On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:16 PM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
A single parent environment could also be an outcome of the death of a spouse. It seems weird to suggest that he/she tie the knot again just to satisfy the state or society's definition of "family". The constitution does not interfere with an individual's rights. To my knowledge, even Vedic literature/texts dont have any such well-defined mandate about women and their marital obligations (fwiw, i dont consider Manusmriti a religious text). Given that i have not read every text out there, i'd like to know which text has such definition wrt women, marriage, etc.... > 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 This is a good thing IMO, since parenting is a responsibility, not a right on account of its biological function. If one must propose the argument that "every woman must have kids" why not encourage "adoption" as a means of completing the circle. That is a nicer option than adding to the already over populated planet. > 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. Although I dont understand the intricacies of the local language I do understand the part where the children (in a joint family) have heated exchanges while pressuring their parents to sell the ancestral house/land and give them their share. That seems more like greed than the "indian family" and "culture" which is being bandied about. > 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. Greed, cunningness, avarice, malice, selfishness, etc... are human traits and have nothing to do with so-called "western" influences. If anything it seems like shifting the blame onto others shoulders. > 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. Nah, it seems like a few are dumping their narrow-minded ideas on the general populace because they think they can control others despite the law of the land not giving them this right. It has hardly anything to do with the English language. -- .
