> This brings me to the subject of succcessful marriages. > Marriages are not free by definition. Neither man nor woman have complete > freedom. But when it comes to the crunch, male freedom has always been given > priority over female freedom.
> What is the right way to address this? > 1) Curb male freedom > 2) Increase female freedom > 3) Both of the above The freedom referred to above varies from geography to geography and I think a mistake perhaps being made is applying Western values to Indian realities. Traditional Christian or Western (and Islamic) marriage rituals have held that fidelity is key to a marriage - and one oft-proven reason for the high incidence of divorce in traditional Christian cultures like the US is the inability for a spouse to maintain this desired state of being. Fidelity has never been key for a traditional Indian (read Hindu) marriage. (I remember reading somewhere that the Hindu marriage rituals involve no mention or oath of fidelity.) The usual stuff about Draupadi & Krishna aside, traditional Indian social emphasis has always been about keeping the nuclear or other family together, regardless of occasional waywardness of either spouse. Indeed, there's room to believe that Indian marriages tend to last longer because there is this built-in elasticity. The increasing rate of divorce in modern India is perhaps more due to the prevalence of the (western) infidelity-intolerant mindset among Indian men and women than any in any new-found notion of freedom or lack thereof in either sex. So I'm not sure the options (1) / (2) / (3) are a comprehensive set of choices. My $0.02 Mahesh On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 9:14:03 am gabin kattukaran wrote: > > > > > Why would you think that a smaller population is a problem? A smaller > > population that is reached by lower birth rates rather than higher > > death rates seems like a good proposition. > > Seem like a good proposition alright. no dispute on that. But nobody knows > for > sure. The first effects of falling birh rates will probably become visible > within my lifetime - some of these effects are coming up already. > > Falling birth rates in Europe for instance could be good for Indians - who > have a huge percentage of young people. The "bulge" in demographics of the > elderly in Euope could be looked after by young nursing care recruits and > service people from India or African/Arab countries who have young people > in > surplus. No [roblem for them. teh problem is only for the Ram Sene > equivalents in Europe who wll see thei culture disappearing. Whether that > is > a problem or not depends on whoch viewpoint you choose to take. > > > > > Here is the controversial and troubling thought - I would appreciate > > > inputs on this: If you read between the lines above it is easy to > > > conclude that the problems of Western society can be directly linked to > > > more freedom for women. > > > > This is true only if you decide that freedom seeking women and not > > freedom suppressing men/relationships or any thing else are the reason > > for divorces or relationship breakdowns. > > DISCLAIMER: My arguments that follow are for the sake of discussion and not > a > statement of my personal ideology or religion > > Is there a difference between "freedom seeking women" and "freedom > suppressing > men" in terms of effect on the woman or the marriage? > > The woman who seeks freedom for herself without being held down by any man > desires freedom just as much as the woman who wants freedom from being held > in bondage by a man. In both cases, if the desire is not to marry or > continue > with a marriage, the net effect on society is the same. > > It matters little whether the woman seeks freedom for freedom's sake or > whether she seeks freedom from man. I seek to protect marriage and the > family > and the rights of a child to have a nuclear family therefore I demand that > the woman must submit and swallow her pride, stuff her freedom and toe the > line. > > This is what society often does, although the man is normally expected to > contribute. > > This brings me to the subject of succcessful marriages. > > Marriages are not free by definition. Neither man nor woman have complete > freedom. But when it comes to the crunch, male freedom has always been > given > priority over female freedom. > > What is the right way to address this? > 1) Curb male freedom > 2) Increase female freedom > 3) Both of the above > > shiv > > > > > > > > > > > > >
