Photo Credit: Made Underground
This is the second post from my ten question series on questions and discussions that are particularly important for intercultural or interracial couples to have. All of the posts from this series can be found on the series index, The Ten Questions Every Intercultural Couple Should Discuss.
True story: my husband and I got into an argument last night at one am because of this question. I asked him what his answer would be, after three years of marriage to an American, he answered, and somehow the conversation devolved into a debate on whether Christians in the U.S. see Muslims as more of a threat to their religion than Hindus, and if so, why.
People who know us well will not be surprised at this – a defining aspect of Aditya’s and my marriage is that we have intense debates often. Keeps us on our toes! But discussing this intercultural couple question is almost bound to raise some hackles, as it basically requires each person to criticize the other’s culture and/or country. That’s a feature, not a bug, though.
Digging into the question
The question at the title of the post is “What’s your opinion of our two cultures?”, but you’re meant to go a bit deeper than mere opinion. A better formulation of the question would be:
What do you think are the best and worst features of your own culture? What do you find best and worst in my culture?
Truly answering this question doesn’t mean giving wishy-washy answers like, “oh, most Americans I’ve met are really nice, but I wish they were better educated about other countries.” If someone gives you an answer like that it – or, even worse, declares that they think all parts of their culture or your culture are either totally horrible or totally awesome – it probably means that
- They haven’t given much critical thought to culture and the cultural differences between the two of you (bad!), or
- They don’t really know much beyond superficial details about your culture and haven’t bothered to learn in the time that you’ve been together (badder!), or
- They have simplistic or black-and-white, good-vs-evil notions of culture and countries (baddest!)
Truth is, every culture has its good aspects and its bad aspects – and it’s important to acknowledge and understand that, especially if it’s the culture of your significant other!
Why this question is important
It gives you an idea of how well you know and understand each other’s cultural heritages. While culture is not the most important thing ever in an individual intercultural relationship – the individuals are! – it does play a big role. A deep understanding of each other’s backgrounds is a key tool for understanding each other. This is particularly important if one partner hasn’t traveled much in the other’s homeland, or has only been exposed to a limited number of individuals from the same culture – there may be cultural generalization going on there that aren’t warranted. (Remember when discussing this topic that broad cultural trends do not mean that everyone from a culture is the same – i.e. try not to generalize too much, and never stereotype.)
It can highlight the differences (and similarities) in your views of the world and what really matters. How much your goods and bads intersect with each other can be a very enlightening experience! For example, Aditya and I agree that the biggest drawback we find in Indian culture, both broadly considered and in the particular social sphere Aditya grew up in, is the real and persistent gender inequality that exists. The fact that we agree that this is an important issue for Indian culture is reassuring – I know that he’ll always have my back if I refuse to follow Indian cultural customs which promote gender inequality.
It can give you more insight into both your partner’s culture and your own. While I love the fact that Indian culture seem to value education and learning (even if I don’t always agree with what I know of India’s educational methods), Aditya said that the best part of Indian culture (as he’s experienced it) was the deepness and (physical) closeness of friendships, which he doesn’t think exists as often in America. This is certainly not among the top things that would come mind when I try to think of the great things of Indian culture! But, after he said explained what he meant in more detail, it gave me new piece to fit into the jigsaw of my understanding of Indian culture.
It lets each of you experience criticism of your culture (with an equal sharing of praise) within the context of your relationship. Look, no one likes to be criticized. And no one likes to hear things they identify strongly with (like their culture) criticized either. But part of being in an intercultural relationships is that there is going to be a necessary compare-and-contrast between each other’s cultures – and it’s not always going to be flattering for everyone. Learning how to accept – and give – valid criticism of each other’s cultures without hurting feelings or making the individual feel attacked is a useful skill. Aditya and I, with the number of debates and squabbles we get into, practice this skill nearly every day!
The Bottom Line
Gently critiquing and praising each other cultures, as well as your own, will help each of you become both more aware of each other as individuals – what things do you think are really great, what things do you detest – and more aware of the differences in your outlooks on the goods & bads of culture. With this question (like most of them in the series), I encourage you to not just jump into this conversation, discuss for ten minutes, then be done. Think about the big goods and bads you see in your own and other cultures over the course of a few days. And come back to the question now and again – Aditya’s and my answers to this one have changed tremendously from when we were first dating in college, for instance.
9. December 2009 at 1:38 pm
Great questions GG. Can’t wait to read the rest!
10. December 2009 at 1:14 pm
This is a pretty important question! I don’t know how many American/Indian couples I’ve seen online in the past few years where one half of the couple seems to hate everything about the culture of their spouse, and can’t seem to do anything but complain, or try to force their spouse to give up on his/her culture. Why marry an Indian (or an American) if you can’t stand Indian (or American) culture?
I’m looking forward to the next questions!
11. December 2009 at 10:29 am
I agree 100%, D. Jain. It’s sad when people can’t see that the reason their spouse is the person he/she is stems from his/her background and culture. You can’t have one without the other!
Looking forward to seeing the rest of the questions, GG!
10. December 2009 at 8:30 pm
Wow, on the subject of friendships I came across this, Americans reporting fewer close friends.
http://www.livescience.com/health/060623_close_friends.html
12. December 2009 at 11:30 am
GG, Thanks for the opportunity to discuss some ‘hotly debated’ topics in a friendly and collegial setting. It is certainly good that you and Aditya are able to dicuss ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ of both Indian and American culture. I, however, disagree with your shared view about “real and persistent gender inequality that exists” in “Indian culture”. I believe that Indian culture, in fact, provides the most opportunity for equality between men and women. I present my evidence below:
First, lets look at history. Much before any other nation in the world, India had a women soveriegn (‘she-king’ in common English language). Razia Sultan was a warrior soveriegn who ruled from Delhi and led her armies into battle, something that was not heard of in the west (or East in the Chinese civilization) in her time. More recently, Laxmibai of Jhansi led her army against the British and died fighting in battle with swords in her two hands (and her infant child tied to her back). The story of Laxmibai is so ingrained in every Indian kid and so central to modern Indian culture that when ‘Netaji’ Subhash Bose (who was also from Bengal as Aditya and is more popular than Gandhi in many parts of India) raised the Indian National Army against British imperialism he named the women regiment ‘Rani Jhansi Regiemnt’. And, it gets even more interesting, when you learn that the role of this regiment was not simply to take care of male soldiers as in western countries at the time, but that the regiment was in combat with full military role. For those interested in reading more about this, you can take a look at “Nationalism and Feminism in Late Colonial India: The Rani of Jhansi Regiment 1943-45″ published in the journal Modern Asian Studies (1993).
Second, and relatedly, it is a seldom acknowledged fact that the Indian freedom struggle is the only one in the world (at least, the only one in a major country) where women played a major role on the front lines. Whether it was the Gandhian non-violent active resistance to the colonizers or the Boseian aggresive defence of the colonized and the enslaved, women participated fully, were killed in unprecedented numbers, and were imprisoned just like the men. This active role of Indian women, I believe historical facts suggest, is unmatched in most other countries where women’s role was not as visible or frontline as in India.
Third, most scholars of religion agree that the dominant religion in any society serves as “a system of symbols which acts to produce powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations” among people in that country. Religious symbols lead “people to feel comfortable with or to accept social and political arrangements that correspond to the symbol system”. In a provocatively titled article “Why women need the Goddess” published in the 2006 book “Between the worlds…” Carol Christ argues that only when a religion acknowledges feminine symbols of divinity as important can ordinary men and women begin to see the feminine as equally legitimate and beneficient as the masculine (and by implication, women as the equal of men). As far as I know, Hindusim is the only major religion of the world that considers feminine divinity (eg. Sita or Durga) as equal to masculine divinity (eg. Ram or Shiv). In fact, in many strands and flavors of Hinduism the feminine is more important than the masculine (ask any Bengali about ‘Durga Puja’, literally translated as ‘worship of Durga’).
I can gladly submit more evidence to make my claim, but I suspect some of you already hate me for typing such a long note! So, to sum up, I disagree with arguments about gender inequality in India, and believe the Indian culture is very equal when it comes to gender issues. The reasons for why we sometimes see gender inequality is to be found elsewhere (e.g. in colonialism).
12. December 2009 at 12:06 pm
India is ranked 114 out of 134 countries in man-woman equality, Chanakya. While it is true that women in India have relatively high influence in politics (India’s 21 out of 134 in that sphere), it’s equality true that India’s current birth ratio of girls to boys is a shameful 89 girls to every 100 boys.
Your evidence amounts to basically:
1) One woman ruler, and popular stories of women fighting against others. The fact that these are widely known stories just highlights the fact that they’re unusual events. True equality would mean that no one would remark upon the fact that women are fighting alongside men, or that a woman is ruling.
2) That women fought against colonial rule along with men. Again, I do not disagree that women in India have a stronger role in politics than they do in many other countries. But that doesn’t imply that they’re equal in all – or even most – spheres of life. Or even in politics: while women have played leading roles in some areas of political life, there’s also the Women’s Reservation Bill. Something that shouldn’t be required in a country which has gender equality.
3) While it is true that Hinduism has both male and female deities, of varying importance (depending on who you ask, obviously), this doesn’t imply that the common woman will be treated with equality. You can point to the deities, I can point to the Manusmrti (which is not accepted as authoritative by many, but is accepted as authoritative by a sizable chunk of Hindus). The problem with citing Hinduism as a force for gender equality is its heterogeneity – the only unifying factor for all Hindus is (for the most part) the Vedas, which I would not consider a particularly gender-equality-pushing set of books.
While there are many factors involved in the cause of the gender inequality seen in India today, the fact remains that, as a nation, this is a country which is killing or aborting (or causing to die via lack of nutrition or medicine) roughly one out of every nine female babies – that’s what lets you achieve a gender ratio of 89 to 100. Maybe not all parts of the country have such a skewed gender balance, but it’s a mark of shame against the nation as a whole. (Similar to the way that slavery was not practiced in all of the US, but that, as a nation, we are all responsible for that part of our history.)
Edited: looking over the report I cited above, I see that I was incorrect in the 89 girls to 100 boys being born statistic. India was given a score of 89 out of 100 based on the inequality that exists in births compared to what would be he expected birth ratio average for the world (94.4 girls for every 100 boys). However, it should be noted that there are two factors which theoretically should make the Indian birth gender ratio favor girls over boys (i.e. more Indian girls should be born than the world average): latitude and maternal malnutrition. Countries closer to the equator have a higher number of girls born than those further away, and countries where mother malnutrition is higher (like in India) have higher numbers of girls born as well.
Anyways, the main point is that, whatever the non-biased gender ratio ought to be, we can be pretty sure that India is missing it by a large margin, which supports the hypothesis that Indian society (at least in some regions of the country) has troubling gender inequality.
16. December 2009 at 3:01 am
India is a preindustrial society at best; a raucous patriarchy at worst. Amidst rapid economic growth one might find the previous statement to lie somewhere between delusional and insensitive. But the reality is, Indian culture is yet to make sufficient progress to find common ground with the west. All the economic progress–which came into effect through a heavy western influence–is no litmus test for social and cultural progress. Enamored of the former, most Indians fail to see the palpable, possibly incorrigible, flaws in their culture.
Myriad forms of misogyny are rampant in India. This is how it has been for centuries. And it’s not likely to subside in the future.
21. December 2009 at 3:22 am
Very well said Gori Girl. I am going to use some of these points in my discussions too.
12. December 2009 at 1:09 pm
GG, I have lived about 25 years in India and have not met even one person who had read the manusmriti (I am curious to see if other Indians who visit this blog, including Aditya, read it when they were in India!). In fact, I hear more discussions about Manusmiri in the west than I heard in India. I think to argue that Manusmriti guides Indian thinking on any issue, let alone that of gender, would be similar to future generations claiming that Dan Brown’s book on Jesus’s secret life heralded a paradigm shift in how 21st century christians view Jesus. Perhaps, even more interestingly, the ideas that are usually attributed to manusmriti as related to women were also echoed centuries later by western philosophers, many of who are required reading in American schools and colleges. And Manu wasn’t the first one to present some of those idea either, Plato and Aristotle said similar things. To me, the most intriguing thing about Manusmriti is that, like the Bible, it says different things in different sections. So, unless you read the whole Manusmriti, it is difficult to say what he believes in about women, and like several other religious texts (like the Bible or the Quran) one can pretty much use it to argue on whichever side of the aisle one is.
As for the Vedas being gender-friendly, I do not claim to have read all the vedas in their entirety. All I can say is that my limited knowledge of the vedas suggest that they provide some of the world’s earliest examples of viewing feminine and masculine as equal in divinity.
Hindusim is heterogenous, no doubt- As the law of requisite variety argues the internal diversity of any social system should reflect its external diversity- however, it is not correct that its heterogeneity is its only uniqueness. Another uniqueness you will find as you travel around India is the exalted place of the feminine symbols of divinity in Hindu temples, something for which there is no comparison in protestant Christianity. (And I am not being critical of Christianity here, I go to Church quite regularly myself!).
GG, I looked at the link you provided for the gender inequality, but that was a Times of India article! The TOI is an interesting newspaper, which presents an isolated case of rape on the front page and systematic racial abuse of Indians in Australia on the bottom. So, I don’t give the TOI much credence, they have copied the British style of tabloid news-reporting (where Tiger Woods’ infidelity is bigger news than the fight in Iraq or Afghanistan).
I have to admit that women soveriegns are unique because they were so few of them. My point is simply that India has kept its tradition of powerful women alive- Razia, Laxmibai, Indira Gandhi, Mamta Banerjee, Mayawati, and Sonia Gandhi. For someone like me who is used to seeing women in powerful roles in India, the treatment meted out to Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign was interesting and sad! When many Americans waved signs saying “Go home! Iron my clothes”, I didn’t know whether I should cry or laugh.
I firmly believe that in many sections of Indian society today women have far more rights and are much more equal than their counter-parts in the west. (In fact, almost all research shows that women in the US today are far less happier and satisfied with their life than their previous generation.) I think gender equality is a traditional value emphasized by Hinduism for centuries, and is nothing new in India! (‘The Gender Reservation Bill, notwithstanding!).
12. December 2009 at 2:02 pm
I noticed how you didn’t respond to the most damning – and obvious – point: how roughly 1 out of 9 girl babies (or female fetuses) are killed in India today. *shrug* Obviously, I can’t argue against willful ignorance.
In my first comment I also linked to the acutal study on gender equality. Here’s the link again. Read through the actual complete report, and then come back and argue that women are treated equal to men in India. The simple fact is that in terms of health, education, nutrition – the basics of life – women do not get equal treatment in the vast majority of India. Perhaps they do where you live & in the social sphere you travel through – which is great. But anecdotal experiences and a handful of picked examples do not change the actual facts of the situation for the vast majority of women in India.
Edit: to draw out the specifics from the report, out of 134 countries, India is:
114st overall in gender equality,
127th in equality in economic participation and opportunity,
121st in equality in educational attainment,
134st (LAST!) in equality in health and survival, and
24th in equality in political empowerment.
That last is to India’s credit. The first four are horrible, and to pretend that this isn’t the situation in India only makes change that much more unlikely.
12. December 2009 at 4:52 pm
GG, you said “Obviously, I can’t argue with willful ignorance”. Your statement is accurate, no one can argue with people who want to stay ignorant. In India, we have a saying, “You can wake up a sleeping person, but you can not wake up a person who is pretending to be asleep!”.
I chose to not respond to your comment about male-female birth ratio for two reasons: (1) in the interest of space, and (2) my limited knowledge of biology. However, you (strongly) encouraged me to respond, so here’s what I think the situation is: When the British were expanding their presence in India and attempting to take over the country, they made a very interesting rule: If a man died without a male hier, all the wealth and property would go to the state (which was essentially the British government). Now, one doesn’t have to be a Skinnerian behavioral theorist to see what effect the British policy would have on behaviors of the Indian subjects. Indians, just like anyone else in the world, didn’t want to family wealth to simply go to the country, and psychologically responded to the negative incentive regime by focusing on having boys. Such psychologically ingrained customs and preferences don’t simply dissapear when the colonizers pack their bags and leave. As the Blacks in the US have learned to their dismay and frustration, when several generations are made to live under a particular regime, it affects individual and social behavior of everyone for centuries. (BTW, I don’t know enough biology to make an educated argument about the natural ratio of men-women in humans, so I limited my comments to historical factors!).
Now, let me turn to ‘THE REPORT’. Navjot Singh Sidhu, a famous Indian cricketor who was famous for his one-liners like the American Yogi Berra, once said “I lean on statistics like a drunken man leans on a lamp-post, for support and not illumination”. I guess, he was right- In the fast-paced world we live in, most of us find it easy to simply repeat statistics, rather than the inside story. After all, numbers are easy, everyone knows what ’1′ is, what ’114′ is, and what ’127′ is. When I look at the list, I see Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden at the top four positions, all Scandinavian countries, those that Geert Hofstede conidered ‘highly feminine’. It is possible that we should all aspire to be like them, but my concern is that with limited knowledge of what allows them to occupy the top four positions in these rankings, we would simply be following them the same way as until last year everyone followed them in secularism before we learned that their secularism only extends to what brand of Christianity you are and not the construction of muslim minarets. And, by the way, these countries were never known for their American-style feminist movement either, so it seems such movements also have nothing to do with gender equality. So, is it the fact that they have been neutral in global wars that can explain some of what is going on with women there?
Now, what is even more interesting in the report, at least for me, is that Sri Lanka is #16 on the list, way ahead of America’s #31. With all due respect to SL, I never realized it was a mecca of gender equality! I would certainly like to know how many American men and women who are reading this report are wondering, “Hmm! We Americans should be more like Sri Lankans when it comes to gender roles and women’s economic participation”. Even Cuba, Mozambique, and Phillipines are higher than the US. Very interesting, perhaps Americans and Indians should strive to be more like these countries, if the results of the report are accurate!
Here’s something else, if you are interested in global affairs. What is the difference in gender equality between Spain and Portugal? Similar culture, similar society. Still Portugal is #46 (much below the US) and Spain is #17 (way above the US). I looking forward to someone shedding some light on this!
So, my conclusion about ‘The Report’ is that it has some value, but like with any statistical reporting, we should be careful about what statistics tell us and what they hide from us. (There is another famous Sidhu one-liner I can use here, but it is somewhat sexist and so I will refrain from using it here given the gender-sensitive nature of our discussion!)
13. December 2009 at 10:21 am
First I want to correct the statistic on the sex ratio in India… It is not 100:89, it is 100:93.3 (http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/fsex.aspx)- still bad, but not nearly as bad.
Secondly – I want to make clear that I don’t buy into the simple rankings that the report publishes. There is a great variance in what it means to be “economically equal” across various cultures – since Economic activity varies. The report doesn’t cover things like prevalence of sex abuse, personal liberties, equalities in the eyes of the law, etc etc.
All that being said – to say that “Indian culture [...] provides the most opportunity for equality between men and women” is willfully ignoring the sad realities that exist in India – which have been well documented.
While the rights of women in India are constitutionally protected, the reality on the ground is quite different – women (especially in affluent families) are traditionally expected to take care of the household. In movies and television, the archetype of the woman is to be the damsel in distress, or be the “feminist” who is tamed by the leading man. Both in schools (in rural India) and at the work-place (in urban India), the inequality based on gender all but slaps the observer in their face.
Lurker Frequente – to me – embodies what is wrong in Gender perception in our country. The idea that men are “supposed” to dominate the women.
To quote Jhansi ki Rani and Mamata Banerjee is well and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that the “common” woman is not empowered.
Blaming the “British” based on the Doctrine of Lapse is funny – that law was in effect till 1858. That’s 151 years ago.
14. December 2009 at 7:41 pm
Aditya,
I’m speaking in metaphoric terms, but this is what I believe.
The basic concept is that women always push for control over a mans life. Once they have that, they lose attraction a little.
To avoid this, the guy should lead the girl more, and always be a challenge to her. She should never have the feeling of having the guy in her pocket. This keeps her interested.
This is also the answer to the question “What do women want?” which is basically, “a good guy who can lead”.
Pregnancy, kids, and changing hormones that come later in a marriage are another subject altogether. But in short, basically that stuff puts the brakes on sex. Guys with roving eyes, rove, and cheating occurs if the guy has less control. Slowly women biologically turn off the sex tap. This happens naturally in long term relationships.
Girls, I know that sounds awfully sexist, but it’s true, and I would not like to argue on it. If you have not experienced it now, you might experience it later in your life.
Wishing you all the best with all your relationships.
LF.
14. December 2009 at 10:07 pm
It doesn’t just sound awfully sexist, it is awfully sexist.
There’s a huge difference between being in someone’s pocket, and being the hyper-masculine leader you’re proposing.
One would imagine that given your great insights into the nature of what women want, you’d be in a great healthy relationship… care to share why that’s not the case?
14. December 2009 at 10:35 pm
Aditya,
This is a more real life, biologically coherent, long term way of looking at male female relationships rather than a conventional way.
I am not discussing my personal life on this board. It should be sufficient to say that I am highly satisfied with it.
Wishing you the best with yours,
LF
30. December 2009 at 11:53 am
1. On the British rule affecting social norms in India: Sure, it’s possible that they had a contributing factor. There are a lot of various influences that have led to the current state of gender inequality. But I don’t really care about playing the blame game in situations like this – the question is, what are you going to do to work towards a solution?. That’s what actually matters.
2. On the report & rankings: yes, all rankings are flawed in some manner, just like all studies, so you should always read the fine details – that’s why I linked to the report (twice). However, all of the statistics that get India its ranking are listed in the report:
Primary education enrollment: 96 girls for every 100 boys.
Secondary education enrollment: 79 girls for every 100 boys.
Tertiary education enrollment: 72 girls for every 100 boys.
Infant mortality ratio: 102 boys live for every 100 girls, when you would expect (given differences in health outcomes due to gendered diseases) 84 boys to live for every 100 girls.
Adolescent fertility rate: 45 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 (which is better than I would expect, actually – it’s not much higher than the US).
Maternal mortality: 450 women die per 100,000 live births
Only 3% of legislators, senior officials and managers in India are women.
Women earn 66% of what men do for the same work.
Labor force participation ratio: 42 women for every 100 men.
Literacy rate: 70 women are literate for every 100 men.
Life expectancy for women is 2% higher than it is for men in India, but the world-wide human average is about 6% due to gender differences in health outcomes.
etc, etc, etc. Ignore the ranking if you want – these statistics are damning enough on their own.
3.To answer your question on why some countries are ranked higher than others – there are different subsections measured. For instance, while the culture of Spain and Portugal may be quite similar in day-to-day life, one of the two may get a boost in ranking because of higher political empowerment or laws requiring equal pay for equal work. Take a look at the various statistics that make up the ranking if you have questions – it’s all laid out very neatly and the methodology is well explained. A conclusion that most people who work with (good) statistics eventually come to is that the reality of the world is much different than personal anecdotal experience would suggest. That’s why all nations, even poor ones, spend so much money collecting data – it’s key to understanding what’s actually happening on the ground in order to make informed policy decisions.)
12. December 2009 at 8:24 pm
Nice discussion guys.
Thus, as a rule countries with a high amount of
feminism=high standard of living; more relaxed attitudes towards sex and dating; greater divorce rates; lower birth rates.
13. December 2009 at 11:26 am
The comment about friendships being tighter in India has come up for S and I, as well, generally with regards to male friendships. It seems to us that here in the US, men’s friendships often fade in importance / closeness as they move out of school and college days, such that by the time they are in their 30′s and 40′s many men spend more of their social time with looser work friends and the husbands of their wives’ friends, with whom they may enjoy relaxing but are less likely to confide in or really connect with. In contrast, it seems more socially acceptable here for women to make maintaining close friendships a priority.
Aditya, does this seem true to you, and if so, what do you try to do about it in your own life?
14. December 2009 at 10:14 pm
I think it really depends on the dynamics of each couple in question.
In our case, I’m quite extroverted, and make friends quite easily. Though most of our current friend-circle is comprised of current co-workers of GG and ex-coworkers (and their friends) of mine…
We’re also still in our 20′s and have no kids – so I guess this doesn’t quite apply to us quite as yet
13. December 2009 at 4:54 pm
Aditya, Thanks for joining in Chanakya is into holier than thou mind set. Yes, you are right the ideals in the book and a countable few in the history books do not depict the plight of majority of women in India. Two of Gargi and Maitris, one Mira and one Addana do not represent all women, their resistance towards patriacrchy was revolutionary for their times but not a trend. For your attention Razia Sultan was the only female ruler in her own right, Laxmi Bai was a regent queen like many others (Ahilya Bai Holker, Chand BiBi …)she was susbtituting for her minor son (if you really want to split hair).
In every village in India there will be one or two strong grannies (post menopausal/ no longer a sexual threat) who will wield power over most men in the village but that does not mean all other women in the village are equally priviledged. Across the world history you’ll find women resisting the dominant system let it be Joan of Arch, Pochahontas and on and on.
Chankys it was so easy to point fingure at the British, come lets point all fingures at the Moghuls because they came before British and forced the localites to force “purdah” (veil) on their women and force them to commit “sati” etc. Lets forget that the staus of women in India was already on decline since late Gupta period.
Lets together wage war against GG for she has shown us the stats. Lets say none of the female babies in India are mal nutritioned or discriminated against female children. Let us blame the British and wash off our hands from any responsibility. Why shouldn’t we, we no longer live in India, it is a distant land now.
Could you please forward us the link or TV clip where you saw the plac cards asking Clinton to “iron my shirt.” I followed the campaign closely but never saw any thing like that. Have you paid attention to how Mamta Benerji, Mayawati and other female politicians are character assassinated in every election. How these women politicians have to asexualize themselves to be able to event move in the public arena.
Lets celebrate the ideal of female goddesses and take away a woman’s right to be a human being, lets worship her as a Goddess or stone her as a “Dakin” (witch). The female sweeper who came to clean our hostel in India was constantly sexually abused by most male staff who followed strict untouchability rules in the broad day light. Makes me wonder was she not a woman or the “Goddess” you just mentioned.
About Manusmriti, true nobody reads it and nobody cared for it until British tried to standardize the caste system and weed out all its fuildity for the convenience of adminstrative rule. But we still have Manu’s statue in the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, Rajsthan. Let us just yell together caste system and untouchability never existed in India, it was the figment of the British and other invaders.
“Indian culture [...] provides the most opportunity for equality between men and women” serves to cloud the material realities of an average person and prevent them from questioning or directly resisting the inequalities.
About the women’s plitical participation in India we are still struggling for women to fight for their “gender rights” be it political affirmation in the parliament or right to work without sexual harrassment on the shoulders of male politicians (I mean there is no party dedicated to women’s rights, all pol.parties are using women’s rights agenda to forward their vested interests- caste, religion, region, class etc). How Indian women were indicted into the freedom struggle is totally another story, how male elites defined home and home land to combat the colonizer is all together another topic requiring more time and space.
Like Indian colonial elite Chankya is also trying to find the “mythical respected and revered woman” in the ruins of history called “Golden Age”. If you find one let us know. As for gender inequalities in the US, they exist and there is no denial about it. When I first came to this country I was astonished to find that there was a discrpancy in the salaries of professors and other white color jobs based on gender. In India I never heard of any thing like that it was outrageous, but I knew in India a female day labrourer made less than what a man made. It was more of a class issue intersecting the gender. In the US birthcontrol costed $30.00 a month and insurance did not cover it and in India it was given away for free thanks to the west. Yes, women in the US face a lots of hardships but that is no solace to women in India or else where. Just because women in the most technologically advanced country are suffering so my sugffering in the land of poor is not a big issue. Here at least people are working to remedy that not like covering up to present a holier than thou image. Let us blame it one someone. It really feels good.
18. December 2009 at 8:28 pm
“About Manusmriti, true nobody reads it and nobody cared for it until British tried to standardize the caste system and weed out all its fuildity for the convenience of adminstrative rule. But we still have Manu’s statue in the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, Rajsthan.”
Not sure I understand the significance of this and why you think it is a negative (correct me if I’m wrong). Manusmriti was a compilation of laws for a society during a specific period, similar to what Hammurabi and other early law-givers gave in the history of humans. If you go to the US Supreme Court, you’ll find a statue of Muhammad too, along with many other early law-givers, and we all know the colorful life of that person and the trouble caused by his laws to this day. It’s not as if all the laws in Manusmriti were bad or regressive when using today’s standards. And what exactly is achieved by this exercise of applying today’s standards to judge yesterday? Just for some vanity project that how wonderful and amazing we humans are today and how bad the humans were yesterday?
The fact is that unless you ask the people who put up the statue why they put up Manu’s statue, citing it is like a Rorschach inkblot and you and others can simply project any motives on to the fact of existence of Manu’s statue in a court in Jaipur. It’s a useless exercise.
18. December 2009 at 8:39 pm
BTW, if you agree that no one read Manusmriti – including you, I presume? – then I’m curious – how did you form an opinion that Manu was a bad guy whose statue shouldn’t be there in a court? Did you take someone else’s word for it who may have picked-and-chosen certain excerpts from it? Or was it the atrocious and overly-hyped film ‘Water’ with a quote from Manusmriti?
And if most Indians are not even familiar with the contents of Manusmriti, let alone following them religiously, how can you connect Manusmriti to the current behavior towards women in the society? That’s illogical!!!
Just throwing some dots around without connecting them in a convincing manner does not a cogent argument make, though Manu likely works as a good punching bag for feminists to take out their frustrations.
21. December 2009 at 3:36 am
Well said.
Lets together wage war against GG for she has shown us the stats. Lets say none of the female babies in India are mal nutritioned or discriminated against female children.
Yes, women in the US face a lots of hardships but that is no solace to women in India or else where. … Here at least people are working to remedy that not like covering up to present a holier than thou image.
And about Manusmriti, we live it everyday, even the educated ones amongst us. Take a look, http://indianhomemaker.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/some-gems-from-manusmriti/
13. December 2009 at 10:37 pm
In his book ‘The Argumentative Indian’ nobel-laureate Amartya Sen writes that debate (traditionally known as ‘shastraarth’) is a unique feature of the Indian culture. I guess, he would be proud to see our discussion here.
Girlsguidetosurvival(GGTS), name calling is not a very sophisticated form of discussion. I hope we can discuss facts, rather than adopt a condescending tone. I am impressed you followed the American presidential elections closely. I guess, you missed the town hall meetings (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/iron-my-shirt/) and public meetings where the B-word was used for Senator Clinton (http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/311/Iron+My+Shirt). Let me remember the last time such a word was used for Indira Gandhi or any other women of that stature in India. Hmmmmm!
GGTS, I find your argument about ‘asexualization’ very interesting, though I am not sure what you mean. How is it that Sonia Gandhi or Indira Gandhi or Sarojini Naidu ‘asexualize’ themselves?
As for my argument about impact of British on Indian society, I guess I should have expected someone will say it is “funny” and others will make mock it. Countless articles have been written about the desire of Indian educated people to not want to be counted in, or even be associated with, the oppressed. When social scientists discuss the impact of 18th century slavery on the status of marriage among Black families in the US today or that of 20th century European anti-semitism on Jewish identity today or of 18th Century Manifest Destiny on Native Americans, I have always wondered why no one is talking about the adverse impact that British policies had on contemporary Indian society. It saddens me to see that educated Indians are not willing to see how historical events can have long-term detrimental consequences for future generations, when it comes to Indian society.
(As for the discussion of ‘sati’ or ‘veil’, if we are going to talk about those things, I guess we should also talk about witch-hunting in Europe and North America or the veil in Christianity (Corinthians, 11: 3-10).).
As for “mythical respected and revered women” of India, it has always amazed me how large sections of elite Indians unhesitatingly tell us that “Sita and Durga, Laxmi and Kali” were myths, at the same time they want us to accept the truth of (Virgin) Mary and saint ‘Joan of Arc’. I guess, that’s what Lord Maculay wanted to happen to Indians. He must be happy to see what he helped achieve!
(As for India being a “distant land”, I can only say that for some of us, it is still our motherland and we continue to think of it as our own. So, lets not paint everyone with the same brush!)
30. December 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’m not trying (nor do I think anyone else is) to deny that there is gender inequality in other places of the world, the United States included. Certainly there are gender issues here in the US! But this is not an argument against gender inequality in India – and the problems in India are greater than they are in the US, by any objective measure you’d care to name (except, perhaps, political empowerment at high levels, although, given the low sample size, you’d really have to have a qualitative debate on the matter).
13. December 2009 at 11:25 pm
Male Female Gender ratio
India 190,075,426 172,799,553 0.909110434
Singapore 348,382 324,050 0.930157126
Sweden 733,597 692,194 0.943561656
Germany 5,768,366 5,470,516 0.948364927
Australia 2,026,975 1,923,828 0.949112841
USA 31,639,127 30,305,704 0.957855253
Brazil 27,092,880 26,062,244 0.961959157
Read the above stats for the age cohort 0-14.
By your logic Singapore and Sweden should be killing more girls since they are 3 more points below Brazil. If the gap between brazil and sweden is not relevant then the gap between Sweden and India is not relevant too…
source – all figures are from CIA Factbook
Many years ago my economics Professor Gita Sen at IIMB refused to provide an explanation for this discrepancy when she was on her pulpit sermonizing about how how desis kill their girl children.
I still have no valid explanation for the discrepancy. A few hypothesis yes but no full explanation.
14. December 2009 at 7:25 am
The numbers you quote are for ages 0 to 14, not rate at-birth. Do you understand the difference between the two? Discussing one number does not prove a thing regarding the other number.
Also, the CIA factbook, while informative, should never be your primary source for any statistic. They do a good job getting into the ballpark, but, on the whole, I would not trust any specific information to be up-to-date & reliable.
There is an extended body of literature in economics regarding the “missing girls” of some countries in Asia precisely because it is a well-established fact that gender selection is occurring. In fact, there is strong evidence that this practice is occurring among immigrants in the US, where gender selection technology is not controlled.
14. December 2009 at 4:36 pm
Gori girl
Clearly I know the difference – and you know that I know. Let us stick to the discussion at hand rather than insulting your critics intelligence.
I picked an openly available statistic. Error margins would normally be the same across countries. If it is grossly incorrect, feel free to provide another source. Neutral please – not leftist publications. You saw the numbers and the math. Is there an explanation ? Why is Sweden worse than Brazil?
Gender bias exists around the world – it is different in differnt cultures. Some knowledge before slagging off cultures and nations maybe a good idea.
Glenn Beck and you are no different – just two sides of the same coin. At least Beck does not profess to be open minded.
Gender selection fits the narrative of savage cultures and hence talked about constantly. It is an exception not the norm.
Do the numbers that you may have considered for the Western world take into consideration abortion ?
Killing a foetus for lifestyle reasons is acceptable while killing it for gender is not…. hmm interesting point of discussion.
btw I am pro-abortion and India has had an abortion act since 1971 before RoeWade.
As Chanakya asked do the numbers mean that Sweden kills more girls once they are past birth ?
The positive gender ratio for Western nations is due to the older women not young ones.
Happy to discuss the issue offline if you are still keen. Be prepared to have your pants taken down
30. December 2009 at 12:17 pm
Statistics regarding mortality or sex ratio of children aged 0 to 14 will be affected by a host of childhood illness and genetic diseases which may have gender-based outcomes or occurrence variability. Thus, it does not represent a good statistic to determine the possible rate of gender-based abortion or killing of newborns. I suggest you look at the data in the report I mentioned above, which does report the sex ratio at birth. I personally don’t have the time or interest to compile the data for all nations from that report, but you’re free to go at it. Let us know if anything odd crops up!
There is a moral difference between abortion overall, and abortion specifically of a particular gender, and it is the second case which points to gender inequality in society (through the valuation of one sex over another). The first can be summed up as basically “I do not want/am not ready for/cannot support a child period, thus I will have an abortion” while the second is “I do not want/am not ready for/cannot support a girl child, but am perfectly willing to have a son”. I trust you can see the key differences between the two? Overall, I am very strongly pro-choice; I think that abortion is a morally acceptable choice in certain situations. However, the only gender-based abortion that I think may be morally acceptable would be in the case of a serious gender-based genetic disease.
13. December 2009 at 11:34 pm
Americans talking about gender equality is like the american president accepting a Nobel “Peace” prize. What a bloody joke.
30. December 2009 at 12:19 pm
Why? (to the first not the second – this is not the place to debate Nobel Peace prizes.)
It would be hypocritical if I said that America has no need to fix its gender inequality problems and India has to – but I didn’t say that. Both countries have work to do in that area. But that doesn’t change the fact that India has more inequality in several key areas, like education attainment rates and health and nutrition.
14. December 2009 at 12:12 am
1. What names did I call you?
2. Impact of British on Indian social fabric I guess you didn’t read
what I wrote:
“…British tried to standardize the caste system and weed out all its fuildity for the convenience of adminstrative rule.” Following were its impacts:
a) Communities that traditionally never practices Dowry or death feasts started doing so inorder to rise up in this new standardized caste hierarchy.
Refer:
Oldenburg, Veena Talwar (2002)Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime, USA: Oxford University Press.
b) Cleaningsing and circumscribing of women’s space in the name of ideal and right Indian way of life by Indian elite.
c) Imposition of gender rigidities and homogenization of gender ideals based on Brahmnical model by the British over the hetrogeneous social fabric of India where lower caste women had more freedom of movement and mate selection and walking out of an unsustaining spouse.
Refer:
Sagari, Kumkum and Sudesh Vaid (1999) Institutions, Beliefs, Ideologies: Widow Immolition in Contemporary Rajasthan in Nivedita Menon ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press 383-440.
d) Induction of women and lower castes especially (untouchables) in public field of national polity.
Refer:
Anagol, Padma (2005) The Emergence of Feminism in India, 1850-1920. Hampshire and Burlington: Ashgate
Malhotra, Anshu (2002) Gender, Caste, and Religious Identities : Restructuring Class in Colonial Punjab. USA: University Press
Walsh, Judith (2004)Domesticity in Colonial India: What Women Learned When Men Gave Them Advice. Lanham: Rowman& Littlefiled Publishers Inc.
Gupta, Charu (2002) Sexuality, Obscenity, Community: Women, Muslims, and the Hindu Public in Colonial India. New York: Palgrave.
So Chanakya, many people are talking about it. It is known as post colonial reclamation project started in late 1960s and early early 1970s. Good read will be Gayatri Spivak’s Can Subaltern Speak. Followed by Ranjit Guha, Arjan Appadurai, Sudhir chandra and others.
3) Just before his death BJP minister Promod Mahajan made derogatory remarks against Sonia Gandhi, later he appologized on the insistance of his party as there was lots of bad publicity about it.
I guess you have never been to rural Punjab where Indira Gandhi long before her assasination was addressed by B word for her agriculture and economic policies. Now same is used for Mayawati by land owning upper castes in UP.
I know Clinton was called the B word but “Iron my shirt” skipped my attention.
Character assasination of female politicians is very common. Women have to work extra hard to keep their images clean, they have to pose as good Indian woman, mothers, sisters and wives. So the best way is to desexualize and asexualize the female contestants. Political parties field female candidates who fit into accepted female roles and are related to some male politicians. Mamta Benerji and Mayawati are the only two single women in the Indian politics who are not related to any male politician rest all well know female politicians have family ties. The trash said about Mayai must be known to you.
4) Who stops you or denies about the Salem witch hunting or witch hunting in the Europe.
5) Did I ask you to believe in the virgin Mary?? Yes, there are patriarchal biases in the Bible just like anyother patriarchal religion, who denies it. Religion is a personal choice. If you believe in Kali that is your choice and your right. Wrong is to use it as a blanket to cover all the dark realities of material life of those who do not believe in it. There are numerous faiths in India yes, Hinduism is a majority but it does not guide the lives of all.
What is wrong with Joan of Arc? She was just resisting the patriarchal system. It was actual witch hunt. Yes, there are patriarchal biases in the Bible just like anyother patriarchal religion, who denies it. The point about “veil” was in refernce to who started it in India not that British/Europeans too have it there is a mention in the Bible.
About Sita you may not know she is one of the very strong women in Indian folk. She made all efforts to be her spouse’s suppoter and confidant. He failed her not once but twice first, the agni pariksha “trial by fire” and abadoning her while she was pregnant. She promised never to see his face ever again and she kept it. This part of her strength is never emphasized rather her devotion is highlighted. Why? because it serves the purpose of taming young wives. Emphasis on her strength would shake the oppressive system and uproot those who benefit from it male dominance in general and men within families in particular.
6) I have no problem with associating with the oppressed across the globe so do my friends. I am sorry you have only met people who avoid any such contact.
7) The “Shastrarth” you mentioned in the begining of the post, It is about focus on the topic in discussion not diverting attention by bringing up non issues or irrelevant points. I’ll draw your attention to three famous female vs male shastraths in Indian History (there are numerous between men of order), Gargi vs. Yajnavalkya, Tilotma vs Kalidas that he won by cheating the judges disqualified Tilotma, third one was between Maitri and Chanakya I guess. If you know of anyother please let me know.
It is a good practice if parties stick to facts and don’t try to go after proving holier than thou. Amartya Sen will not take pride in this I do not know. It needs more refined discussion. I guess this the maximum time and effort I can devote here.
If you need more reading refernces write on my blog I’ll post the bibliography.
Best,
Desi and human to the core
14. December 2009 at 12:49 am
Sorry missed these points in cutting and pasting Chanakya. Cont…
d) Impact of permanent land settlement imposed by British rule lead to disenfranchisement of landless communities from the communal lands. The peasant communities that survived on caste occupations often grazed their cattle (goats and other small animals) on the communal land. Their livelihood is so much impacted they are struggling to survive through out the nation and especially regions experiencing prolonged draught.
e) The forest policy introduced by British for the commercial timmber took away forests from village communities and now tribals communities are struggling to survive.
The discussion on prolonged impact of British rule on Indian social fabric that you want is already ongoing. The much warranted discussion and international attention needed is for the impact of caste discrimination on the dalits in India and other parts of the world.
Thank you, I guess now I am really done hear. It will be impolite to have long discussion on GG’s blog.
Appologies GG. Next comment will be in reference to the question you posted.
14. December 2009 at 3:16 am
“Now same is used for Mayawati by land owning upper castes in UP”
girlsguidetosurvival – I agree with most of your points, but this above statement was just ridiculous.
Middle class people dislike Mayawati not because they are rich or “land owning upper caste” but because she represents the very worst in Indian politics – corruption, parochialism, and a sheer lack of integrity.
The fact that she is a dalit and a women has NOTHING to do with it whatsoever!
The Mayawati government this year spent more on the errection of statutes promoting her own BSP party ( a party based solely on regional and caste divisions) than was spent on granting drought relief to millions of impoverished UP farmers. Such self serving politicans are common place in India -most of which are male, i might add.
You do your credibilty a great disservice by using a spineless, crooked politician like Mayawati as an example of gender discrimination.
14. December 2009 at 8:03 am
Hi,
I have been reading your blog for sometime..(just accidently bumped into it)…I find it really refreshing and insightful…can categorize it the best blog for any non-indian girl(i will call it non-indian and not white/black/hispanic etc as I am not a big fan of race but yess I firmly believe in culture differences and once you bridge/talk through these differences the journey becomes much easy and interesting too) who wants to get into relationship with an Indian guy as I find that there are still too many stereotypes about India/Indian family from someone who is not Indian..and your blog addresses all these issues…just keep up the good work..and best of luck to you and your husband.
An Indian from London
Mukesh
30. December 2009 at 12:21 pm
Thank you, mukesh – I’m glad you enjoyed reading the blog.
14. December 2009 at 10:36 am
I have to admit English is not my native language (I grew up speaking Hindi and Punjabi), so I asked a native English speaker to help me understand the meaning of “holier than thou” in the context of this discussion. I am still not sure how it is a poilte and non-rude phrase, but maybe GGTS can shed some light on it…
GGTS, I can cite a lot of books and texts too, but as you probably know argument-by-simply-referencing is not a very powerful technique for making your point, so I will refrain from doing so. As for your implied comment about not distracting from GG’s original post, I completly agree with it. So, I revert back to the issue of ‘gender inequality’ in her original post and the supporting arguemnts she provided in her early reponses:
1. The 100-89 boy-girl ratio is incorrect as Aditya mentioned. As for the difference between the ratio at birth that GG highlights and the ratio at 14 years that Melbourne Desi provided, if I use GG’s logic, it suggests that girls are being killed before birth in some countries (e.g. India), and somehow they die in greater numbers in the first fourteen years in other countries (e.g. Sweden). Hmmm, wonder what explains it? I guess, I should “not trust any specific information to be up-to-date & reliable”, so then I am not sure why the CIA handbook information is any less reliable or more misleading than the other.
2. It seems most of us agree that Manusmriti is not a reliable source and that it is not commonly read in India. Unlike several other religious texts, there is no India I know who would claim Manusmriti to be the word of God. Moreover, on most issues manusmriti is self-contradictory, including those related to gender issues. Lastly, some ideas presented in manusmriti have also been stated by Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, as well as modern western philosophers, who continue to be required reading in western schools and colleges.
3. ‘The Report’ is, as Aditya also indicated, a statistic, but not the gospel truth about gender equality in various countries. It provides no explanation or sheds no light on why US is a dismal #41, SL is higher than US, and Spain is much higher than its neighbor Portgal.
Now, if we still want to say that India is “horrible” when it comes to gender equality, we need to suggest other reasons. They are (and these are very often used too):
1. The Vedas are not very gender-friendly: having not read the vedas in comprehensive depth, I can only say the Bible and the Quran doesn’t seem to be gender-friendly either, so I guess, we are all in the same boat.
2. Hindi movies present women as “the damsel in distress, or … the “feminist” who is tamed by the leading man”. Maybe true, but so do Hollywood movies! I am happy to discuss this issue in as depth as someone wants. (Though it may be better to do it in a seperate post than confound the issue here).
3. “female politicians [in India] have family ties”. This explanation was very commonly used to explain Indira Gandhi’s position (and other powerful women in the subcontinent). I thought I stopped hearing it when Hillary Clinton became the first serious women presidential candidate in the US. She is after all the wife of a former President. Perhaps, it will come back when SC fades from memory!
I am not saying there are no social problems in India. I too have traveled rural and urban India well. However, I think to reduce social problems in India in simplistic ways as some people do and to present the west (specifically, the US) as some sort of mecca for gender equality or other issues (not acknowledging the genocide of native Americans and slavery of blacks etc) is unfair to the rich culture of India.
BTW, recently an Indian immigrant guy wrote in saying:
“I and my wife both have Green cards [U.S. permanent resident card] . She is a house wife and is going to school to do some courses. We have bought a home here and [it] is in both of our names. She fights with me everyday here in US. I cannot live with her anymore. She does not want a kid with me. I cannot live with her because: 1. Every week she makes me cry at least one time. She stops only after seeing tears in my eyes, 2. She scolds my mother/father/sister etc with such abusive language that person hearing should just die before hearing such things, 3. She says I cannot call my parents from home. I can only talk to my parents from office. I called once on my sister’s engagement day (Sunday) and she slapped me for calling [from home], 4. She says I should not support my parents financially or mentally, 5. She says she does not love me and would not have lived with me even for a minute if she had a job, 6. She says I can not attend my sister’s wedding., my sister is getting married in few months. I cannot live with her [my wife] anymore. It is like living in hell. She blackmails me saying that if I file divorce, she is going to put me and my family in India in jail on false charges. I am worried that she might do this act on my sister’s wedding day…. I am thinking about quitting my job here in US and go back to India without telling her.”
I was wondering if any of the feminist literature or “missing girls” studies mentioned here have any advise for this guy. I am sure he would appreciate any help on it.
30. December 2009 at 12:25 pm
Chanakya, I believe I responded to most of your points up-thread. If there’s any I missed, let me know.
Regarding the guy who wrote in – Statistics do not apply well to individual situations, as I’ve discussed before. This woman sounds like a bad person, and not someone you should stay married to.
14. December 2009 at 12:09 pm
Chanakya,
This with reference to the last part of your email. I commiserate with the writer. Please let them know they are not alone. Abuse is a learned behavior. People use it because they know they can get away with it. Ask him to tell what ever he wrote to a non-profit in his region or go to the Family Justice Center in his city and report it. Ask him to document his abuse and not to let himself be isolated.
Abusers use fear, fear of repercussions and threats to isolate the victim. He may be thinking people will not believe him because he is a man, that is again a social bias but know one will know until he tells it to someone. He can write on my blog or many other blogs and seek support. But he’ll have to report it to right authorities. Every one deserves to live life without fear and in peace.
Swordfish,
Being Dalit and a woman is a double bind than just being a woman from any upper caste.
14. December 2009 at 4:29 pm
No one doubts that.
But defending unethical, scum politicans based on the fact that they come from a group that has been historically discrimated against( dalits) is just a ludercris position.
Leaders who are more interested in divisive caste and parochial rhetoric over core development issues, need to be held to account, instead of being glorified as a caste and gender hero – which Mayawati is most cetaintly not.
14. December 2009 at 8:20 pm
amen. Mayawati would be a despicable egotistic politician irrespective of her sex and caste.
Additionally, I’m personally opposed to the very foundation of her politics… it is inherently divisive and the opposite of what India needs. Thankfully the voters felt the same way I do and trounced her in the national elections.
17. December 2009 at 3:14 am
Yeah it was great to see her pathetic, parochial party get thumped in the elections.
Unfortunately she is still very popular in UP – probably in part due to the high illiteracy rates in that state, and the large population of dalits who (understandbly, but wrongly) see her as a visionary.
15. December 2009 at 7:41 pm
I have a few things to add about some of the debates going on above…
In terms of gender issues in modern India:
First, in terms of female infanticide, it is also important to acknowledge that this practice is more of a problem in specific regions of India than in others– from what I studied in grad school, the Punjab has a particularly bad record in this regard.
Also, the Indian government has created a law specifically in attempt to combat this problem– making it illegal for families to be told the sex of their child before birth. (Though doctors are still often bribed in the real world).
Also, my understanding is that sex ‘selection’ (via abortion) is more prevalent among middle and upper class families who have access to resources.
Also, in the field of education, which I study, economically struggling families are much more willing to pull their daughters from school (or not send them at all) as opposed to their sons– just check out the literacy rates of men vs. women in India and you can see the girl child does not have the same educationally opportunities.
Another experience of mine regarding gender in India– I have been harassed on the streets more in my approx. 1 year of living there than in my entire life in the U.S. I know that is probably not the norm, as a videshi, I am probably seen as more harass-able, but I do not most Indian women but govern their daily lives with questions about their dress, where they go, their body language, and their way of speaking. Living in India, I, and most of my Indian female friends, must constantly think of ways to protect ourselves.
That being said, I would like to add that I don’t think India is all bad. I also think America has it’s share of problems, and I think, as a Indian/American couple, it is always important to make sure that even if something about the other’s culture is frustrating or just not we are used to, that we should still make it clear to also talk about the things we admire. I don’t think either of us think the other exoticizes our culture or despises it.
26. December 2009 at 2:23 am
Even in Punjab, the whole female infanticide thing is overhyped. People (read: Westerners) make it sound as if the streets of the state are paved with baby girls, but in reality the killing of female children is more the exception than it is the norm. There also is a strong cultural view against abortion, so its neither encouraged nor accepted by the powers that be.
Some portions of Punjab, believe it or not, actually have MORE women than Men (Hoshiarpur district being an example)…
26. December 2009 at 10:13 am
http://thelangarhall.com/news/has-punjab%E2%80%99s-sex-ratio-improved/
an interesting article.
Teg, I understand that there are certainly villages which would not follow the trend, but we are looking at the statistical data, which would mean that we focus on the middle of the bell curve rather than the outliers!
27. December 2009 at 12:59 am
Word of advice, it may be best to link directly to the Tribune website next time, rather than going through a junk pro-Khalistan website like langarhall.com
27. December 2009 at 7:48 pm
the hazards of trying to find data quickly… seeing as how I have never heard of the langerhall before nor do I know what it is ‘pro’ or ‘against’.. just say it had some quick data and was referenced.
27. December 2009 at 7:58 pm
here are an academic article link, if you are more comfortable with that. It has some tables comparing the sex ratio among states:
http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/cert/wpa/2009/dp0901.pdf
(Please note that the author is not western)
30. December 2009 at 2:15 pm
Yes, the particular facet of gender inequality that sex-selective abortions represent is largely a problem in the northwest part of India. Another interesting, recent study can be found at ActionAid. Given the constraints of the organization, they focused their work on a sample population of 6,000 families in the north & northwest, both urban and rural areas. Shockingly, almost all areas showed an increasingly skewed sex ratio, compared to the 2001 census data. Non-scheduled caste families in urban areas had the worst ratios, with high caste urban Punjabis showing a shocking ratio of 30 girls for every 100 boys..
Obviously, this isn’t true for many other parts of India, or else the whole country’s sex ratio would be skewed much more.
16. December 2009 at 4:08 am
“I have been harassed on the streets more in my approx. 1 year of living there than in my entire life in the U.S.”
Yups, this happens, and its a combination of a “chaltha hai” attitude, taking advantage of social friendliness, and a capped sex drive that is responsible for this. Its institutional. Foreigners are harassed in almost all developing countries to varying extents, but a lot more in India than for eg. in China or Thailand. The US is an exception, as almost everyone is from outside, at one point of time or the other.
It has happened to my sister as well, and usually, I recommend people to be slap happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLjCMUJ0Qck
22. December 2009 at 2:40 pm
Interesting that women who are “pro-choice” when it comes to the US society, suddenly take a “pro-life” stance when it comes to the Indian society (I’ve read and heard similar rationalizations/reasons before, mostly from American women who consider themselves liberal/progressive and have some interest in India).
Which one is it, or are your “principles” flexible? At least be consistent in your approach to the issue of abortion instead of appearing confused. If killing a fetus is wrong in your view, then it is wrong irrespective of the reason(s) for it. If it’s not wrong (and many American women are ignorant that there’s no pro-life/pro-choice kind of debate in India over abortion, and they try to project the US dynamics on to India, complete with the “right-wing” villains), then what makes the reasons for abortion in American society acceptable, but the reasons in Indian society unacceptable to you? Pro-choice means it is the couple and the mother’s choice – just like it is in the US – and not for the government or someone else to decide.
22. December 2009 at 5:39 pm
What a wonderful spin to what was actually discussed above!
23. December 2009 at 2:04 am
hmm,
I don’t really see it the same as you. If you abort a fetus because a.) you can’t take care of it. b.) you are medically not able to have a baby or c.) an extreme case, such as you are a druggie/alcoholic/etc who will probably harm your baby and treat it like crap, or your child will be born with a horrible illness from which they will quickly succumb or suffer from greatly.
that is different in my mind from when you a.) want a child b.) abort it ONLY because it is a girl.
And, by the way, in many such cases the mother doesn’t really have a choice, it is forced on her by family members. So that is not really “pro-choice” anyways. Forcing someone to GET an abortion, or feeling that it is the only option (fear of abuse by in-laws for having a girl) is certainly not a good thing.
Being pro-choice means women should have a choice over their own bodies. But at the same time, we can’t turn away and ignore a social ill. What if Americans started aborting all the children with brown eyes or something? How would that affect society? Would that be ok in your book? A devaluation of brown eyes mixed with a cultural acceptance to keep them from being born?
24. December 2009 at 12:12 am
LF and Linzi,
It is not just foreigners that are harassed, Indian women face it every day in the public transport. Men feel them up, make cat calls, stock womwn and some times when a woman resists they go to the extent of throwing acid on her. Often it is difficult for women to go out by themselves, for this reason families chaprone young women. This not only circumscribe women’s mobility but also keeps them entrapped in abusive relationships because the outside world is more hostile than the known abuser. I love the fact that here in the US I can move around freely even at midnight with no one bothering me.
Another funny experience is with women’s hostels, they have curfews for women residents but no rules apply to men. The hostel wardern and other staff are ‘in loco parentis.” Those rules even apply to working women in working women hostels. A friend of mine is a college lecturer one time she had a male colleague visit her at the accomodation she had within the college. The college prinicpal repremanded her and put her on remand for she was setting a wrong exmaple for impressionalbe young women students.
My pet peev here in the US is when men find out that I am from India the first remark they make is “you might know all the spicy cooking and bollywood dancing” as if that is all about Indian women. Another one is people are surprized that how come we Indians speak good english, where and how did we learn it.
24. December 2009 at 1:30 am
I never intended to imply that it did not happen to Indian women. Sorry if my comment was not clear in that regard.
24. December 2009 at 1:39 am
regarding girls hostels, etc… at jawaharlal nehru university (JNU) in Delhi where my fiance goes, girls are allowed into the boys hostels (dorms) but boys are not allowed into the girls hostels. This is supposedly to keep women from being harassed at their housing place. Also at one hostel, Yamuna, women have to sign in all their guests (female only) and seek approval for any overnight guests. There is no such equivalent boys hostel.
So that seems very gender biased, but then you also have to keep in mind the general norms for renting an apartment in India… many landlords are allowed to tell you who can visit/if you can drink alcohol/whether or not you can eat meat/what time of night you must be home (some threaten to lock you out if you are late). This happens to BOTH males and females. Many of my male friends in Delhi could not invite me over since they weren’t allowed girls in their apartment.
Also, many times neighbors spy on you and then tell your landlord what you are up to! Obviously this in general is very different than America, and I do think it applies to both genders, though I do think it applies slightly MORE to women than to men.
26. December 2009 at 3:57 pm
With regards to women’s hostels, there are similar boarding places for women in NYC to this very day. Once the norm for young women embarking on a new career or trying to make it on Broadway there are still many of these buildings in Manhattan to this very day. The rules are quite similar to those you have stated above. Women may bring men only into designated public “date” areas and may not have overnight, male, guests.
They are still in very high demand for women looking for affordable housing, a safe place to be in the the many newcomers to the large city and as a place to develop female bonds.
24. December 2009 at 9:29 am
For the record, the acid throwing is exclusively by terrorist groups attempting to enforce the sharia (though i’m unclear where the koran mentions acids) – while you qualified with “sometimes”, this would be akin to saying “sometimes pilots fly their boeings into big buildings in the US”.
24. December 2009 at 12:06 pm
“‘My pet peev here in the US is when men find out that I am from India the first remark they make is “you might know all the spicy cooking and bollywood dancing as if that’s all about Indian women.’”
At least it’s no worse than Indian men assuming all white women who visit India are sluts and will sleep with anyone.
Besides, what’s wrong with knowing spicy cooking and bollywood dancing? You sound like you want to be recognized as someone you had no time to establish you are.
24. December 2009 at 12:26 am
“Another funny experience is with women’s hostels, they have curfews for women residents but no rules apply to men.”
I attended IT-BHU for my undergraduate in Metallurgy. This is in Varanasi, a conservative town. Now, to all appearances, in India, I stand out because: a. I am 6 2″ b. I am Iranian/Italian level fair in complexion. Face is reasonably symmetrical. Can “walk and talk Englis”(sic) too. The immediate conclusion, in conservative Varanasi, to all and sundry is that I am ONE philandering mo fo.
(I wish……)
The first time I went to the girls hostel in IT BHU to get some notes from a classmate of mine, I hit my head on the rather low gate while coming out of the hostel.
The gatekeeper thought he knew enough of my type, and he wanted to ensure that I did not foul the atmosphere of the girls hostel by my mere presence.
He remarked to the pain of my hitting the gate on my way out; “Dekha babu, girls hostel aaoge tho yahi Prashaad milega”.
“(If you come to the girls hostel, this (the accident) is what you shall experience)”
he was right. I did not visit the girls hostel much after that, but for other reasons !
N.B: IT BHU takes students from the IIT JEE. Women there, in mine and my friends opinions, were scantly distinguishable from the boys!
Cheers,
LF/PF
24. December 2009 at 12:29 am
” My pet peev here in the US is when men find out that I am from India the first remark they make is “you might know all the spicy cooking and bollywood dancing” as if that is all about Indian women. ”
What about the difference in levels and quality and type of attention that women get in India and in the US?
Any comments about the differences in that?
Cheers,
LF/PF
25. December 2009 at 8:36 pm
Not quite sure what your question is, can you clarify that?
7. January 2010 at 9:09 am
linzi,
you were right! in the other thread in which we were debating . Attraction in relationships is a huge variable.
That out of the way, guys should still try to lead the relationship.
Cheers,
LF
25. December 2009 at 12:16 pm
Acid throwing, it is not just terrorist groups in a particular locale. In Rajasthan where I went to school we had few incidents where men threw acid on college going women because these women resisted their advances. This is just akin to domestic violence here in the US but there the couple is not cohabiting. Similar incidents are reported in Andhrapradesh and other places, I am posting just two links here.
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/06/21/stories/2009062159570400.htm
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=AP+girl+critical+after+acid+attack
Different hostels in different parts of the country have different rules but the bottom line is women have more restricts imposed on them as opposed to men.
It is my pet peev it has got nothing to do with others I am a great foody but don’t want to cook. Bollywood dancing, I love it when I want to. American men may add the bollywood twist there but most Indian men I have ran into ask me the cooking question may be because I tell them about the history or geography of particular cuisine. So it is not about the whole community.
What about the difference in levels and quality and type of attention that women get in India and in the US?
Personally, not comfortable at any level because I feel it boxes one, I am practicing to live a disembodied self. Again it is my personal thing.
25. December 2009 at 8:42 pm
GGTS, it’s weird that people seem to focus on food when asking you questions about India… I never would have guessed that. It’s interesting to think about what first comes to people’s minds when they hear “India”.
When I tell people my fiance is from India… the most typical questions I get are:
Is he FROM India? (no, ur, ahh, he has just been visiting there for his whole life? Not sure why people ask this question…)
What is it like in India? Do people live in huts? (A perfect example of how Americans need more worldly exposure)
Along the same lines– questions about poverty.
Typical questions about cows, and “do you speak Hindu/Indian?” as well as “Does he know English?”
27. December 2009 at 1:24 am
“What is it like in India? Do people live in huts? (A perfect example of how Americans need more worldly exposure)”
I get this: ” how many years have you being staying in the US for? You speak good english”.
But that does not sound insulting coming from the rather egalitarian average American.
28. December 2009 at 10:09 pm
The following link justifies my view that India is a moronic country. Glad I left it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videoshow/5378448.cms
28. December 2009 at 11:51 pm
indian dude, that is really horrible, but unfortunately such horrible events don’t just occur in India, but all over the world.
29. December 2009 at 12:31 am
LinZi, hon, the above case is just the pinnacle of what is already rampant in India: physical and verbal abuse of children. That specific case might be a rarity, but less severe, non-fatal cases are more prevalent in India–the supposed land of eastern spirituality–than in any other country.
The level of physical abuse children of India are subjected to by parents and school teachers would be considered a felony under western law. Most of the Indian parents would end up in jail in the United States if all their traditional, Indian parenting skills were put to use. Just imagine the psychological impact on each child’s mental growth.
You won’t be arrested in India for physical abuse of children, peeing in public, reckless driving, stealing tax money through the corrupt bureaucracy. On the flip side, you will be apprehended if you complain loudly about Indian culture. They have laws against free speech which will be used against people who have the nerve to criticize the “glorious” culture of India.
29. December 2009 at 12:40 am
indiandude, if you want to complain about India culture, make a blog, and write it there. Or go create a thread in the forum here. This is a post on productive questions intercultural couples can discuss with one another – please keep to the topic in some way. I delete completely off-topic comments that do not address the blog post or other commenters’ contributions – take this as your warning, I guess.
29. December 2009 at 12:49 am
No problem.
30. December 2009 at 2:33 pm
To expand just a little bit – I’m okay with people debating issues and continuing an argument, even if it gets off the main topic of the blog post a bit. But it seems like in your comment above, you were just starting a new line of discussion on how bad India is – which isn’t acceptable.
Also, this blog takes a firm stance against blanket statements & stereotypes of cultures, and I feel you’re edging pretty close to that. It’s fine to criticize a country or a cultural practice, but statements like “You won’t be arrested in India for physical abuse of children, peeing in public, reckless driving, stealing tax money through the corrupt bureaucracy.” simply aren’t true – that may be the case in some places and some cases, but people are arrested for all of those things sometimes in India as well.
8. January 2010 at 11:47 pm
GG wrote:
“It’s fine to criticize a country or a cultural practice, but statements like ‘You won’t be arrested in India for physical abuse of children, peeing in public, reckless driving, stealing tax money through the corrupt bureaucracy.’ simply aren’t true”
1) Actually, no. You won’t get arrested for public peeing in India. I won’t be surprised if the cops did it themselves. Public peeing is so common. Consequently, your purported cases of arrest should also be. Please cite one of the myriad (nonexistent) articles to your support.
2) Physical abuse of children–slapping, pulling the ear, touching the child’s skin with a hot metal rod, and other forms of abuse which result in the child crying–are condoned by the culture as a whole. Even parents ask the school teachers to beat their children. If any of these happen in the United States, the situation would gain national attention.
3) As for reckless driving, it is the first thing you will notice when you have lived in India for a few months.
I was born and raised in India. India’s cultural norms aren’t stereotypes.
9. January 2010 at 12:32 am
Cultural norms are not the same as stereotypes. If you google child abuse in India, you can come across plenty of examples of people being arrested for abuse. People are likewise arrested for drunk driving in India. There are two counter-examples which make it clear that your statement is false.
The point, IndianDude, is that unless you can show me proof that, without doubt, your unconditional statements are 100% true, then you shouldn’t make them. Since I can only make statements of that nature about my personal experience, that is all I do. And somehow, I doubt you’re omniscient, so that’s all you can do too.
If you can’t show such proof, put some damn qualifiers on your statements – it’s really quite simple. If you want to throw around stereotypes, you’re free to go somewhere else. But that’s not acceptable behavior here.
9. January 2010 at 2:49 pm
GG wrote: “If you google child abuse in India, you can come across plenty of examples of people being arrested for abuse.”
The “Googled cases” are cases of “sexual abuse.” Of course, I never said sexual abuse is NEVER punished under the rule of law. I was merely speaking about “beating kids to the point of making them cry” which happens to most kids in India.
As a new surprise, I want to tell you that even sexual abuse is most of the time deliberately concealed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6539027.stm
Q.E.D
“People are likewise arrested for drunk driving in India.”
You are right. In fact, if a cop in India suspects that a person is driving under the influence, he will arrest him (or ask for a bribe and let him go, which is usually the case).
I was not talking about “drunk driving.”
Reckless driving (informal) = irresponsible changing of lanes; sounding the horn incessantly; having little concern for pedestrians; not following stop lights; not crossing intersections in a civilized manner.
NOTE: Alcohol abuse can be a driving factor for some of the above. But in India, we don’t need to be drunk to do it:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJNYcwTi-BE&feature=related
(The two lanes are supposed to be opposite ones on an interstate.)
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7oBBBAAS9o&feature=fvw
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX5HMO15C0s&feature=related (And yes, these are all everyday experiences in India)
Conclusion: Had any of the above happened in the United States, many would call 911 and get those people arrested.
I rest my case!
22. January 2010 at 6:33 pm
*rolls eyes* Changing the terms of the argument and making straw men of your opponents position are not a good way to “win” a debate.
29. December 2009 at 3:33 am
Some of my relatives in USA have married white Americans and the experience has not been good . The marriages of my relatives with white Americans ended in a divorce . More than 50% of the marriages in the USA and European Union end in a divorce . White Americans and Europeans don’t seem to realise the sanctity of marriage . For them ( White Americans and Europeans ) marriage is a child’s play .
My uncle who has been living in USA for the past 25 years has had a very bad experience with a White American lady . My cousin aunt was also married to a white American man but even her marriage ended in a divorce . My uncle who lives in USA says and I quote – ” Americans are crooks and mischievous people . Americans will treat you as a cat’s paw and the moment they have achieved their desired object , they will discard you without compunction . Americans are a hypocrites and immoral people . They ( Americans ) will not stand their president having extramarital affairs but choose to have extramarital affairs in their personal life . Teaching the Americans Ethics and Morality is like casting pearls before swine ”
Can Gori Girl comment on why the Americans are like this .
Admin note: this commenter has been banned for violating the comments policy here, but I’ll let this comment stand, since it started a discussion
29. December 2009 at 1:37 pm
How can anyone comment on why a whole group of people is “like this” when, obviously, all Americans are not like that. Too bad your relatives had bad experiences. We are not all like that. Have a good day.
30. December 2009 at 2:16 am
Oh no Linzi, how could you desecrate the pearls of wisdom that adorn this comments section!
Always remember,
“Teaching the Americans Ethics and Morality is like casting pearls before swine ”
29. December 2009 at 2:34 pm
Some info: Shaunak Goswami is a frequent poster, who visits Sharell’s blog just to write anti-white comments (which Sharell loves by the way). When he says Americans, he actually means whites.
_______________________________________________________________________
Goswami,
you’re that 12-year-old from Sharell’s blog, right?
As I wrote before, your uncle is a man of poor judgement, who couldn’t figure out what he wanted after 25 years of marriage to a white chick–when she conspicuously made it clear that she never wanted kids. Living in the United States and bad mouthing it is just a tribute to the first Amendment, which you will never have in India. And you are here mouthing platitudes for your uncle.
If having a divorced Indian relative says something about “the entire lot of Americans.” Then shouldn’t the following stand for most Indians (excluding myself and the liberal ones)?
http://escapefromindia.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/more-than-40-of-the-worlds-child-marriages-take-place-in-india/
http://escapefromindia.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/17-million-children-in-india-work-out-of-compulsion/
http://escapefromindia.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/harassed-in-india-women-face-an-uphill-battle-in-a-culture-that-devalues-females/
30. December 2009 at 2:10 am
GG’s last post on interracial marriages, and the subsequent “ghamasaan yudh” that had taken place, should have put this stuff to rest.
People get burnt. That develops prejudices. People get hurt in relationships, which develops cynicism. Ergo, keep your own mind, simple, clear, and try to make relationships like you’ve never been hurt.
That said, stereotypes also have their place. They donot arise out of nothing. An unconscious awareness of stererotypes may serve better purposes than a conscious one.
Cheers,
30. December 2009 at 2:21 pm
For others interested in the divorce statistics of interracial couples, I have a recent post on the topic.
29. December 2009 at 12:07 pm
@adityaFor the record, the acid throwing is exclusively by terrorist groups attempting to enforce the sharia(though i’m unclear where the koran mentions acids) – while you qualified with “sometimes”, this would be akin to saying “sometimes pilots fly their boeings into big buildings in the US”.
That is not true at all that acid throwing is used “exclusively by terrorist groups attempting to enforce the sharia” . Unfortunately,acid throwing is not just associated with Muslim extremists, but seems to be a problem across South Asia, particularly in North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Most commonly used as revenge, to literally cause the female who embarrassed the attacker to ‘lose face,’ especially for a rejected proposal or rejected advances.
For India in particular, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7270568.stm
http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=editorial&id=644&catID=6
See also the wikipedia entry on acid throwing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing
30. December 2009 at 3:45 pm
wow, I stand corrected – I had no idea that it was so widespread in the recent past.
When I lived in India (pre-2002) it was limited to Islamists for the vast majority of the cases…
Its interesting that the prevalence of attacks seems to be limited to specific geographic areas.
1. January 2010 at 1:18 am
I actually think it was more prevalent in India pre-2002. Apparently, it was unheard of but started happening more in the 80s and 90s. It still happens today, but one reads about it more from Bangladesh (not related to “Islamism”, just girls refusing proposals, or violence on new bride stuff). I had never heard of it associated with Muslim extremists in particular until recently in the past few years with Taliban activity in Northern PK and Afghanistan. I think it has to do with honour/shame culture. It is like in the old days it would be taking revenge by cutting off a nose. Today it is acid. Interestingly, the articles mention Bangalore and Andhra, which I found surprising because I didn’t think S. Indians had that same shame/honour thing going on like N. Indians/PK/Bangladeshis. That said, we have had individual cases acid attacks in the US, too. Even some notorious cases of anonymous and seemingly random attacks. Not wide spread, but it has happened.
30. December 2009 at 2:06 am
“You won’t be arrested in India for physical abuse of children, peeing in public, reckless driving, stealing tax money through the corrupt bureaucracy. On the flip side, you will be apprehended if you complain loudly about Indian culture. They have laws against free speech which will be used against people who have the nerve to criticize the “glorious” culture of India.”
BTW, that(India)’s approximately 20% of the world. Call it what you like, but any one culture is as good or bad as the other. Glorious or not, Its better to follow a culture that any person is comfortable with. If 20% of the world is South Asian, and has similiar collectivistic values, it’s as good as European or East Asian cultures. Each culture has +s and minuses. The sheer number of people that follow that certain culture shows that it must have something in it, which allows it to succeed, and keep its followers happy, no?
Why not follow a single culture, be part of it, and keep one’s own mind simple?
Accept it buddy. We are like this only!
30. December 2009 at 2:26 pm
Go back far enough in history, and you have, what, ~90% of the world (at least) practicing slavery? Go back only a few centuries, and you have no place in the world where women can vote. Do the sheer numbers who lived that way mean that slavery and disenfranchising women was a good thing then?
I absolutely reject the idea that every culture is as good or bad as another. Every culture has good points and bad points, but that’s not the same thing as saying that they’re all as good as each other. Some are worse, some are better.
30. December 2009 at 2:59 pm
GoriGirl, I’d like to know more about your point of view. Can you post links to your other posts that elaborate and are related to this issue please?
Thanks,
LF.
30. December 2009 at 3:29 pm
I don’t have one post on that topic particularly, but here are some older ones that address the issue of judging & understanding cultural differences:
Cultural & Religious Differences: Understanding, Accepting, Embracing
Don’t Get Your Undies in a Bunch: Worrying About Intercultural Quirks
Broken Traditions? Intercultural Marriage and Cultural Continuity
When in Rome, Do As the Romans Do… Sometimes
Perhaps I’ll get around to making a post on moral realism and why cultural relativism is wrong, which would probably address this point more heads-on. Of course, I have a tendency to drone on and on on moral epistemology when someone gets me started…
30. December 2009 at 5:40 pm
Okay, GG. Thanks for the links.
Another question is:
How much time do you and your husband spend , in hours, per day, maintaining this website, posting comments and replies?
This is with reference to a typical 9-5 busy workweek.
Aditya; I guess you;re the webmaster? Is the blog made on wordpress? and have you added your own elements on top of that I guess?
22. January 2010 at 6:40 pm
When work doesn’t interfere, I try to spend about an hour a day on this blog (writing posts, answering email, moderating & responding to comments), sometimes less on the weekdays and more on the weekends. When things go crazy at work (as has happened recently) that balance shifts.
Aditya doesn’t spend a lot of time (I think), but he does do some of the backend & design work – for instance, he’s responsible for the new logo & header. I can tinker somewhat with the backend, though, too – thankfully, wordpress is pretty straightforward.
30. December 2009 at 2:14 am
Hey there Shaunak.
Nice comment man.
I’m confused. According to your experiences Americans are like the swine of the devil. According to Indian dude, Indians are pretty darn uncouth themselves.
Would you two fine gentlemen care to discuss who’s right, so that I may then address the correct question?
Cheers,
LF
P.S: Sorry GG!
30. December 2009 at 2:27 pm
S’okay – Aditya made the same comment last night.
30. December 2009 at 3:47 pm
I said – It’s ironic that we have two people arguing about how India sucks vs how US sucks – who are both Indians (presumably living in America) on a blog about intercultural relationships…
30. December 2009 at 5:44 pm
Yeah.
BTW, You guys gotta be careful on how the blogosphere affects critical thinking skills. My personal feeling is ; negatively. Too much information, too little time to digest it all and repetitively learn it. Which is what actually builds grey matter.
I agree with this guy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rock/are-our-minds-going-the-w_b_389163.html
30. December 2009 at 5:44 am
*Edited*
Shaunak Goswami has been banned from this site for repeat violations of the Comments Policy – Admin.
31. December 2009 at 10:38 pm
I am a big fan of Indian civilization and history. I am just too loud with the criticism of some aspects of Indian culture: especially corporal punishment. May be I should have quelled the insults.
Let’s bring this post back to topic, folks!
3. January 2010 at 7:52 pm
watchout dude dealing with the gori..
9. January 2010 at 3:35 am
Indiandude and Gorigirl, this guy has something more to say about beating kids. The comedian’s name is Russell Peters, and you have probably seen him earlier.
He basically jokes about immigrant kids being beaten by their parents, and “white” kids not having to undergo corporal punishment. Makes for cultural confusions when white kids and indian kids mix and compare notes on different parenting styles. It’s pretty funny.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1bbQ2h65jk
I wonder how Gorigirl and Aditya are going to manage this issue (beating kids) when they do have them? Corporal punishment anyone?
9. January 2010 at 5:12 pm
Apparently Russel and I are completely wrong because we are stereotyping and haven’t cited a well researched publication.
10. January 2010 at 10:54 pm
Isn’t it ironic: the writer of a blog about intercultural relationships — namely American and (vaguely) Indian — has only an “Amazon.com book knowledge” of India.
Being an Indian myself, I know the Indian way of thinking. The cultural way of thinking. I know what Indian culture accepts — for example, severe corporal punishment of children is accepted as an effective disciplining tool, without giving any thought to the psychological consequences in the mental growth of children (In the US, its a criminal offense; a felony). There are exceptions, but those are precisely that — exceptions — rather than the norm.
It takes a self-absorbed bookworm to demand statistics and sociological studies to establish the existence of what we all — just ask your husband — accept as cultural norms.
You have assiduously exhibited a profound ignorance of Indian culture and have labeled any critique of Indian culture as a “stereotype.”
Which is fine, for I need a laugh from time to time. But the topsy-turvy philosophy which goes behind it is in need of urgent revision.
Perhaps you should reconsider your views on Indian culture. If you have any plans of moving to and settling down in India, it is better to have advice from Indians (not necessarily me) than resorting to the flawed methods and studies of the social sciences.
Physical abuse of children (excluding sexual abuse) and reckless driving are no less common in India than eating curry or arranging marriages. These are truths we all hold to be self-evident. Period.
Asking people to go some place else simply because they disagree with you, or have corrected you, and setting up straw man arguments and refuting them, only demonstrate the futility of your replies and expose the immaterial, philosophical superiority you ostensibly possess.
P.S. If you put yourself on the net, you will receive contentious posts, which are inevitable. You are welcome to ban anyone and everyone (go ahead). It is no victory!
22. January 2010 at 7:21 pm
“Isn’t it ironic: the writer of a blog about intercultural relationships — namely American and (vaguely) Indian — has only an “Amazon.com book knowledge” of India.”
1) What do you mean by “vaguely” Indian?
2) What is your point about my knowledge, or lack thereof regarding India? I freely admit that I don’t know that much about India, and what I do know largely comes from secondary sources (both people & media). As I say in my About Page (and have since I started this blog):
India is a large place, with a number of different religions, ethnicities, and languages. I’ve had significant contact with exactly one extended family from exactly one ethnicity with one particular religion, although I do know a fair number of South Asians. But, generally, I have my own experiences with intercultural relationships, and my Indian family, and they might be really, really different from yours. You should only use my advice or suggestions if it works for your particular situation.
“Being an Indian myself, I know the Indian way of thinking. The cultural way of thinking. I know what Indian culture accepts — for example, severe corporal punishment of children is accepted as an effective disciplining tool, without giving any thought to the psychological consequences in the mental growth of children (In the US, its a criminal offense; a felony). There are exceptions, but those are precisely that — exceptions — rather than the norm.”
Being Indian yourself, you know how exactly one Indian thinks – yourself. How everyone else thinks is conjecture based off of what you experience of other people through media & talking to others. Unless you have systematically worked your way through the entire country of India, those experiences of others is based on very biased sample – so your understanding of how “Indian culture” is, in general, is also biased. This is a basic fact of the human experience.
While you can certainly make educated guesses as to how many or most Indians may think on a certain topic, you are in no position to speak for “Indian culture” as a whole – just as I cannot speak for American culture as a whole. I have no idea what it is truly like to be a black American, for instance – likewise you cannot know what it is like to be anything other than your specific ethnicity (which is only one of many in the incredibly varied subcontinent). To speak as if you can know all of “Indian culture” – or to even suggest that it is one monolithic entity – is to do a disservice to the diversity of country, IMO.
Let me make it very clear: my objections to some of your statements are not that you make conjecture on some trends or main themes in Indian culture, but that you do so in an absolutist manner: “Indian culture is thus“. India, like all diverse nations, does not simply have one culture, and the overarching culture is not a simple black-and-white thing, but consists of various competing threads of thought.
“It takes a self-absorbed bookworm to demand statistics and sociological studies to establish the existence of what we all — just ask your husband — accept as cultural norms.”
Again, I am not demanding statistics and sociological studies to establish the existence of some norms. What I am requiring, on this blog, is that you do not stereotype or make absolutist statements about anything other than your own experiences. Feel free to discuss any trends you wish to – but identify them as they are – trends not complete reality. If you wish to establish anything beyond that, you will need more than your own personal opinion, since you (like all other people, including me, of course) suffer from observer bias.
Finally, I do not ban people on the basis of attacking me or my positions – indeed, I welcome it. However, I wish this to be a welcoming space for all individuals, and that means that prejudiced attitudes and writings are not welcome. Making absolutists statements do not further the discussion along in any meaningful matter. (Note: I do ban people if they attack other commenters. See “welcoming space” above.)
23. January 2010 at 12:15 pm
“Physical abuse of children (excluding sexual abuse) and reckless driving are no less common in India than eating curry or arranging marriages. These are truths we all hold to be self-evident. Period.”
Actually Indiandude, sadly the physical abuse of children does NOT exclude sexual abuse. Unfortunately, according to recent research of India, it appears that approx. 53% of children in India face sexual abuse:
“Parents and relatives, persons known to the child or in a position of trust and responsibility were mostly found to be the perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the country. According to the women and child development ministry-sponsored report, which assumes greater significance in the backdrop of the Nithari killings that brought into focus the issue of children’s safety, those in the age group of 5-12 years reported higher levels of abuse…
The survey, sponsored by WCD ministry and carried out by the NGO Prayas in association with Unicef and Save the Children, found that over 50% children were subjected to one or the other form of physical abuse and more boys than girls were abused physically. The first-ever survey on child abuse in the country disclosed that nearly 65% of schoolchildren reported facing corporal punishment — beatings by teachers — mostly in government schools.
Of children physically abused in families, in 88.6% of the cases, it was the parents who were the perpetrators. More than 50% had been sexually abused in ways that ranged from severe — such as rape or fondling — to milder forms of molestation that included forcible kissing.
The study also interviewed 2,324 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, almost half of whom reported being physically or sexually abused as children. When it comes to emotional abuse, every second child was subjected to emotional assault and in 83% of the cases, parents were the abusers.” (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-53-children-face-sexual-abuse-Survey/articleshow/1881344.cms)
11. January 2010 at 2:29 pm
Indiandude;
perhaps you should avoid using the anonymity that the internet gives you, by using language that you would not use in real life.
Why not argue with class, and put your points forward in language which is tempered a little more?
Your points are excellent and well worth getting people to notice and know about them.
keep posting.
Cheers,
LF
16. January 2010 at 12:02 am
Corporeal punishment, I often poke fun at my dad “if you were in the U.S. they would have put you in jail.” I was trouble written all over me. Thank God my ears had good elasticity or I’d be roaming around with elephant ears.
Indiandude, there are enough stats around from India. 36 country study by Murray Straus and team will give you enough of hard data. I was there when Prof. Straus unveiled his findings at the IVAT International Conference last year and we had a good discussion (personal converstation)on India (google the study you’ll get all the details I am traveling so wont dig in). Corporeal punishment is one of the reasons for the problem of street children in India. The fear of beating forces some kids in the age group eight and above to just run away. I worked with street children in Delhi and Japiur we came across the same story all the time. Remember “Salam Bombay,” Wada Pao ran away to escape beatings. In the U.S. spanking is an issue and it is relatively at a lower age 2.5 yrs to 4yrs, corporeal punishment at that age impacts IQ. CP at eight and above impacts EQ.
India or any place in the world may have millions of flaws but people wont abaondon them, life will continue there. May be some of us will not be able to endure it but those who live there that is there home. I have ample of respect for all tthose folks who live and continue to live in the places I would not dare to for what ever reason. I agree they would want it out if they could but still I commend their persistence. I have learned home is where your heart is or you become a wandering cloud.
It is second time in this post that people have said there is no statistical data or concrete research on the topics they are mentioning. I would like to insist there is ample of well documented research and many committed people working at the grassroots and above, just broaden your vision or search before making such flat statements.
16. January 2010 at 1:54 pm
To the guy here saying women are only attracted to dominant men and therefore it behooves a man to display some dominance in his relationship in order to keep his woman attracted…. have you been reading Eric Von Markovic?
That stuff is pseudo-science and pop-psychology.
And besides, the type of “dominance” you are talking about is rarely displayed by Desi men.
18. January 2010 at 12:32 am
“Desi Female Pick Up Artist”
No, my influences are parts of the book
“Sperm Wars”, and my own interpretation of interpersonal relationships that I see around me.
Cheers,
LF
Ref: Sperm Wars:
http://www.torrentz.com/5f33873cbf7c8dc15aa56932a93ae8876720d437
21. January 2010 at 3:43 pm
leaving theoretical and historical debates:
practicaly,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8468942.stm
you be the judge!
23. January 2010 at 2:21 pm
indiandude Says:
January 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
===
Regarding traffic, one thing you’re ignoring as you compare India and US, is that in India, the traffic speed is much, much lower than in the US, and that’s why most accidents in India are likely to be less fatal/less severe than those in the US.
And, India is not USA – these are two different countries with different laws/cultures/ways, even though there may be some commonalities. So, I’m not sure what you mean by a comment like the following:
“Had any of the above happened in the United States, many would call 911 and get those people arrested.”
It’s illogical and pointless.
15. February 2010 at 12:15 am
I am an Indian, currently in US for my studies. I liked the friendship thing in Indian culture. I really think that it is a key difference and I can guess the reason to some extent. In western cultures, dating is so common that almost every single adult man/woman has a boy friend/girl friend. However, in India this kind of dating culture does not exist or exists only in some big cities among some partially westernised families. This gap is being filled by a very supportive deep friendship. You can always find boys/single men hanging out with their buddies and same is true of girls. So, one way I think that the friendship I had in India was very deep and supportive, on the other hand, I have been ripped off the dating culture and was groomed for an arranged marriage set-up.
19. May 2010 at 4:20 am
“Physical abuse of children (excluding sexual abuse) and reckless driving are no less common in India than eating curry or arranging marriages. These are truths we all hold to be self-evident. Period.”
Actually Indiandude, sadly the physical abuse of children does NOT exclude sexual abuse. Unfortunately, according to recent research of India, it appears that approx. 53% of children in India face sexual abuse:
“Parents and relatives, persons known to the child or in a position of trust and responsibility were mostly found to be the perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the country. According to the women and child development ministry-sponsored report, which assumes greater significance in the backdrop of the Nithari killings that brought into focus the issue of children’s safety, those in the age group of 5-12 years reported higher levels of abuse…
The survey, sponsored by WCD ministry and carried out by the NGO Prayas in association with Unicef and Save the Children, found that over 50% children were subjected to one or the other form of physical abuse and more boys than girls were abused physically. The first-ever survey on child abuse in the country disclosed that nearly 65% of schoolchildren reported facing corporal punishment — beatings by teachers — mostly in government schools.
Of children physically abused in families, in 88.6% of the cases, it was the parents who were the perpetrators. More than 50% had been sexually abused in ways that ranged from severe — such as rape or fondling — to milder forms of molestation that included forcible kissing.
The study also interviewed 2,324 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, almost half of whom reported being physically or sexually abused as children. When it comes to emotional abuse, every second child was subjected to emotional assault and in 83% of the cases, parents were the abusers.” (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-53-children-face-sexual-abuse-Survey/articleshow/1881344.cms)