Even if Poonam does not run naked, she should be punished?

Model Poonam Pandey’s plan to strip if India beat Sri Lanka Saturday has angered the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) women’s wing which has sought police action against her.

“Indian women are revered and respected since time immemorial…”

How exactly do we show this reverence to women? Please do compare this to how we show respect to everybody else.

Can threats be called ‘respect’?

I have so much respect for you; don’t ask to eat with the rest of the family. Your happiness lies in seeing us enjoy the food you cook.”  Is that respect?

So basically,

If you disagree we can’t respect you.

Don’t try to give your point of view, we won’t be able to respect you…

Little girls earn this respect by respecting the fact that they are always second to their brothers. “What’s wrong with that, don’t they love their brothers?

It’s more like a Terror of Respect.

Do as you are told or else we will not ‘respect’ you.

Dress only the way we permit or else…

Don’t choose your life partner or else…

Let your husband and his family abuse you, or else…

Give us a male heir or else…

Don’t enter the temple, you are impure…

And worst,

Don’t complain if you were sexually harassed, molested or abused or else no respect.

So, when it comes to women, it seems respect is more a means to control than a privilege.

I would say the only kind of respect that matters is the respect we have for ourselves. Or Respect that is given in return of respectequal and mutual. All other forms of reverence and respect are not too far from ‘honor’ and ‘honor killing’ or honor related abetted suicides.

Kelkar objected to Poonam ‘sullying the image of Indian women before the whole world.’ (Read Bhagwad’s objections to granting Poonam such powers)

Another man thinks her actions can sully the name of his caste. So obviously this lawyer believes there are no Brahmin rapists, child abusers  and murderers? Or these crimes don’t insult Indian culture?

“Even if Poonam does not run naked, she should be punished as she not only gave a wrong impression of the (Brahmin) community but insulted Indian culture,” The case will be heard April 5. (Today)

We live in an India where some people can legally express their arrogant, sexist and casteist opinions and offend my democratic and tolerant sentiments. I find it difficult to understand or ‘respect’ such frivolous objections. Are they doing this for free publicity? In a country where rape victims have to wait for years for justice, aren’t such cases a waste of time and resources?

Thankfully we are a civilized, democratic society. Poonam Pandey, Rakhi Sawant and Mallika Sherawat are generally free to ignore these opinions or react (if required) through a civilized, legal process.  No stoning. No anti-blasphemy laws.

And that is something I respect about my country. :)

Women who value the respect they have for themselves more than the respect of every wannbe politician, publicity seeker, neighour’s third cousin etc are able to fight back.

Sraboney shared this video where this Pakistani actor Veena Mallik is fighting back against similar allegations. Makes me wonder if hypocrites are the same everywhere.

Marriages are sold to Indian women in a glossy cover…?

I have blogged about “How important is it for a girl to get married?” and was following the comments in this very interesting discussion on, “Marriage : An over-rated institution?”

Desi Girl argues,

Marriages are sold to women in a glossy cover, remember once a woman got married she got to wear good clothes and jewelry that was forbidden for single women.

It gave her a free license to talk about sex and sleep with a man who everyone assumed would love her.

For all these benefits all she had to do was cook, clean, make babies and keep every one happy.

Yes in lieu of her services she is provided a roof over her head, food and protection from other predatory men.

We also know women could be killed if they tried having relationships or children without getting married (they can still be killed for this). If they had children they were not allowed to put them in schools or open bank accounts for them.

So basically the society made it difficult for women to stay unmarried.

Once there was no choice, there was desperation.

“From the careers they choose, the clothes they wear, the way they walk, talk, everything they do, is done keeping in mind the only future they have – Getting Married (and Staying Married).”

It was also decided that the bride must ‘relocate’ upon getting married. (She couldn’t disagree because nobody asked her).

…it is the daughter in law who agrees to enter into matrimony who has to establish herself and win hearts. Once mutual trust is established her in-laws are going to go out of the way to pamper her.”

Pamper her so much that remaining in touch with her family becomes ‘freedom’.

“…in-laws give the new bride time to adjust and allow her freedom to remain in touch …instead of treating her as an acquired property.”

When being treated as ‘acquired property’ is an option, freedom becomes immoral.

“…if we take Indian marriages in general, whose freedom is curtailed and whose isn’t? Will your (a man’s) in-laws ever tell you what clothes are appropriate or what your working hours should be?”

Marriage gives special privileges to women?

“Hindu married women are covered head to toe in “marriage symbols” (men don’t bother to show their status), … women fast, pray etc etc for this male figure who continues to stay in his own house, being mama’s little boy, doesn’t have to sacrifice career for kids.. …what do women get in return?
And lets not get started on the dowry angle…?”

Once ‘sacrifice’ became a ‘custom’, no more ‘pampering’ was required.

“…about a woman going to stay with in-laws. That very idea should change. Married couple should stay wherever they choose: by themselves, in HER house or HIS house with mutual understanding..
Since none of these things (and many more) are not even given a thought to as of now, marriage is indeed over-rated.”

My question:

If Indian society saw marriage as an option, and not as the only goal in a woman’s life, do you think some of our social problems (like female feticide, dowry, domestic violence or fear of social stigma in case of sexual crimes) might become easier to deal with?

__________________________________

Edited to add:

I would love to read what you feel, please consider yourself tagged! Do let me know if you write a post in response to this question.

Here is what some other bloggers feel,

1. Phoenixritu - Marriage: The great Indian scam.

2. Ruchira – Yes I am single. So?

3. Pixie – My answer to IHM’s question

4. Shilpa Deshpande – Marriage

5. Sandhya – Marriage: Obligatory or Voluntary?

6. Shail – Is marriage an overrated institution?

7. Alankrita – Greener Pastures.

8. Richa – On marriage and such.

9. Siddhesh ‘Ravan’ Kabe – Oh for the love of marriages!

Response from Anon Super-wife.

Anon Super-wife’s response to reader’s comments to her email here.
To all your readers, a big thank you, for taking time out to read and ruminate about the situation and to try to help.

And, I would like to add that I did solve the problem by doing something I wanted to, but couldn’t because I wasn’t sure that it was right. In my mind, I did want to just speak out in my own way and not just pretend things were okay, but my preconditioning wasn’t allowing me to.

The comments of the readers just got me doing it –  simply by refusing to cook. When despite me cooking, I don’t get to eat, it is only fair that I don’t as well cook.
I can eat a pizza or grab a Mac. let the people who do want rice, roti, rasam and sambar cook it for themselves.

Needless to say, no one cooked and pandemonium ensued. At least I was full and spent more time with the baby. All worth it, I guess.


As for working – I guess this is the way we are conditioned. My gran has always taught us grand kids to “tolerate, keep quiet, and understand” – this she says works miracles in any marriage. After a lifetime of seeing women that way, little wonder then, that we understand that this is the way it should work.
My mom who always wanted me to be financially independent – because, she thought that it would help me chart my own course – also implicitly gave me the same advice. Earning is important if something untoward happens, it isn’t something that you use, to wriggle out of your responsibilities. It is ingrained like religion is, or fear of putting your finger into that electrical socket is, you follow it without a question.

Practically it is difficult for me to get a maid, because I need things to get sorted by 8 AM and trust me when I say the leading set of people who give IST a unique meaning is this sect of maids. Where are they when you need them?

It’s not that I resent doing the work at home. I enjoy keeping my home clean I enjoy cooking for my husband, I do stuff for the MIL because I understand she’s worked hard at her place and I would like to let her relax when she comes visiting.

What I do not like is the attitude that says, “This is YOUR home, YOU and YOU alone are responsible for this home”. So, when food falls short, or when I’m working late and cannot handover the milk coupon to the watchman, or even when I’m rushing to office and cannot water the plants – it’s probably ONE time – the ONE time in a month that they have to do it – but it is MY home you see, MY plants. When I don’t have milk for tea – no one notices, hell! no one even notices if I’ve had tea or not (she can always drink it at office) but if for some reason the undergarments aren’t color coded and folded the way they have to be, I’m a “lazy girl”, “always in front of her laptop girl” or just plain “Sigh  … I never can seem to find anything at all …. old age might be. In India, we always spend half our lives searching“.

And you know what they say? That tidal waves are influenced by the waxing and the waning of the moon? They should also add something like – husband’s MCP factor is influenced by the coming and going of his mother. (actually, scratch that – the effects linger long after the mother has done the damage and exited the building). (Another post discusses this here – IHM)

So, to all your comments and suggestions, yes, this has to change. maybe the workload, but definitely the attitude.

I am not conditioned in a manner to raise my voice at home – like I said, “The finger in the electric socket syndrome”, but I know this has to change.

The reason I reached out to you, is because  I wanted to know if you felt the same way I did.

Remember the Anonymous Confused Wife?

This mail from the Anonymous Confused Wife had arrived moments before I hit publish on the last post, Confused Wife agreed to let it be shared here. Do you think reading this email might help the domestic violence victim in the last post?

___________________________________________

Hi IHM-

Hope you’re doing well. You might remember me as the anonymous confused wife who emailed you her laundry list of problems a while back.

Today happens to be day of great clarity for me and I want to share the details with you. You and other readers of your blog helped me get here and I’m very grateful for that!

After the discussion on your blog, I thought I had made up my mind about getting a divorce. But I kept flip-flopping for months because I wasn’t sure I was ready for the life of a divorcee. I kept thinking of how my parents would feel about it, how hard it would hit them, how it would affect their social life, and how I’d have to deal with that guilt for the rest of my life. I can understand why a lot of educated, otherwise empowered Indian women don’t do it. The loss is just too much to bear: not only do you lose a spouse, you also cause grief and pain to the rest of your family especially if they’re not on the same wavelength as you.

I didn’t tell my parents anything about my marital problems – because I was too proud. I’d fallen in love with and married a guy of my own choice, I’d been an adult for a while now, “I should be able to handle my marriage on my own” etc. Also because I was scared – I figured they’d encourage me to keep “working on it” and compromise and adjust and all those things all those parents say, but at the same time keep worrying about me. So net result would be the same bad marriage for me but more grief for them.

Finally, months later, I poured my heart out to them because I couldn’t take it any more. And I was stunned by their response – “If you’ve been so unhappy, why did you wait this long to tell us? You can’t spend the rest of your life dealing with this. Get out of it and move on the soonest you can.”

I kept repeating the same thing over and over again: “Aap mujhe jaldi se doosri shaadi ke liye toh nahin kahoge naa? Aap mere peechhe toh nahin padh jaoge naa, phir se shaadi karne ke liye?” (‘You won’t pressurize me to get married again?‘)

And they kept reassuring me that they won’t, they just want me to be happy.

I cannot describe in words the relief I feel. And the immense gratitude. They could have made this so much harder for me but they didn’t. I didn’t think I would ever feel happy initiating a divorce – in spite of the knowledge that I couldn’t possibly be happy staying in this marriage – but I do. The only thing that was holding me back is now gone. It is a wonderful, wonderful feeling. To know that there’s nothing that stands between me and my happiness, that they’ll be happy for me when it’s all over. To know that THEY KNOW I’m capable of being very, very happy even when single and alone (not the same as lonely). THEY AGREE I can spend my time on better things than figuring ways around the dysfunctional relationship between a mama’s boy and his mother.

Thank you, IHM. Thank you, universe.
Love and peace,
Confused No More

____________________________________________

Here’s one more way to celebrate the 100th International Women’s Day.

Click below to find out more. Hurry up, there are ten exiting prizes to be won.

The interference of parents in the married life of their daughters…

Pallavi shared this link.

‘The interference of parents in the married life of their daughters has become a major cause for playing havoc with the lives of young couples post marriage, the Delhi high court has said.

Daughter are supposed to become paraya dhan once they are given away in kanyadan, and any Indian man and his family would be justified in wanting a divorce if a woman’s  parents forget that.

Why I’d worry about any such biased and generalized statements. Because they encourage Indian parents to continue to disown their married daughters. Happily-Married-Daughters bring approval of the neighbours’ uncle’s nephew’s third cousin’s grandfather, so even if a married daughter is unhappy, she is advised to please adjust, or die trying. Having no one to turn to, makes her less equal and exposes her to abuse, exploitation and harassment.

Also, even if the parents were interfering in the case mentioned, it does not mean that this is becoming a trend. The idea that a woman’s parents have no right to support her once she is married, and an adult male needs to be mothered all his life, is changing and this change should be welcomed.

I wonder why there was no mention of ‘parental interference’ in these cases.

1.

Allegations that the mother-in-law kicked the daughter-in-law with her leg, told her that her mother was a liar, poisoned the ears of her son against the daughter in law, had been giving perpetual sermons and threatened her with divorce. [link]

2.

Bombay HC held that in-laws’ insistence on sari can’t amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. [My response here.]

Deciding what an adult son’s adult spouse wears is not interference?

3.

Another mother “filed an affidavit that the daughter in law works 8 am to 8 30 pm, but does ‘no additional work’ at home.

Was this seen as interference?

*

And just how much do an Indian daughter’s parents interfere for it to have ‘become a major cause for playing havoc’ with their daughter’s marriages?

In Haryana a son beat his wife in the presence of her parents, for wearing jeans when she went shopping with them.

‘…the police promptly dispatched the battered woman … to her in-laws house, terming it as a “family matter”. No case was filed.

Promptly dispatched to her in-laws house, a paraya dhan‘s rightful home once she is married.

*

Bollywood went out of it’s way to show loving a married daughter could lead to breaking her marriage.

How would you see this scene from ‘Phagun’ (1973)  if Waheeda Rehman was the husband’s mother and not Jaya Bhaduri’s?


Related posts:

No Jeans for Indian Daughters in law.

Can’t end marriage over sari.

Loving sons who devote their days and night to maintain peace in the family.

(and many , many more)

Let us not for a minute forget that we women still walk across minefields…

Starry sent me a link to this article from ‘The Hindu’ warning women against treating their legal rights and equality (that they have been so magnanimously granted) as their rights. (Author : Lakshmi Visweswaran)

My response in red.

Having struggled hard to obtain legal means to break free from male dominance and depravity, are we women today at the point of endangering those very means?

It’s not ‘we women‘ against ‘them men‘. Patriarchy is the problem, not ‘Male dominance and depravity‘. Although Patriarchy appears to empower men, it actually allows a few men and women to control the lives of most others.

I myself am a strong believer in the equality of men and women and the right of every woman to lead a life of respect and self-dignity.

Why just women? Everybody, including men and children deserve ‘to lead a life of respect and dignity‘.

Yet, we cannot forget that we live in what is even today a male-dominated society.

The so called ‘Male Dominated’ society does not create happy male members either.  Patriarchy allows a few to control the personal lives of many, for their personal gain, and generally with excuses like ‘family honor’ or ‘has always been done this way’. Patriarchy does not respect individual rights or happiness of those it does not empower, which is why it has failed to protect basic human rights of baby girls, female fetuses, girl children, senior citizens without male children, victims of sexual abuse and rape, victims of domestic violence, widows and single women etc.

Women have had to struggle and fight male egoism at every step to get even a few benefits like the above legal provisions on our statute.

The society struggles against set norms that have become a habit (customs). Those who benefit from the biases are resisting the changes. E.g. Khap Panchyat and those who get caregivers through the Joint Family System.  It’s much more than ‘male egoism’.

The bill seeking 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies was passed in the Rajya Sabha this year, after almost 14 years of its introduction, and it is anybody’s guess when it will be implemented.

A lot of men support the bill, if only to bring their female relatives (along with their male relatives) into politics… (my views…)

A shield

The modern Indian woman with her new-found economic, social and political independence is no doubt kicking to break free from the fetters of subjugation and subordination which have haunted her since time immemorial.

Many Indian women have no idea that they are as equal as anybody else, they  believe abuse is a part of a woman’s life. Some other Indian women  have every opportunity to grow and they knows their rights. Many other Indian women are ‘allowed education’ but warned against ‘forgetting their limits’ or thinking they are ‘too equal’ – it’s possible that this Indian woman gives the impression that she is ‘kicking to break free from the fetters…’. Her inevitable though slow successes seems to worry those who fear change.

In this uphill task, she has to learn to use the law as a shield to protect herself and not as a weapon to attack. A handful of women are forgetting that any relationship, whether marital or otherwise, is not about who has the upper hand but about who complements the other and how.

Most of the Indian society has always been about ‘upper hand‘ and ‘control’. A handful of women today are able to see they need not accept that as a rule.

Unfortunately today, aggressiveness has somehow become synonymous with “assertiveness” so much so that there are women who do not hesitate to file an FIR with the police or knock on the doors of the courts at the drop of a hat.

Most women do not knock of the doors of the court even when they have every reason to. Their families and the societies warns them against being seen as aggressive.

A heated discussion or disagreement, a refusal by the husband to allow his wife to wear western clothes or go out with friends, some chiding by the in-laws could all easily be labelled as cruelty by some women and, with enough stoking by unscrupulous advocates, this snowballs into a legal battle which leaves nothing but a bitter taste and an empty purse.

Until recently, a refusal to allow his wife to wear western clothes/meet her friends  was seen as a husband’s and his family’s right. If husbands and their families do not accept that they can’t control an equal citizen’s life, even if she happens to be the lowest in the Patriarchal hierarchy, perhaps they need some counseling along with/before police custody.

Still a minority

No doubt, such women still form a minority, yet no one can overlook the harm they may inadvertently be causing to a large number of Indian women, who genuinely need the law to help them find a way out of their miserable and pathetic situations; also, many a time it is an escape route from what has become to them a living hell.

A law being misused is not a reason for depriving victims of a legal recourse. This is a much needed law. A society that still thinks a wife should not mind if her husband does not allow her to wear Western clothes or to meet her friends, needs such laws even more urgently.

With more and more cases of abuse of women-centric legal provisions, the day may not be far off when the same men who conceded our reasonable demands start re-thinking.

It’s not men verses women. Nobody needed to ‘concede’ “our” demands. Law-making is not about magnanimity. If a wrong was being done, if unfair advantage was being taken, it was time to put an end to it. The society will take time to accept women as decision makers in their own lives. The law – unlike unwritten customs, can be reviewed, challenged or made stronger through legal processes. As of now social norms seem to undo a lot of good that laws begin to do.

With the joint family concept having become a thing of the past and with family ties getting weaker by the day, the need is for the establishment of several more counselling centres in colleges, offices, hospitals and even in courts.

The slow end of Joint Family is the beginning of the end of Patriarchy. It is a much needed change. The end of Joint Family will also be the beginning of respect for  female children – the unwanted liability, the paraya dhan in the Joint Family. It might also bring relief to the parents and families of girl children – they may find they can hope to see their children living with respect, self confidence, dignity, equality, love and safety.

These must be manned by trained professionals who have in-depth knowledge of human psychology and behavioural patterns. People, especially youngsters, must be encouraged to seek the help of such centres.

People of all ages might need counseling.  The damage that the Joint Family system or Patriarchy has done to the society will be more difficult for the older generation to understand, because this is the only way of life that they might have seen.

In fact, all family disputes should be taken up only after it has been certified by a counsellor that the case is beyond counselling.

No ‘certified counsellors’ should be allowed to become the middle men between a citizen and their right to justice. There is also a risk of the counselors being bribed.

Parents, family members and close friends can mediate and help the couple identify their actual problems and assist them in solving their issues amicably.

This is exactly what was being done for centuries. Girls were being sent back to adjust and many die adjusting even today. The law was made to protect women from such families and in laws. Patriarchy does not value it’s female members and through centuries the counselling they received has amounted to asking them to ‘Please adjust‘.

Advocates also have a major role, for they can make women see the futility of their case and advise them accordingly, instead of stoking the embers into inferno.

Why should advocates make women think they have no hope? Why should it be  assumed that what women are complaining against is not important? Taking a woman’s case seriously is not ‘stoking embers into inferno’ – it is making sure that she is not made into an inferno.

Compromises

Lastly, women themselves have the power to make or break their future.

Unfortunately they don’t. When they try to help themselves they are warned against the ‘unknown devils’ and lawyers who might stoke the embers of their unreasonable demands into infernos – the only way to be taken seriously is to agree to sacrifice their happiness.

The modern Indian woman should not forget that every form of relationship calls for some give and take.

Indian women are taught that the ‘give is for daughter in law’ (only future, no options, sacrifice, serve, adjust, honor etc), and the ‘take is for the husbands and their families’ (dowry, ladke wale, can divorce and remarry etc).

Small compromises or adjustments need not be misunderstood as signs of suppression.

Examples of small compromises? Eating when everyone has eaten? Taking permission to work, having children and taking decisions for these children, meeting friends, wearing salwar kameez or jeans, walking without covering one’s head…?

No woman should ever suffer cruelty or harassment of any form silently.

But having to take permission to work, study, dress comfortably, save or earn, meet friends & birth family  – is not harassment.

Yet, before rushing to court, let her ponder over and see if it is indeed her rights that have been trampled upon or it is just her ego that has taken a beating.

Being ‘disallowed’ from working, having female children, meeting friends, wearing jeans, eating with the family, spending what they earn, visiting their parents etc should be seen as a trampling of ego?

And being beaten (only if they didn’t ask for it) should be seen as a trampling of rights?

Women have traditionally been discouraged from having anything that might pass off as ego.

For, let us not for a minute forget that we women still walk across a minefield and if we do not tread carefully, there is every chance of the mines blowing up not just our lives but also the future of women.

The only minefields women need to fear are the minefields of old habits and social conditioning. And the way to avoid these mine fields is by boldly  knocking at the court’s doors if they in their own judgment (which is as good as any other adult family or community member) feel they are unhappy.There are some who fear that empowerment of women might mean a change in the system and those who comfortable with an old system (Known Devil Syndrome) assume any change can only be bad.

Loving husbands who devote their days and nights to maintain peace in the family.

Anju wonders if this man fits into the label of a ‘Maa Ka Ladla’ or  a ‘Joru Ka Gulam’. ‘Few days back I visited a patient and I was amused at the way the patient was being pampered alternatively by the wife and the mother. It was like who will take more care of the man.’

Anju feels for this man, ‘how tiresome it must be for him to pamper both the egos, to make both of them feel important and let both feel that he cannot do without either of them’

***

I wonder if women face this problem.

Are women able to take better care of  themselves on their own? We know they don’t. They need as much care as everybody else does.

So why don’t women have their mothers (or fathers) and their spouse competing to take care of them? He is supposed to be ‘Budhape ka sahara‘ of one and ‘Pati Parmeshwar‘ of the other.

What makes two family members almost fight to take care of this adult, male member? Is it because they each feel they must win a closeness to him? Are they insecure? If yes, then what makes them so insecure? Does this insecurity benefit the man in some way? (I don’t think so.)

Has tradition taught women that their lives must revolve around their husbands/husband’s family? Is the rest of the population given the same values?

Has the same tradition made mothers feel that while some of their children learn to take care of themselves (female children), some of them (male children) need to mothered all their lives?

Married daughters are encouraged to develop a healthy relationship with their husbands, but married sons in India are expected to ‘balance‘, which includes things like making sure their wives are respectful, subservient, obedient to their family etc.

Do I sympathize with this man? I feel I sympathize with the situation and with the families involved.

Indian mothers still look for and ‘bring’ obedient and pliant daughters in law for themselves when they arrange marriages for their sons. Often compatibility and companionship between the couple are not considered as important, as the wife being obedient and respectful to the in laws. Sons who feel this is unfair are labeled Joru Ka Gulaam.

Traditionally the society is fine with sons spending most of their time with their friends, but traditionally the same sons are not encouraged to see their wives as their best friends. Some sons have no real relationship with their wives for many years (often never). The mother remains the friend and companion (or male friends do). This would still be fine, if the daughter in law also had the option of maintaining a relationship with her own parents and old friends – this generally does not happen. She must make her husband and in laws her world, but she must accept that she is not their world.

Double standards don’t make for happy families or a just and fair society.

Three Saudi youths were arrested for attempting to sexually assault a teenager…

Teenager escapes rape attempt (in Taif,  Saudi Arabia)

Did you find this news difficult to believe? I did.

Is the victim going to be stoned for attracting the molesters attention?

No.

“The victim told police, after  escaping from the youths, that while walking down the road a car with three men pulled up and invited the victim to join them. When the victim refused to get in, two of the men tried to drag the victim  into the vehicle, but the victim resisted and managed to run away. They had also taken the victim’s mobile phone.

With the help of a Bangladeshi worker, the victim called police and described the car the attackers were driving.

A police patrol detained a car matching the victim’s description when it passed through a checkpoint later in the night.

After being interrogated, the youths admitted to trying to sexually assault the victim. They also confessed that they had sold the victim’s mobile phone for SR300 in a nearby market.

They took the police to the shop where they sold the phone and officers interrogated the shopkeeper.” (News from here with minor changes, to make a point…)

Can you guess why this victim is not going to be blamed for this (attempted) crime?

What do men need liberation from?

1. Men need liberation from being family breadwinners or ATM cards. All responsibilities should be shared by all adult family members.

If there is a family business, the son must (and the pressure increases if he is the first male child) join it, no matter how unsuited or how unwilling.

2. Men should be able to pursue their dreams.

I know of one talented man who wanted to be a theater artist, and still hopes to – some day when his family is settled. Men need liberation from a system that expects them to  – marry, ensure their spouse is dutiful,and have sons to carry on the family name …and the same responsibilities.

3. Men need liberation from being ‘protectors’ of women. Boys as little as four are taught to take care of all the women in the family. We might think it’s no big deal, it prepares them for taking over future responsibilities – but it is a burden, and I think every child has a right to stay a child while he is a child.

Girls who do not have brothers manage perfectly fine, women who do not have sons or husbands learn to ‘protect’ themselves. I think families should make an effort to encourage girls to take care of themselves, so their brothers – sometimes years younger – are not forced to be their ‘protectors’.

4. Another responsibility a lot of Indian boys have is of escorting the women in the family. Thousands of women travel to work and at all hours on their own, but many thousand more from all backgrounds are always accompanied by some male relative. It is a waste of time for the male relative. I think our society should realise that they have more to do in life than following (or leading) female relatives who can easily learn to move on their own.

I know of this woman who had an opportunity to sing at a Radio Station (in 1970s) but since her brother couldn’t accompany her there everyday, she had to miss her dream opportunity. The woman was 25 then. Why couldn’t she be shown how she could commute on her own, instead of forcing an unwilling and bored sibling to accompany her?

5. In many families men are also the family chauffeurs. Women – same generation, age and educational qualifications wait for male members to drive them wherever they have to go. This when thousands of women all over the world drive their own cars.

Shouldn’t a man know that if he needs to be driven somewhere, he can rely on a female member with the same ease she finds him reliable. Driving and cooking are important skills for all men and women.

6. In conservative families men are expected to know whether their adult spouse and siblings  are appropriately (modestly) dressed.  They also must guide them about where they can or can’t go (apart from driving them till there). This is seen as a part of ‘protect the women in the family’ responsibility. Once again, why not make every adult member take responsibility for themselves?

Even if the dependent female members initially dislike it, eventually everybody benefits from this.

7. And then unlike girls who are encouraged to get married and move on with their own family life (sometimes against their wishes, but that’s a different topic) – men are under immense pressure that their spouse, probably chosen by the family elders,  is taught to be  dutiful and respectful to their family.

Most parents are less selfish when looking for a life partner for their daughter. Dowry  and social standing worries apart, they try to make sure they find someone who would care for the girl. The rules often change when it comes to sons.  The family elders rarely look for a partner for the son, they generally look for a daughter in law for themselves.

Here the men often have little say in who they marry. Their life partner is chosen for her dowry, her height, her skin colour, her marks in Class X, her sister’s character and the number of male children in her family. And even after all this, if he falls in love with the wife, he is made to feel like he is abandoning the family. Daughters face no such problems, they can rave about how wonderful they think their husband is, the entire family looks indulgently, even proudly that a daughter from their family is so well settled. If she misses him, she is teased affectionately.

(This often makes a married daughter lie about any problems she might be facing, but that’s another blog post.) The happily married daughter is seen as an asset to the family name and honor,  but not a happily married son. A married son’s opinion – if he disagrees is seen with suspicion because it might be tinged with his wife’s opinion, but a happily-married-daughter’s opinion is valued. Her spouse – unlike a son’s spouse, is an important family member. (Maybe the most important family member).

And the son dare not object to this bias because that is seen as the worst betrayal a son can ever show.

Now with equal property rights and equal responsibilities – this does seem unfair.

8. Being able to do jobs that are ‘reserved for women’ – like cooking or cleaning. The first ones to protest are women, mothers who have seen nothing better, and then wives who have been taught this is not a man’s job.

Remember ‘Salaam Namaste’?

9. Being able to enjoy looking good without being labeled.

Something as simple as being able  to grow their hair. Why is it that most offices have no problem with women in long hair but feel men with long hair mean lack of discipline?

Men also have restriction on the colours they can wear, although most Indian men don’t care for colour stereotypes.

10. Freedom to show they are sensitive. Feelings like jealousy, frustration, fear, nervousness or insecurity are not be reserved for women, but men are expected to never show these feelings.

11. Paternity leave. And the freedom to show they are more than sperm donors. I know of men who made great parents, and their children would have benefited from some more time with them. Men should have the freedom and facilities to choose to be full time parents.

I am sure there are more. And just like equal rights for women are good for the entire society, equality for men is also good for the entire society.

Related post: International Men’s Day.

Paraya dhan and her limited rights.

Somewhere in the blogosphere -

“… girls were considered a burden..but today times are changing…but having said that i will say that I feel pleasure in traditional giving to my daughter’s in laws..to me its my gratitude to them for loving, respecting and looking after my daughter, because my daughter lives with them, not their son with me, so its they who spend on her and look after her.”

A lot of Indians will find nothing wrong with this statement. Not even with ‘…they who  spend on her and look after her.‘ [One person works hard and makes himself financially secure. Another person works hard but remains dependent.]

Not even with,

because my daughter lives with them, not their son with me’. (Why not?)

We feel grateful to a paraya dhan‘s in laws for ‘looking after‘ her and we try to keep them happy.  Dowry and gifts for a woman’s in laws are rarely mutual.   It’s dangerous to assume that gifts and dowry  can buy happiness or safety for woman.

Won’t it be simpler to let the girl be self reliant? Not just financially but also in her attitude.

No, because yesterday an acquaintance complained, “Independence makes girls selfish, they don’t like to live in Joint Families.

I would have thought selfishness should make them want a system that is said to be good for them.

It seems the system does not suit all it’s members – so some member must be forced to accept it, in the name of custom, tradition, family values, honor, their destiny, sacrifice or love.

The Joint Family System is convenient for parents of male children. It is also the biggest reason why all Indian parents pray, fast, bless, abort or kill for a budhape ka sahara*.

We  even steal, or secretly replace our female babies with male babies in hospitals.

We openly express sympathy when a girl child is born.

We also believe that 50% of all equal adults in India (and their children and grandchildren) belong to their spouse’s family.  From the moment they are born they are prepared for being able to survive, adjust and accept a life that they may or may not want. Any objection to living with their spouse’s families is seen as being selfish – and no sin can be bigger for a woman, because the essence of a woman lies in her eagerness to ‘sacrifice‘.

All paraya dhans are expected to give up their identity when they marry. They can also be restrained from using this new identity if they separate from the spouse. [Thanks for the link Mr Gopinath.]

Murtaza Khan understands these double standards very well it seems. He believes that the ‘lady who opts for marrying outside the state (Jammu and Kashmir) must lose citizenship of the state.

I was relieved to note that the Jammu and Kashmir assembly witnessed an uproar… as the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) member Murtaza Khan introduced …the controversial Permanent Resident Disqualification Bill. [Link]

(Jammu and Kashmir enjoys special status under Article 370 of the Indian constitution. Only residents of the state can acquire immovable property, study in professional institutions and get government jobs. [link])

____________________________________________________


Paraya dhanThe term is used for girl-children in India.  Traditionally a girl-child is seen as a liability, because her parents must train her from babyhood to live with and serve her spouse’s family. paraya’ – not one’s own, ‘dhan’ – property, wealth.

Budhape ka sahara – a male child – seen as a support in the old age. Also called budhape ki lathi – meaning a senior citizen’s walking stick.