The young Indian woman made this list after reading the comments in response to her email asking, “What worries me is, will we be able to find guys who have a similar thinking process?“
Below is her response.
A few things that have emerged are:
- I should NOT settle for anything less just to get married.
- The prospect of living alone isn’t all that bad, there’s a lot I can do and moreover it’s better, than to stay stuck in a marriage or with a guy just for the sake of it.
- Looking at all the comments, well yes there are guys like that, we’ll just have to look around I guess!!!
- I know compromises will have to be made, but then it should be equal from me and him.
- Also ensuring that I have made my demands and rightly so, and they are heard out. Otherwise nada!! I am an only child, I will be looking after my parents in future and they will be an equal part in my life as they have always been. No compromises on that. The man should appreciate and honor it.
- I do feel that there should be parity in terms of education and finances. I also feel that a similar background in the sense that not in terms of caste, religion etc. In terms of the outlook of his parents. If they are similar like that of my parents, it definitely helps in better understanding.
- Coming year I will be pursuing PG, and to me it’s extremely important i am professionally settled and financially independent, not only to take care of my parents, but also being in such a position gives me better bargaining power and I can dictate my own terms ( not to be military though).
- And yes giving it time, and when the time is right, getting to know the guy and ensuring he says what he is!!
- I really liked what “khaane mein kya hai” said. Moving around does give you a sense of what will work and what wont. Also the point of the guy having sisters.
- Finally, YES it is going to be difficult for a girl like me (who expects gender equality). I see it everyday when I try to get my point across within my own family. But then, what’s important is that I stand my ground.
Do you think some points are missing? What do you disagree with?
Do you think women should be expected to marry someone who earns more (and has more qualifications) than they do? Do you think couples growing together and planning their future together, (instead of having them planned by the parents) will result in healthier relationships?
If you had to make a list like this what other points would you add, what would you remove from this list?
Advertisement
Like this:
2 bloggers like this post.
Glad that she has replied. Had been following this thread closely and thanks to IHM for bringing this up. All I want to add is that ‘Love is something that needs to be experienced. When it happens, you will not think of many of the things that you are thinking now
’. I know of Men who believe in loving someone so much that at the end of the day, when she sleeps, she is content with her life and knows that he is the best thing to have happened to her. 
Harish but do you agree with this list?
And do you think the husband should always earn more than the wife?
@Indian As I said earlier. Many of the things in the list will become Null and void once love happens.
Coming to the direct question. The answer is No. It is not TECHNICALLY possible to always earn more than wife. One should not have the mindset at all. Let me give you an example for the same. Imagine a husband is earning 5x times more than the wife and one fine day, he loses his job. At that point of time, it is the wife who is going to support the family. He should not have the ego or the mindset that he should be earning more than the wife. It is self destructive.
Also, it is also very important that the wife understands this and not be the dominating types where every alternate day, she reminds the husband that she earns more than him and thereby emphasizing that she has more responsibility.
In the end it is how both the minds match and when that happens, all this will fall in place.
Me – I think a wife would be justified in reminding the husband that she is working hard, if he does not contribute at home, no matter how much he is earning or not earning. A man who is not earning might suspect such reminders, even if his pay slip has nothing to do with her demand for his doing his share in house hold chores. A more confident man, who does not think he has to earn more than his wife, wouldn’t be affected.
IHM,
I don’t see the OP saying that. She said she expects parity in terms of finances, which I take it means that she expects her husband to at least earn as much as she does.
@IHM : Haha you have touched a prickly issue here. Many women might say the husband need need not earn more than the wife but most times such guys are eliminated well before marriage. The same with education.
Those guys become the proverbial ‘just friends’.
BTW in such a situation the guys also are reticent and tend to think such a girl as the ‘proverbial out of his league’ kind.
And to add, I am not really talking about people growing up in conservative and/or orthodox backgrounds.
I say thinking of a future with someone it should not be based on the earning capacity or education background is not a good idea. I would rather be with someone who has the capacity to be self sufficient. But then again who listens to me.
@Aditya,
Self sufficiency does not have to equate a Ph.D. A man can be self sufficient with a degree lower than the woman’s.
Most of us have a tendency to want to control our beloved—and that often creates a sense of being unfairly treated.Our closest relationships are the most challenging in our lives when it comes to practicing fairness, equality, and kindness. Neither wife nor the husband has to be domineering.
Good to see that the letter writer is positive!
I’m an only child too and was pretty shocked when I read that Indian men don’t want to marry a woman without a brother. Was like whaaaaaa? Though luckily, my parents live in a country where the elderly have independent lives and aren’t confined like in India/Nepal.
I’m not so sure about #6–sure, it’s easier if the guy has been raised by liberal parents in a non-gendered household, but there are many people who have been brought up in conservative households who turn out to be quite liberal. I’d say give people a chance before making up your mind before hand. Also, in terms of education and whatnot–I don’t think it’s right to hold out for men who have your qualifications–don’t judge someone by their major.
“Do you think couples growing together and planning their future together, (instead of having them planned by the parents) will result in healthier relationships?”
Yup. People who make decisions [and stand by the consequences of their decisions] are more responsible, competent, happy [insert a whole bunch of positive adjectives here] etc.
I’d add non-traditional, non-religious and someone who doesn’t bow to peer pressure–i e, someone with an internal locus of control for one’s self esteem and not someone who’ll try to ‘fit in’ to be happy. As for the non-religious part, I’m pretty much an agnostic who believes in some kind of god but doesn’t believe in organized religion. The non-traditional/non-religious thing is something I wouldn’t have compromised on at all. Very glad fiance is the same way.
Adding–I most likely wouldn’t date an ethical vegetarian. As someone whose staple food is chicken and fish, there’s only so much I can take the ‘how can you kill and eat’ logic. I would also not date a non-drinker. Nothing against teetotalers but meh…girl’s gotta live a little.
That really is not something to base your choice upon. I am an ethical vegetarian, but I am also a very pro-choice person. I would not dream of telling someone how they could possibly kill and eat something. Unless they throw it on my face and ask me why I do not eat meat and why I am losing out, etc. As far as I am concerned, it really is of zero consequence to me if my partner chooses to eat meat or whatever. You don’t step on my foot and I don’t step on yours.
But let’s say that one feels very strongly about the ethics involving slaughter houses / raising live stock for the sole purpose of killing them and turning them into food, then I can definitely see it becoming an issue in a relationship. There’s also the question of how you raise kids–if someone truly believes that eating animals is wrong and inhumane, then they’d want their offspring to follow the same type of thinking.
With me–that’s just a minor point I would discern in a person before even going out on a first date. Just like people who don’t drink or are religious, I already know there’s going to be a strong clash in values, lifestyle, and beliefs [let alone complicated topics like raising kids].
But definitely agree that it’s personal choices–my mom’s a strict vegetarian and my dad eats everything, that’s never been an issue with them.
Kay,
I plead guilty to being a vegetarian, and a teetotaller.
But, horror of horrors, I am a non smoker too!
How many additional brownie points have I lost for not puffing?
Just kidding! Don’t be offended please.
This debate on vegetarianism versus meat eating has gone on for decades and has not been resolved and will probably never be.
I stick to my food habits and never hold anything against those who eat meat.
I also don’t claim to be “ethical” in my food habits.
Regards
GV
@GV–actually not smoking is a good thing! I don’t think smoking can be compared to drinking [ in moderation] at all as they’re entirely different things. Smoking would actually be a negative [red flag that is] for me.
I do think it would be very difficult for a vegetarian with very strong beliefs to live with a person who eats meat. My parents have developed a super complicated system with different pots and pans and obsessive cleaning rituals. But it’s also important to note that they were arranged to be married. I don’t know how many people would choose a spouse with completely different ethical beliefs on the matter.
I would say most of my ethically vegetarian friends (as opposed to religiously vegetarian or ritualistically vegetarian) are very open to a partner eating meat. I really do not see that this in itself is a problem, unless you choose to make it one, by bringing out the matter at every mealtime, or something. Also, one can be a drinker, and the other a teetotaller. But for me, smoking would be a red flag, because it messes up the entire house and it would make a person that less attractive to me.
I believe that for cases like Young Woman’s question, what matters more is defining deal-breakers than defining a sample of characteristics to choose from.
Deal-breakers for me would be: lack of mutual respect, violations in any form (physical/emotional/social), dishonesty, lack of emotional strength and an unwillingness to experience the vagaries of life.
I (perhaps naively?) believe that if these deals are not broken, I could leave with reasonable happiness with almost anybody. Love, attraction, affection may help seal the bond, but rationally speaking, this is what would work for me.
“Do you think women should be expected to marry someone who earns more (and has more qualifications) than they do?”
I think i object most to the word ‘expected’. Personally, I would like to be around someone who would be my intellectual equal, because I love to have conversations and learn from people around me – but that doesn’t necessarily translate to more qualifications. As a woman, I would like to be someone I could respect on their own terms. Again, not necessarily because they are more qualified or earn more, but often, motivated, driven intelligent people tend to be well educated and in a good career arc. I think expectations any which way (marry someone more qualified/ marry someone equally qualified/ marry anyone irrespective of qualifications) is flawed.
Do you think couples growing together and planning their future together, (instead of having them planned by the parents) will result in healthier relationships?
” Do you think couples growing together and planning their future together, (instead of having them planned by the parents) will result in healthier relationships?”
I don’t particularly object to how you get to meet someone (through friends, at a bar/ through your parents/o a dating site) so long as everyone involved is mature about the decision. People getting married should know why they are getting married.
Although I don’t comment here IHM..but have been reading your blog on and off for sometime…This is what perhaps I wanted to read so thumbs up for that
…
“I (perhaps naively?) believe that if these deals are not broken, I could leave with reasonable happiness with almost anybody. Love, attraction, affection may help seal the bond, but rationally speaking, this is what would work for me.”
Agree whole heartedly, 100%! True love, in my opinion, is a matter of timing. When a person cares for you (in action & word) in the manner you need, and you’re able to reciprocate and care in the manner he/she needs at that specific time, that’s the foundation of strong relationship
Just my line of thought when I was considering boys for marriage .. But you have put it so beautifully, Thumbs up..
I think there should be no discussion of who earns more or less .. TWO PEOPLE get together does it matter who earns more or less as long as they are working together , helping eacho other in building their LIFE.
Why does it matter who earns more , when both would be spending on each other and on their dream house and on fulfilling their dreams…
First off all the FIRST point .. How do you know the person is anything less then you.. How do you know that , you only come to know once you have lived with each other , I have never understood this , is it the looks, the money , family WHAT is it that decides that..
before marraige and after marriage are TWO different scenarios and Everyone be it a man or a woman behave differently in Both scenarios.. anyone can say what they want but thats the truth , things change priorities change etc etc.. So the first point I am unable to digest .. How do you decide if one is worthy – non worthy..
2. Living alone well I od think its a good idea.. Each child should be asked to get out of the parents house and EARN a living as is done in western way, we have picked up all the BAD points why not some good ones .. Live- earn on your own makes you a better person and opens you eyes WIDE open knowing the world..
a lot of vaid points in that But there is a lot of ME me me me in it too
sorry to say that .. End of the day I feel marriage is a GAMBLE as is any relation in this world nowadays, you have a live in , Love , whatever relationship for years and then part ways , thats what marriage has become nowadays Its no more a sacred thing and gone are the days of One woman man or One man woman .. Society has broken so much the earlier we find and accept it the better it is ..
I live my life on that and I beleive that If youtreat the other person as you yourself want to be treated then it should be all good .. ups and downs are way of life, if we sit down and start to blame each other for it , the relation goes out of the window
We need to respect each other and Give in to each other for end of the day it take Two wheels to carry on , one goes down its bound to end up in a accident ..
If there is no ME there can never be a true US.
but its the ME which also spoils the US..
Well Bikram I concur with your view that grown kids in India should be encouraged to move out of their parents home, earn and learn to live on their own. Such a move changes ones outlook on life in its entirety and helps in personal growth.
However I’d like to point out marriages were no more sacred in the times gone by than they are today. Polygyny and in certain societies polyandry was the norm. The concept of monogamy in comparison to mankind is a fairly new concept which wasn’t practiced predominantly until a few hundred years ago. Then came a time when marriage was monogamous but mating was polygynous. This is antithesis to your romantic idea of a “one woman man or one man woman”.
Marriage through most of human history was primarily an economic institution. Traditional hierarchical marriages more often than not were anything but a form of bondage.
Remarriages of men was a common phenomenon in case the wife died or was unable to conceive at all or wasn’t able to produce a male heir; while this same privilege was denied to women for a long time. Why people got married and stayed married in the late 20th century was governed by a lot of factors, factors that are discussed in many of IHM’s post.
Hi, I am not sure what to understand of this, by the reference to one man one woman I was meaning what society says , I am not talking of age old tradition where more than one woman was actually thought to be a Good thing.
Even in those days marriage was sacred maynot be for the MAN but for a woman it was , she spent all her life living in those rules and regulations .. THOSE are gone now ..
and yeah there were a lot of factors that governed it all.. but thats what i said they are not there anymore , so we as people of society should forget about those factors and open our eyes to the new factors and live with those , and not otherwise …
The fact is every man or woman even now expects that after marriage it is all hunky dory and both are faithful to each other and will be always .. but Its not there .. both think that before marriage they can do what they want how they want , but after marriage its not to be done ..
and sacred or not sacred maybe i have been brought up the wrong way, my parents taught me what i know. SO I do still feel and beleive in marriage being sacred , maybe i live in the gone era but then that me , an idiot. I was taught to respect the other and treat others as you want ot be treated so i do that or try to
do that.. Again maybe I am wrong ..
But I live on my terms and on my principles good or bad I dont or have never cared for those …
Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see any mention of love as a defining factor to push a relationship forward. It doesn’t really come in handy when they guy is fine, and his family is fine, but there is no affection in-between. Still, such relationship to me wouldn’t have any value beyond contractual match. And what’s the point of going all the way through hurdles in search for the right guy, if the most important relationship component is not there?
But then, considering the long Indian tradition of notoriously not taking love as any valuable indicator for developing a relationship, I’m not really surprised.
Intercultured love is given consideration but only after the couple is married according to the parents’ and community’s norms.
Also traditionally, love (to be traditionally expressed by service to him and to his family) by the wife is encouraged but not by the husband. Sons are complimented if they are not too enamored by their wives, while wives are complimented for being dutiful, devoted to the spouse and his family.
Love before marriage is generally seen as wrong because it might lead to young people choosing their own partners, and that is not encouraged for many reasons including loss of control over the male child and his spouse’s life, loss of dowry etc
Tell me about it! I know all this… I was just thinking that if one is free enough to think about marriage in terms of male-female equality and respect, one should also be able to acknowledge what the core of a relationship is.
Without love, it’s not pushing the case any forward.
I thought all this after love happens! And I agree, love and attraction are a “MUST” component for marriage.
I like the points and totally love Kay’s comment!
I don’t think I agree with the having sisters part – sometimes an only son or brothers might have had to contribute more in household tasks and that might help in a less rigid gender roles. Having sisters might have exposed them to the different socialisation (rules) that applies to boys and girls as children and that might not neccessarily be a great thing. I guess it only matters if the man believes in gender equality and is open to be challenged in his beliefs.
I believe gender equal marriages are made, they might not be that way from the start but working on making a marriage gender equal must be a goal for both partners but obviously both partners should agree that marriages should be gender equal – that is the basic premise to start with.
I would also add a discussion about having children to the list. Not all women want to be mothers and it needs to be discussed before – hand.
I think the only expectation in a marriage should be to love each other- work at having an equal partnership and to live by one’s own principles and learn to say to hell with society!
I mean marriage or a relationship wherever I have said marriage.
@Towards Harmony : I agree with you. My dad was brought up in a family with 5 boys.. he was #4 and they had to all pitch in with the housework. Their dad made it clear to them and he was quite strict.
So, it all depends on the upbringing and what kind of stereotypes are seen at home when children are growing up. By my own personal example I can tell you that it is not easy to live with a man who thinks that housework and cooking is only a woman’s domain
Urmi, sometimes even parents who teach housework and cooking to sons have objection when son does the housework and cooking after marriage. I know an uncle whose mom took all the help in the kitchen from him when he was growing up and also when she visited him in his own home later, but had serious problems when he helped his wife. The wife was the target of taunts. What double standards!
I would append point number 0 to the list: There should be mutual love and respect for each other!
No, it is not important that a man should earn more! But this gender stereotype that a man should earn more has become deeply ingrained into the Indian psyche. I have heard some brain-washed people telling me that if a woman earns more than her husband, then she will become ‘proud and egoistical’ (whatever that means) and not ‘serve’ the husband and his family properly.
While answering the question about whether a girl should marry a boy with more earning than hers, many of us above have said that its not necessary. We in the blogosphere think beyond earning and are talking more about compatibility. But lets face it, how many of the other counterparts, especially guys think on same lines. I have seen families where the girl earns more than the guy. Initially there is love and understanding(add all positive adjectives), but later at some point of time, this has come up between them. The impact has been huge and worse on their married lives. This affects the children (if any). I am not being critical of the above comments, but yes this is the other side of the coin.
It’s interesting, so it seems accepting dowry from the wife’s family causes no problem, but her making more money does bother some husbands?
I have heard this logic somewhere myself. That a girl’s dad earning well is a plus point which equals to more dowry. But a girl herself earning well (or rather, more than the guy) is a downside. (!!!)
Yeah that’s kinda ironic. Don’t make more money than I do, but please ask your dad to buy me a new laptop. It’d have been funny if it wasn’t so sad.
That said, many women (and their parents) wouldn’t dream of considering a potential husband who makes a lower pay than the woman.
Interesting question.
But I have observed that some parents of girls, trying to arrange their marriage, call off the match the moment they come to know that the boy earns less than the girl.
So this requirement of the boys needing to earn more agitates the minds of both parties.
It is not just income that is the issue.
Even height and educational qualifications are an issue.
Ask the girls to search their hearts.
How many will agree to marry a shorter boy, if he is otherwise okay?
How many will agree to marry a boy less qualified academically if he is otherwise okay?
There is an obvious contradiction here.
Girls want equality, but unwittingly fall into the same old rut when they ask for a taller boy, who is better qualified and who earns more.
Are they not seeking equality from a boy who is clearly superior (i.e taller, better educated, and earning better?)
What am I missing?
Regards
GV
I completely agree with you. The myth of a man having to be taller, richer and better educated stems from the idea that a woman needs to look up to her husband and ‘respect’ him. Respect for intrinsic worth means nothing. A man needs to be ‘well-settled’ before he weds. Why should not a woman also wait until she is well-settled too (whatever it means)?
Well-settled applies to BOTH parties equally – IMO. And by this, I do not mean just financially. It is also mentally and emotionally having the maturity to enter into wedlock…and also doing it because they want to do it, not because society or age is pushing them to.
GV: To answer your question. It’s an interesting point you noted. In my case I was earning almost double of what my (now) husband was earning. Even though we both have Masters degree I am the one who has it from a more reputed university and that too from abroad. (Regarding the tall part, yes it was personal choice that I wanted someone who is taller than me…with myself being over 5’7”. However having said that, I was once in love with someone who was about an inch shorter than me – I felt he was otherwise a good match so I did not want it standing in the way. It’s a different matter that it did not work out eventually.)
Point being, my folks were ok with these facts. So were in-laws. I had initially thought that the expected level of broadmindedness would come from a family who is settled in a city and who has travelled and seen the world – and I am glad to have been proven wrong in this. My in-laws are simple people coming from interior of the state with a rustic background. However they are surprisingly broadminded. They also give both of us a lot of space, not to mention never impose opinions or stereotyped notions of what a man or woman must be doing. At one point in between hubby was in between jobs for a month and his sister told him to not just sit idle at home, but to cook for me and take care of the house and give me a nice massage after I came back home!
Hubby was like: you girls ganging up on me! 
Jokes apart, my point is: Unless girls themselves are willing to look beyond the obvious, the stereotypical notions of what a guy must be like, then they cannot expect the guy in question to be any different.
@GV, you bring up a very good point! Agree with Fem on this, people don’t seem to judge the intrinsic worth of the person. In fact, a lot of parents think that if a person has a respectable job, that person be “good and worthy” as a bride/groom! This argument is unbelievable! Even worse, if a man has a job abroad, the girls’ parents do not ask even a single question.. Somehow, that he has the best qualities in a man! This logic blows my head off!!
I agree with Ashwathy that unless we ourselves change, and question each of our practices ourselves, it is impossible to bring about change.
Extending this argument, one cannot generalise that things like:
(i) people from the cities are advanced in their thought process than those in the villages,
(ii) a man with a sister may respect women better than a man who has no sisters,
(iii) a non-religious unorthodox person will treat a woman as equal than a religious person steeped in orthodoxy,
etc.
I see so many comments that make conclusions and generalisations like the ones I mentioned above. Although I agree that the upbringing of a person makes a difference, IMO it is just impossible to make generalisations. For every example, there will be a counter-examples on the other side.
Then Visvanathjee, you can count this one girl then! My partner is just the same height as me and by virtue of being plump looks a little short too. I was earning 3X more than he was from his stipend when we married last year. But then for me criteria like height, rich family, great salary have ceased to be of primary importance. Thanks to the major lessons that I learnt from my disastrous first wedding (which incidentally fulfilled all these criteria)!
The most important is to … “Not be a wife waiting to happen”. Live and build your life proactively (thus meeting lots of people), then along the way you will meet people you might want to share it with. Marriage is not a milestone waiting to be achieved that needs settling for less/more/just about right.
Be not on the look-out (as a mindset), be not ticking off a check-list every time you meet someone. Be open-minded and be yourself and you will be surprised to find that love comes from most unexpected corners.
Never rush into anything, it turns out for the worse more often than not. And that is why it is a good idea to have known the person a while, not necessarily in a dating set-up.
You have already done the smartest thing you could do, have a rough idea of what a fulfilling relationship means to you. I cannot stress this enough.
All guys I dated had sisters, yet seas apart in outlook. I don’t think that works. My partner comes from super-orthodox family from the remotest part of India, but what matters is he is not scared of questioning his parents on their religious hypocrisy. He is an intelligent man, insistent on carving his own way in life. Also he is dyslexic (struggles with english), not into books at all (unlike me) .. I had never thought I would be with someone who doesn’t read books, but there! So have a mould for the relationship, not the person.
Lastly, ‘Love is what love does’. All men think they are perfect husband material, many think they are not chauvinists, don’t go by what one says. See what they do.
True that. Excellent advice! It’s not the absolute number of similar attitudes between individuals that matter but the proportion and importance of similar attitudes. It does little good if someone agrees with you on everything except for the one attitude that is central to your life. Also importantt is the conception of love. It’s important that two people who want to be in a relationship have similar idea about what love is to them and what loving someone implies.
There is a large contingent of Malayalee Americans where the wife works in the nursing or pharmaceutical professions and in many cases the husband either stays at home or earns significantly lesser than the wife. As far as I know most such couples are happy (externally viewing their relationship). I would think this is because their relationship dynamics are already fixed and both husband and wife know where they stand. There is also a general trend among such couples that the wife’s the dominant partner in the relationship, mainly because she earns more but also because she’s usually more Americanized on account of external contact compared to the husband who mostly stays home.
Yesterday I was watching The Martha Stewart Show and it was dedicated to stay at home dads. She invited a dad who is a qualified physician and also holds a Phd and who opted to stay at home. His wife was deployed to Iraq. She has since returned from Iraq, yet, they continue to have the same arrangement. The dad takes care of 4 young children.
I feel when Western men opt to stay at home, they do so, for genuine reasons. With Indian men, they opt to stay at home only under compulsive reasons. Men who come to the US on the spouse visa of their wives, do so, primarily, to come to the US and then look for jobs. Or they choose to remain at home till they get a Green Card. In this bad economy, I have seen some of them struggling to find jobs and struggling to come to terms with their choice.
Historically, we may be an old society. But we are a very young society, when it comes to social growth and progress. It is going to take us, maybe a century or centuries to break out of our social customs.
Not off topic, but a little diversion, I was watching the old movie Guide and there is a scene in which Waheda Rehman, who is in a loveless marriage, but there is no abuse says – I would rather have abuse and love than lack of it. (Same sentiment different words). I was shocked. Very shocked. Is this how the common girl thinks?
I think that must be an abuser’s dream dialogue. How convenient it would be for an abuser to tell an abuse victim they are loved while they are being abused.
Abusers do use such lines, they claim they are being protective and jealous because they love the victim too much. Their unwillingness to see the victim being stared at by other men makes them lock them up – this abuse is also portrayed as love.
Every woman (and man) should know that love and abuse do not coexist. If there is abuse then any talk of love is only used to control the victim.
I think she wanted to say that being stuck in a loveless marriage is the worst form of abuse? Where a man marries a woman just for sex, as Rosie’s first husband.
I think a loveless marriage is obviously better than an abusive marriage. Marrying just for sex and then forcing sex would be abuse so it is an abusive marriage. The worst form of abuse is beating the partner to death and repeated rape within marriage and can’t be compared to a loveless marriage which I see as two people having no particular affinity for each other living together in the same household but still respecting each other – which does happen sometimes in arranged marriages.
Indian cinema (if not reality) is full of “stockholm syndrome” instances, where love and abuse go hand in hand, and where pathology is mistaken with forgiveness, tolerance and patience.
The reason for that is very simple, since healthy love with all its purity and good intentions is considered as dangerous by the conservative, it needs to be portrayed as a wild beast bringing more harm than good, or at least an unbearable mixture of both.
It’s like dropping one pathology to enter another.
As we can frankly say that an average Indian woman doesn’t have any clue what romantic love can be, I’m sure she would not want it to be there at all cost or with a package that has very little to do with affection.
The truth is that Indian society, not just cinema, is full of cases of Stochkolm syndrome
I do not think women should be expected to marry someone who earns more (or has more qualifications). But women are – women are generally expected to marry up.
I would prefer someone who was comfortable with me earning more and/or me having more qualifications – that would give us more options for a life together.
And I might get flak for saying this but if being with someone better qualified or who earns more is important to you then just be honest to yourself about it. Don’t be too bothered by what you think you are expected to expect.
It is healthier for couples to grow together and plan their future together instead of having them planned by the parents. No one knows you as well as you know yourself.
I Have recently discovered your blog and am commenting for the first time.
The whole list seems to be a bid odd to me. As someone has mentioned the most glaring omission seems to be love. I am assuming that the writer will not have an arranged marriage, because I cannot imagine an arranged marriage where the woman can come in with a set of demands and expect that they will be heard with with any degree of respect or understanding (unless arranged marriages in India have changed in some dramatic fashion that I am unaware of). Number 1 and 4 seem a bit contradictory. If you are compromising you are settling for something less than getting all you want. I don’t believe number 6 is all that important. It is not that important which partner earns more or if the educational degrees are at par, what matters is if they both agree how the earnings should be spent or saved. Also similar outlook of both parents will not guarantee that they will get along. I know many traditional, good natured people who get along wonderfully with others. Mutual respect and good behavior are the keys to a successful relationship. Number 7 is a little bit disconcerting. She thinks being professionally settled and financially independent gives her better “bargaining power”. How exactly will she use this as a bargaining chip? How is this different from the way men in India use their education and status in the marriage market. I would not call this gender quality.
Another thing, what happens for example if she finds someone who is willing to take on responsibility for her parents, but his education and finances are not at par? Or he is a flaming liberal, but his parents are traditional stick-in-he-muds.
The only thing that is for sure though is that once she starts meeting prospective grooms (arranged or otherwise) and reality intrudes that list is going out the window.
“She thinks being professionally settled and financially independent gives her better “bargaining power”. How exactly will she use this as a bargaining chip? How is this different from the way men in India use their education and status in the marriage market.”
We need to remember that, whether we like it or not, relationships involve power, and power is of different kinds. Being human, we can misuse that power. Finding the right balance of power is the secret of a healthy relationship.
Dear IHM,
I’ve been a reader of your blog for some time now, though I’ve never left a comment.
Reading the comments of your readers takes me back to the way I was (0r used to think) before I got married. After marriage I’ve changed so much that I sometimes have to remind myself that I too used to have such notions as equality, mutual respect and affection being important marriage. Anyway, this is not about me. I am writing in today just to respond to one point in the lady’s list: about it being better if the guy has sisters. I do not agree with that. It is very possible that he may have one set of standards for his sisters and a completely different set for his wife. Trust me!
I love that she is standing on her ground. But reality is, there is just so much a person would change and many of those points becomes invalid, sadly
I am all for gender equality but that is difficult unless our society changes its mindset and not treat us any differently than a gentleman.
I wouldn’t take the financial/professional parity thing TOO far.
While you’re more likely to be compatible with someone who has similar financial and professional goals, this parity is neither absolutely necessary nor sufficient.
Also, unless you’re in it only for the money, there’s no reason your partner MUST make more money than you.
Remember that the idea is to find ultimately someone you’re COMPATIBLE with. Don’t lose sight of that goal.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that love doesn’t just happen. Unless you’re extremely lucky, you do need to make SOME effort to find it and recognize it.
If I were you, I’d consider making a list of “red flags” to look out for, rather than making a whitelist of features. It’s important to know what you want, but it’s also important to go out of your comfort zone, try meeting new kinds of people, and give relationships the latitude to grow. A good way to do that is to make a list of things you absolutely CANNOT live with (the “red flags”) and give everyone else a chance. You never know who you might find in the jungles of humanity.
Here are some typical red flags to get you started (which I’ve gleaned out of observations made from the other side of the gender fence, and which you may or may not agree with):
# He’s deliberately dishonest
The biggest and most obvious red flag there is. It’s amazing how many people either miss it when they see it or just choose to look the other way. You should definitely respect your partner’s personal space but you must also demand complete honesty when it comes to the relationship itself.
# He tries to rush you into stuff
“Stuff” includes physical intimacy, marriage, long term commitments, co-habitation and basically anything else you’re not quite ready for. If he repeatedly tries to rush you into things you don’t want to do yet, you should have a chat with him, as well as take time out for a good think about why he might be doing that. Make sure his goals in the relationship are aligned with yours. Or to put it more crudely, make sure he’s not just looking for sex or money.
# He needs parental permission for everything
For anyone who considers themselves an adult, this is a VERY bad sign. It indicates either a lack of independent decision making skills OR spinelessness in the face of dominating parents OR both. None of those is a good thing. Best to stay away from such guys.
# He acts overly chivalrous and gallant
You might actually enjoy such behavior but you should know that such guys are often big time chauvinists. The concept of chivalry goes hand in hand with a sexist worldview. Tread with caution.
# He’s touchy about earning less than you
A lot of guys are very touchy about this, and considering how important your career is to you, it’s not a good idea to end up with one of these guys. It’s definitely possible that you’ll be making more than him at some point, and you don’t want your relationship ruined over something like this.
Come up with your own flags, use them to weed out the bad pennies, and start your search. Happy hunting!
Ah, CE! You put across all the points that I was thinking of so beautifully and logically!
I wouldn’t agree with the ‘sister’ part completely. My fiance has an elder sister and ours would be a love marriage. It was very easy to convince his mom (and dad but he doesnt really have a voice) but his sister has been having problems with one thing or the other. My fiance is able to make his mom understand that being from a different state, we might have different customs. But his sister is simply adamant that her kiddo brother is the dulha and no compromises should be made from the ladke wale’s side. My brother has already started warning me that I should be very careful of her in future…
I kind of agree.
It just depends on the mental makeup and the family outlook. The guy can have sisters and he can have grown up seeing them treated differently than he is, and hence grown up believing that sisters, mothers and women in general are supposed to be treated that way.
He can also have only brothers and still see his father loving and respecting his mother and not sticking to gender stereotypes (by making her do the housework etc.), hence he could still grow up learning to respect women as a whole.
It’s a lot of factors put together. One cannot generalise.
First of all, making a list of attributes desired in a spouse is extremely childish…Nobody is perfect and the sooner the young woman realizes that, the better her life will be…Fewer expectations mean fewer heartbreaks…Yes, it’s alright for her to have a basic idea of what she would like in her spouse, but trying to get one who fulfills all the criteria in her list will take a lot of time (that is if she finds one)…
Question to the young lady:
Why should you look for perfection in your spouse when you yourself are not perfect? Remember, if you are demanding a perfect husband, you have to be a perfect wife to him (which includes meeting his expectations even if they clash with your ideas) …
If I were to have my life all over again and was getting ready to be married I would have a list.
1) In this list I would be uncompromising on some particular requirements which would not add up to more than one third of the total, and if even one of these were not met I would not go ahead.
2) I would also identify a few red flags as suggested by CynicallyEngineered and drop the girl like a hot potato if even one of them cropped up.
3) In this list I would be completely flexible and relax some particular requirements and consider them merely as “desirable but not essential”. On the whole if more than half of these requirements were met, I would go ahead.
No point in being so choosy when I am not perfect myself.
Besides, if one is going to strictly follow a “rule book”, then the same privilege must be given to the other party too in the relationship. I wonder if there will be any marriages at all if we take this list too far and too seriously.
Besides as someone hinted, when one falls madly in love, all lists are likely to be dumped in the waste bin. Love is blind and recognises no lists.
Regards
GV
One of my colleagues’ daughter is well placed in a private firm, and earns well, a LOT. Now my colleague is husband hunting, and in their faith, dowry is a big thing, though no one is overly blatant about it. Still, it is very much there. She has been looking for someone who would be compatible, but the one condition that her daughter was particularly insistent on was that the guy should be earning more than her. She’s this generation, mingling with a cosmopolitan crowd, though generally quiet, well-behaved and all (a favourite student of mine too
). Her argument was that at some point the financial aspect would definitely become an issue, and she wanted that sorted out right away.
Unsurprisingly, a suitable match has yet to be found, and this is one of the reasons why.
For me, what would work would be, is what some of the discerning persons above have commented. The moment we lay down conditions to define that perfect condition of the mate, we run the risk of finding out how flawed we ourselves are. Respect, giving space to each other, communicating and being there for each other, being supportive of each other, through thick and thin… those would have to be basics of any successful relationship, most definitely for marriage. Sadly, most often these are things a woman does, and rarely does one come across both partners doing this for each other.
I’d like to change one point – You can’t really compare on who compromised more so can’t say it should be equal. Having said that I m not saying that do whatever you are expected to. Think about it and then make a decision. All I saying is, you can’t go to your partner and say ” I compromised 1,2,3 for you. What have you done in return?”
I’d like to add one more point – Private space : There would be times you’d wanna be alone and your partner should respect that. Both of you have agreed to spend rest of your life together, that does not mean you have to give up your individual space.
People are happiest in the “Relationships in which the rewards and costs a person experiences and the contributions he or she makes to the relationship are roughly equal/proportionate to the rewards, costs, and contributions of the other person. Of course people differ often vigorously on what counts as contributions and how specific contributions ought to be weighed. All relationships require give and take, however if costs(things you give up) far outweigh the rewards(things you get in return for your sacrifice) or you feel you are the only one giving, while the other just benefits then it becomes difficult to continue in that relationship. .” Thus, even though it isn’t easier to weigh who compromised more, a sense of balance has to be there.
Yes totally agree but at the same time lets not look at weighing it always. Relationships dont work that way.
Mine was a typical arranged marriage. I would say that I was not mature enough to know what to expect from my marriage. Now looking back, I wonder what all conditions I should have laid before agreeing on marriage, to have made my life easier. To be frank, there is no way to tell. Because what I wanted then and what I want now are no longer the same. People change(not very much though), perspectives change. Unless you live with a person for some time, you have a very little chance of knowing about him like you would know in a marriage. People and relations look different, or rather what you thought and what you see might look different once you are married. Bearable things become unbearable and vice versa. There is no way for you to look into each and every aspect of a married life and be wary of everything that might occur before marrying. Ultimately it all comes down to how happy and how comfortable you are with yourself and same goes with your partner. Of course dowry, chauvinism are obvious red flags, but other than that looking for a girl sibling or a boy sibling is like digging too much into it. Those things are really subjective. You never know, things might just work out fine by taking your chances.
The person that checks out on every line of your “list” of great qualities usually does not exist. There is no such thing as a perfect person for anybody. It’s essential for you to know basic rights in a relationship-You have the right to:
Express your feelings, including anger, as long as you don’t violate the rights of others.
Be competitive and to achieve.
Have your needs be as important as the needs of other people.
Decide which activities will fulfill your needs.
Make mistakes and be responsible for them.
Have your opinions given the same respect and consideration as others.
Change your mind.
Be independent.
Be treated with respect.
Be cooperative and giving and not be taken advantage of.
Be safe physically and emotionally.
Note: now remember “Rights go with responsibilities”. For example if you have the right to be heard you also have the responsibility to listen to someone else’s views.
It’s also essential for you to have a basic idea about love means to you and what kind of a person could you get along with, but you must realize being inflexible and insisting on superficial qualities like a great body, a Ferrari ..And holding certain prejudices will do you no good. It does little good if you find someone who’s everything you wanted except for he doesn’t believe in egalitarianism – the one attitude that is central to your life.
Seeking a mate who embodies admirable traits is one thing; unattainably high expectations is another. You’re not perfect. And no one else is, either.
Keep in mind that people change, they don’t remain the same, but the change comes gradually and from within. A relationship symbolizes an emotional commitment between people, where they work together, compromise and negotiate without erasing the identity of the woman, or the less privileged of the two. A healthy relationship is anything that allows you to be the best version of yourself you can possibly be. It isn’t filled with drama and tragedy but real intimacy and connection and a few conflicts.
When you fall in love, a lot of things in the list does not matter anymore, you are ready to make adjustments but again women like us will only fall in love with a man who is not prejudiced against women and their roles and who respect women as individuals. Unless you go only for looks, the personality you fall in love with would have already fit into the list and more.
I would tell the girl above that she is not alone, I am an only child too and looking for the kind of man she is looking for. While he does or doesn’t come along, I am making every efforts to grow into a wonderful individual, travel, make friends, be financially stable and fulfill my dreams.
Just came across this blog-site and would like to share this piece of article:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/article2684693.ece
I read the article, and I am sure it is concerns like the ones expressed in that article that have made this young woman write this email, the only difference is this writer is not a man. Women also have parents who generally love them and raise them by staying with them in hospitals, making their favorite foods, buying things for them before buying cars for themselves etc etc, and when they grow old they too become senior citizens. Traditionally, sons expect their spouse to become their parents’ care givers, sometimes even by giving up their careers. Daughters find it difficult to even visit their parents because Daughters in law are generally treated as the lowest members in the spouse’s family hierarchy. A married daughter’s parents too are discouraged from visiting her.
Sons in law are not asked to sacrifice or obey or learn the ways of another family and forget the ways of their birth family, if they care for their in laws, it is appreciated, not taken for granted.
This bias is so strong that most Indian parents fear they will get no elder care if they don’t have sons!! So they abort baby girls and ‘keep trying’ to have male children.
What other option do they have? Can they live comfortably in their daughter’s in-laws’ home? No more than a son’s parents’ can live in their daughter in law’s parents’ home. So isn’t it better that the young couple makes their own home (nuclear family) and whenever parents from either or both sides need to, they come and stay with or somewhere close to their children’s home?
One thing I don’t understand is why the author of the article thinks that moving out of your parent’s home once you grow up or marry equals abandoning your parents? If moving out of your parent’s home equals abandoning them, then women for a long period of time were forced and culturally expected to do just that! Why do we ignore women’s parents when we talk about elder care? I think people automatically make an assumption that every woman in India has a brother/ brothers. Now let me put it clearly, that there are people who only have daughters. Now why don’t people take these people into account when talking about elder care? Don’t they require love? Haven’t they cared for their children and made sacrifices for them. It appears as if only men’s parents exist.
Also an interesting fact to note here is that it’s not the son who physically takes care of his parents, rather it’s the daughter in-law. Son’s duty is limited to financially taking care of his parents.
Sadly such skewed views have led people to devalue girl child.
Wanting a nuclear family after marriage means getting to build your own home, lay your own rules and start a new family with minimal outside interference. It definitely doesn’t entail wanting no in-laws, if you decide to marry someone who’s not an orphan, and then you are definitely going to have in-laws.
Till a certain age people can look after themselves (I would say till 70-75 years of age) if they don’t happen to be mentally or physically handicapped. When two people who marry build their own home, they aren’t obliged to follow the rules laid down by only one set of parents or to take care of only one set of parents; instead they can freely choose to look after both sets of parents if and when the need arises. Now nuclear families have various setups and adopt different strategies to look after both sets of parents. Traditional joint family set ups don’t allow for such compromises.
Nobody can or should compel you to not provide your parents with the required care when they need it, unless you choose not to look after them or have severed ties with them of your own will.
.I would like to take this debate forward and ask- what about those people who couldn’t conceive, who chose not to have children, who have disabled- physically or mentally handicapped children, those whose children are unemployed or good for nothing? Don’t they age with time? Do they not require elder care? Have those people who have physically or mentally handicapped children, those whose children are unemployed or good for nothing not made any sacrifices for their offspring? Have they not showered their love on their children?
Agreed, Parenting is a tough job, parents do make sacrifices for their children, but are those sacrifices made out of pure love or are these some kind of investments, on which one should be able to get returns?
When parents love their children they let them fly, they don’t clip their wings! They understand that their children will be starting a new life, they will build their own families, but their love for their parents won’t fade away. Moving out of parents home helps in growing up and being one’s own person. It teaches a lot about responsibility and independence. It establishes a sense of freedom and privacy. It helps you stand on your own two feet. Living separately doesn’t mean that you don’t love your parents to bits. Living in a nuclear setting after marriage allows for the two people who are married to make a new home-that’s truly theirs, allows for them to forge a bond without any interference from any set of parents, it allows both partners to focus on their marriage, on their partners and not care much about pleasing the in-laws, It allows for them to make mistakes and learn from them, it also gives the newly married people a sense of privacy and space that isn’t there in joint family setup or when you move in with one set of parents. Often living with one set of parents cause a lot of friction among family members. It’s mainly because people have different needs and ideas and they began to impose them on others, interfere a lot in each other’s affairs, try to control others and give no personal space to others. Also a lot of politics goes on in such a set up. I have seen relationships between co-sisters, mother-in-law and daughter in-law, between brothers improve once they started living separately. They started respecting each other as persons and each other’s personal space more, were more accommodative of differences because they had their own lives and nobody tried to impose any rule on the other or meddle in affairs unless asked to do so. People who once hated each other developed a very loving relationship. In such scenarios daughter in laws and mother in laws, co-sisters, brothers started caring for each other more and would happily do random act of kindness for each other.
In nuclear settings once the parents age beyond a certain point, or become handicapped and began needing extra care, children automatically pitch in to look after them. Even when parents are physically and mentally capable of taking care of themselves, Nuclear families don’t close their doors for any set of parents. They are welcome to come in whenever they wish to and live for as long as they wish to. Often children and parents live in the same building, same apartment, same colony or at least same city (staying as nearby as they can), unless children have their jobs in other cities or parents are not ready to move in to a new city with their children.
I have also seen families that lived under the same roof which never respected each other, were living hell and sons would take care of their parents only because their parents will bequeath their properties to them. I’d say it’s a sad situation. But often this is considered love and nuclear families are scorned upon still.
This is not to say that there aren’t certain nuclear families that don’t’ give a damn about parents or joint families that respect each other’s individuality and personal space and where everyone is treated as an adult and where the daughter-in-laws parents can come in and stay for as long as they want. But such instances are very rare.
Lastly what about children whose parents were abusive or toxic and now the children after growing up want to start afresh and sever ties with their parents? Should they be forced to look after their parents?
Also with latest technology- phones, cell phones, e-mails, video calling it becomes easier to constantly be in touch with your parents, no matter the physical distance. A mode of transport like airplanes allows one to cover large physical distances, moving from one geographical location to other faster and easier. I don’t see how living separately can diminish the love that parents and children share.
If anyone thinks these arguments are anything new/special, they are sadly mistaken.
This sort of argument forms the basis of a staggering amount of emotional blackmail in this country.
It is not wrong to wish to spend your last days in the company of your children/grandchildren. What makes the writer believe that this cannot be done in a nuclear family?
Is it being implied that nuclear families make it impossible for people to live with their grandparents sometimes? If so, that’s complete nonsense.
I also find it intriguing that the author completely ignores the needs and wishes of the WOMAN’S parents. It’s as though there is only one set of in-laws. The average Indian joint family would certainly balk at the idea of the DIL’s parents spending their last days at their place. So what happens to THAT set of parents who presumably sacrificed just as much of their happiness as the guy’s parents did?
Are they not human?
Pingback: Gaining independence but losing ground « The Age of Aquarius
The generalizations made here seem kind of strange to me. I make more than my wife, and she does not do any house hold chores ( though I admit she does more of child caring, but not all). It is only me who takes care of all the expenses, she keeps all her income. I do not even have any idea how much she has in banks and property etc. But, once when I went on half pay for some time, and she was not working, she spent a small amount from her savings ( of which I am not sure how much was actually my own savings as I gave all my money to here) and till this day she reminds me of it and belittles me about it. BTW., we both take care of her family ( not financially), but she never ever visits my family and never welcomes then if they ever visit, so that they have stopped visiting. And she says it is not her duty to say “Hi” to them. She makes me do all this by reminding me all the time that I am not a rich slob and should be thankful that she is staying with me.