the best girls to marry, please don't hesitate to post another article. regards Rao Consumer Advocate Ps: If anyone from bay area is going to Alok V's July 4th party in New Joisey and would like to do ride sharing with me, please post a message or two on the net. pps: That reminds me--does any one know the distance between SF and New Jersey? How about between San Jose and New JerseY? While you are at it, could somebody check the distance between: Madras to Mangalore, Kakinada to Rajamundry (both via Dwarapudi and via Rajanagaram) and Palo Alto to Mountain View? Please post them on the net. I don't have much space in my mail box. And also, this way, if your distance estimate is wrong, we can have a healthy debate on it. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Thu Jun 27 22:17:55 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 22:02:53 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!unix!hplabs!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!daily-planet.concordia.ca!turing!sagar >From: sagar@turing.concordia.ca (Sagar Naik) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <604@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Date: 28 Jun 91 03:37:39 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Sender: usenet@daily-planet.concordia.ca Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec Lines: 47 In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >In article <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: > On Mr. Surajit's intention to "import" a piece of equipment from India, Mr. Subbarao writes: >Hi Surajit: [ Non-technical details of Khaitan fan deleted.] >o The first thing is of course, to check with the girl's previous ^^^^^^^^ > owners as to her correct operating conditions, and the past repair history. ^^^^^^^ Since he wants, I think, to import a brand new one, there is no "previous owner!" Anyway, why should anyone import a used car?! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>o Be sure to check on the return policy. As I told you, in Lakshminarayanarao's > case, it was the return policy on the deshi fan that saved him. Any deshi "return policy" is very simple. "Goods once sold can not be returned." That is because the owner can't resell returned goods. >o And last but not the least, make sure that the girl is not one of > those independent types--these have a tendency to get adjusted too > darn much (if you get our drift--wink wink)--as various higly respected > and objective surveys from Pittsburgh point out. That's agood suggestion! Go for the "manual" one instead of the "automatic." >regards >Rao >Consumer Advocate Sagar From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Thu Jun 27 22:18:16 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 18:33:56 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!unixhub!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!cindy!vivek >From: vivek@ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R Prabhu) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <1991Jun28.000702.4033@ecst.csuchico.edu> Date: 28 Jun 91 00:07:02 GMT References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1991Jun27.203129.17868@rice.edu> Sender: news@ecst.csuchico.edu (no news is good news) Distribution: na Organization: California State University, Chico Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu In article <1991Jun27.203129.17868@rice.edu> apo@sawwhet.rice.edu (Apolak Borthakur) writes: In fact women in India have now started more actively campaigning for their rights than before, and that is certainly a healthy sign. Before the question was that Indian women were regarded as prepared to fight with their husbands for what they wanted, and stay in the same house rather than leave them and go away as they do here. That too was a good thing, since they got whatever they wanted and were able to get their husbands to do their bidding. Now the case is slightly different, since a man still has to do the bidding of his wife in order that she stay with him as his wife, as otherwise he has to end up paying things like alimony and maintenance, a thing which he would like to avoid. The one advantage which Indian families hold over American families, and that to a very significant one is that the progeny atleast know who their biological parents are as opposed to the younger generation here, who are often the products of mixed/divorced/separated/ legitimate/illegitimate relationships etc. Vivek. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 28 10:56:42 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 10:51:36 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!sequoia.engin.umich.edu!giridhar >From: giridhar@caen.engin.umich.edu (Giridhar Iyengar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 91 16:29:53 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor Lines: 19 In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >In article <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: > >>I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of >>Thanks, >>Surajit Mukherjee > ----- lots of excellent stuff deleted ------- Bravo, old chap. (clap! clap!) Just what was needed. Many thanks for the breath of air(let alone fresh). I'll name my 6th born after you. Really. I will. ciao.. ..deacon blues giridhar@caen.engin.umich.edu Subject: women and fans Hi, As an Indian woman who sometimes lets her life get ruined by the forces that be rather than deal with it in a sensible way, I really do appreciate your approach! It's good to know that there are perceptive people out there who know exactly what's going on with Indian men and women... and can still keep their wits about them! Thanks for the reminder, and of course for what appears to be one of the most effective (one would hope anyways!) write-ins. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 28 15:08:24 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 14:42:52 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!meteor!bhatt >From: bhatt@meteor.wisc.edu (Uma Bhatt) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <1991Jun28.185953.28083@meteor.wisc.edu> Date: 28 Jun 91 18:59:53 GMT Article-I.D.: meteor.1991Jun28.185953.28083 References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1991Jun27.230131.16716@meteor.wisc.edu> <1991Jun28.060201.10983@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Distribution: na Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science Lines: 15 I was trying to say that there is a double standard about what is considered unacceptable behaviour when one is talking about men or women. A man would be forgiven more easily if he abandoned his children than a woman who did the same thing. And perhaps it is this double standard (which I think is found in societies all over the world) of what a man can do and what a woman can do that causes some people to react so negatively to the cases listed in article <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu>. There are likely just as many stories, in which men are the 'offenders'. It is just that people tend to forget those stories. It is less acceptable for a woman to dump her husband than for a man to dump his wife. As someone already pointed out (I am not adept at referencing old articles on usent) that it takes 2 people to make a marriage work and when things do not work out it is very difficult to point the blame at only one person. SO what do people think of arranged marriages? Uma From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 28 15:08:44 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 14:41:48 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnewsh!rsd >From: rsd@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (rajiv.s.dighe) Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Distribution: na Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 13:06:32 GMT Message-ID: <1991Jun28.130632.5780@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Lines: 21 >From article <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, by bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Bruce C. Wible): > > Stories of women taking advantage of situations and coming here > for "selfish" reasons deleted.... I dont know what point these individual cases served (sets of probability measure zero are only of interest to hardened mathematicians), but if we are into generalizations then more power to them (the ladies, i.e.). If Indian women have started getting comfortable with the notion that their life is their own, to be led the way they want to, and that their sole raison d'etre is not being a projection of their husband's on the two-dimensional plane (also called as a shadow), then this is good news indeed. In the long run a truly equal relationship is the desired ideal but I will live with the transients till then. Rajiv -- The Reasonable Man adjusts himself to the world, the Unreasonable One persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw, "Man & Superman" rajiv.dighe@att.com 908-949-5197 From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 28 15:09:11 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 14:41:16 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!lazy.helios.nd.edu!patb >From: patb@lazy.helios.nd.edu (Pathikrit Bandyopadhyay) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <1991Jun28.193008.29910@news.nd.edu> Date: 28 Jun 91 19:30:08 GMT Article-I.D.: news.1991Jun28.193008.29910 References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <604@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Sender: news@news.nd.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: patb@lazy.helios.nd.edu (Pathikrit Bandyopadhyay) Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Lines: 53 In article <604@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, sagar@turing.concordia.ca (Sagar Naik) writes: |> In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: |> >In article <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: |> > |> |> On Mr. Surajit's intention to "import" a piece of equipment from India, |> Mr. Subbarao writes: |> |> |> |> >Hi Surajit: |> |> [ Non-technical details of Khaitan fan deleted.] |> |> |> >o The first thing is of course, to check with the girl's previous |> ^^^^^^^^ |> > owners as to her correct operating conditions, and the past repair history. |> ^^^^^^^ |> |> Since he wants, I think, to import a brand new one, there is no ^^ |> "previous owner!" Anyway, why should anyone import a used car?! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> |> |> > |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>o Be sure to check on the return policy. As I told you, in Lakshminarayanarao's |> > case, it was the return policy on the deshi fan that saved him. |> |> Any deshi "return policy" is very simple. |> |> "Goods once sold can not be returned." |> |> That is because the owner can't resell returned goods. |> |> |> >o And last but not the least, make sure that the girl is not one of |> > those independent types--these have a tendency to get adjusted too |> > darn much (if you get our drift--wink wink)--as various higly respected |> > and objective surveys from Pittsburgh point out. |> |> That's agood suggestion! Go for the "manual" one instead of the "automatic." |> |> |> >regards |> >Rao |> >Consumer Advocate |> |> Sagar surely what subbarao ment to say was manufacturer and not previous owner. great going subbarao on this one keep it up. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 28 15:09:20 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 14:40:45 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!leo.Stanford.EDU!rxb >From: rxb@leo.Stanford.EDU (Ramesh Bharedwaj) Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Message-ID: <1991Jun28.213937.11284@leland.Stanford.EDU> Keywords: marriage Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Organization: RLG, Stanford University References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 21:39:37 GMT Lines: 5 Rao, Excellent article! I only hope your sarcasm is not lost on this audience. I wouldn't be too surprised if you are flamed for your post ;-) ;-) Ramesh From leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!sunc!heinlein!umesh Fri Jun 28 22:07:22 PDT 1991 Article: 28036 of soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!sunc!heinlein!umesh From: umesh@heinlein.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Umesh Thakkar) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <1991Jun29.044051.15783@osc.edu> Date: 29 Jun 91 04:40:51 GMT Article-I.D.: osc.1991Jun29.044051.15783 Sender: news@osc.edu (Newsmaker) Reply-To: umesh@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (bharath culturewallah) Distribution: usa Organization: Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design Lines: 40 Originator: umesh@heinlein Nntp-Posting-Host: heinlein.cgrg.ohio-state.edu 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 leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!surge Sat Jun 29 00:48:32 PDT 1991 Article: 28038 of soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!surge From: surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 29 Jun 91 06:03:46 GMT Article-I.D.: en.1991Jun29.060346.22772 References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 66 In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >In article <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: > >>I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of >>marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here. Is >>there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown >>up in the States or lived over 10 years here. I am concerned >>about adjustment, etc. >> >>Thanks, >>Surajit Mukherjee > >Hi Surajit: [all kinds of *very* helpful advice deleted] >True, Ceiling fans are not exactly the >same as girls--but it can't really be that different. Really, you think so? Well let me tell you Subbarao, I was left in awe (as well as some other netters) by the eloquence and wit of your post. I think it's great how you figured out I really was NOT asking for any salient advice (afterall, I was inquiring about such a trival matter as marriage!) but I asked the question to provide you with a forum to display your talent. I congratulate you, not only on your mockery of the institution of marriage, but also on denegrating women down to where they belong. Tell me, did you conceive of the idea of equating women with objects to be possessed and manipulated by men, all on your own? As another poster commented, "What a fresh idea" this is! I am really grateful to you, for golden advice such as: >o The first thing is of course, to check with the girl's previous > owners as to her correct operating conditions, and the past repair history. >o Be sure to check on the return policy. >Do let us know how your's adjusts. I think this type of frank exchange >of consumer problems with various brands of equipment and so on would >go a long way in ensuring that we get satisfactory performance from >the deshi girls that we bring here. Thanks to you, I now realize that marrying the right girl is simply acquiring the correct brand of equipment and getting a satisfactory performance out of it. , !! I hope that over time, your mother did not degrade in performance beyond normal "wear and tear", from your father's usage. I am sure that this literary triumph of yours will channel more fan mail your way than ever. But this is too important to discuss here. I suggest that you form alt.deshi.wife.bashers.r.us where you can "try out" and rate different brands, and provide consumers with proper operating instructions. >If you need any information about where you can get the best girls to >marry, please don't hesitate to post another article. And Subbarao, I hope YOU feel free to grace the usenet community with another one of your side-spliting discourses the next time someone asks for help or suggestions. Ladies if you care for a copy of his responses, I plan to keep a compilation of them in /dev/null. --Surajit Mukherjee From leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Sat Jun 29 00:50:27 PDT 1991 Article: 28039 of soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <586@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 91 06:19:57 GMT References: <1991Jun28.060201.10983@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun28.185953.28083@meteor.wisc.edu> <1991Jun29.034142.16984@ncsu.edu> Distribution: na Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 40 In article <1991Jun29.034142.16984@ncsu.edu> ksmanu@eos.ncsu.edu (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 ;-) From leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao Sat Jun 29 01:01:25 PDT 1991 Article: 28043 of soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re:Indian Women in U.S[on the hidden motives of the Pittsburgh Survey][Please Read] Message-ID: <587@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 91 07:40:42 GMT References: <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <579@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 115 In article jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > >While being in violent agreement with Subbarao's post here, maybe it >was tangential to the topic ? The original message only peripherally >brought in the author's feelings about women and careers. Primarily ^^^^^^^^^ >it seemed to say that women came to the US for a new life, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >wanted to see some discussion on that. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is it really? The poster(s) of the messages made no secret of their misogynist-views. Consider the following excerpts: "Also the Spite (as in Spitefull) of a woman is much more poisonous than Mans. So the Independence which Man always had and Used and Misused as the case may be would be much at lower level than the Misuse or Use that a woman can do with it" -Viswambara SCI, 27th June "I have also observed that those women who think they are the independent kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones since they take their sense of independence and convert it into a unbending and non compromising attitude which if married kills the marriage or else if unmarried they become extremely closed to compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting more and more cynical about Men." -Viswambara SCI, 26th June [and many many more--just read their two (extremely badly written) articles carefully. The misogyny is so thick, you can cut it with a knife!] The author(s) claim that they are trying to "survey" the behavior of Indian women with independent nature. In a private mail to me, Mr. Viswambara said that all this is in aid of a survey to be published in Eves Weekely (that august tabloid of Indian women's studies) around december/january. You would expect that people doing a survey will generally be a little less blatant in exhibiting their own prejudices! If they so clearly state their own jaundiced view of the world (as evidenced by the excerpts above), won't they run the risk of biasing their survey such that only the subjects who fit their hypothesis will ever come to them? Is this the tone of unbiased people interested in getting to the truth? Or is it the tone of people who already have a hypothesis--viz. "Indian women, given independence, can cause chaos to the family structure" and have set out to prove their hypothesis by collecting "anecdotes" with a high dose of selectivity? You tell me? The author(s) of the article don't seem to have any doubt about their own intentions. In a mail sent to me, a Ms. Nita [who claims *she* is the person conducting the study, and "Viswambara" is the last name of her hubby which she is using to get "the necessary cover" (sic)] says: "There is a Bias involved in the whole thing and this is because I am looking for something specific and not those cases which every common person has heard of , And I am not here Just to fritter my time, I have my own Financial and Time, constraints, So I have to keep moving on with it." Bingo! Of course, they don't care about the reality or actual statistics! Would Eves Weekly publish a boring survey which said only the obvious? And what is more, by making their biased nature clear, and showing on which side of the issue their sympathies lie, they were apparently quite successful in getting their *survey*. Ms. Nita brags in her mail that after their last message with those "X Y" stories, they got 18 replies from "GUYS who had some sort of experience" (sic). How does *that* sound for a manufactured survey? [And why all this secrecy and indirectness? The same article that Viswambara posted on SCI, appeared with all references to India stripped off, in Soc.Feminism on 26th June, from the same account but under the name of a Prashanth K. And today, I get a mail from the same account, but this time from a Nita!] So, why am I worried about some stupid folks in Pittsburgh fabricating survey that they want to post in a second-rate tabloid? Am I just over-reacting? Well this is no academic exercise for me. I have a sister with a newborn who is struggling to balance her career and her family right this minute. As if she doesn't have enough on her hands already, she has to endure the misguided flak from the conservative society surrounding her ["Aiyyayyo, how can you keep on continuing your studies, when you have this newborn kid at home"?]. The last thing she, or a million others in her situation, need is a misogynist reporter out for a quick buck publishing a sensationalist story in a putative magazine for modern women, trying to prove (by hook or crook) that women with independence are somehow evil, and that women and careers just won't mix. I wouldn't have worried as much if I was sure that people can see through the fabricated nature of such a study. But, if the highly educated readers of SCI itself can be deceived into overlooking the thick mist of misogyny in the author(s)' writings and can be made to believe that this is a legitimate survey and those "X Y" cockamamie stories are somehow representative of a substantial portion of the Indian women with independence, how can I be sanguine that such surveys don't effect people more steeped in a conservative mileau? disgusted and apprehensive Rao --------------- "Don't go silently into the cool, dark night; Rage, rage at the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas From leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!fornax!mahajan Sat Jun 29 06:54:13 PDT 1991 Article: 28047 of soc.culture.indian Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!fornax!mahajan From: mahajan@cs.sfu.ca (Sanjeev Mahajan) Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S..... Message-ID: <1991Jun28.231524.10917@cs.sfu.ca> Organization: Simon Fraser University References: <145238@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1991Jun27.230131.16716@meteor.wisc.edu> <1991Jun28.210548.14765@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> Distribution: na Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 23:15:24 GMT In article <1991Jun28.210548.14765@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes: > > Perhaps you should try to examine your premises too. > Could it be that you have a typical stereotype of men ? Uma is right in claiming that Indian society has always given a short shrift to the desires and aspirations of women. No wonder, noone bats an eylelid when people come up with ludicruous matrimonials such as 'domestic girl (sic) (translate as one who can cook, sew and keep a man happy) needed for a Computer professional blah blah blah'. I have always wondered what one should do when one sees obnoxious matrimonials on the net! I do not believe that ignoring them is the right solution. Now one may argue that they are the person-who-is-posting's private business, but I do not agree as once they have posted on the net, it becomes everybody's business, and I think that Subbarao did a wonderful job of shredding the recent matrimonial into pieces. It is only through such means that we can discredit such obnoxious practices. Sanjeev From veena@cs.utexas.edu Sat Jun 29 15:07:10 1991 Return-Path: Posted-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 12:10:48 CDT From: veena@cs.utexas.edu (veena) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 12:10:48 CDT Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian In-Reply-To: <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Organization: Dept of Computer Sciences, UTexas, Austin X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89) To: surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] In article <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> you write: >In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: [your outrage at Subbarao's extremely apt response to your "matrimonial advice" deleted] I, as a more-or-less regular reader of SCI, would like to point out to you that Subbarao is one of the very very rare and hard to come across type of Indian men who not only talk of equality of men and women but also practise what they preach. Far be it from him to treat women (or any living beings) as objects of any kind. He is perhaps the only poster on SCI who expresses his outrage in no uncertain terms *everytime* he comes across articles that do portray women as objects, as people with no minds or opinions of their own, as one of the several "possessions" of men, as basically inferior beings in a lot of ways, as human beings who somehow just can't manage their own lives without the "protection and guidance" from the "wise and able" menfolk, as people who "deserve" to be "shielded" from this cruel world, as people who should be "kept" in their "rightful" place in the kitchen or as doormats, as people who somehow need to be "permitted" by their menfolk before they could venture forth to do anything on their own and so on. If you read mockery of the institution of marriage or perceived denegration of women in his article, it's due to the limitation of your own perceptions to read sarcasm. Isn't it people like you who perceive women as some kind of baggage to be brought from India after a "careful screening of the goods that will be displayed when you express the desire for an Indian bride" ? It was utterly disgusting and uncalled for to bring his parents in your attack on his response to your matrimonial ad. If you could justify your article and the attitude that prompted you to ask for such advice, you should have done that instead of getting personal in such a revolting manner. Veena From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:30:10 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:34:39 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!rice!susanc >From: susanc@rice.edu (susan chacko) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S[on the hidden motives of the Pittsburgh Survey][Please Read] Message-ID: Date: 29 Jun 91 18:20:50 GMT References: <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <579@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <587@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Lines: 67 rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: > [please read the original, if I summarised you'd miss the inimitable > Subbarao Style] > >The last thing she, or a million others in her situation, need is a >misogynist reporter out for a quick buck publishing a sensationalist >story in a putative magazine for modern women, trying to prove (by >hook or crook) that women with independence are somehow evil, and that >women and careers just won't mix. I agree with Rao about the farcical nature of the 'survey', though I'm still not convinved that Eve's Weekly actually sponsored this 'research' by Nita/Viswamabara/Wible/Prashant. Even given the many levels of transcription from 'Nita''s original thoughts, does the style/grammar sound even faintly journalistic to you? But let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway. The question is, what effect will a 'survey' such as this, in a '2nd-rate tabloid', have on Indian society? Well, IMHO, people put a lot more credence in their own experience and that of the persons around them than in newspaper reports purporting to describe trends. The last time I was in India, I saw lots of movies on TV about adultery (it was very Twilight Zone-ish, every time I switched on the TV there was a movie on about adultery) where the woman had an illegitimate child, and in 3 out of 4, the woman bravely kept the child and faced society's wrath, sometimes even with her husband's cooperation! Yet I don't see many people with a less critical attitude to (female) adultery and illegitimate children. Granted, I'm talking about the middle-class, and that too, the infinitely small fraction of it that I personally know, but I think people tend to dissociate their own lives from the paper and magazine and movie world. If the newsmagazines are printing sensationalist stories about the disasters of independent womanhood, that's not so bad, but the dissociation also translates into a reluctance to accept working women and and men who do housework as a normal situation. Suppose EW was to publish an article showing that independent 'career' women were able to have homes with happy husbands and children as well, or that in cases where they didn't, they were perfectly happy to be single. Would that convince the conservative people that it was healthy and normal for women to want a life outside their home and family? Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think few people actually get their opinions about social order from print. It takes a lot of women like Rao's sister and some of my IIT friends, who are struggling to work and have families, to perhaps suggest to someone else around that working women may not lead to the downfall of civilization. And no, I'm not endorsing the use of dubious statistical techniques to obtain sensational newstories. As for SCI, reading it for two weeks should convince one that degrees != (education and an open mind). Maybe we should just be grateful that only 18 out of the 50K readership thought the survey was legitimate. Susan. (back after a long time. Restores one's faith in the eternal immutability of human nature to see that nothing much has changed on sci) -- .....susanc@rice.edu or susanc@keckiris.rice.edu......... From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:30:14 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:34:26 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!apple!olivea!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!daily-planet.concordia.ca!turing!sagar >From: sagar@turing.concordia.ca (Sagar Naik) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Should I take the bait? (Re: Indian Women in the US) Message-ID: <622@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Date: 29 Jun 91 19:54:57 GMT References: <4639@borg.cs.unc.edu> Sender: usenet@daily-planet.concordia.ca Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec Lines: 27 In article <4639@borg.cs.unc.edu> suchitra@caligula.physics.unc.edu (Suchitra Balachandran) writes: > >The posting by Visambara is a joke, right? I mean there are smileys all >over the article but then they're invisible smileys and I just haven't >figured out how to find them, right? I looked. Honestly, I scanned ^^^^^^^^^^ >every line for smileys but I didn't find any. So I thought maybe I would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >post and find out how one reads the invisible smileys. After all it >can't possibly be serious can it? > Send me e-mail if anyone knows how to read invisible smileys. All I can >do are :-) !! Like many of the beautiful things in life, you don't get "smileys" explicitly and so cheaply! Smileys are not to be "seen", they are to be "visualized!" If you get an explicit smiley, that is a bonus! To see a smiley, "Read in-between the lines." Sagar ------------------------------------------------------------------:-) After all, people in the United States of America can "read my lips" and "read my hips", just to quote Geroge Bush. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:30:18 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:34:04 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!apple!olivea!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!rice!susanc >From: susanc@rice.edu (susan chacko) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: To Mr. Subbarao Kambhampati at Sunrise Message-ID: Date: 29 Jun 91 21:10:45 GMT References: <91180.060421U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Lines: 21 U15297@uicvm.uic.edu writes: >Re: Marrying from the Old Country... >I believe, Sir, that an open apology is in order here. Your post on the >subject was reprehensible. What, may I ask, is your level of expertise? >... >Shyamala Parameswaran I believe Subbarao's post was in the nature of a spoof, highlighting the irony of discussing the problems of Indian-born women in the US as if they were just another piece of equipment which had to be 'adapted' to the foreign conditions. I thought he made his point very well. Your mileage may, of course, vary. Susan. -- .....susanc@rice.edu or susanc@keckiris.rice.edu......... From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:30:56 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:18:05 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!sebas-j >From: sebas-j@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu (joseph sebastian) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <81686@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 91 16:29:06 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Sender: news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU Reply-To: sebas-j@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu (joseph sebastian) Organization: SUNY Buffalo, Academic Computing Services Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu Originator: sebas-j@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu In article <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: |> In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: |> >If you need any information about where you can get the best girls to |> >marry, please don't hesitate to post another article. |> |> And Subbarao, I hope YOU feel free to grace the usenet community |> with another one of your side-spliting discourses the next time someone |> asks for help or suggestions. |> |> Ladies if you care for a copy of his responses, I plan to keep a compilation |> of them in /dev/null. |> |> --Surajit Mukherjee actually, someone did mention that rao's sarcasm may be lost on some people, but i didn't think so - definitely didn't think it would be lost on the original poster. guess i was wrong. great article, rao- really fun to read. feel kind of sorry for phd-in-training though; must be still wondering what hit him. -- _________________________________________________________________ joseph sebastian sebas-j@acsu.buffalo.edu V073SL4N@UBVMS.BITNET -- _________________________________________________________________ joseph sebastian sebas-j@acsu.buffalo.edu V073SL4N@UBVMS.BITNET From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:31:12 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:17:52 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!apple!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!altair!murphy >From: murphy@altair (Michael L. Murphy) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Summary: no woman is merchandise. Keywords: marriage, chauvenism, point-of-view Message-ID: <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 29 Jun 91 21:29:28 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Followup-To: soc.culture.indian Organization: Math Dept., University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Lines: 79 In article <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: >In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >>In article <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: >> >>>I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of >>>marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here. Is >>>there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown >>>up in the States or lived over 10 years here. I am concerned >>>about adjustment, etc. >> >> * clever, but perhaps too esoteric, sarcasm by Subbarao deleted * What Subbarao has said in the form of sarcasm, I will say bluntly. Your article makes India sound like some sort of "wife market", and makes the woman sound like "merchandise". Don't you think that a woman is much more than this, that love and marriage are not merely goals to be obtained, but a freely chosen commitment between two people? >I congratulate you, not only on your mockery of the institution of >marriage, but also on denegrating women down to where they belong. >Tell me, did you conceive of the idea of equating women with objects to >be possessed and manipulated by men, all on your own? As another >poster commented, "What a fresh idea" this is! What Subbarao has done is to take your own ideas on the position of a woman in a marriage, and magnify them with sarcasm so that even you can see the chauvenistic overtones. You, sir, are the one who is treating a woman as an object. Mr. Kambhampati is merely pointing this out to you. The feeble lament that this is a way of life for men in India is no excuse for you. You have been raised in the US, and pardon me for sounding patronizing, but you should know better. Tell me, when you obtain your Ph.D., would you like a woman from a foreign country to say "Ah, now Mr. Mukherjee would make a suitable husband" and proceed to arrange a marriage with you, and "import" you? Are you beginning to understand why this attitude is wrong? >Thanks to you, I now realize that marrying the right girl is simply >acquiring the correct brand of equipment and getting a satisfactory >performance out of it. What more do you think of a woman than this, if you can ask what you asked? It is obvious that you would never place a woman so "obtained" on a level equal to yourself, and your marriage would never be "satisfactory", to yourself or to her. **** The reason I responded to this article, I, who am neither Indian nor have been to India, is this: My girlfriend, whom I have been dating for 10 months, came to the US from India in June '90. She had lived in India all her life, but very quickly adjusted to customs here (as can be witnessed in the fact that we started dating in August.) She has had Indian male admirers, both here and in India - but she wanted more. She wants knowledge, she wants adventure, but most of all, she wants to be her own person, and not merely "Mr. So-and-so's wife". I fell in love with her because of her beauty and strength. She fell in love with me, well, I have a hard time guessing why sometimes, but I think it was a combination of persistence :) and the fact that I was perhaps the first man to treat her as a person, and not merely as an "Indian female", not even as an "Indian female who has been to the US to study". I was unaware of these stereotypes when I met her, and so I fell in love with her, not with an image of what she was supposed to be, as so many other boys had done with her. And she loved me back, because finally, here was someone who saw her, and not the stereotype. I ask two things of the people reading this. First, examine your own views of the world around you. Are you seeing people as people, or as pre-formed images? Put yourself in their place, and by doing so, you may understand their positions better. Second, wish Anuradha and me the best of luck - she is in India for the summer, and her family and friends are just now finding out how close we really are. I hope that I am accepted in India - the next time she goes there, I go with her. -- +-Murphy's law: The amount of bugs present-+-Michael Murphy--------------+ | in your program is directly proportional | murphy@symcom.math.uiuc.edu | | to the time you've spent working on the | mm20302@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | +-damn thing.------------------------------+-----------------------------+ From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:41:54 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:15:56 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!m2c!risky.ecs.umass.edu!dime!devadoss >From: devadoss@unix1.cs.umass.edu (John deVadoss) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Mr.Subbarao Kambhampati at Sunrise Message-ID: <32826@dime.cs.umass.edu> Date: 29 Jun 91 21:04:36 GMT Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu Reply-To: devadoss@unix1.cs.umass.edu (John deVadoss) Distribution: na Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Lines: 18 In article <91180.060421U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> U15297@uicvm.uic.edu writes: > >Re: Marrying from the Old Country... > >I believe, Sir, that an open apology is in order here. Your post on the >subject was reprehensible. What, may I ask, is your level of expertise? > >Surajit Mukherjee asked a question that called for an educated and >serious response. Your reply failed on both counts. I must conclude >that you are not a graduate student nor one aspiring for a professional >attitude in life despite your current training. > Aw come on. Mr.Mukherjee certainly did not seem to have asked a question that called for an educated, and serious response. Anyway I havent laughed like that for ages. Keep it up Rao. John deVadoss "What's graduate life without somebody like Subbarao on the net!" From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:42:37 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:12:17 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u15297 >From: U15297@uicvm.uic.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: To Mr. Subbarao Kambhampati at Sunrise Message-ID: <91180.060421U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> Date: 29 Jun 91 11:04:21 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Lines: 12 Re: Marrying from the Old Country... I believe, Sir, that an open apology is in order here. Your post on the subject was reprehensible. What, may I ask, is your level of expertise? Surajit Mukherjee asked a question that called for an educated and serious response. Your reply failed on both counts. I must conclude that you are not a graduate student nor one aspiring for a professional attitude in life despite your current training. Shyamala Parameswaran From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 16:43:04 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 15:10:52 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!sebas-j >From: sebas-j@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu (joseph sebastian) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <81686@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 91 16:29:06 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Sender: news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU Reply-To: sebas-j@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu (joseph sebastian) Organization: SUNY Buffalo, Academic Computing Services Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu Originator: sebas-j@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu In article <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) writes: |> In article <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: |> >If you need any information about where you can get the best girls to |> >marry, please don't hesitate to post another article. |> |> And Subbarao, I hope YOU feel free to grace the usenet community |> with another one of your side-spliting discourses the next time someone |> asks for help or suggestions. |> |> Ladies if you care for a copy of his responses, I plan to keep a compilation |> of them in /dev/null. |> |> --Surajit Mukherjee actually, someone did mention that rao's sarcasm may be lost on some people, but i didn't think so - definitely didn't think it would be lost on the original poster. guess i was wrong. great article, rao- really fun to read. feel kind of sorry for phd-in-training though; must be still wondering what hit him. -- _________________________________________________________________ joseph sebastian sebas-j@acsu.buffalo.edu V073SL4N@UBVMS.BITNET From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sat Jun 29 17:56:13 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 17:43:31 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Xref: leland.Stanford.EDU soc.culture.indian:28075 soc.culture.bangladesh:2032 Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!surge >From: surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage Message-ID: <1991Jun29.233236.26842@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 29 Jun 91 23:32:36 GMT Followup-To: poster Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 59 Dear Netters, After Subburao (and others) have dragged my name through the mud, I feel the need to set the record straight. Here is my original post: >I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of >marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here. Is >there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown >up in the States or lived over 10 years here. I am concerned >about adjustment, etc. In case this is not clear, I was asking about advice on how I can make it easier for a newly arrived wife to make the social and societial changes to the US. Notice, I did not mention anything about coercion, or kidnapping. It seems that several of you out there decided to extrapolate my mention of an arranged marriage into passing judgement on my personal character. Now, if some of you are strongly against arranged marriages why did you not speak up and discuss that _issue_? Because of my mention of an arranged marriage, Subburao decided in his mind that I must be a really big male chauvenist (perhaps even a polyogamist <--sarcasm). He is, of course entitled to his opinion. However, instead of defending his (supposed) stance against arranged marriages, he decided to make himself judge, jury and executioner and castigate me publicly on the net for my personal character. Subburao, where you get the right to make such a judgement and insult me (however cleverly wrapped in sarcasm it may have been)? Surprise, but I think women are human beings. Guess what, I genuinely want my wife to be happy, that is why I was asking advice for those that might be experienced in this special circumstances. If I was interested in "importing a piece of baggage" who I have really cared? I know that it is a tough adjustment to make and I would like to know if there is any way I can help her. I am trying to be as prepared as I can to meet the special needs that she will have (being new here) so that my marriage will be strong, satisfying and happy one for the *both* of us. Keep in mind, that I would also be part of this arranged marriage (I have as much at stake as her since I will not divorce). I AM **NOT** LOOKING FOR A LIVE-IN MAID EXCUSE ME for wanting to marry an Indian Bengali who can still speak the language, likes the food, feels strongly about family, thinks marriage is a lifelong commitment and not for temporary convenience, etc (like me). EXCUSE ME if I would like to marry someone with a tie in the country I was born in. Perhaps Subburao, you are surrounded by eligible women like this in the Bay Area that you can date, but that is not my case here in Indiana. Perhaps, some were a little too caught up in the "Women in the US..." thread. I am not involved in that. If anyone wants to file criticism against something I have *said*, go ahead. But please keep the accusations based on your stereotypical attitudes to yourself. --Surajit From ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu Sat Jun 29 18:40:32 1991 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 16:47:36 CDT From: ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Rama Ratnam) To: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S[on the hidden motives of the Pittsburgh Survey][Please Read] Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian In-Reply-To: <587@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> References: <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <579@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Ref your posting above. I was intrigued to get a similar letter from a Ms. Nita, claiming she is "Mr. Visvambara". "She" said that Visvamabara was "her" husband. I had raised the issue of the sex of "Mr Visvambara" in a posting which was a reply to that of Ms Uma Dutt. She was commenting on Mr Visvambaras article. It is not clear to me whether Ms Nita is also who "she" claims to be. I ignored that mail, coming to the conclusion that there was a deeper game that I didn't care to be involved in. Quite frankly, i found Ms Uma Dutts article also quite dubious. This is for your perusal only. Personally, I am in agreement with what you have posted. Its just that there are too many shady games being played in the net. Our friends from aacross the border are the more obvious ones, but there are Indians who are not averse to acting in peculiar ways. No need to reply. -ratnam -- ============================================================== Rama Ratnam, Theoretical Biophysics, Beckman Institute Dept of Biophysics, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu ============================================================== From karnik@aquinas.csl.uiuc.edu Sun Jun 30 09:53:01 1991 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 11:03:47 CDT From: karnik@aquinas.csl.uiuc.edu (Tanay Karnik) To: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu Dear Subbarao, I liked your mockery of the Institution of Indian marriages but forgot to save it. Can you please e-mail me that article ?? Thanks. -Tanay Karnik (karnik@aquinas.csl.uiuc.edu) From sachin@uivlsif.csl.uiuc.edu Sun Jun 30 09:53:08 1991 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 10:52:26 -0500 From: Sachin Sapatnekar To: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: offer of transcripts via anon. ftp [was Re: ' Arranged' and ' love' marriages. (was Re: marrying..)] Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian In-Reply-To: <588@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> References: <1991Jun30.001440.411@chewi.che.wisc.edu> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cc: In article <588@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> you write: >In article <1991Jun30.001440.411@chewi.che.wisc.edu> balarama@cae.wisc.edu writes: >> Would people >> like Mr Rao who are so dead against ' three way marriages ' please suggest >> viable alternatives for the Indian professionals here in the US who'd like to >> marry someone of their own kind? > >Mr. Prabhu: > > Please stop propagating this trite "Love" vs. "Arranged" Marriage >dichotomy, and trivializing the whole issue. If you can't do that, at >least please avoid associating my name with that stupid dichotomy. >Neither I nor anybody I know has tried to create or propagate such a >thing. In fact, I have actively distanced myself from it. > >The issue was being aware of implicit sexism of the practices that you >endorse, and being conscious of a spectrum rather than an artificial >dichotomy of choices out there. > >I have neither the patience nor the energy to repeat all the >arguments. To you, as well as others who might be interested, I would >like to pointout that the transcripts of the exchange on this topic, >which took place last year around this time on the net, can be >accessed via anonymous ftp from sunrise.stanford.edu (36.93.0.20). The >transcripts can be found in the directory "pub/rao" in the file >"arranged-sci" (be advised that it is about 60 pages long). > >Cheers >Rao >---------------- > > "Surely, combating this pervasive fatalism by fostering an appreciation > for the spectrum--rather than an artificial dichotomy--of choices, is > the most effective way of influencing the attitudes towards marriage." > I tried to ftp the file over and got a response of 'permission denied'. I could, however, successfully ftp the arranged-sci.postscript file. I don't think I would care to waste 60 pages of paper on it (save the environment ;-)), so pliss to rectify the problem with arranged-sci. Regs, Sachin From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sun Jun 30 13:06:48 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 12:59:42 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!surge >From: surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: sexism vs. arranged marriages Keywords: arranged marriage Message-ID: <1991Jun30.185719.28038@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 30 Jun 91 18:57:19 GMT Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 96 I have read a lot of the arranged marriage threads from last year, but the arguments are not convincing. The main "reasoning" for many people is anyone who is in favor of an arranged marriage and brings the wife to the US automatically thinks of the wife as being less than him, and plans to treat her according to this belief. In all the debates about the pros and cons of arrange marriages, I think people were confusing the highly sexist society present in India (and also to a lesser extent here) with the "arranged" part of the marriage. I agree that if the man goes to India and uses his wealth or "male" position to exploit the family of the woman, that is terrible. This is not part of the definition of "arranged" marriage. The reason this happens is because the man himself and the society around him is already firmly entrenched is sexist practices. It is not the result of the "arranged"-ness of the marriage. The man can just as easily try to use his wealth or "male" position to dominate his mate during and after a western style courtship and marriage. Accusing me of highly sexist practices because I am in favor of arranged marriages is like accusing a white who lives in the South for being in favor of racism and slavery. People seem to be forgetting that arranged marriages are an arrangement between TWO groups. The woman and her family also decides. If people think that the woman cannot reject a candidate, then they are mistaken in many cases (in my family and several others I have seen in India, the woman certainly has a veto power). I agree however that parents sometimes encourage a marriage when the woman is not sure. I am not interested in trying to "convert" any woman to the system of arranged marriage so I can take advantage of her. Besides, according to the prevailing line of reasoning on the net, a love marriage nearly ensures that both members of the couple are equals. Well, let's examine the social conditions here in America where arranged marriages are almost non-existant. Are both partners equal? If you look in the previous generations you will see the answer is NO (even though the love marriage system was used). If you look today at the fundamentalist Christian community, you will see male-domination and love marriages at the same time. So in summary, my point is this. Sexism comes from the attitudes of individuals and society. It is not perpetuated by arranged marrriages, matchmakers, or love marriages. The reason that there is less sexism in America today than before is because of shift in people's thinking. The reason there is so much sexism in India today is because the old notions are still held, not because people are matched together to be married. I can see people having an objection to my bringing a woman to this country away from her family. Let me say, I will make sure that she genuinely wants to come here. In fact, I will be sure to get all "core" issues settled. Is so hard to believe that someone would actually want to come here? Many people assumed that I would be dragging some poor woman against her will to this country. Look at yourselves. You all were dying to come here for an education and *most* of you have a great desire to stay here and work. If and when my arranged wife comes here, she will have the freedom to have a career and probably be more independent here than she could be in India's stifiling social structure. She will share my financial as well as emotional support (and I hers). I think this can hardly be equated to "importing a piece of baggage." I think too many of you have encapsulated the neutral system of arranged marriages into the big ball of Indian tradition sexist values. People in favor of arranged marriages become an easy visible target for those of you in the struggle of equal rights. What you *should* be targeting is some people's sexist ideas of a marriage itself (wife should serve husband, etc), not the manner in which they meet. Let me end by saying that those of you who think an arranged marriage consists of having a line of woman parade in front of the man and him saying "Yes, I'll take that one. Wrap her up, please", you are wrong. Keep in mind, that *I* will know as little about her personally as she knows about me. I have just as much at stake. I will be under the eyes of scrunity as much as her. My only "advantage" is that she is would be settling in this country. As far as the "wife market" concept goes, is the dating pool any different? If you are seriously dating, aren't you evaluating different people to see if they fit your criteria for a wife? Any system of marriage offers the sexist the opportunity to abuse and take advantage of his partner. I am very sorry if I don't fit into the nice little mold some of you had created for me. On the other, thank you to those that have supported me. --Surajit Mukherjee From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sun Jun 30 17:49:25 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 17:40:09 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao >From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Albert "Rao" ko gussaa kyoon aaatha hai [Last word and Explanation on the marrying in the old country thread] Summary: Staggeringly high tolerance levels for implicit sexism Message-ID: <590@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 30 Jun 91 23:13:51 GMT References: <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun30.042239.3353@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 225 [Finding one of *his* postings suddenly at the center of a swirling controversy, something that he hither to assumed to be the exclusive monopoly of folks like Mr. Saad Mir, Rao proceeds to make the best of his advantage of a captive audience.] Dear readers: Much has been made about my sarcastic send-off of the original "marrying in the old country" posting. There were a flurry of postings from people seemingly tickled by the send-off, suggesting sometimes that the original poster (OP) got what he deserved. And then, there was the usual backlash--with the original poster (OP) crying foul, and a coupla others questioning my motives, (with some even trying to *resurrect* the stupid dichotomy of "arranged vs. love" marriages.) I have no interest in addressing the plethora of side issues raised in these followups nor replaying the old discussions here. I shall restrict myself to just four points--1. what motivated my article? 2. is the tone justified 3. what did I expect to achieve and 4. what about the poor guy OP? I hope you give it the same attention you gave to my "send-off". Especially since, I feel that many of those who supported as well as those who opposed my position, have misunderstood it. Before I proceed, let me state in the clearest possible terms that 1. MY OBJECTION WAS NOT ABOUT OP'S PERSONAL VIEWS ABOUT MARRIAGE (ARRANGED OR OTHERWISE). (so all of you who want to turn it into a discussion about the merits of arranged marriages, please do so at your own time and expense.). 2. I am not interested in painting OP (original poster) as a monster of any sort. I have no reason to doubt his assertion that he was not being consciously sexist. So, without further adieu *******What motivated my article? I think Susan said it best in her followup (thanks, Susan!): "I believe Subbarao's post was in the nature of a spoof, highlighting the irony of discussing the problems of Indian-born women in the US as if they were just another piece of equipment which had to be 'adapted' to the foreign conditions." To understand this, note that the original article specifically asked *men*'s opinions on how the women they brought here fared: "I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here. Is there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown up in the States or lived over 10 years here." Is the tone of the message that of someone *sensitive* (if not in agreement) to the equality of sexes? Has the opinion(s) of women, or a conscious acknowledgement of their individuality entered anywhere in this piece? Shouldn't they? To those who think this piece of prose is not infested with loads of implicit sexism--would you be interested posting it to Soc.Women (you can change Indian to French or some such), and deal with the consequences? So, why is it that what is considered a very sexist and insensitive thing to say in other circles, gets passed off as common practice on this bboard (as well as in certain Indian gatherings)? Is it possible that our hidden biases equip us with a staggeringly high tolerance thresholds for sexism? The motivation behind my original send-off then was not to stifle dialogue on arranged marriages with self-satisfied smugness of a panjandrum with panaceas (sorry for disappointing you, Shyamala, Anay and Ratnam. Good try though! ;-). It was to attack this glaring implicit sexism in OP's message and our collective propensity to look the otherway and "give the benefit of the doubt". ******Why the "spanish inquisition"? You may then wonder--why did I not send a mail to OP and speak my mind out privately? The reason for that comes to the heart of the matter. If I though that the implicit sexism of OP's prose was just an isolated idiosyncrasy, and NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the prevalent attitudes of a significant number of Indians (male and female), then it would clearly be stupid to wage a public inquisition. It would be kinda like trying to argue with Saad Mir on the bboard, knowing fully well that nobody seriously agrees with his positions anyway, if you get my drift. Unfortunately however, the reality is that many of us *DO* indeed share this implicit bias. Indeed, the worst part of it all is that OP may not even have *realized* that he was being very insensitive! The very fact that many such sexist messages get passed off unchalleged fairly frequently on this very bboard (while people are tearing their brains out repeatedly splitting hairs betwixt fundamentalist vs. fanatic vs. pseudo-secular vs. neo-liberal vs. saad vs. mughal) lends credence to this. And, we don't need to go too far to check this out either! Just notice the fact that many people on the net, including Messrs. Ratnam, Shyamala and other balanced posters, have blythely glossed over the glaring sexism in the original message, and are bending over backwards to defend an imagined unjustified attack on OP's personal values. It is this--the fact that the said sexism is *implicit* and is not limited to OP, and not any special malice towards OP--that persuaded me to post that sendoff on the *net*. *****What do I plan to achieve? It is rather quixotic to say that I have specific goals for this single posting. There however is a theme behind many of my postings on these issues. At the very least, I am hoping to lower the currently prevalent tolerance thresholds for sexist postings. I would like for us to examine the oodles of implicit sexism that we tolerate and endorse, under the garb of "balanced attitude". This hopefully will raise the level of debate to a point where men as well as women can participate in a debate without compromising their self-respect. Look, we may not all have the same opinions about affirmative action, but should that allow us to start a posting with explicit racist/casteist statements? Similarly, we may not all have the same opinion about arranged marriages or feminism or what have you. But, that should not give us a right to go scot-free in making openly sexist statements. We cannot change personal attitudes of individuals. It is upto them. However, we should make sure that whenever they open their mouths, they do so with the understanding that our forum (or our social circle or our bhat gang) shares some common assumptions of equality between sexes. And that they will be challenged to defend positions that until now were thought completely a-okay. No, I am not a big fan of reform by hypocrisy. But, I think it beats the hell out of status quo--of endorsement of implicit sexism through silence. And, if the only thing that someone got from my send-off was a smug feeling of "one-up-personship" over the OP, then they obviously missed the point by *miles*. ******What about OP's personal feelings? Finally, a lot was made of the supposedly "unfair" way in which OP's name was affected. As I said earlier (as well as in personal messages to OP), I am sorry he felt hurt. But, is my sendoff really unfair 'n unjustified? I think not! I am sorry his feelings were hurt. But, dear readers, what about the feelings of *those* of us who have seen/born the bitter after-effects of the implicit sexism that the text of his message endorses? That OP is really probably a jolly good fella, or that he is not a regular reader of SCI, or even that he didn't spend that much time in dashing off his original message--all these--if true--could help me in empathizing with him after the fact. But, should his sloppiness and ignorance somehow buy him an automatic protection and benefit of doubt? Suppose Mr. X just arrived from India, and went and posted what he thought was an "innocent query" on to talk.politics: "Nettoors, I hear blacks are kinda dumb, is it true?" Do you expect the fact that his ignorance of the sensitivity of that issue, and the offensive nature of his posting, should somehow provide protection for him? Excuse me, but it is OP's obligation to be better informed about the common politeness and sensitivities. As an adult, he is assumed to know what he is endorsing/talking. That is the price he pays for being taken seriously! At the fag end of his/her opus, even my loyal opposition, Shyamala Parameswaran acknowledges this, albeit rather grudgingly: "I did wonder why he chose not to be more circumspect and phrase a question that would have fetched fewer umwarranted brick-bats. Why, OP, could you not have said something like 'you you were interested in the difficulties women immigrants faced as spouses?'" Let me assure Shyamala and others that the fact that OP didn't phrase his question this way, but the other way (and that people were still interested in letting it pass) HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH the rather high tolerance thresholds of implicit sexism in our collective consciousness, and in particular *THIS THREAD*. That is all folks. With a gentle reminder that the OP in the above posting could be me, you or your friend, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming of cows 'n bulls 'n DMK (or even the trite dichotomy of "arranged" vs. "love marriages." ;-) regards Rao retiring to polish his newest acquisition, a "Buddha's" halo kindly donated by that discriminating collector of halos, Rama Ratnam. ps: I also agree with Susan's concern, when she says (to Mr. Murphy): "Are you saying that *all* wives of Indian men are merely 'Mr. So-and-so's wife'?" [Indeed, if this were the case, there would be utter chaos and confusion! A better system would be to number them e.g.: 'Mr. So-and-so's wife#1'; 'Mr. So-and-so'swife#2' etc. etc.] Seriously, I fully share her concern about the follies of typecasting men or women. I happen to be an Indian man and I would *hate* to be pre-judged as sexist. pps: Recommended: "A Person Paper on Purity of Language", in Meta-magical Themas, by Douglas Hofstadter. A BRILLIANT sendoff of various varieties of implicit sexism. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sun Jun 30 18:17:13 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 15:20:35 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u15297 >From: U15297@uicvm.uic.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Marrying in the Old Country Message-ID: <91181.050121U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> Date: 30 Jun 91 10:01:21 GMT Article-I.D.: uicvm.91181.050121U15297 Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Lines: 88 Contrary to replies critiquing my post and stoutly defending the stance taken by Subbarao Kambhampati, I maintain that Surajit Mukherjee raised a query eliciting a genuine response. This notion of mine was amply confirmed by his subsequent post and response to Rao. For the sake of clarity I reproduce, in entirety, his original post: < I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of < marrying a girl from India (arranged) and bringing her here. Is < there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown < up in the States or lived over 10 years here. I am concerned < about adjustment, etc. < Please e-mail responses. < Thanks, < Surajit Mukherjee First, I know neither Surajit nor Subbarao. Next, why I feel Surajit deserved better. I sincerely feel he asked a straight question. I see nothing in the above poster to indicate otherwise. Whether his airing a personal concern, with some unfortunate choice of words, was judicious, is not at issue here. I shall refer to it later. However, I see no 'attitude' here as suggested by some. It is certainly not uncommon for Indians, both first and second generation, to desire alliances with Indian women. One, demographics in the U.S. determine that those seeking such alliances widen their scope to include India. Second, finding a partner from 'the old country' has gone on since Indians arrived here. This hardly departs from customary practices in India itself where all kinds of negotiations take place from various points culminating in relocation. That women usually relocate to accomodate the interests of men certainly merits inquiry into structural constraints and institutionalised gender differences. But that would be side-stepping the concern here. I really see no need for sanctimonious and ridiculing postures. Choice, and such that of Surajit's, albeit personal, is something that affects all our lives. The question posed seems to me not so much to require how one arrived at such a choice nor the processes of cognitive reasoning to include a 'spectrum' and the like (eminently desirable, I agree, though I would add that that the 'spectrum' itself is constrained by excluding other forms: cohabitation, choosing to stay single etc...), but rather one of having made a choice, what next. The 'what next' arena is encumbered with dilemmas, doubts and hazards. Not to be treated lightly when speaking of humans, I agree, but Surajit's point was just that. There are difficulties in relocation, adaptation and coping regardless of gender. Whether women transferring residence from natal to marital households are more subject to strain opens up a forum for lively discussion. But I shall restrict my desire to indulge. Anyway, we have before us a gentleman who seeks to be informed in an area that is problematic. For a female spouse whose relocation will mean moving to an alien country (unless she has visited here before) and living under a new set of conditions that are markedly different than it would have been had she relocated within the same country. Furthermore, Surajit explicitly asked for private mail. Neither were his wishes respected nor were there any checks in outpourings, sarcastic or otherwise, in an open forum. The power and use of arbitrary inferences leaves me astounded. One happy person merrily proffered advice on dating to find a soulmate by recounting personal success on that front. Another respondent questioned my maturity/sanity in my inability to comprehend the nuances in the text supplied by Subbarao and further, in my being passe. How could I have not inferred the same from the very first poster? I admit I was remiss in that the sarcasm escaped me. Particularly in the light of information substantiated by the Apna Ghars, Manavis and so on, I felt the issue at hand deserved nothing short of a pragmatic, helping response. Subbarao's points on "Fatalism in Attitudes towards Marriage, Compromises and Compatibility" are well taken. I was not, however, prepared for the extent of his following. It seems to me we should have let Surajit stew for having asked the question. I did wonder why he chose not to be more circumspect and phrase a question that would have fetched fewer umwarranted brick-bats. Why, Surajit, could you not have said something like 'you you were interested in the difficulties women immigrants faced as spouses?' In a more urgent macro-vision of desirable social change one can hardly lose sight of the here-and-now by reducing it to a mockery. No boubt we need the Cho Ramaswamy's and Laxman's but, really, is there THE WORD that can be ftp'd on any subject? If change is dynamic, so is dialogue. dialogue. Any other belief to the contrary can only foster a smugness and distance. I fear I am not very sanguine about rebuttals that deny the benefit of the doubt to any individual. Shyamala Parameswaran From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sun Jun 30 18:21:00 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 12:06:30 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!bcm!rice!susanc >From: susanc@rice.edu (susan chacko) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country Keywords: marriage, chauvenism, point-of-view Message-ID: Date: 30 Jun 91 17:34:35 GMT References: <1991Jun26.165654.15809@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Lines: 32 In defence of Indian men :-) murphy@altair (Michael L. Murphy) writes: >The reason I responded to this article, I, who am neither Indian nor >have been to India, is this: My girlfriend, whom I have been dating >for 10 months, came to the US from India in June '90. She had lived >in India all her life, but very quickly adjusted to customs here (as >can be witnessed in the fact that we started dating in August.) She >has had Indian male admirers, both here and in India - but she wanted >more. She wants knowledge, she wants adventure, but most of all, she >wants to be her own person, and not merely "Mr. So-and-so's wife". While I agree with the general tenor of your initial remarks (i.e, that women want to be treated as persons) I think you're extrapolating your girlfriend's feelings to some rather unfair conclusions. Are you saying that all wives of Indian men are merely 'Mr. So-and-so's wife'? Or that all Indian men treat Indian women as 'Indian females', rather than persons in their own right? Or that Indian men are the only people capable of stereotyping? Seems like some flagrant stereotyping going on here! I'm glad you and Anuradha found each other, and the best of luck to both of you, but please don't use her experiences to typecast all of us, men and women alike. On behalf of all the wonderful Indian and non-Indian men I know, none of whom had any problem treating me as a person, Susan. -- .....susanc@rice.edu or susanc@keckiris.rice.edu......... Subbarao: i have no desire to discuss the merits of 'arranged' or 'love' or whatever marriages. certainly i abhor sexism, implied or otherwise, in the US or anywhere. i am especially incensed by violence towards women anywhere. however, like some other netters, i don't think the original poster intended coercion or duress in his marriage plans. certainly i did not read any of this in his posting. in fact, given that he is going this route, for whatever reason, i think his attitude and desire for information are much superior to the attitudes of most males, indian or otherwise. regards, Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!lisboa!ratnam >From: ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Rama Ratnam) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Keywords: marriage, chauvenism, point-of-view Message-ID: <1991Jun30.042239.3353@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 30 Jun 91 04:22:39 GMT References: <584@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jun29.060346.22772@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Rama Ratnam) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lines: 75 In article <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> murphy@altair (Michael L. Murphy) writes: >.... >a woman is much more than this, that love and marriage are not >merely goals to be obtained, but a freely chosen commitment between >two people? Regarding the original article, I think Mukherjee has had an unnecessarily rough time. His article never addressed the aspect of selection or marriage per se, but only the problems of adjustment. If his concerns were genuine, as I have every reason to believe they are, then all the postings in reply, do him and his concerns injustice. He as a foreigner in this country will bring a bride who knows nothing of this place, and, as he has indicated, himself knows very little about her. Don't we (the married ones at least) owe him the decency of responding to the issue instead of pulling rabbits out of a top-hat? That man may be worried sick that his bride will be unhappy, and we are so churlish that we choose to mock his concerns. Why did Subbarao attack this issue in the first place? Does the newly found freedom in this country so intoxicate him that he chooses to wear the halo of a Buddha? If he had raised this issue separately, without making it a reply to Mukherjee's posting - I would have found it appropriate. As it is, Mukherjee is at the center of a storm that is not his doing. Now, to Murphy .... > .......[stuff deleted].............. >I fell in love with her because of her beauty and strength. She fell >in love with me, well, I have a hard time guessing why sometimes, but >I think it was a combination of persistence :) and the fact that I >was perhaps the first man to treat her as a person, and not merely as >an "Indian female", not even as an "Indian female who has been to the >US to study". >I was unaware of these stereotypes when I met her, and so >I fell in love with her, not with an image of what she was supposed to >be, as so many other boys had done with her. And she loved me back, >because finally, here was someone who saw her, and not the stereotype. This is undeserved. If in a single stroke you have abolished the notion of the established image of an Indian women, then at the same time you have created the stereotype of an Indian male. This is perhaps the reason why americans tend to view all Arabs with suspicion and every third world nation as something distasteful. The american is not comfortable unless someone conforms to his view of what that person should be. >I ask two things of the people reading this. First, examine your own >views of the world around you. Are you seeing people as people, or as >pre-formed images? Put yourself in their place, and by doing so, you >may understand their positions better. If you like her, for gods sake marry her. Don't use it as an excuse to raise yourself on a pedestal. > Second, wish Anuradha and me the >best of luck - she is in India for the summer, and her family and >friends are just now finding out how close we really are. I hope that >I am accepted in India - the next time she goes there, I go with her. All the best. I hope you will be accepted, and I hope that your society too will accept her. Have fun! It is a wonderful thing to be married. >-Michael Murphy--------------+ -ratnam -- ============================================================== Rama Ratnam, Theoretical Biophysics, Beckman Institute Dept of Biophysics, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!lisboa!ratnam >From: ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Rama Ratnam) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Albert "Rao" ko gussaa kyoon aaatha hai [Last word and Explanation on the marrying in the old country thread] Message-ID: <1991Jul1.010512.21472@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 1 Jul 91 01:05:12 GMT References: <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun30.042239.3353@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <590@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Sender: ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Rama Ratnam) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lines: 34 You have made your point all too clearly. I however still think that you should have posted the said article with no reference to OP. The reason being that it was very difficult (for me at least) to decide whether the tone was sexist. My first instinct was to submit an article bashing the notion and his attitude, although I would have used different means. But, I did spend time thinking about it and could come to no clear conclusion. When I framed my reply to your posting, I too, like Shyamala, wished that he had rephrased his posting a little differently. The only reason that led me to defend him was that I am married and my wife is here with me. It can be an extremely depressing experience, and there are genuine adjustmewnt problems. Please note, it does not matter whether the marriage is arranged or otherwise. In fact I would say its likely to be much worse in the former case as she would hardly know him. I decided that adjustment was an important problem for married people, and since i could not determine what his attitudes were, I felt that his posting was relevant and serious. What irritated me about your posting was, that at any other time it would have been appropriate. It made good reading, it enabled us to see ourselves warts and all, and addressed an important issue in a manner that made easy reading. But, it was targeted at the wrong person. Regarding the reference to the halo of the Buddha. My apologies, I stooped to attacking the man instead of the issue. I withdraw the remark. -ratnam -- ============================================================== Rama Ratnam, Theoretical Biophysics, Beckman Institute Dept of Biophysics, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign ratnam@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sun Jun 30 19:34:47 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 19:32:49 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!symcom!murphy >From: murphy@symcom (Michael L. Murphy) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <1991Jul1.021546.26520@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 1 Jul 91 02:15:46 GMT References: <30JUN91162534@acad3.alaska.edu> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Distribution: usa Organization: Math Dept., University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Lines: 37 In article <30JUN91162534@acad3.alaska.edu> ftdks1@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >And what do you think Mr Murphy about American males? >They are not sexist?? Oh yes, some American males are definitely sexist. I have seen it. I speak out against it when I do see it, trust me. And it is also quite obvious to me that some Indian males are not sexist, and that they speak out against sexism when they see it. Bravo to those men and women who do! (Susan Chacko, I am sorry if I appeared to be making sweeping generalizations of Indian males. I was simply trying to bring to light an attitude of sexism that is all too prevalent here in sci. It would be folly to fall into the same error that I was trying to correct in someone else, but I have done foolish things before. My apologies to the entire Indian male readership of sci, or at least those who are _not_ sexist. :) ) Rao summs up brilliantly his reasons for posting his article against the "OP" in his last post. I believe that this is the final word on the subject. I am in complete concordance with what he stated in that post. I admire him for standing up for what he believes, and for doing so intelligently and eloquently. He deserves praise for what he has done, not a lot of flak. I could summarize what he had to say, but not without ruining it's impact. Re-read this article. It really has a lot to say. As _my_ final word, I realize that it is difficult for me to criticize sexist attitudes in this forum without appearing to be the "outsider", who really does not understand the ways of Indian society, such as arranged marriages. I suppose this is to be expected. But by watching and listening, I hope to become better educated. The more I see and read of Indian society, the more of its beauty, richness, and history is revealed to me, and the more I can appreciate it. I am constantly learning. I will continue to learn. -- +-Murphy's law: The amount of bugs present-+-Michael Murphy--------------+ | in your program is directly proportional | murphy@symcom.math.uiuc.edu | | to the time you've spent working on the | mm20302@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | +-damn thing.------------------------------+-----------------------------+ From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Sun Jun 30 20:26:07 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 19:32:49 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!symcom!murphy >From: murphy@symcom (Michael L. Murphy) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <1991Jul1.021546.26520@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 1 Jul 91 02:15:46 GMT References: <30JUN91162534@acad3.alaska.edu> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Distribution: usa Organization: Math Dept., University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Lines: 37 In article <30JUN91162534@acad3.alaska.edu> ftdks1@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >And what do you think Mr Murphy about American males? >They are not sexist?? Oh yes, some American males are definitely sexist. I have seen it. I speak out against it when I do see it, trust me. And it is also quite obvious to me that some Indian males are not sexist, and that they speak out against sexism when they see it. Bravo to those men and women who do! (Susan Chacko, I am sorry if I appeared to be making sweeping generalizations of Indian males. I was simply trying to bring to light an attitude of sexism that is all too prevalent here in sci. It would be folly to fall into the same error that I was trying to correct in someone else, but I have done foolish things before. My apologies to the entire Indian male readership of sci, or at least those who are _not_ sexist. :) ) Rao summs up brilliantly his reasons for posting his article against the "OP" in his last post. I believe that this is the final word on the subject. I am in complete concordance with what he stated in that post. I admire him for standing up for what he believes, and for doing so intelligently and eloquently. He deserves praise for what he has done, not a lot of flak. I could summarize what he had to say, but not without ruining it's impact. Re-read this article. It really has a lot to say. As _my_ final word, I realize that it is difficult for me to criticize sexist attitudes in this forum without appearing to be the "outsider", who really does not understand the ways of Indian society, such as arranged marriages. I suppose this is to be expected. But by watching and listening, I hope to become better educated. The more I see and read of Indian society, the more of its beauty, richness, and history is revealed to me, and the more I can appreciate it. I am constantly learning. I will continue to learn. -- +-Murphy's law: The amount of bugs present-+-Michael Murphy--------------+ | in your program is directly proportional | murphy@symcom.math.uiuc.edu | | to the time you've spent working on the | mm20302@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | +-damn thing.------------------------------+-----------------------------+ Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u15297 >From: U15297@uicvm.uic.edu Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Albert "Rao" ko gussaa kyoon aaatha hai [Last word and Explanation Message-ID: <91182.082654U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> Date: 1 Jul 91 13:26:54 GMT Article-I.D.: uicvm.91182.082654U15297 References: <1991Jun29.212928.9146@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun30.042239.3353@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <590@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jul1.044921.25208@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Lines: 114 In article <1991Jul1.044921.25208@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, surge@en.ecn.purdue.edu (PhD-in-Training) says: > >In article <590@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao >Kambhampati) writes: >>To understand this, note that the original article specifically asked >>*men*'s opinions on how the women they brought here fared: >> >Subburao, you of all people, with your overwhemelingly public >display of the mastery of the english language...how could you >misunderstand the use of my noun here? > >> "I am a bengali who has grown up in the US and I am thinking of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> there anyone who has done this? The man should have either grown > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> up in the States or lived over 10 years here." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >This was limit my question to marriages where the man was fairly >"westernized." Your decision that I was asking only for a man's >opinion must surely come from your own imagination. > >I do, however, apologize for using the word `girl' to refer to women. Listen, Surajit, I'm going to do some hard talking here so buckle up! I've been supportive all along that the main concern of adjustment in your note got treated in a cavalier fashion. Intially, I wanted to react to you about your phraseology but let it pass. Now, I've had enough of you not wanting to call a spade..... so here goes: Your original poster stank! That you chose to announce to several thousands your personal decision is your own problem.....I'll even stretch so far and say, 'OK, the personal is political' and go along with that one. BUT, who do you think you are? YOU think you are 'westernized' whatever THAT means. I think you are not. Not even 'modern', which is what I think you mean. Anyway, the guessing game is over. How can you be enlightened when you say 'girl' or 'bringing her back' ? Do you realize how patronizing that sounds? Ok, so you want to MARRY this girl. Big deal. You speak of a person, a WOMAN, one who has her own thoughts and feelings, and NOT a doormat you can bring back. You call this kind of talk 'westernized'? Try this line on some of your friends from this country. >>But, should his sloppiness and ignorance somehow buy him an automatic >>protection and benefit of doubt? > >I am not looking for special treatment, but you whole discourse and >attack is based entirely on your personal ASSUMPTIONS about me. You >felt yourself so qualified as to instantly appraise me. Besides my >unfortuante use of `girl' you have yet to >demonstrate one shred of evidence to support any of the outlandish >claims you have made about me. Where is the support for your statement >that my original post was "festering with sexism"? Your lack of evidence >is proven by the ridiculous statement you made above about my wanting >only a man's opinion. > >>As an adult, he is assumed to >>know what he is endorsing/talking. Your phraseology is what Subbarao called sloppy. I'll call it lousy! As for the 'assumptions' he makes and not knowing his facts, I'll say even I, in my attention to your real query, overlooked that. You think your asking others in the same boat...'westernized' men who had married and transported the 'girl' back was NOT sexist? I'll tell you why it is and why Subbarao got angry. You ask about other people's wives, yes you ask about WOMEN, but ask that info from MEN. As if men are the owners and keepers of these 'girls' they have married! Did it even occur to you that these WOMEN AS WIVES of so-called 'westernized' pipsqueaks might have something to say for themselves?? For that matter why does it have to be married women only? Any Indian woman here would be well qualified to speak on the subject.....unless you think they are to be discounted because they are single and NOT married to 'westernized' men. YOU get your facts straight before you accuse others. Mr. X just arrived from >>India, and went and posted what he thought was an "innocent query" on >>to talk.politics: >> >> "Nettoors, I hear blacks are kinda dumb, is it true?" > >Perhaps you *wish* I had said this but I said nothing of the kind. If >someone were to ask, "Is Harlem, NYC a dangerous place to live at?", >you would be wrong to go calling that person a racist. > >At any rate, I am willing to end this flamefest also. I think >everyone knows where I and Subburao stand so let's let people >make their own decision. > >--OP Again, you display limited ability in facing the problem. What Subbarao was trying to do was to illustrate how insensitive people can be. Your rejoinder about Harlem was way off. From his detailed write-up it would be apparent to anybody (why isn't it to you) that Subbaro is not standing atop a pedestal distributing flyers, 'you are a racist, you are a sexist..' My last word of caution to you as fellow Indian would be: please learn to examine your thoughts, attitudes and language objectively. Acknowledging mistakes is the first sign of growing up. In this regard it not Subbarao who lacks adulthood but it is you. But I do not want to leave this on a bitter note. I sincerely hope you'll think about all that his been said and realize things. Best wishes to you and your spouse-to-be. Shyamala Parameswaran Rao, I think I was one of the persons who misses your point by miles, as you put it. I admit that I did not see the sexism involved in OP's posting. I merely thought it was very funny, to ask in a public forum about such matters which are entirely personal. Living with a husband/wife entirely depends on one's nature, willingness to adjust, other views, etc. and the net (or any other forum, for that matter) cannot help in any manner. BUT, given that he wanted to have some opinions on this matter, how do you suggest he should have posted? Should he have said : "I need opinions from men/women who have been here > 10 years...". Would you have tolerated this posting if it had been phrased such? I felt I would still have considered the posting stupid. Although one would (ideally) like to view men and women as being alike in ALL respects,one cannot deny that there are some physio-biological differences, and the OP may have liked to know in particular how women have adjusted to this env. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Mon Jul 1 14:14:38 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 14:14:04 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsh!rsd >From: rsd@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (rajiv.s.dighe) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Marriages-a dynamic programming approach Keywords: Arranged marriages, three-way ticket, etc Message-ID: <1991Jul1.202138.14800@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> Date: 1 Jul 91 20:21:38 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 82 Looks like 'tis the season for the "arranged marriage" and the three-way ticket debate (as every seasoned netter knows, there are only 5 actual topics in SCI, and periodically an AI program in CMU and/or Stanford wakes one up, and away we go). Subbarao has his view and does not hesitate to air them. The last time this topic came up, I had a view and did hesitate to air it mostly because of reasons that have nothing to do with the net. This time around I have my .02$ ready. The scientific solution: *********************** Actually the problem of choosing an optimal bride is a solved one. I can even refer you to a text-book for the solution. (See "Dynamic Programming" by Bertsekas and look at a set of algorithms called "Stop-&-Go" algorithms). The basic algorithm is this: Suppose you decide that you are going to look at N possible spousal candidates. One of the premise of the algorithm is that you cannot go back on a decision, so if you said no to somebody that was it. Further tweaking of the algorithm is possible if you remove this constraint, but leads to mathematical intractibility. Anywho, decide on N, decide on your criterion for choosing... (Best legs, best earning potential, minimizing squared error of compatibility mismatch (known to be convex and hence has a global minimum) or whatever....) Once we have fixed these two, take the square root of N. These are the set of training candidates. >From the set of training candidates, decide which is the best. Note that the first N sup (1/2) are thus wasted, i.e., only observed and not taken seriously. Decide who is the best of this set and marry the first one who is better than the best in this set. Your probability of having chosen the best of N is about 40% for even a modest N (say 10)... Now, that is a pretty good choosing criterion even Rao will admit. I mean 40% hit rate is as good as one in this dicy bizness. Back to a more serious note: Our society has brought us up in such a way that it is "correct" to think about our education, about our goals and about our careers but it is improper to think about what kind of mate one wants in life. Hence most of us dont have the foggiest idea of what kind of a person one wants to spend our lives with. We are thus extremely unprepared for the "arranged" marriage and its consequences. Any attempt to sensitize ourselves to our complete unpreparedness in this area is I think good. With age and grad school and loneliness one begins to convince oneself that life is a compromise and that one can get along with anybody and the choice of your lifemate is not critical. Fool that one is, one does not realize that advanced age makes it more and more difficult for you to change or compromise. So we now have two effects, loneliness & age -> 'ready for compromises" syndrome, while in reality age and compromises are not really easy. And you have moved further and further away from mainsteam India. Unfortunately all the power is in your hand and you could very easily make or break an innocent life because of your thoughtlessness and/or inability to change. Furthermore it is very easy for you to start expecting the other person to change. I mean you are not the one who is displaced emotionally or geographically. Hence, I applaud Rao's attempt to sensitize the readers of the net on the gravity of the problem. All I can say is that there is nothing wrong with marriages-arranged or otherwise but it is good for everybody to do some serious introspection on what kind of life-partners they want to be with. and yes, a lot of us will get married through the three-way ticket mostly because there really are not that many potential life-partners available in our day-to-day existence. Just like you wrote down your career goals or future plans, spend some time on doing the same for your personal life. Even though it sounds too clinical, introspection has some merits... Rajiv -- The Reasonable Man adjusts himself to the world, the Unreasonable One persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw, "Man & Superman" rajiv.dighe@att.com 908-949-5197 Rao, This is in reference to the current debate on USSI (previously on SCI) about a query (sexist ??) posted on SCI by a poster. Should one be measured against some absolute correctness model, against the prevailing correctness model in the society one lives, or against the prevailing correctness model in the society one grows up ? I think it has to be a combination of the last two. I remember a story about one of the Indian students here who was being interviewed by those people from Maryland English Institute (MEI) as part of the English test that one has to clear for becoming a TA. He was asked what all other members in his family do. He said that his mother was housewife, a term all of us have used, without realizing what it means. (I still don't quite understand what is wrong with the term, it is just that this society has given negative connotation to it.) The interviewer was almost violent in her protest to the usage, and this guy, fresh off the boat, had no clue regarding what hit him. He learnt that day that it is politically correct to use "homemaker" while talking to western audience. It is, of course, important to point out to people that the model of correctness they have grown up with has serious flaws, that it is based on inequality, sexism, etc. But being harsh to someone who is most probably naive, and does not realize that he is making a mistake, is not quite right. If a person has been raised all his life to refer to women as girls, one must try to pursuade, as gently as possible, that calling adult women "girls" show that he does not consider them mature and all that. I am sure that this will lead to the effectiveness argument. Your style on SCI has been quite effective in the masses (though it may not have been popular with Atri Indiresan, Arun Gupta, Sunil Arya and others). But, should you be only concerned with the goals, and not at all with the means. Should one be made scapegoat so that people on the sidelines can learn? I think there has to be a balance between effectiveness and fairness, and in my opinion, you too often draw a line too close to effectiveness, in almost complete disregard to fairness. I am not trying to suggest that there was nothing wrong with the original posting that started the whole thread. It definitely had the intonations of sexism in it. But looking at just that posting, I don't think he deserved the response he got from you. Of course, his refusal to see your view-point, and continually insisting that there was nothing wrong in it, vindicate your presumptions, but the fact remains that you were being presumptuous to begin with. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Tue Jul 2 11:04:30 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 08:49:30 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!susanc >From: susanc@rice.edu (susan chacko) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Indian Women in U.S[on the hidden motives of the Pittsburgh Survey][Please Read] Message-ID: Date: 2 Jul 91 13:57:47 GMT References: <587@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <592@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas Lines: 46 rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >But, does this really mean that a pittsburgh survey appearing in Eves >Weekly will have as negligible an effect on the society as the >Balachander's movie about calf-love? >Unfortunately not! What you overlook is the essential "HYSTERISIS" in >the way humans allow external factors to influence them--How much >influence we get from a particular source depends rather closely on >how close the advocated philosophy is to our value system. >..... Quite a newsgroup, this. I keep away from it for all of 24 hours, and in the meantime there are only about 100 messages on the topic of arranged marriages, Subbarao has expounded at length on his favourite topics and has then retired, Dorai has written him an oratorical obituary, Subbarao has risen again for a brief moment, the interminable cows and bulls have paled into an insignificant minor topic....phew! Well, given that Subbarao has retired and no-one else has posted on this topic, is there any point in me posting this? On the other hand, can I resist this opportunity to have what may well be the last word, unattacked by scathing sarcasm :-)? Oh well. The hysteresis point is well taken, and I do agree that people internalize facts and situations that support their own predetermined value judgements, but do they really get these facts from Eve's Weekly? EW, when last heard of (and I admit that was ages ago) was more suited to supporting value judgements on the efficacy of nail polish removers than serious life-determining issues. Do I underestimate them? Do you actually hear people quoting an EW survey to bolster their opinions on women's independence? Or is it more like 'You saw what happened to Muthukrishnan's daughter, she tried to work after she had a baby and her family fell apart.' I suppose *newspaper* reports on the growing numbers of working women with families might have more impact, but I'm not sure about that either. I'm not saying that surveys in print have no effect at all, but that it takes a vast collection of such surveys, in a variety of magazines/papers, to cause a change in collective opinion. Susan. -- .....susanc@rice.edu or susanc@keckiris.rice.edu......... From rao@sunrise.stanford.edu Tue Jul 2 11:05:28 1991 Return-Path: Full-Name: Subbarao Kambhampati Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:54:35 PDT From: rao@sunrise.stanford.edu (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: ussi@cs.umd.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!titan.rice.edu!dorai >From: dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Velli Vasthaanu/Au Revoir (*not* Asthra sanyas, though ;-) Message-ID: <1991Jul2.033438.12230@rice.edu> Date: 2 Jul 91 03:34:38 GMT References: <597@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University, Houston Lines: 54 In article <597@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) writes: >This is just to mention that the time has come for me to move on from >the active membership of sci. The 1.5 years of my active The Fall of Bhishma The noble son of Ganga had routed the armies of sci, chasing them all the way to their very camps. "All is lost," moaned Arun K. Gupta, "The flower of sci is being slaughtered by the thousands. Ten days have we waged battle, but the great Bhishma shows no mercy, even though he knows we hold him in the highest esteem." The Lord Neeraj Bhatnagar consoled the weary Arun, "Be not despondent, illustrious son of Kunti. Do not be swayed by false respect. The evil Bhishma is your foe. We shall kill him ere sundown today yet, if you will but gather up your courage. Have the noble Shyamala Parameswaran lead the forces into the fray. Bhishma will not flame her. He is a feminist." Racked with endless doubt and agony about battling his kinsman, Arun commanded his army into the field, and the skillful Shyamala at the head offered battle to the veteran Bhishma by unleashing a volley of arrows. The son of Ganga, winded by the fresh assault from an unexpected quarter, turned to face the new enemy, only to freeze in his tracks at the sight of the redoubtable Shyamala. The latter was equally demoralized and lost her will. "I cannot fight this noble man," she cried, "He has a great following. He is very popular. He is too." So saying, she prepared to leave the field. The alert Neeraj shouted to Arun, "This is your moment. Shoot the man now." "But," dithered the Arun to his charioteer slash battle- strategist, "the man before me is more than friend to me. Many is the time that we battled as one against the enemies of Indraprastha. How can I attack him now?" "Stop pussyfooting around," screamed Neeraj in anger, "Would you really have us all destroyed so that you can indulge in the silly luxury of sentimantiliy. This moment will never arrive again. Shoot." And shoot Arun did. The arrows penetrated the shield and armor plate of the veteran warrior, and he rolled to the ground -- "like a ceiling fan with a screw loose," says the poet Vyasa. "These are not Shyamala's arrows," said the mortally wounded Bhishma, astounded at the searing pain caused by the three-way arrows, "They are too full of statistics and odd facts from the library to be from anybody other than Arun. Neeraj, you have made Arun shoot me!" But there was no rancor in his voice. Thus it was, that on the tenth day of the Bharata war, great Bhishma fell. July 1, 1991 Dear Rao, I was intrigued, entertained and educated by the discussion on the 3 way ticket marriage et. al. on sci. Needless to say, I ftp'ed the whole record from your machine immediately (sorry about the cycles :-), and perused it in one sitting last night. As someone rather unqualified to participate in the discussion (now, since when has that stopped anyone?), I have kept a low profile, but, I feel, now that everything has blown over, it might be a good idea to see what has really been achieved. Clearly, there seem to be two distinctly different schools of thought, and any middle ground, if any, has been obscured by the long-range Nintendo battle. I do believe that many of the participants on both sides raised many important points. The most important points that you and those in your camp raised were the importance of sensitivity, of treating women as people with a mind of their own, and their right to be treated as individuals. The opposing camp largely considered the 3-way ticket marriage as a fact of life, given their choice in location and career in the US, and also believed strongly in the strength of traditional, arranged marriages. Given the skewed demographics of Indians in the US, obviously, few men will be able to find spouses in the US (assuming, of course, that they wish to have an Indian wife). The obvious (and easy) alternative, is the 3-way ticket marriage. You have repeatedly stated that there aren't really just two choices, but a spectrum of choices. I am afraid you have failed to show that. All the alternatives you have proposed just amount to quantitative, rather than qualitative differences - more trips to India, 10 way marriages, spend more time in India etc. Now, most of us have spent lots of time in regions with this kind of skewed demographics - namely first the IITs and now the US. Any male who wishes to win the heart of a female under these circumstances needs, more than anything else, to be an excellent communicator and aggressive (now, by aggressive, I do not mean obnoxiously so - I am sure you understand me on this point). Their 'success' with women will depend more on their ability to project themselves, than any intrinsic virtues they may possess (I do not claim that they do not possess other significant virtues, but, these might be secondary to what is more obviously visible). A case of survival of the fittest, perhaps? Many, for whatever reason, are not even willing to enter the 'battle'. Even if they wanted to, given the traditional upbringing of most of us, few have the required social skills to do full justice to the effort. Given the already unfavorable odds, the battle is probably lost even before it is begun. Why do Indian women put up with the humiliation of the 3-way ticket marriage? Maybe, for the same reason we are willing to queue up at the US consulate all night, kowtow to the great white man who controls our destiny. Many leave India in search of knowledge, and stay away for a different life, one of glamour and excitement and wealth. Perhaps many women are attracted by the same prospect. Many Indian women are conditioned from birth that their greatest achievement in life would be to make a brilliant match, and what better opportunity than a well heeled man in the land of milk and honey? Using a very crude metaphor, Indian men in the US are buying in a sellers market, but, in India, find themselves in a buyers market. The obvious follows. In what sense can we expect the Indian male in the US to be more liberal, modern, or Westernized? Maybe, encountering more women professionally and socially helps him develop more social skills and to look at women as people. Would he expect a potential bride in India to have the qualities that he has got used to seeing in western women - independence, self-esteem? Is he willing to permit her that? Does his manner of selecting his bride as a filly in a horse market automatically make him think less of her? How does the system really work? Are Indian women, in general, better off in terms of self worth married to our GC holder, or to someone in India? The answers to all these questions are likely to be as numerous and varied as the number of individuals involved. So, I have asked many questions. What, if any, are my answers? Indian men, as a rule, for very good reasons, prefer Indian wives. Nothing unusual there. We all agree that demographics preclude their finding their own brides in the US, and compulsions of career preclude an extensive search in India (even an extended stay in India is no guarantee of any kind of success in this endeavor). So, we use the 'old boy network', namely, the much maligned parents, whose dearest wish it is to see you happily married. So, you provide your parents your requirements, perhaps, they add theirs, and in your brief visit to the homeland, you are presented with the not necessarily pleasant task of making a selection. What can you do to make this procedure as civilized and considerate to all concerned? A few simple rules: - do treat every woman you meet with every courtesy - never be in a hurry. If your 'shortlist' already has too many women in it for your timeframe (yes, give it more time, you are probably going to make a lifelong commitment), you are probably already going wrong. - your meeting with them should be a two-way street. Give them a chance to say what they want in life. Listen. Let them ask you about yourself. Be honest with them. Surprise! It might really help! I am sure there are many more I have left out, but this gives the general idea. --------------- An aside on a different, but related, tack. For most of us, marriage is the first time a person has made this kind of commitment. S/he may not have put in as much time as (as a netter pointed out) in the purchase of a new car, but the level and expectation of commitment is much higher. Yes, whether you agree or not, the man has done more than acquire a piece of furniture to adorn his home. Is there any way we can hope to predict how a man will treat his wife, given that there is no precedent? Actually, in most cases there is a 'precedent'. Most, if not all, have shared an apartment with others at some point as a grad student. Now, before you reach for your flame thrower, I do recognize the enormous differences. The most important is that sharing an apartment is usually an arrangement of convenience, and much less effort has been made in the selection. The level of commitment is lower. Independence is much greater. If it doesn't work out, we can always find someone else next year. In any case, each person will go his/her own way in the next 2-5 years. However, I do believe that the consideration a person shows for his/her roommates is indicative of how they will treat their spouses. A good friend/colleague who believes that looking after an apartment is an imposition, is unlikely to change his/her views after marriage. Perhaps, a person who respects the independence and individuality of another sharing the same roof could be expected to treat a spouse with similar regard? Could we treat this portion of our life as a training field for a better future? ----------------------------- The discussion so far on sci has generated more heat than light (but where there is heat, there must be light :-). Perhaps, I have just added some smoke. To summarize, I do not see a 'spectrum of alternatives' to the 3-way ticket marriage, nor have I seen anything in the discussion so far that has even remotely articulated this concept, beyond stating that it exists. Given the framework, I believe it is up to the men here to make the process as civilized and equitable as possible. Sorry, I have nothing earthshaking to offer. I have sketchily outlined my ideas on life with roommates as a precursor to married life. If you like the idea, I am sure you could articulate it better than I. I'd appreciate your comments on it. P.S. Obviously, most of the above is in direct response to the debate on SCI. My views have been shaped to a great extent by personal experiences and observations. I have refrained from making any anecdotal references since, though they have shaped my views, do not add to my arguments. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Tue Jul 2 11:18:08 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 23:23:45 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!think.com!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!ngrjn >From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Marrying in the Old Country Message-ID: <1991Jul1.235539.19275@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 1 Jul 91 23:55:39 GMT References: <91181.050121U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> <593@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> <91182.100453U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> Organization: Organized Anarchists of America Lines: 28 In article <91182.100453U15297@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >Subbarao: > >I stand corrected. I said the 'following' part tongue-in-cheek. > >But you are really popular! :-) :-) WHAT did you do??? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Regards to you too, > >Shyamala He has the repugnant habit of throwing greenbacks at his "following" to keep them in line - dirty politics, Peddapuram shtyle. Even yesterday, my contacts tell me, he was seen furiously writing checks. [Boyoboy, will there be a check for me in the mail today?] ------------------------------- [It] is a profound consolation, perhaps the | __ o | only one, to this haunted animal that wastes | ___ __o __ /7_ | most of a long and ghostly life wandering the |___ -\<, __ ~\/\ | future and the past on its hind legs, looking | ....O/ O !_ | for meanings, only to see in the eyes of | Nagarajan | others of its kind that it must die. ------------------------------- - Peter Matthiessen, "The Snow Leopard" From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Tue Jul 2 11:18:39 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 23:08:15 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!sunrise!rao >From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Response to Ravikumar's question on Arranged Marriages Message-ID: <598@sunrise.Stanford.EDU> Date: 2 Jul 91 04:47:05 GMT References: <18103@chaph.usc.edu> Organization: Stanford University, California, USA Lines: 115 In article <18103@chaph.usc.edu> cpraviku@aludra.usc.edu (C.P. Ravikumar) writes: > >While you are at it, Subbarao, could you explain why you >think the dichotomy is stupid? In the Indian context, >what other points are there in the "spectrum"? >Hoping to be educated, Ooops Ravi. Didn't mean to run away without giving some sort of answer to you! Can't run the risk of losing my berth on the cultural volume thingie, y'know. The following are the edited excerpts from my answer to this question (there were several others who said more interesting things :-() during the last year's discussion. Further questions, directed to me will be answered via e-mail. Rao [hastily trying to tie up a few loosends ;-)] ps: I would like to request that all those who, during the recent threads, have made very many inferences on what Rao's position on arranged marriages is, to do me the favour of glancing at the second part. Think of it as a parting favor, if you will. It doesn't contain any panaceas of a panjandrum, *but* at least they are what I said in reality. I. On why the dichotomy is stupid: ------------------------------ It is considered a strawman because many people use it to justify all variations (good, bad as well as ugly) of arranged marriage, since the only other possibility, love marriage, is by definition impossible in India. But unfortunately, we all know that the equivalence of all versions of arranged marriages is a myth! There is a definite difference between someone who goes home for 3 weeks, parades some ten women, and exploits every ounce of advantage of a chavunist society, and another person, who does his/her best to avoid sexism to the extent possible (may be by not parading women, may be by not thinking of marriage as yet another thing to be ticked off in his todo things, may be by electing to invest more than the usual 3 weeks). It is exactly this spectrum of well and ill informed possibilities that many people, including me, were trying to bring to light. No where in the discussion were arranged marriages denounced as completely wrong, nor were any magic solutions proposed. Now you may say "what is the big deal, I and everyone I know already do this." That is great sir! But, contrary to the popular supposition that ill informed arranged marriages take place only in some villages near Peddapuram, let me assure you that they do take place (in quite large numbers) even in the midst of the so called creme de la creme. During some round the table discussion among some personal friends >from various IIT's, we realized that a staggeringly large number of people that we know from these places (many of them from cities like Madras and Bombay--which even the net.sophisticates may not consider as "rural/crude" as peddapuram!) have gone through some of the most ill-informed of the Arranged marriages (a few even had taken dowry!) All of them could easily have done better, if they didn't close themselves to all other possibilities. II. On the other points in the spectrum: "THE POSITION" ------------------------------------------------------ My main point 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 doing the least time consuming, if most ill-informed thing.] 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. -------------- 'nuff said. From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Tue Jul 2 11:23:41 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 18:57:20 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ag3l+ >From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: Albert Rao ko gussaa kyon aayaa Message-ID: Date: 1 Jul 91 19:56:52 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 20 One thing is sure, yours truly blew his own top. I apologize to Rao for impugning the sincereity of his motives and the outrage he felt at OP's and others' posts. The problem of sexist Indian male attitudes is a real one, and Rao was drawing attention to the problem in his own style. But I still feel resentful at being implicitly branded "sexist", of having a high tolerance level for sexism merely because I didn't protest on the net, and in public. There is an equally big problem of being percieved as being sexist, merely by virtue of being an Indian male, and Rao did no service to those who are burdened by that stereotype. Arun Gupta [still smouldering] From rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU Tue Jul 2 14:20:01 1991 Return-Path: <@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU:rao@sunrise.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 14:19:02 PDT From: rao@sunrise.Stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) To: rao@cs.stanford.edu Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!sumax!ole!ssave >From: ssave@ole.UUCP (Shailendra Save) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian Subject: Re: marrying in the old country [Important Consumer advice included] Message-ID: <2057@ole.UUCP> Date: 2 Jul 91 17:23:43 GMT Article-I.D.: ole.2057 References: <1991Jul2.002340.5326@beaver.cs.washington.edu> Organization: Cascade Design Automation, Bellevue, WA Lines: 45 >From article <1991Jul2.002340.5326@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, by rakesh@june.cs.washington.edu (Rakesh Kumar Sinha): > In article <2054@ole.UUCP> ssave@ole.UUCP (Shailendra Save) writes: >> they aren't. I think that the level of compromise in an Indian >> couple is much, much higher than Western couple. > I do not believe that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the > system of arranged marriages. I also agree that compromise is > essential for continuation of marriage. But please let us not lose > sight of the reality: friction does not occur either (1) there is no > reason for it or (2) there is complete subjugation. After all, there > were very few racial problems in US before the civil right movements, This is not really true! Slavery was there, and if you think that that was not a racial problem, then I don't know what was. If you think that slaves did not want freedom, there can be no arguement at all. > and early Indian history does not document many caste related > violence. True. But did this mean that there were *no* cases of caste related violence? I don't think so. Documentation, statistics, etc are all western concepts. I don't think that because there was no written proof, there weren't any. In fact, any good history book will tell you otherwise. > > Agreed that the level of compromise in an Indian couple is > much much higher ... the important question is who makes the > compromise. If the marriage is working because wife is making all the > compromises, it is perhaps better for it to fail in divorce or > separation. I agree with you cent percent. That is why I had said to Mr. Murphy that he was lucky to have met Anuradha despite having such a convoluted attitude. I don't for a moment doubt that usually (note the use of the word "usually") the woman makes the compromise in a family. To a lesser extent in some cases, more in others. Sooner or later, things like the "bread-winner" aspect of family life will have to be redefined, I don't know whether it will be for the better or worse, and I don't have any problem with seeing these changes. > -regards, rakesh Shailendra ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu