From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 12:06:30 PDT

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: [email-masked] (susan chacko)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: marrying in the old country
Keywords: marriage, chauvenism, point-of-view
Message-ID: <susanc.678303275@keckiris>
Date: 30 Jun 91 17:34:35 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (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.

--
[email-masked] or [email-masked].........

<someone,... email>

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: [email-masked] (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: <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 91 04:22:39 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (Rama Ratnam)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 75

In article <[email-masked]> 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
[email-masked]

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: [email-masked] (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: <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Jul 91 01:05:12 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked] (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
[email-masked]