Shiv, I agree that fidelity must be expected for both men and women. Not getting divorced in INdia where a marriage has gone bad is also often because the spouses want to save face-too many at the anecdotal level to relate.
In my experience as a 20-something divorced woman in India in the early 90s and in the US I found some interesting parallels and differences: 1. The age at which you get divorced makes a lot of difference. This was true both in the US and INdia - perhaps in the US living in a large city makes some difference but not in smaller places where the dice is still loaded against divorced women. If nothing was overtly said to me, I certainly knew it by the opposite when i got remarried at the age of 38-my social stock skyrocketed even amongst single American friends! 2. In the US economics has a large role to play in the success of a marriage or in individual success. For example, partners may not make the sacrifices to stay in the same place if their job opportunities take them elsewhere. Naturally seperate lives begin to form when they are physically apart-we may demand maturity on the part of people and ask that they have enough self-restraint once committed but whether a marriage can survive such demands is another matter. Also, keeping up with the Jones'/Jains is an expensive business - without two incomes it is virtually impossible. Even where people are together in the same place, there is so much personal sacrifice in terms of time and money in the name of achieving the dream life that it is quite natural for a man or a woman to have a mid-life crisis and wonder where real life just vanished!!! Not every working couple is making big bucks either unless they are white collar professionals. Being a single parent is of course even worse economically- i remember the newspaper vendor in our building in Washington - a single dad making 50000 with 4 kids!! 3. In India women are brought up with the idea of sacrifice in personal relationships to an extreme degree and they often suffer from this - this certainly includes educated, bright women. In the US, the other extreme is visible and in fact the system is weighted against people who cannot be self-sufficient. Too bad if you are a mother, you had better be a working mother and nobody else gives a hoot. Many women manage but is it surprising that stress and long-term health are compromised whether it is a man or a woman with the job of bringing up kids and earning? People are often contemptous when still young of anybody who wants balance. 4. Divorce might be more accessible in the US but that is about all. Women still make less money than men, they will get passed over for promotions if they are pregnant and if they re-enter the work force after being away for a year they cannot hope to even start at the same level. Sweden/Norway may be the only country I know where companies are mandated to take mothers back at the same level. 5. Improper accounting/valuation of women's time: My brother's insurance company in the States calculated the value that my stay-at-home engineer sis-in-law adds to the household-a net saving of $100,000 and more an year just because my sis-in-law is a free educator, nurse, counsellor and my nephew's favorite playmate !!! Now just imagine if he had to pay her this amount. WELL!!! i am not suggesting that marriage be reduced to an economic transaction but the work that women do outside of "work" is severely undervalued. I personally believe that the law in every country needs to go from offering protection to offering futures for women. Yes, it must protect women from marital rape, domestic abuse and where the spouses have irreconciliable differences, they must be allowed to seperate. But the law of a country should also not tolerate any discrimination - under our fundamental rights no seperate law is needed to ensure that women who are divorced or married get equal opportunity and liberty to pursue life (the pursuit of happiness i find a bit silly since it seems to arrive when we are not looking for it!). The debate about change in India is being framed cleverly as a west vs. east difference of cultures and the men making these statements seem to forget that MEN are participating in the change. The men who are going out with these "loose" women are often decent people who may or may not get married to these women but don't necessarily have double standards. Are these "loose" men then? If we look at history then men have been way "looser" than women by any standard-witness Genghis khan - 13000 genes in existence have been traced to this man!!! On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:13 AM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 6:44:43 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily > high > > > merely because of infidelity are they? > > > > It is certainly the most frequently-quoted cause. > > Naturally. It is the one most likely to get you a divorce. > > > > > > > The other point is that fidelity is indeed demanded in Hindu marriages > - > > > from > > > the woman. > > > > Can you quote me relevant scripture on this please - and not Manu smriti? > > Thanks. > > > You asking me for scriptures? As in "It has been written??". I have never > read > Manu Smriti and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. > > I am referring to the act of looking for the star Arundhati - the symbolism > being that the bride must be like Arundathi. The groom seems to have no > similar demand placed on him as far as I know. If that comes from Manu > smriti - you will have to educate me, assuming you are yourself familar > with > the work. > > > > > I think that for India: > > > 1) The institution of marriage must be protected but not if it is > clearly > > > harmful to man or woman > > > 2) The woman must be protected against cruelty, forced marriage and > > > bondage 3) Fidelity must be expected of the man as well as the woman > > > > 1. Why? > > 2. Why just the woman? > > 3. Why? > > > I think the institution of marriage is important subject to the conditions > I > have stated. Please take it as my opinion. If you differ I would like to > hear > your view. > > In India the woman certainly needs protection more than the man. I hope you > don't think that I implied that the man must not be protected. My not > saying > something does not mean I endorse or do not endorse what I have not said. > > Fidelity must be expected from the man as well as the woman. Are you asking > why I hold this opinion? I will answer that if you confirm that you are not > trolling. > > > > > > The future IMO will mean not copying the West. But things must not > remain > > > the > > > same either. > > > > This seems somewhat out of line with your earlier 3 tenets. Be that as it > > may, change is happening, pink chaddis and all. I'm not worried on that > > count. > > How is it out of line? Please explain. > > > shiv > >
