On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 11:37:30 pm . wrote: > I know there is a whole industry that earns its bread from getting > people married :) but why the undue emphasis on the institution of > marriage and why should it be protected? Is there any research that > has been done to find out the negative effects of not marrying? > Recently there was talk of giving a legal status to "live-in" > relationships but am not sure of its progress. > > Simplistically put, Isnt it much better for a kid to grow up in a > happy environment with a single parent than have to live with the > typical "complete family" where both parents are unhappy. Even the > Indian legal system changed the definition of "family" over a decade > ago to permit single women to adopt children of either gender. This > was later extended to single men who can adopt a male child. IIRC, > even school admission forms must now include "mothers name" and cannot > deny admission on the basis of the fathers name not being provided. I > am not sure how much of this is really in practice as there is no data > available publicly.
Research about the results of not marrying is going on right now. Long term effects will not be in for at least 20 years from now. It is not at all clear that for human children the "happy single parent" environment is good. Research seems to show that the child actually needs a stable father figure as much as a mother. In fact the deeper you go into this "family" business, the more attractive some (but not all) aspects of the core/joint family become. Support through physical illness and other times of stress (such as unemployment) is much better from the family unit rather than the individual unit. What has been attempted in the West is to make the government or other services replace the family - to provide the care that the family provides in less developed societies. Having said that the "joint family" in India - for all its advantages has been misused to make the new female entrant a slave. But let me come to the more controversial bit. Pregnant women, and women with infants need support from others and "independence" is not possible. For the purpose of procreation and maintaining a stable human population - pregnancies and women and the accompanying dependence are unavoidable. When women become independent, their independence is held to ransom by the forced dependence that pregnancy and childbearing causes. And as Western populations are allowing female independence in this way, it is being accompanied by a fall in fertility as women choose to have fewer babies. As the number of babies being born falls below replacement level - two effects occur 1) An absolute decrease in the population 2) The relative increase in the elderly and dependent. Now here's the rub: A) The Hindutvadis who are complaining about women not meeting certain standards are complaining exactly about the Western style female independence I have written about above. B) Female independence in the Western model is being seen as the single biggest threat to the family and to society. The "Indian family" is viewed as a unit in which the parents care for children until the children can be independent, and then it is expected that the children will care for the parents. A break up of the family, a fall in population and children staying away from parents are all seen as family and "society destroying" occurrences. All these "society destroying" occurrences are being blamed on Western style female independence and "individualism" imparted to children as opposed to the collective of the family that Indian society is thought to represent. To the protesting Hindutvadis - their fight is not for a "religion" so much as for dharma. The word "dharma" itself means to "hold" or to "preserve" - or righteous duty. Preservation of the way of life is seen as a righteous duty. They are fighting what they see as a threat to society and the way of life that they feel India represents. I believe that they are unable to articulate their views and anxieties very well in English and hence their demands sound stupid in translation. My personal views are slightly different and I have already stated them and I don't really know if the ideal that I seek can ever be implemented - i.e freedom for the woman as well as protection for the (legally binding) institution of marriage (which forms the basis of the family). I accept that the family is important and IMO irreplaceable, but ideally, not at the cost of female slavery. shiv
