I can't believe you posted this =)

It's Newton's Third Law. Geeky posts produce trashy ones to maintain the geek-trash equilibrium ;)

Also, Tamasha, you asked for Sepia Destiny, but I'm afraid this is the best I can do right now ...

I need a new job!

My prediction is 100 comments by 6 pm, EDT, 200 by 9 pm EDT, and we'll cross the three hundred mark by midnight. Gentlemen't bet, anyone?

Love it.

It’s not clear whether brown women act like their other Asian counterparts - any thoughts?

Completely unscientific: I think brown women like the brown flava but are also equal opportunity lovers, we don't discriminate;)

I will do anything for citizenship. Hotness not important.

Do you hear that rumbling sound in the distance? It's the sound of the armies of desi men and women about to do battle and rip each other to shreds on this thread.

The MahaSepia!

Do you hear that rumbling sound in the distance? It's the sound of the armies of desi men and women about to do battle and rip each other to shreds on this thread.

I'll go get my conch shell...

Do you hear that rumbling sound in the distance? It's the sound of the armies of desi men and women about to do battle and rip each other to shreds on this thread.

Speaking of bloodshed and mayhem, I've got to vanish offline for much of the rest of the day, so play nice boys and girls.

Completely unscientific: I think brown women like the brown flava but are also equal opportunity lovers, we don't discriminate;)

unlike other asian groups browns born in the USA exhibit sex-balance in terms of outmarriage.

p.s., as ennis implied, context matters. e.g., i can tell you i had success with ladies growing up as the only brown kid in the valley which was 75% republican & half mormon (there was a black family and a chinese family in town as well). and i didn't have a big allowance or a car. but then, these girls knew me as more than just biodata, which is i think the norm for most human-human interactions in the USA?

hehehe i suspect this will be a good one.

I need a new job!

Arent you some kind of tricked out NY banker?

Ladies, take notice. Jeet is your man!

My prediction is 100 comments by 6 pm, EDT, 200 by 9 pm EDT, and we'll cross the three hundred mark by midnight. Gentlemen't bet, anyone?

I predict 200 by 6:00 & 400 by midnight! You are on!!

OK holy shit did someone go thru all that I've written in the past 8 years to compile this study? Damned be practicality or all things politically correct I agree with most of this study!! I have tons of proof and examples. Ha!

Snapper, I think you give the fairer sex too little credit. They are way smarter than we are, you know?

Surrender and praise won't save you Ennis. I tried that strategy before. I ended up like Mel Gibson at the end of 300.

All we have is each other. The Amazons are coming. Witness the tremor on the horizon. Ten thousand million dissatisfied brown women with degrees and a grudge. With their rolled up copies of Cosmopolitan as weapons to truncheon us into shame and inadequacy. Ready your breakfast and eat hearty chaps. Because tonight we dine in hell.

these girls knew me as more than just biodata, i think the norm for most human-human interactions in the USA?

These are the decadent Western values our parents, relatives, and random brown strangers on the bus are trying to protect us from at all costs.

hmm...i dont think ive ever dated a grl shorter than me....hmm...

I meant to say that Scottish actor's name from 300 but got him mixed up with the tartan-wearing Jew-basher from down under. Aye, the ending of Braveheart is where this thread heads too.

Time for some male bonding to assert my low self esteem I think. Some beers, and hopefully a fight in the pub.

That NYT series of editorials seemed totally written for desis :)

It’s not clear whether brown women act like their other Asian counterparts - any thoughts?

JoAT - care to explain? A women's perspective would be useful here.

p.s. It's funny that not a single woman has objected to this, yet the men sit cowering in the corner, waiting for a swarm of locusts to descend and devour their manhood.

for some reason, i will willing to deal with a lot of other deficiencies for a nice personality and pretty face. girls seem to like tall guys who are rich. I guess its easier to filter for the girls. you can input quantitiative filters. for me, i need to look at each and every profile.

The inimitable Steve Sailer cites a study which claims interracial marriage has been declining in the United States, largely due to massive immigration.

Immigration played a key role in unprecedented declines in interracial and inter-ethnic marriage in the United States during the 1990s, according to a new sociological study. The findings, published in “Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage,” suggest that the growing number of Hispanic and Asian immigrants to the United States has led to more marriages within these groups, and fewer marriages between members of these groups and whites.

Anecdotally, I believe the "Asian Indian" outmarriage rate is declining, mainly due to the greater pool of brownz available as mates, especially in brown-heavy areas.

I will do anything for citizenship. Hotness not important.

grls like that scare me. im a bit scared of getting roped into a sham marriage.

Hotness without accompanying intelligence is a sheer waste. I've tried to prove myself wrong previously and have always failed.

Also, Tamasha, you asked for Sepia Destiny, but I'm afraid this is the best I can do right now ...

In the study, were South Asians (shut up) included within the distinction of Asian?

I will do anything for citizenship. Hotness not important.

I think Indian-American girls follow the Asian norm wrto dating but tend to "settle" for Indian dudes when it comes to marriage. Which is why I steer clear...

I think Indian-American girls follow the Asian norm wrto dating but tend to "settle" for Indian dudes when it comes to marriage.

I've noticed this with many desi guys as well.

I think Indian-American girls follow the Asian norm wrto dating but tend to "settle" for Indian dudes when it comes to marriage.

I've noticed this with many desi guys as well.

I'm so glad someone posted this.

Tamasha, you're a chick woman. What do you think of the study?

Which of the following best describes your reaction:
(a) Agree whole heartedly with its conclusions
(b) Disagree vociferously
(c) Feel that it's a scientific study so you can't argue back
(d) You will respond as soon as you finish flirting with that cute guy at the next table in the cafe

JoAT - care to explain? A women's perspective would be useful here.

I don’t think the theory that men are more visual and women are more mental is something anyone can deny. If anything these “findings” confirm that. As a woman I have always believed that women set themselves a certain set of guidelines and rules and often break them for the “right man”. Here are some of my observations about the “right man” for the average American desi woman. This isn’t any science just general observations and not every woman is going to agree.

• A man who is ‘independent’ in thought from his family and can think/make decisions for himself.
• A man who makes a decent living that can possibly also support me lest I decide I want to stay at home with babies even if for short period of time.
• There is a reason why people list professions like Doctor in their biodatas, it makes women salivate, or at least their parents. Not for the money generally but for the status.
• The more money he has the less women might notice or ignore some of the other flaws. Same goes for the better he treats her, and is truly genuinely wonderful she’ll overlook that fact that he may not be tall enough or good looking enough.

Exactly. And what of it?

I'm not exactly sure what to make of it - I doubt any one conclusion would be valid anyhow. Perhaps it's an opportunity to expand one's horizons (racially) at a time when one wants to try new things, only to find out later that due to pressures of family or even just the commonality of experience, they prefer the "same". To each their own...

To each her own indeed, however I hate it when desi women bring in south asian patriarchy as a reason not to "date desi". If you aren't attracted to Indian dudes, just leave it at that and don't spoil it for us with non-indian women

When you say anything, do you really mean anything?

Yes, I do. But when I say 'I', I don't mean 'I'. I can get by in many parts of the world quite happily. Point is, I happen to know maybe around twenty men personally who have married without any concern for hotness for the chance to go to the US or Canada or the Gulf countries.

I personally am also perfectly fine telling some people back home that I married for money. And I don't think very many people see something wrong with that. It's a lot better that "love marriage" for instance.

The more money he has the less women might notice or ignore some of the other flaws.

Agreed. A prime example is Donald Trump and his model wife. Apparently she is overlooking his flaws of his horrendous comb-over, over-applied make-up and huge gut in exchange for the lifestyle she is living.

what's a short, poor, non-citizen guy gotta do? sigh...

To each her own indeed, however I hate it when desi women bring in south asian patriarchy as a reason not to "date desi".

I don't know any woman that would have listed that as a reason not to date desi dudes but rest assured I wouldn't even bat an eyelash if one of my girlfriends used that as an excuse because time and time again I've seen it become an issue, whether in a relationship or a marriage. I wouldn't take that claim lightly anymore because in the Indian culture you really marry the whole culture the family and everyone's baggage and expectations that go with it. With non Indian folks you can filter some of it out.

what's a short, poor, non-citizen guy gotta do? sigh...

what's a short, poor, non-citizen guy gotta do? sigh...

Become rich :-) because he's Indian he's obviously smart and can think of plenty of ways to get rich.

I'm sure no one would bat an eye when perfectly adorable white dudes extoll the family values of Asian/Indian women. Or English guys who prefer traditional Polish girls who are more likely to keep house than go out to the pub.

I think it's more genetic than social, really. Women are attracted to success (i.e. a mate who can provide) and men are attracted to looks (i.e. a mate who can breed). Yes, it's a gross simplification, but I think that's the basic crux of the matter.

To me these threads are like squishing a spider with a book. I don't want to look under there and see the stringy, goopy, crunchy mess, but I just have to check and make sure it's really dead. And honestly, given my track record with the opposite sex, I really don't think my opinion is worth squat. I do like reading everyone else's take on it, though, so please continue :D

//Rupa resumes lurking

Arent you some kind of tricked out NY banker? Ladies, take notice. Jeet is your man!

Puliogre,
LOL please dont patronize me.. Tricked out banker???? thats all you my friend

Sillymidoff,

a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market.

I really don't think my opinion is worth squat

Rupa, your opinion is always and most definitely worth squat around here. Now spill, whaddya think?

Perhaps well known, perhaps not.

Willing to do anything for citizenship has some sort of allure in porn. In this case, referring to Latinas. One face of the exploitation/powertrip icosahedron.

I think it's more genetic than social, really. Women are attracted to success (i.e. a mate who can provide) and men are attracted to looks (i.e. a mate who can breed).

I have the reverse problem. I want one who is successful (intelligent) that doesn't want to breed!

Rapper's speak the truth.

2pac once said that I dont know any man that has ever wanted money to sleep with a woman, but women need to know how much a man make's before she even consideres it and hence the use of HO'S and bitches in rap lyrics.

Mike Jones once said, "Back then ho's didnt want me, now Im hot and they all on me"

My brother is a good example of this. He is 38 and not married. He also has a salary that has 6 zero's attached to it. We dont come from a rich family and he did that on his own.

When he was broke, he couldnt get a date and no one wanted to be on his arm, even though he is a good looking guy. Now that he is well off, all of the sudden women started to think he was a good catch, but according to him it is "too late for that shit." He just cant except the fact that women never gave him a chance and couldnt look past his small wallet and now every woman is a "gold digger" in his eye's and he isnt going to marry one.

The amazing them to him is how all of the sudden women started to see qulaties in him that they didnt see before. He now had "amazing eye's" he also has a "big heart" and is considered "very funny!"

They just dont make women like they used to. Every woman has this "Sex and The City" attitude about them and it is annoying. I cant picture any woman of today doing thing's that our mom's had to do. leaving a country to start off fresh with little money and having faith in her husband to make thing's all right, while sticking by him through all of the BS.

I know all women are not like this, but it is hard to find one's that are not.

Rupa, your opinion is always and most definitely worth squat around here. Now spill, whaddya think?

I second that. You can't come here and lurk especially on this topic woman.

They just dont make women like they used to. Every woman has this "Sex and The City" attitude about them and it is annoying. I cant picture any woman of today doing thing's that our mom's had to do. leaving a country to start off fresh with little money and having faith in her husband to make thing's all right, while sticking by him through all of the BS.

Errr how typical to compare potential mates to mom! Did you perhaps ever stop to think that maybe despite how fabulous she made out in the end and how happy she was mom never had a choice in the matter in the first place? She had to make the best of what she got. Most women with an iota of Asian culture do that.

What is the 'Sex and the City attitude' I'm curious to know.

I'll tell you one thing, when two right people hit it off with eachother no power in the world, no rules in the books and no parents or cultures can stop them. Chemistry is simply incredible that way.

Women are attracted to success (i.e. a mate who can provide) and men are attracted to looks (i.e. a mate who can breed).

I think Hema (#42) nailed it. It's only in the last 30-40 years that the shift in these archetypal male/female roles started to lose their importance as women started to gain equal opportunities in education and career. This present generation of women is probably the first generation to see themselves on equal economic footing as men (and we still know that's not true) and maybe that's why this study surprises some people. It's going to be a loooong time before men and women start to share the same values in what they're looking for in a mate.

leaving a country to start off fresh with little money and having faith in her husband to make thing's all right, while sticking by him through all of the BS.

Not to be cynical, but what other choice did women of that generation really have? If women today are less willing to do these things, it's partly because they do have alternatives available to them.

Point is, I happen to know maybe around twenty men personally who have married without any concern for hotness for the chance to go to the US or Canada or the Gulf countries.

I wonder: does "anything" include feigning homosexuality, as US states finally start to extend civil rights to gay couples?

Because what a friggin awesome sitcom/awkward romantic comedy that would make...

Was it this blog that first pointed out "Angry Asian Man" to me? There is a very explicit de-sexualization of the Asian male in the American media. Asian-Indian's dont suffer from it as much but for everyone east of India, its very much true.

They just dont make women like they used to. Every woman has this "Sex and The City" attitude about them and it is annoying.

I'm sorry but I laughed out loud when I read this. What does this mean exactly? WHO doesn't "make women" like they used to? Weren't we raised by these women who knew how to behave "like women should?"

What is the SATC attitude? To be able to financially support yourself and not want to get married right away? Is that wrong? The show is juvenile but don't skew what it's about.

Damn! I have to deal with the kids for a minute and look what happens!
Beware the Amazons:

(d) You will respond as soon as you finish flirting with that cute guy at the next table in the cafe

No, seriously though (since you asked)... I tend to like men who love their jobs, who are happy, creative, intense and tall (sorry, can't help it - and no one would have believed me if I didn't have something superficial in there, right?). I don't know about other women, or comparing height / handsomeness / salary. Money has never been a factor for me, and it's not because I make bank, either.

Can I throw it out there that chemistry is a huge factor? A guy might look great on paper, to your family, and in photos, but if there's no chemistry, there's nothing.

Neal, I don't know about this in the matter of citizenship, but I know of two guys who were considering pretending that they are in a relationship to get cheap family housing from my university. Don't know if they followed through with that. Also know some people (desi and non-desi) who were happy to pretend to be in a heterosexual relationship to get family housing, but balked at the idea of pretending to be in a homosexual relationship.

In defense of "Sex and the City", the show does eventually require the characters to make tough choices, and not just about shoes, either!

One of the characters, for example, marries a man who makes much less money than she does, and moves to Brooklyn with him, where she helps him care for his ailing mother. Another characters faces miscarriage and childlessness, and a third has cancer.

I find Segolene Royal rather attractive.

Are married people allowed to post on this thread?:-)

In the online dating world even below average-looking women need to set standards incredibly high to avoid being inundated with messages from every guy who stumbles upon her profile. Hence, when the woman who seeks a 6'5 blue-eyed investment banker on match.com is relegated to something more human like speed-dating, the chances for guys like me are much higher.

HurryDate et al are self-selecting and highly unrealistic models for what actually goes on in real life. They went with education as a proxy for intelligent, because they couldn't use the third party raters to sort profiles by humor or wit, but just because you haven't built a sensor for something doesn't mean it's not an important factor in your experiment. I'd like to see an income versus height study that controls for other factors, like overlapping professional interest or education.

Neal, I don't know about this in the matter of citizenship, but I know of two guys who were considering pretending that they are in a relationship to get cheap family housing from my university. Don't know if they followed through with that. Also know some people (desi and non-desi) who were happy to pretend to be in a heterosexual relationship to get family housing, but balked at the idea of pretending to be in a homosexual relationship.

Exactly why this would make such a great film. Unwilling ABCD gay guy reluctantly agrees to be set up by an Aunty who knows a very nice prospect just arrived from India. He finds an ambitious young straight man who sadly bombed his entrance exam because he had to tend to his aged grandmother, but is willing to do whatever it takes to make it in Amreeka. There's the inevitable love triangle between the American dude, the citizenship-seeker, and a pretty young Indian woman he knew back home (the gay American-born dude sticks with this since arranged marriages are Completely Irresistible to NRIs in Hindi movies).

The movie could be called "Suitable Boy". I mean it's been done to death in the States, but the, uhm, "unique" Bollywood dance numbers would be worth the price of admission alone.

@neale and kurma:

and will we have the wet sari song in desh or pardesh? once we resolve this, the movie is ready to be made.

oops, sorry neal with no e.

As a non-Desi male, I have perused many online-dating sites and I have noticed that the overwhelming majority of women explicitly indicate that they don't want to date or meet Indian/East-Indian/South Asian men. From Yahoo personals to Interracial.com, there is a serious aversion towards East-Indians. At first I thought perhaps it was due to the confusion with Indians and Arabs/Muslims, but I came across women who would be willing to date Middle-Eastern/Arab men and even East-Asian men, but invariably no love for Indians. Perhaps it's has to do with a combination of so many desperate males from India(literally stationed in India not diaspora) that barrage women with messages of love and looking for green-card status and/or the crippling pressures(having to live with your in-laws) and standards Indian males face from their families and how difficult it is for any woman, let alone a non-Indian woman, to enter into that union. Because Indians tend to have everything else, economic and educational success.

for #5... this is post #65...we have 1hr 41 mins to post 35 more comments.

I don't know if there have been any empirical surveys on this, but I'm willing to bet that Indians (esp. in the Desh, but also some outside it) look at online dating in a very different way than Westerners. How many Americans search OkCupid or Match.com or whatever looking for a probable, suitable marriage partner?

How many Americans search OkCupid or Match.com or whatever looking for a probable, suitable marriage partner?

Wait I don't know about OKCupid but I've lost track of how many married or seriously dating people I know that met on Match.com and went on it to specifically look for a LTR. Are you implying thats not the case?

sriram (#5)
and i have a bet.. since i've accepted the challenge..

we need more than 100 (for me to win).. then he owes me firehook bakery when i visit dc.. or i owe him the flying biscuit in atl..

right mr. vegas?

and i think rupa said it best..

I think Hema (#42) nailed it. It's only in the last 30-40 years that the shift in these archetypal male/female roles started to lose their importance as women started to gain equal opportunities in education and career. This present generation of women is probably the first generation to see themselves on equal economic footing as men (and we still know that's not true) and maybe that's why this study surprises some people. It's going to be a loooong time before men and women start to share the same values in what they're looking for in a mate.

Wow Robert, looks like you've done alot of forensic trawling and research!

Just stopping in for a second - I've appended a link to the research paper in question. It's a heavy econ geek piece, so it's not for everybody, but I wanted the original source material to be available just in case people had questions about where it came from.

p.s. Sriram, I don't see it. I think we're going to fall short ;)

It's going to be a loooong time before men and women start to share the same values in what they're looking for in a mate

Maybe they never will? We all have a little hunter-gatherer inside us I reckon.

Gotta try that next time I go out.

"Do you have a little hunter-gatherer in you? Would you like to?"

Don't y'all know what a gentlemen's bet is? That said, dearest Pea, Firehook is on me the next time you come up, regardless.

p.s. Sriram, I don't see it. I think we're going to fall short ;)

oh come on now.. we have 4.5 more hours :)
i think we can do it..

Don't y'all know what a gentlemen's bet is? That said, dearest Pea, Firehook is on me the next time you come up, regardless.

this is why sriram is a true rockstar.

Maybe they never will? We all have a little hunter-gatherer inside us I reckon.

By the way, I am amazed at how much people have been largely in agreement here. Most of you seem to think that

(a) Men and women look for very different things
(b) Women are pickier than men
(c) Their partner's earning potential is more important to women than to men
(d) That money makes up for perceived deficiencies in other areas where women might have preferences.

Amor Aurum Vincit Omnia?

I meant to say "boils down to this"

They just dont make women like they used to. Every woman has this "Sex and The City" attitude about them and it is annoying. I cant picture any woman of today doing thing's that our mom's had to do. leaving a country to start off fresh with little money and having faith in her husband to make thing's all right, while sticking by him through all of the BS.

Nice =/ It's guys who think like you that make it so difficult for Indians girls to find down-to-earth nice guys who don't harbor a pre-conceived notion about "Indian American girls"

I'm actually surprised by the women on here who agree that girls are more interested in a guy with regards to how much money he makes. For me it's not the money--but the ambition and drive that's attractive. A guy could be pulling in $30,000 a year but if he's got passion behind the work he does--that's whats HOT.

For me it's not the money--but the ambition and drive that's attractive.

That's why I said women are attracted to success. Ambition and drive generally equate to a potential for success.

Ennis wrote:

By the way, I am amazed at how much people have been largely in agreement here. Most of you seem to think that
(b) Women are pickier than men

I disagree with this. I think men are just as picky--they're just picky about the physical attributes.

That money makes up for perceived deficiencies in other areas where women might have preferences.

You know, I always listen to women go on about how men are so superficial, because we prefer very very attractive stereotypically attractive ladies over a less conventionally sexy woman who has 'depth', 'intellect', and 'personality'. So what does that make women who prefer an average looking dolt with money to a smart guy who struggles for cash? Seven times out of ten, faced with the choice, girls go for the rich dolt.

The great taboo of this debate --- women are as superficial as men. Except it's greenbacks, not barebacks and bare backsides, that they're superficial for.

Now ladies, I await your arrows to block out the sun, but I shall fight you in the shade.

How many Americans search OkCupid or Match.com or whatever looking for a probable, suitable marriage partner?

That's why I said women are attracted to success. Ambition and drive generally equate to a potential for success.

Success as in.. financial success?

Success as in.. financial success?

There's another kind? ;)

Jokes aside, however...doesn't success of a different sort eventually lead to financial success in some way?

We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl...

That money makes up for perceived deficiencies in other areas where women might have preferences.

I agree with hema's and rupa's comments. One of my cousin's running a marriage buraeu in India for many years and here are some of his observations on the latest trend in his business. Some of it was surprising to me, especially the last point.
- The number of eligigle girls for marriage is relatively a lot less than what it used to be, most probably becuase of lots of abortions of female fetuses in the late 70's and early 80s.
- There's been a tremendous change in the amount of say a girl gets in the match making process. Lot of families are now "listening" to what the girl has to say.
- Many of the younger women in major indian cities are getting jobs with decent pay, thanks to the outsourcing phenomenon. So really the "provider" criteria isn't as important anymore.
- Lots of parents supposedly like the fact that the "majority" of the girl's "salary" is coming back to the house, so they are in no immediate hurry to get the girl married off and are holding off the marriage plans until much later.

doesn't success of a different sort eventually lead to financial success in some way?

Ha! Do you think that good high school teachers get endorsement contracts? I'd love to be on a Wheaties box! Oooh, or a sneaker contract!

Sorry for the snark Hema, but there are plenty of professions where excellence has little to do with pay. A brilliant high school chemistry teacher gets a fraction of what a really stupid and incompetent ibanker makes.

Look, there are women writing Scott Peterson to this very DAY talking about "I'm glad you got rid of that Lacey bitch, so we can be together!"

Women are no more sensible or intuitive in choosing mates, as are men sensible in choosing which potential mate to pursue. Whether it's money vs ambition vs success vs whatever the hell else, yall screw up just as much, if not more.

HMF, do you watch too much local evening news?

Sorry for the snark Hema, but there are plenty of professions where excellence has little to do with pay.

I guess I see that differently. I see the ability to hold down a job with a decent paycheck as "success", even "financial success." IMO, all success ultimately leads to some form of financial success, if only because that is how success is quantified in this world. I don't know about you, but I don't know too many excellent professionals who stay unemployed for long periods of time (well, unless they want to, of course).

If women only equated success with having serious bank, then a lot more of us would be chasing vapid but generationally wealthy guys, instead of the doctors, i-bankers, teachers, and other guys with "personality."

And for all my talk of women being attracted to success, I don't think success alone makes up for various other shortcomings. I mean, what would be the use of a guy who makes $500K a year, but can't carry on a conversation for more than 15 minutes?

I was paraphrasing the Scott Peterson suitor monologue, but my point is, it's very irksome when women act as if they're more erudite about choosing who they're with.

it's very irksome when women act as if they're more erudite about choosing who they're with.

I already said (in #42) that I thought it had to do with genetics, and not with erudition. This isn't about women being "smarter" about relationships. It's about women being attracted to something fundamentally different than what men are attracted to.

I am only 23 and my sample dating size is really small (2, to be precise). Does my opinion count?

And for all my talk of women being attracted to success, I don't think success alone makes up for various other shortcomings. I mean, what would be the use of a guy who makes $500K a year, but can't carry on a conversation for more than 15 minutes?

Very rarely do I make such snide references to the deceased, but ask her.

The great taboo of this debate --- women are as superficial as men.

I'm not sure I'd so quickly lump what one desires in a significant other into the category of superficialities. If by the notion that women who seek someone who is successful or has potential for success and makes a decent living are superficial logic would say that the whole arranged marriage system is superficial because it's completely built on need and provide basis.

If you are talking about someone who would only go for a man who makes $500K+ and not consider a man making $100K I'd say that falls into superficiality but wanting a man who makes as much money as me or relatively more is not superficial it's just smart and thinking ahead because chances are strong that the parent who chooses to stay at home and raise kids would be me.

I already said (in #42) that I thought it had to do with genetics, and not with erudition. This isn't about women being "smarter" about relationships. It's about women being attracted to something fundamentally different than what men are attracted to.

So from a purely evolutionary point of view, we're basically looking for incubators, and yall are looking for someone to provide the best conditions for incubation?

I'm in agreement, BUT, when the word "superficial" gets thrown around, the next logical step is "not as smart" - If you agree that women are just as poor at making those decisions as men are, then we're good to go.

It's about women being attracted to something fundamentally different than what men are attracted to.

I dunno, it seems more like this study is saying it's about women being attracted to about the same things men are or, when physical attractiveness is lacking, "success". Isn't it?

So from a purely evolutionary point of view, we're basically looking for incubators, and yall are looking for someone to provide the best conditions for incubation?

Yep, that's basically it. And I do agree that women make poor decisions in this area as frequently as men do. It's just that the decisions are made on the basis of different criteria.

...decisions are made on the basis of different criteria

AND. that criteria is no more "deplorable" or "nonsensical" or..

dun dun dun

superficial... as the male criteria?

since everyones in agreement that men like beauty and women like wealth and power, can someone explain to me why men of great wealth and power don't really have unusually beautiful wives?

Look at the men in the white house, take a look at the forbes lists. outside of celebs, i don't see a union between the two.

Manju

I find Segolene Royal rather attractive.

Dude, given her political leanings, you need to earn about $325,000 less before she terminates her pacte civil and brings her derriere over to your apartment.

On the other hand, I find aunties who arrive at such exact figures -- $186000, $325000, etc.; irresisitble. Such sexy quantiliciousness makes my heart pound and disbalances the distribution of blood in my body.

superficial... as the male criteria?

Goes without saying, but we're woman, so our "superficial" is necessarily better than your "superficial". So there! ;)

Simple, most wealthy men play the field, then marry a non-gold-digger. They prefer their kids smart, rather than hot.

Goes without saying, but we're woman, so our "superficial" is necessarily better than your "superficial". So there! ;

That may be, but I'm still attempting to undergo treatment for de-cootie-fication from my last two adventures. But you've completely proven my point. Women will never admit completely and thoroughly that they are just as "superficial"

since everyones in agreement that men like beauty and women like wealth and power, can someone explain to me why men of great wealth and power don't really have unusually beautiful wives?

Isn't that interesting? I have a close friend (male) who has a theory that some alpha males prefer "alpha females" because that's what they're surrounded by and feel like that's what challenges and entertains them, whereas other alpha males prefer "beta" females - maybe not the best looking, but definitely the most nurturing and kind etc.

AND. that criteria is no more "deplorable" or "nonsensical" or..

dun dun dun

superficial... as the male criteria?

I am entirely on board with accusations of equal superficiality.

If by the notion that women who seek someone who is successful or has potential for success and makes a decent living are superficial logic would say that the whole arranged marriage system is superficial because it's completely built on need and provide basis. If you are talking about someone who would only go for a man who makes $500K+ and not consider a man making $100K I'd say that falls into superficiality but wanting a man who makes as much money as me or relatively more is not superficial it's just smart and thinking ahead because chances are strong that the parent who chooses to stay at home and raise kids would be me.

JoAT - so if you're setting up one of your girlfriends with a guy, do you weigh how much he's making in your consideration of whether they're a good match?

HMF:

I was only being facetious. Didn't you notice the cute little font-y face I appended to my comment?

Anyway, I concede the point. Women are just as superficial as men. Maybe sometimes even more so.

ding ding ding..
only 6pm EST and it's over 100 sriram ;)..
see ennis.. we CAN do it.

Yep, this is definitely one topic EVERYONE wants to share their opinion about :D

I can't believe we've got the girls to admit that they're superficial in under 115 posts. That means we've won.

Great tactics by me and Ennis eh? Outplayed them, got them admitting they're just as superficial as us, if not MORE so. Made them think I was scared of them Amazon women so they respond to that vulnerability and admit they're superficial and gold digger to our hunter-gatherer caveman instincts, what a great tactics.

hahaha guys win again

"Anyway,I concede the point. Women are just as superficial as men. Maybe sometimes even more so."

WHA-HAAAT??! Hema - I'm starting to think your being a woman is a guise ;)
For the sake of logic, all else being equal, lets say women are attracted to the benjamins and men are attracted to perceived hotness, MEN ARE STILL more superficial. It can be (and clearly is by me) argued that the pursuit of a provider is a base need, evolutionary survival. While for men, hotness is simply luxury....

Shush HMF don't let the side down now.

It can be (and clearly is by me) argued that the pursuit of a provider is a base need, evolutionary survival. While for men, hotness is simply luxury....

Well, hotness is also an evolutionary base need. Men being attracted to women is a prerequisite for the perpetuation of the species. Not only that, but the size/shape of the female body parts that get the most male attention are apparently correlated with fertility. So men seeking hotness is merely expression of an atavistic/genetic/evolutionary principle.

So men seeking hotness is merely expression of an atavistic/genetic/evolutionary principle.

Oh hema. I'm going to need your pledge pin back.

Hey now. You have to make some allowances for the tomboys among us. Or the women who only have male siblings, cousins and friends.

Hema:
By those standards, African American women should be considered THE hottest. But aaah, the male species has
e(read de)volved to where the "fertile proportions" are distorted. I'll agree to men placing higher stock on body over face, but the bodies they drool over no longer reflect the women who are most able to reproduce. Frankly, I'm not even sure its still body over face - look at the bollywood actresses that don't display the goods, but still have a huge fan following.

a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market.

Not surprising then that NBA players have the dating market cornered in terms of both height and money...

But aaah, the male species has
e(read de)volved to where the "fertile proportions" are distorted.

Yeah, but isn't the same true for women? That they've e(read de)volved to a point where the need for a provider is manifested mostly as a need to have a successful man on their arm?

At base, all these comments are huge generalizations, but there's at least a kernel of truth to the view that women are as superficial as men. Women only pursuing wealthy/smart/successful men is not that different from men only pursuing hot women, is it?

Yeah, but isn't the same true for women? That they've e(read de)volved to a point where the need for a provider is manifested mostly as a need to have a successful man on their arm?

At base, all these comments are huge generalizations, but there's at least a kernel of truth to the view that women are as superficial as men. Women only pursuing wealthy/smart/successful men is not that different from men only pursuing hot women, is it?

Girlfriend - "they've"??! i think you mean we've. women don't only pursue successful men, there are plenty of women dating men that leave the rest of us thinking "what does she see in him?"
the majority of women that want successful men are those who are successful themselves. can you say the same for some of our fugly brothers that won't take anything less than an aishwarya doppleganger?

I use "they" generically (as in "not me")...without reference to group identification.

there are plenty of women dating men that leave the rest of us thinking "what does she see in him?"

Doesn't that go to HMF's earlier point about women making equally poor judgments when it comes to men as men do with regard to women? You're also saying that when women date men who are not successful, it invites incredulity from other women, implying that women pursuing successful men IS in fact the norm.

can you say the same for some of our fugly brothers that won't take anything less than an aishwarya doppleganger?

Men aren't really as stupid as we like to think they are (note the use of "we"). The fugly ones know they have no shot at the Aishwarya look alikes. It's just an aspirational goal. I can't fault them for that any more than I fault the women who only date men with a certain bank balance (and you know they're out there).

Manju (#58): Agreed.

a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market.

Depends on the average height of the girls in that market, which would depend on the region I guess.

It's not neccessary for a man to be super rich, but I have no respect for husbands who make their wives pay more than 50 percent of the expenses as well as cook and do housework. I've seen quite a few types of men like this - they don't work to earn money, they are doing some sort of "creative project" or are too intellectual to deal with the real world, so they make their wives work and pay for EVERYTHING while also expecting her to cook and clean.

It's very important for a man to be working and earning and paying his own way.

And would a woman rather have a super romantic and loving man, who is there for her 24/7 emotionally, or a wealthy man?

I know several women who settle down with non-wealthy men because those men treat them really, really, really good. The couples struggle financially (which can sometimes negatively effect marriages), but they seem to be really, really, really in love.

Similarly - would a man rather have a super-model-hot looking female who all his friends covet or an average looking woman who treats him with all the love in the world he can imagine and who he doesn't really have to worry so much about other guys oogling and tempting away all the time?

Although I feel it's of great importance that a man work to support himself (and his wife and kids if she ever bears children), it's just vanity that would make a woman want to "show off" a super financially successful husband - or sacrifice love and sincerity for just dollars.

Money is important and i would not suggest a woman hook up with a poor guy who does not want to work if she plans on settling down and starting a family. But as long as the man is working and always willing to work, pay his own way, and her's if need be (pregnancy, kids, etc), then no need for holding out for a super rich man if the honest, sincere, working guy really loves you and you him.

simply put, each searches out something that they can't be. man, beauty and woman, power.. ergo, beautiful men and handsome women are gay.. the other category, powerless people, they aren't even considered..

simply put, each searches out something that they can't be. man, beauty and woman, power.. ergo, beautiful men and handsome women are gay.. the other category, powerless people, they aren't even considered..

What? Women can't be powerful? Men can't be beautiful? And if they are, they are gay? Does not make sense.

And lots of money does not equal power.

And power does not equal strong character.

Better for both to search for the lasting and endearing qualities of truth, compassion, sincerety.

@PG

Men can't be beautiful? And if they are, they are gay? Does not make sense. Apparently they cannot

JoAT - so if you're setting up one of your girlfriends with a guy, do you weigh how much he's making in your consideration of whether they're a good match?

I weigh in what might be important to both parties really not just how much money he makes. Honestly when people were trying to set me up and asked me how much I wanted a guy to make I always said at least as much as me or my range. That's a minimum.

I find Segolene Royal rather attractive.

I thought I was the only one, though I have, until now, kept this thought to myself

I still support Sarko

My prediction is 100 comments by 6 pm, EDT, 200 by 9 pm EDT, and we'll cross the three hundred mark by midnight. Gentlemen't bet, anyone?

It's almost 9PM and ...

Since so few people are heading for offensive territory and it's 9:15pm already (129 comments! I vote this Most Surprisingly Fire-free Thread Ever), I'm going to quote a friend of mine and his totally-wrong-but-still-somehow-right generalization:

Women are more compromising on physical attractiveness of men.

Men are more compromising on pretty much everything else.

There, that oughta get that going :-D

Ladies and gentlemen. IN this corner...

For the sake of logic, all else being equal, lets say women are attracted to the benjamins and men are attracted to perceived hotness, MEN ARE STILL more superficial. It can be (and clearly is by me) argued that the pursuit of a provider is a base need, evolutionary survival. While for men, hotness is simply luxury....

hypocrasy.

In that corner...

Doesn't that go to HMF's earlier point about women making equally poor judgments when it comes to men as men do with regard to women? You're also saying that when women date men who are not successful, it invites incredulity from other women, implying that women pursuing successful men IS in fact the norm.

Truth.

Hema: sorry, I didn't catch onto your facetiousness earlier, I am not well versed in AIM speak.

Rupa:

Oh hema. I'm going to need your pledge pin back.

Dudette, She has some idea about the infield fly rule, and knows what the DH is. She should have every pledge pin taken back for that reason alone.

It's dubious whether the habits and tactics exhibited in the 'online dating world' are relevant to what actually makes people settle down with a partner. Love has a thunderboltish way of defying all of our 'conditions'.

It's dubious whether the habits and tactics exhibited in the 'online dating world' are relevant to what actually makes people settle down with a partner. Love has a thunderboltish way of defying all of our 'conditions'.

129 comments! I vote this Most Surprisingly Fire-free Thread Ever

Hema (110):

What's superficial? Everyone's superficial, because physical attraction plays a role in everyone's choice of who to date (and also who to eat dinner with, who to go to a bar with, who to play tennis with, who to watch football with, and especially who to have sex with). Physical attraction plays a role in almost all facets of life, albeit generally at a subconscious level.

But Americans and browns are two groups that are really neurotic to the point of histrionics about this stuff. Americans tend to value appearance more than almost anything else lately, and damn if we don't outdo them in this area. That's not gender-specific, that's for pretty much everyone.

We crave beauty like there's a famine and we could eat it.

all success ultimately leads to some form of financial success, if only because that is how success is quantified in this world.

You know, I spent my entire 20s subscribing to this idea, only to realize in my 30s that it was bogus, at least for me. I think the ones that do subscribe to it without question are living on the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy and see those levels as the pinnacle.

via perusal of biodatum

biodatum?!

129 comments! I vote this Most Surprisingly Fire-free Thread Ever

That's OK, I have the solution. If we simple change the author of this thread from myself to ANNA, I'm sure that will change in a heartbeat.

Sad, but true.

I am cursing my own naivete all these years after reading these articles over the past few days and thinking about them.

I should have realized long long ago that this whole 'love' thing wouldn't happen for a height-and-looks-challenged desi dude like myself, esp in the US. Money is what I should have focused on starting years ago.

If only I were a bit more pragmatic...well, I guess I gotta start now.

That seems like a horribly biased study--if you use online dating sites as your data pools, you're already restricting your study sample to desperate people (no offense to the desperate people...)

The unfair part is that men at least have a chance of compensating for lack of hotness by something which is actually attainable, namely wealth. But if the study is to be believed unhot women are screwed (or not to be precise). Well I guess it explains the billion dollar cosmetic enhancement industry.

begtodiffer, you are clearly not in SoCal. Here, no look is unattainable. Cosmetic surgery and liposuction rule here.

Whoever said desi women should not talk about patriarchy as a reason not to date desi men - what a wonderfully ironic example of said patriarchy - we should shut up and put up with it and not exercise an exit option, or if we do, we shouldn't give men any feedback as to why? I think it's a very real problem for many desi women I know, and it's the reason why about a third of my cousins have got divorced, and it won't change till people speak out about it. It's changing, slowly, mainly because women are speaking out, and I find desi men raised in the US can be quite evolved. Embrace the change, don't fear it.

I don't see how the study quoted above does more than repeat tired ideas about men being after looks and women being after money. We all know those are generalisations, and there are many established studies that show that men and women basically seek out their own "level" in attractiveness (though yes, women probably weigh the visual part somewhat less than men) and people seek out those with similar levels of education and class backgrounds because they'll have something in common with them, whether interests or social norms and expectations about how they want to live their lives. If it really were all about looks vs money, the top investment bankers would be marrying beautiful but poor strippers or the equivalent, and they're not.

I was reading the article and I thought, "what about me?" What if you're a witty, intelligent, 5'9" black guy making much less than $50K? Does that mean I have to learn how to sing or am I out of luck?

on the semi-arranged-marriage market, there is a definite preference for higher earners. I believe that market bears more than a superficial resemblance to the realm of speed-dating.

I find desi men raised in the US can be quite evolved

wow, such high praise! I feel exalted, to be so recognized as not being a member of that knuckle-dragging, oppressive group who probably perspirates patriarchy, let alone perpetuate it.

bottom line is, as long as you see yourself living in a particular house, driving a particular house and murmuring sweet, money-grubbing exhortations to a particular person to get out and provide, you'll probably find yourself gravitating towards the higher end of the economic spectrum.

the top investment bankers would be marrying beautiful but poor strippers or the equivalent

I don't think they go over too well with the bankers' mothers.

Muralimannered, you're welcome:) I mean it as a compliment. Have you never heard that tongue-in-cheek expression applied to men before?

bottom line is, as long as you see yourself living in a particular house, driving a particular house and murmuring sweet, money-grubbing exhortations to a particular person to get out and provide, you'll probably find yourself gravitating towards the higher end of the economic spectrum.

Or you go out and get on the career ladder and make that kind of life for yourself, as many of us women now do. Wonderful thing, liberation. Though I agree with you that on the semi-arranged market the older equations (women's looks, men's money) are more likely to prevail...

shouldn't penis size count for something. i happen to be blessed with a very large dick....genetics

OJ - unfortunately, men can't quite, um, display the goods the way we women can. Though height is supposed to be a proxy/indicator.

The unfair part is that men at least have a chance of compensating for lack of hotness by something which is actually attainable, namely wealth. But if the study is to be believed unhot women are screwed (or not to be precise). Well I guess it explains the billion dollar cosmetic enhancement industry.

There's no need to even go as far as cosmetic enhancement, the cosmetic industry in general/ exists only for this purpose, and has developed in such a way to rival NASA scientists. Lip gloss that actually makes your lips 2 sizes bigger! Mascara that increases your lashes by 20%.

And you trivialize wealth acquisition so rapidly? Men are forced to work unfullfilling, boring jobs for the sole purpose of accumulating said wealth, only to find ourselves psychologically moribund for not being able to pursue our passions in life. Not only that, society requires men do all the heavy lifting in the relationship "pre-production" phase. We must repeatedly put ourselves on the line by approaching and initiating, and this is a clear male-female inequity that most women are all too pleased to allow to persist. An episode of "Beauty and the Geek" illustrated this perfectly, when they had the "hot girls" go into a club, without designer clothes, without makeup, and attempt to get guys to buy them drinks. For women used to sitting back in their thrones and awaiting approaches, now having to initiate, this sort of repeated rejection was a rude awakening.

This sort of pressure can be just as damaging and draining as the pressure to be "hot." Just as men are no more "superficial" in choosing a partner, neither are our hurdles more or less "fair"

I'm sure no one would bat an eye when perfectly adorable white dudes extoll the family values of Asian/Indian women.

I WOULD, and HAVE, done more than "bat an eye" at that kind of talk.

By the way, I am amazed at how much people have been largely in agreement here. Most of you seem to think that

(a) Men and women look for very different things
(b) Women are pickier than men
(c) Their partner's earning potential is more important to women than to men
(d) That money makes up for perceived deficiencies in other areas where women might have preferences.

Women: Do you really find d) to be true for yourselves?

unfortunately, men can't quite, um, display the goods the way we women can. Though height is supposed to be a proxy/indicator.

I am white and I dated and married a desi. I would say that I am reasonably attractive, 5 feet 7 and my husband is 5 foot 7 and no, he does not make 386,000$. In fact, I make more than him. He is the most warm, cuddly person I have ever met. The fact that I am a good 3 inches taller than him does not bother him in the least. Without taking too much credit, I can safely say that I have played a very significant role in his personal development and his integration into American society.

I could have married someone white and taller than me who made a million dollars a year but I did not. Studies such as this are too simplistic.

While your story is interesting and informative, and personally I'm glad you shared it.. even you must realize that it's crazily, ridiculously, outside the norm.

I could have married someone white and taller than me who made a million dollars a year but I did not. Studies such as this are too simplistic.

The study shows peoples behavior when dating on-line, which should be similar to the way they act when confronted with biodata. However, the post also says that evidence shows people change their behavior when they have a chance to see somebody IRL, face to face. It's still relevant though because of the number of desi relationships that come out of on-line dating or matrimonial ads where this sort of screening is commonplace.

Apparently, I have successfully managed to ruffle the feathers of both sides in this debate. Mission accomplished.

seriously though.........what's the forecast for a really really good looking desi who doesn't have so much. if i was a few inches taller i would easily have been gabriel aubry, but i may have to settle for english teacher or cop. i think i am cooler than 95% of dudes too. desi american girls let me know what bracket i fall into.....i love you all and i really, really want to marry a really, really hot one. is this possible, or will i have to settle for one with a gut?

love you all and i really, really want to marry a really, really hot one. is this possible, or will i have to settle for one with a gut?

This is the funniest shit I've read in weeks.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Have to jump in and back up ennis. His post is valid b/c I think it does apply to arranged/semi-arranged marriages.
My wife and I had met virtually through a Sikh matrimonial website, and of course, dated in person afterwards. I was attracted to her post b/c she seemed funny, independant, blah, blah blah. She states that she responded to my reply (out of the many she got) because I had a job that paid very well. To this very day, she tells me that one of the reasons she eventually married me was because of my job. The clincher? She makes almost as much as I do, and alot more than most of my male friends.
Financial issues are usually cited as the most common reason for marital problems; in her mind, if thats the case, then why not marry $$? It will be one less (hopefully) issue to contend with.
BTW, despite my wife's gold-digging tendencies, we both get along famously and are a 'perfect' fit.

"The amazing them to him is how all of the sudden women started to see qulaties in him that they didnt see before. He now had "amazing eye's" he also has a "big heart" and is considered "very funny!"

Shallowthinker a lot of ladies thought Biz Markie was cute as hell after he started making money....they caught the vapors!

Also, mad props for the repeated used of the word "biodatum".

Duuude, did you notice the initials of #157 ? Is she who I think she is -- or am I still too new to this community ? If this mystifies you, PG, let it be. If not, then welcome back!

Pardesi Gori, weren't you dating a Rastafarian not so long ago? How is it that you're married to a desi guy now?

Hema wrote:

doctors, i-bankers, teachers, and other guys with "personality."

Fixed that for you.

the top investment bankers would be marrying beautiful but poor strippers or the equivalent

Strippers aren't poor.

Relatively poor - not of the investment banker's financial and social class, i.e.

SP An in-demand stripper at a top club can pull more $$$ than an i-banker any day of the week...as far as social class..I mean who cares?

SP wrote:

Whoever said desi women should not talk about patriarchy as a reason not to date desi men - what a wonderfully ironic example of said patriarchy - we should shut up and put up with it and not exercise an exit option, or if we do, we shouldn't give men any feedback as to why? I think it's a very real problem for many desi women I know, and it's the reason why about a third of my cousins have got divorced, and it won't change till people speak out about it. It's changing, slowly, mainly because women are speaking out, and I find desi men raised in the US can be quite evolved. Embrace the change, don't fear it.

I don't see how the study quoted above does more than repeat tired ideas about men being after looks and women being after money. We all know those are generalisations, and there are many established studies that show that men and women basically seek out their own "level" in attractiveness (though yes, women probably weigh the visual part somewhat less than men) and people seek out those with similar levels of education and class backgrounds because they'll have something in common with them, whether interests or social norms and expectations about how they want to live their lives. If it really were all about looks vs money, the top investment bankers would be marrying beautiful but poor strippers or the equivalent, and they're not.

The problem with using "patriarchy" as a "reason" for an ethnicity based dating "preference" is that it's a gross generalization. East Asian women say the same thing and it's not any more true for them as it is for Desi's. Also, it carries with it can implied view that all the "other" males are less likely to be overbearing patriarchs. Again, that view is just not true as well. There are men of every race, color, creed, etc., that will treat women like servants, and that have overbearing families, it's not race, religion, ethnicity, country specific. The particulars of the situation might be, but not the idea.

This is not to say that the horrible behavior of some men and the culture that allows it shouldn't be called out. As you stated, noise has to be made so people are aware and society can change. A real social problem shouldn't be used to justify someone's irrational dating prejudice however, that's just being disingenuous.

Strippers aren't poor.

Sexist, blanket statement; spare a thought for the poor Male Strippers:(

2 view points ( and ,no,I am not gonna tell you which one I subscribe to! )

* Romantic view*
Marry for love and marry someone that you share core values with.Looks fade, money can be lost but love is eternal

*Pragmatic view*
Marriage is a difficult relationship at any time so why not marry for money and ensure that there is plenty of it to cushion the ride? At least , that way you reduce one possible cause of stress

Amba,

Once again please don't indulge PG, she has a history of making similar statement and it is difficult to keep a track of her stories. This doesn't add anything to this discussion which has relatively troll free for a change.

"Also, it carries with it can implied view that all the "other" males are less likely to be overbearing patriarchs"

Adam..I hear you..the thing is with desis it can get funky...I mean I can see a woman's POV; she's pissed because her bf wants her to learn to make pooris like his mom....the bf just ASSUMING she would because his mom did the same and held down a full time job as a doctor (damn!). I think the whole issue of patriarchy becomes onerous when men assume that their girlfriends would naturally do all the things their moms did...it ain't gonna happen...A white guy won't bring that baggage to the table...cause his mom just heated lean cuisine!

* Romantic view* Marry for love and marry someone that you share core values with.Looks fade, money can be lost but love is eternal

*Pragmatic view*
Marriage is a difficult relationship at any time so why not marry for money and ensure that there is plenty of it to cushion the ride? At least , that way you reduce one possible cause of stress

Can't you be a combo of both? Personally, I married my husband because we had fun together, he was extremely family-oriented and caring, we had sparks, shared the same religious values, and because he had a good job and lots of ambition. Do I expect him to be the primary money-maker at this time? Yes, because I want the option to take time off for future kids and/or experiment with business ideas. Am I willing to consider his dream of being a stay at home dad for a while? Yes, if I'm pulling in a good amount of money and am happy with my job. I think unless you're entering into a relationship with that combined romantic/pragmatic view - you may be setting yourself up for failure.

Don't know about you glass house, but as a male, Korean-American adoptee, my white adoptive mother did a lot more than just heat up lean cuisine. She cooked a full dinner meal almost every day of the week, and that was after a full day of teaching 5th graders. My dad is a lawyer, so it's not like he was sitting on his butt all day.

My upbringing notwithstanding, I don't expect my future wife or even serious girlfriends to cook my dinner every night "like my Mom" did or to cook chicken just like my Mom.

As much as the media would like people to think otherwise, patriarchy and assumed gender roles are alive and well in Caucasian culture. That is if the family even stays together, but that's another issue.

Also, as much as sons have mother complexes, women have father complexes. It goes both ways, and neither side is right. The assumed actions of partners are just different for each gender.

A white guy won't bring that baggage to the table...cause his mom just heated lean cuisine!

What if his mom is Italian, and thinks your woman badge should be revoked, because you can't make a good brachiole?

If a guy's got a mon, he's bringing baggage to the table (with apologies to all mothers-in-law everywhere).

Sonia # 177,

Agreed. That's why I did not state if I believed in one viewpoint over another-I was just presenting 2 opposing viewpoints into the discussion-thats all

I think the key is "shared values" - which is usually a product of similar backgrounds and upbringing.

For example: Except Hindi movies and the cheesiest Romantic novels, I personally do not know of a single case where a very rich girl fell in love with a very poor guy ( or vice versa). I think its far more likely that you are attracted to someone of at least similar economic status simply because you are likely to have more in common.

I'd really be interested to hear from anyone who has seen examples of the extreme types depicted in romantic literature/movies : you know, the kind where the millionaire's daughter runs away to be with a pauper etc

I think the key is "shared values"

Moreso than that, it's "shared experiences" A woman who grew up deciding which yacht to buy will have no relatability to someone who's entire life savings couldn't cover the rudder.

What if his mom is Italian, and thinks your woman badge should be revoked, because you can't make a good brachiole?

I saw that episode of Everybody loves Raymond!

i think i am cooler than 95% of dudes too. desi american girls let me know what bracket i fall into.....i love you all and i really, really want to marry a really, really hot one. is this possible, or will i have to settle for one with a gut?

Dude if you need to state what apparently is obvious to you you are lacking some serious game. And if you don't have $$ and obviously lack the mojo getting a 'really really hot one' is out of your league.

The problem with using "patriarchy" as a "reason" for an ethnicity based dating "preference" is that it's a gross generalization. East Asian women say the same thing and it's not any more true for them as it is for Desi's. Also, it carries with it can implied view that all the "other" males are less likely to be overbearing patriarchs.

I think when a woman cites 'patriarchy' as an example of steering clear off some males it is immediately assumed that she means all those men are chauvanistic pigs who'd probably abuse her and expect her to serve him hand and foot. Patriarchy is so much more than that I've learnt in my life. It's so many implied little pressures that we women feel when you marry someone that comes within the culture. The expectations that are part of a patriarchial culture don't always have to be about 'cooking and cleaning and having babies' but often about conforming and bowing down to parents and other implied codes of behavior that come part and parcel of cultural baggage.

Some women have put up with that mild but consistently shitty form of oppression and don't want to deal with it again. Honestly as a woman I understand. I am not offended for my fellow brown brother because he may be great but you still gotta deal with his family and the patriarchial culture that comes with it.

Runa ~ my husband and I have often talked about how money marries money ... but that makes for lavish weddings, so I'm not complaining =)

Out of all the weddings I've been to, I can only think of 1 where the groom was extremely wealthy and the bride's family was not - but from watching Hindi movies you would think it was more common!

I saw that episode of Everybody loves Raymond!

Busted. And I even looked up the spelling of "brachiole" to make sure I got it right. Dammit.

I thought it was size of your feet or the distance between your thumb and index finger...dammit i need a new job!!

I need to get taller....

Hema wrote:

doctors, i-bankers, teachers, and other guys with "personality."

Fixed that for you.

Why dont I-Bankers have personality. I'm an I Banker. I have all sorts of interests. I've starred in operas and play 3 instruments. I read poetry and philosophy. (and im even nice to girls i go out with). What the heck is wrong with I-banking as a career choice. I actually have fun at my job...Geez. the hostility...

Puli

actually hems, raymonds mom didn't want the wife to make a good brachiole. she felt the wife was moving into her territory and ruining her special relationship with her son (and husband). i think in one episode she even went as far as to secretly change the spices in the wifes cupboard to ruin her dishes.

i'm sure this is all very profound and relevenat.

seriously though.........what's the forecast for a really really good looking desi who doesn't have so much. if i was a few inches taller i would easily have been gabriel aubry, but i may have to settle for english teacher or cop. i think i am cooler than 95% of dudes too. desi american girls let me know what bracket i fall into.....i love you all and i really, really want to marry a really, really hot one. is this possible, or will i have to settle for one with a gut?

oj, i think you are just stupid and suffer from an inferiority complex. you can never get a hot girl.
(And to add to the stupidity, you say 1) you arent tall enough or 2) very rich or even like 3) ultra cool either. So I think it will be almost impossible.

"If a guy's got a mon, he's bringing baggage to the table"
"but you still gotta deal with his family and the patriarchial culture that comes with it."

Hema and Joat,

I suspect that, when you wrote the sentences above, you were thinking about your husband's mother, or your fiance's mother or a potential life partner's mother, as the case may be. But you also have brothers and maternal uncles, do you not? Would you write such sentences thinking about your own mother (who is a mother-in-law to your brother and a sister-in-law to your maternal uncle)? And what of yourselves---you are sister-in-laws to your brothers, aren't you? Would you write the same sentences thinking about yourself as a possible oppressor? Would you not think,"My brother's wife must be constantly telling my brother how bad Hema is
or how bad Joat is?"

i think in one episode she even went as far as to secretly change the spices in the wifes cupboard to ruin her dishes.

Yes, yes. Tarragon for basil, or some such.

The point is, mom-in-laws are tough, and patriarchy is alive and well outside the desi community too.

Would you write such sentences thinking about your own mother (who is a mother-in-law to your brother and a sister-in-law to your maternal uncle)?

Yes, I would and IRL, I actually have. I love my mother, I think she's terrific, but she does a lot of passive-aggressive stuff with my brother's wife that makes me crazy. In fact, I notice it more now because my mother-in-law does almost exactly the same sort of stuff with me.

I have enough married non-South Asian friends who complain of similar issues with their own mothers-in-law.

That's fair and square of you, Hema

Would you write the same sentences thinking about yourself as a possible oppressor?

I can't speak for the specific people you mentioned, but I think a lot of people in their position, actually would concede to it. My cousins friend is in India, in their community, what happens at the proposal stage is this:

1. The grooms family invite like 100+ of their relatives and the potential bride + her parents and maybe some close relatives.
to some big lavish dinner.

2. They make the girl read the newspaper, recite poems and other weird shit like that. If it were me, I'd have her run a mile (she better do it in under 8 mins), then ask her who's a better pound for pound fighter: De La Hoya or Roy Jones, Jr., but that's another story.

Now, when my cousin's friend was in the hotseat, she immediately bemoaned, "ugh the culture, ugh the patriarchy, ugh women have to go through this, that and everything else" but when she was a part of the groom's side (like say when here second cousin twice removed gardner's boy was hosting) her reaction was, "Woohoo! Free dinner!"

Why dont I-Bankers have personality. I'm an I Banker. I have all sorts of interests. I've starred in operas and play 3 instruments. I read poetry and philosophy. (and im even nice to girls i go out with). What the heck is wrong with I-banking as a career choice. I actually have fun at my job...Geez. the hostility...

If a guy's got a mon, he's bringing baggage to the table (with apologies to all mothers-in-law everywhere).

Yea, mon! And it's not limited to the kitchen either. I'd always wanted my SO to be as sexy as my mom (unless there's a citizenship carrot involved, of course)

The point is, mom-in-laws are tough, and patriarchy is alive and well outside the desi community too.

Actually, by ruining her dishes, Marie was saying; "Debra, do not be like me. Free yourself of traditional roles and go forth to fight the patriachy." Marie is the mistress of spices, a woman from the old world who is not what she appears to be. Sometimes liberation comes in the form of sabatoge.

The complex feminism of Everyone Loves Raymond is highly underrated.

Puli(if i may call you that), forget I-banking, you should be in PR. nice work!

yes you may call me that. and thanks, but I dont think i could do PR. The PR dudes i know all grew up in greenwich and wear armani suits. Just dont think i would fit in there. I can still be a normal guy and be pretty successfull in a bank.

Now Jeet - if you could figure out a way to have a grown man grow by like 2-3 inches, id be in business!

2. They make the girl read the newspaper, recite poems and other weird shit like that. If it were me, I'd have her run a mile (she better do it in under 8 mins), then ask her who's a better pound for pound fighter: De La Hoya or Roy Jones, Jr., but that's another story.

I have nothing to contribute to this thread, but I do have to say that was hilarious.

And yo, I can do it under 6:00! Who wants to marry Shruti?!

If a guy's got a mom, he's bringing baggage to the table

Ok
Can't let the mom-in-law bashing continue without standing up a bit for them coz I have been blessed with wonderful in-laws who really do treat me like a daughter Having said that , don't we all have issues with our own parents' treatment of us at times?

Yet its not moms but Mom-in-laws that get a bad rap in all cultures .Look at it from the poor guy's point of view:His mother was probably the most important female influence in his life till he gets married and the wife enters. Bound to cause some adjustment pangs, no?
DISCLAIMER: This is just my 2 paise... I am neither defending nor denigrating all moms/moms-in-law etc

Puli(if i may call you that), forget I-banking, you should be in PR. nice work!

i-banking is PR, minus the subtlety.

i-banking is PR, minus the subtlety.

sure...with some more math. most PR people cant add.

i-banking is PR, minus the subtlety

also, maybe slightly more intense hours. not sure though.

P

The PR dudes i know all grew up in greenwich and wear armani suits.

hey, i work in greenwich and i wear jeans to work =)

hey, i work in greenwich and i wear jeans to work =)

ah...but did you grow up in greenwich with wasp parents that are on the forbes 500 list and hired a nanny to hug you for them?

Hooray for i-banking! What's with all the lack of love for i-bankers?

sure...with some more math. most PR people cant add.

ahhh. sounds like you're an i banking analyst or associate Puli...doing models all day long. financial models, that is.

but did you grow up in greenwich with wasp parents that are on the forbes 500 list and hired a nanny to hug you for them?

you got me there.

As a mom of (adorable) boys I will make it a point to do absolutely nothing for them at all so that their expectations are not tragically dashed in later life

Your sarcasm is duly noted. Heh.

However, the point is really not your sons' expectations. It's your expectations of your sons' future spouses might turn out to be. My experience is these things sort of sneak up on mothers, even as they're completely unaware of it. My mother was determined to treat my brother's wife exactly as she treated me. If she bought something for me, she'd make sure she bought an exact duplicate for my sister-in-law. She never ever publicly says anything even remotely uncomplimentary about her daughter-in-law. But then, every now and then, she'll just make some totally unnecessary snide remark about her daugther-in-law that she probably would never make about me.

Mothers-in-law are basically just mothers cast into a different situation. The difference is, you can tell your mom that she's crazy and needs to shut up. It's really much harder to say the same sort of thing to your mother-in-law. Husbands seem not so inclined to act as conduits for this sort of information.

ahhh. sounds like you're an i banking analyst or associate Puli...doing models all day long. financial models, that is.

nah...left m+a a 4 years ago. now in derivs. got promoted past associate a pretty long while ago.

ahhh. sounds like you're an i banking analyst or associate Puli...doing models all day long. financial models, that is

6 years into banking...

Puli,
Hire me!
Shruti,
Hi ;)

nah...left m+a a 4 years ago. now in derivs

ok. less pr in that. M&A though, now thats just like arrainging marriages.

And yo, I can do it under 6:00! Who wants to marry Shruti?!

wow....WOW...HEY NOW!!!!! pretty cool...*drool*

Like Johnny Stecchino said "Baby, the only woman in my life is you .... and mia madre". I thought that was the funniest line in the movie.

btw, how did this become about mothers-in-law?

I don't think this is anything new, Irrespective of race and all that kept aside (even though they play a small part)
Women have always wanted to or hooked up with men who have higher Survival value. Attributes such as being the leader of men (business leaders), making more money than most men (bankers and the well off guys), the badboy types (rockstars, biker boys) all show this trait. Don't get me wrong, looks do matter for women but they are more than willing to overlook that if you are succesful unless your 4ft bald and with bad teeth :)

BUT women are judged predominantly based of their Replication value. physical features such as big breasts, a good hip to waist ratio,long hair all kind of define good health and the ability to produce healthy offsprings. As food gatherers and cavemen thousands of years back, the attraction switches in men and women went off/on respectively based on these traits. We still see its affect in modern society when men do the default head turn to check out a pair of silicon mammaries knowing its still fake.
So to sum it up I want to say when it comes to the mating game its kind of unfair for women because they get judged mostly by just one trait.

doing models all day long

Puliogre, I'm in line jostling with Jeet - hire me too!

Don't get me wrong, looks do matter for women but they are more than willing to overlook that if you are succesful unless your 4ft bald and with bad teeth :)

I think at least on line, a lot of grls use hight as a filter. there are girls that are 5 foor flat that wont look at you no matter who you are unless you are like 5 foor 7 in. I guess the heart wants what it wants. c'est la vie.

P

the badboy types (rockstars, biker boys) all show this trait.

Explain how the badboy type is DHV (demonstration of high value) in an evolutionary, species-propagation sense?

So to sum it up I want to say when it comes to the mating game its kind of unfair for women because they get judged mostly by just one trait

Oh dear lord. Men are equally judged by one trait as well - the trait to provide. Whether that means making a #($@)#load of money, or charging down a hill with a spear, it boils down to the same idea. I'll say the unfairness comes in post relationship, as women have been chosen as the incubators, and not the incuba-tees.

easier in real life than on line. real life grls done filter based on binary criteria. on line, the filters interface is either yes or no...

sorry. i meant "don't filter"

Puliogre, I'm in line jostling with Jeet - hire me too!

btw, how did this become about mothers-in-law?

do girls think its wrong for guys to be interested in heavily in a pretty girl?

I think at least on line, a lot of grls use hight as a filter. there are girls that are 5 foor flat that wont look at you no matter who you are unless you are like 5 foor 7 in. I guess the heart wants what it wants. c'est la vie.

I have a friend who is 5'2" and who largely filters on height. She dates guys of any race, profession and income - including one guy who was a smuggler (this was out of the USA), but wont look at a guy under 6' tall.

HMF,
You are talking about 2 different things here:
1) Women who date/mate with guys they are attracted to
2) Women who hook up with guys to be in a relationship with because they are the provider type

Both these type of guys have high survival value, having money and being rich is not the only type of survival value, try messing with the stripper who dates the bouncer from your favorite club, he can punch a hole through your skull, protect her and that matters to her, since you seem to know the right acroynms I don't think you require further explanation :)

I have a friend who is 5'2" and who largely filters on height. She dates guys of any race, profession and income - including one guy who was a smuggler (this was out of the USA), but wont look at a guy under 6' tall.

yikes...height matters more than moral character. no love for puli...

janeofalltrades and random............im sorry if u took my 'gut' remark as a slur on ur abdomen. just limit ur samosa intake to no more than 4 a day and u should be ok.............i don't know about cedar rapids, iowa or kansas city, kansas, but in my town the hot girls are exclusive in their dealing with moneyed men. in fact they prefer he be not so good looking either; average is best. they want to keep the delineation straight: man makes the money and woman keeps it sexy. i know desi girls are a bit different: since most will only get it on once, they don't want some fat stink-bomb. plus, thanks to our culture, they are a lot more romantic. problem is, from what i have seen i estimate maybe 8 % do not have protruding from their bellies. what i am saying is it is hard to find that bracket first of all, then when i do, i have to make it happen without the aston or even s-class they may/probably will be used to............. i would appreciate it if the fine editorial board at sepiamutiny would invent a matrimonial site exclusively for hot american desis.......janeofalltrades and random, again, please accept my apologies.

I thought the study was interesting because it wasn't just the supermodels they claimed acted like this, it was a general trend ...

I think at least on line, a lot of grls use hight as a filter. there are girls that are 5 foor flat that wont look at you no matter who you are unless you are like 5 foor 7 in. I guess the heart wants what it wants. c'est la vie.

I have a friend who is 5'2" and who largely filters on height. She dates guys of any race, profession and income - including one guy who was a smuggler (this was out of the USA), but wont look at a guy under 6' tall.

We like what we like and shouldn't be made to justify that. It's not just the heart, but the brain and, um, other things, that want what they want.

Men under 6 feet in addition to not finding love, apparently cant become CEOs either.

Interesting that you made the distinction that your friend is 5'2" - as if her being shorter-than-average (in the US) means she wouldn't be interested in tall guys? Or... should leave them for taller women? I get that all the time from my girl friends.

As a 6'3" tall guy I don't discriminate, but I do think it's funny when I can't easily make eye contact with a woman because she's a foot shorter than I am, yet I'm her ideal height. Then again, when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.

I have a friend who is 5'2" and who largely filters on height. She dates guys of any race, profession and income - including one guy who was a smuggler (this was out of the USA), but wont look at a guy under 6' tall.

yikes...height matters more than moral character. no love for puli...

come on puli, why would you want such a phony in the first place?

Men under 6 feet in addition to not finding love, apparently cant become CEOs either.

This is just getting worse and worse for my self esteem. jeez. cant a guy catch a break?! a tall smuggler is better than a short normal guy? WTF?! *sigh*

Well, if you believe in free markets, then a smuggler is just in import-export, no?

when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.

haha

Well, if you believe in free markets, then a smuggler is just in import-export, no?

free markets are predicated on functioning laws. i dont believe stealing, smuggling, robbing and killing is the same thing as an honest days work...

ill let that chick keep her smuggler boyfriend. ill chase girls that are a bit wiser than that...

when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.

my thoughts exactly!

We like what we like and shouldn't be made to justify that.

tamasha i am quoting you, but my comment is not targetted at you. in fact i am sort of taking it out of context to make my point.

it bothers me that almost every comment has been ridiculously superficial. not one man has said it may be a good idea to give less important to "hotness" and look for personality, while the only thing women are going to ignore looks for is loads (200k??) of money. there is a word for both of the above.

and then, we all actually want to feel high and mighty about it? "shouldn't be made to justify that"? (again, tamasha, i use your sentence to indicate the attitude of most of us). come on, wake up. most of us are caricatures of what is wrong (me included). it is one thing to be superficial---most of us are fighting tens of thousands of years of evolution. it is an entirely different thing to gloat about it, and not try to change!

Mothers-in-law are basically just mothers cast into a different situation. The difference is, you can tell your mom that she's crazy and needs to shut up. It's really much harder to say the same sort of thing to your mother-in-law. Husbands seem not so inclined to act as conduits for this sort of information.

This makes more sense to me than basically anything written on this thread. Crippling Desi maternal expectations + someone who can't effectively fight back = severely oppressed (or at least annoyed) wives.

I've always believed that mothers in law are basically the most important vectors for patriarchal values. I'm perfectly satisfied with eating frozen pizza and ramen every night, but I'm sure that my mother would be horrified if I continued that lifestyle after marriage. I honestly don't think that most Desi men expect their mothers or their wives to do half the work they actually do. We're mostly bystanders watching a war (though, admittedly, many Desi men I know COULD stand up to their mothers a little more in this situation).

I agree that mothers in law have a bad rap all over the world. But let's keep our stereotypes organized here. Traditionally, the man has a hard time dealing with in-laws in American culture, not the woman, which would indicate to me that there are different dynamics going on (probably a fear of being an inadequate provider). I can also see how dealing with a Desi mother in law would be a much bigger issue for people who are a) not used to the, uhm, "unique" expectations of Desi mothers at all and b) certainly not used to living under a roof with one.

it is an entirely different thing to gloat about it, and not try to change!

I don't believe that most people actually exemplify these huge generalizations. You're dealing with 6 billion data points, and we all know that individuals will do lots of odd, "unpredictable" things. There are rich dudes who marry women who aren't "conventionally" pretty (let's PLEASE leave aside the conversation about what that means). There are "hot" women who marry poor guys. I dunno, I think every generalization about what people like has to come with the "on average" caveat because there's so much multifactoral stuff that goes into relationships.

I suspect that, when you wrote the sentences above, you were thinking about your husband's mother, or your fiance's mother or a potential life partner's mother, as the case may be. But you also have brothers and maternal uncles, do you not? Would you write such sentences thinking about your own mother (who is a mother-in-law to your brother and a sister-in-law to your maternal uncle)? And what of yourselves---you are sister-in-laws to your brothers, aren't you? Would you write the same sentences thinking about yourself as a possible oppressor? Would you not think,"My brother's wife must be constantly telling my brother how bad Hema is or how bad Joat is?"

Oh absolutely I picture myself in that position everyday. Having seen perfectly wonderful moms turn into insane MILs around me and my mother has a lot of potential to drive my brother's future wife up the wall honestly this is something I'm sensitive to all the time. My own mother loved her MIL and thought she was wonderful and only says good things about her. Incidentally she said she always made a lot of effort to never turn out like her mother who has literally tortured my uncle's wives. Having said that the minute you get old and age creeps up on you something happens to you. I've see my aunts and best friends mothers who were wonderful while I was growing up do some pretty crazy things the minute their sons get married.

This isn't about some MIL bashing thing. I love my future MIL. She's really wonderful, genuine, not a single conniving bone in her and truly a gem but shit I would say to my mother is something I wouldn't in a million years be able to say to her out of respect for her and the fine balance I have to manage with her son. Having said that even something as simple as a "No" to a request comes loaded with so much guilt and baggage it adds up. Trust me it adds up. I've seen families who were perfectally normal fall apart after the guy got married and I hate to heap the entire blame of the falling apart on the woman marrying into the family.

Like my cousin just said to me yesterday..."It doesn't matter if your inlaws live 2 miles away or 2000 miles away, they have a way of penetrating your marriage and affecting it and influencing it, there is no way around it." For the most part (and I hate to say this because I don't want to desi bash and I really do love my culture and would never venture out of it) this sort of baggage can be avoided and missing outside of the South Asian culture. Individual wishes, thoughts, personalities, likes, dislikes etc are respected and put ahead of the herd. Not saying it's a positive thing but again I understand when women are gunshy and want to venture outside of something they may have experienced. It gets overbearing.

Lets face it expectations from women in our culture are far more overbearing than expectations from guys. What sort of expectations would my parents have from my husband other than treat me well and provide for me? On the other hand the expectations from his end of me...that's a massive can of worms.

when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.

Interesting that you made the distinction that your friend is 5'2" - as if her being shorter-than-average (in the US) means she wouldn't be interested in tall guys? Or... should leave them for taller women? I get that all the time from my girl friends.

I have a girlfriend who is not even 5' who loves loves tall guys and wouldn't give a adequately taller than her guy the time of day. He has to be around 6' and I never understood it. My ex used to always say 'I'm not shortening my gene pool by being with a short girl' (yeah he was quite a gem) and I can't tell you how many men have told me I was "too short" (online ofcourse). There are literally 100s of ads looking for "tall" women when the guy is like 5'8. Please I can be that height on a good day with heels! What's this obsession with tall Indian women? When I was in India I felt like a giant compared to most of the women. Of course I'm sure that would be different if I was in the north I'm going to assume.

When I was in India I felt like a giant compared to most of the women

My mother-in-law, a very traditional Indian woman, is 5'10" tall (same as my father-in-law). She looks almost like a freak standing next to other women in India. She sometimes has to sew extra material on to her saris to make them "tall" enough for her.

HMF, You are talking about 2 different things here: 1) Women who date/mate with guys they are attracted to 2) Women who hook up with guys to be in a relationship with because they are the provider type

For the purposes of this discussion, and the above mentioned post, it's category 2 that's relevant. We've been discussing long term relationships, much beyond simple attraction and IOIs.

Please, a guy so skinny that he makes the Kenyan marathon champion look like Fat Bastard, if armed with a gun, can punch many holes in the bouncer's skull making every single one of his muscles obsolete.

That's my point, survival characteristics change with respect to time. That's why the he-man, bouncer characteristics have become completely outdated and hence no longer a precursor from a long standing evolutionary standpoint. The only place where they still might have some DHV characteristics, would be setting-specific...

maybe a bouncer convention, where they all discuss the best way to grow a neck, who the hell knows.

But in a large scale evolutionary sense, it's outdated. In fact, the Badboy mentality appeals to women, for it's unpredictability, not the ability to kick someone else's ass.

I assume you've read "The Game", and you'll remember when Neil Strauss says "they'd run circles around those muscle heads in a starbucks" because those characteristics have ceased to be DHV.

JoAT:

I have a girlfriend who is not even 5' who loves loves tall guys and wouldn't give a adequately taller than her guy the time of day

What's the margin for a guy to be "adequately taller"? And do you think she would bend it if he had mad money? How about mad skillz?

Janeofalltrades: How tall are you? You dont look short in your pictures.

My thought: I wish there were a variable for immigration status (first-gen, 1.5-gen, second-gen, third+). I don't think their sample size would be able to make too robust judgments on the strata that interest us (i.e. Asian "Other") without starting over but that's the critical missing element here as far as this blog is concerned. Other than that, the usual suspects for 'biodata' variables are more or less there (e.g. married, divorced, wants kids, income, etc.). Ugh. Maybe some more variables on personality type would make us a bit less uncomfortable but I'm thinking the really important questions are more or less answer-able with the addition of immigrant generational status. What do you think?

No Neal(with no e), I am not speaking of the 6 billion people on earth. I am talking of comments on this thread. True, it could be people posting about others they know about, but I get a feeling a lot of people on this thread are not doing that.

Sorry I was unclear. I don't think most of the dialogue here is intended to just apply to the posters. Rather, people are making generalizations about what the average person does. And my point is that those are not reliable in many individual cases.

Regarding the study and its implications regarding the superficiality of the sexes in mate selection, note that the nature of study focuses largely on the superficial aspects of mate selection. It's hard to be non-superficial when simply browsing personal ads on-line. Also, note that there is a certain amount of self-selection involved in this study. Perhaps people who are very non-superficial simply wouldn't participate in an on-line match-making services because of the perception of such services being 'too shallow'. Over half of the people in study are less than twenty-five years of age, an age group that is generally considered to be relatively heavily superficial.

As such, my interpretation of the results of the study is that people are making mate selections based on biodata, they tend to make choices that are anticipated--men opt for physical beauty, and women opt for income potential. However, none of this implies that either sex is necessarily superficial when actually selecting a mate in real life experiences. Yes, there are people who actually do have narrow and arbitrary criteria, but most people eventually tend to make mate selections based on a more complex, less superficial basis.

Also, note that there is a certain amount of self-selection involved in this study. Perhaps people who are very non-superficial simply wouldn't participate in an on-line match-making services because of the perception of such services being 'too shallow'. Over half of the people in study are less than twenty-five years of age, an age group that is generally considered to be relatively heavily superficial.

Point taken.

And my point is that those are not reliable in many individual cases.

Oh definitely, this I don't have a problem with.

this sort of baggage can be avoided and missing outside of the South Asian culture. Individual wishes, thoughts, personalities, likes, dislikes etc are respected and put ahead of the herd.

Yeah, not so much. I didn't marry outside the desi fold because of patriarchy, because I know enough desi men/families where that wouldn't have been much of an issue, and I definitely got some of the baggage with my non-desi in laws anyway.

Lets face it expectations from women in our culture are far more overbearing than expectations from guys. What sort of expectations would my parents have from my husband other than treat me well and provide for me?

So true! My parents love my husband but he didn't really have to do much to impress them.

Ennis said...

As a 6'3" tall guy I don't discriminate, but I do think it's funny when I can't easily make eye contact with a woman because she's a foot shorter than I am, yet I'm her ideal height.

I can relate (~ 15 inch height diff) And what I find ridiculous is that she doesnt even wish I was any shorter!

Then again, when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.

yeah i guess. more useful info

OJ said...

just limit ur samosa intake to no more than 4 a day

ok, OJ you crack me up. I dont eat samosas very often, but I'm confident that I can easily incorporate 4 of them into my diet without any noticeable problem. peace :)

Yes, there are people who actually do have narrow and arbitrary criteria, but most people eventually tend to make mate selections based on a more complex, less superficial basis.

Even if they judge the people who they date using more complex criteria, they've still thrown out a large part of the pool based on very arbitrary criteria. So if they use personality to choose amongst 6' tall lawyers making $300,000/yr, their decisions still heavily shaped by factors of height and income.

Perhaps people who are very non-superficial simply wouldn't participate in an on-line match-making services because of the perception of such services being 'too shallow'.

Starting 8 years ago, up till maybe a year or two ago, most of the people I knew did mainly online dating. A different friend used an online service to meet a guy who lived in her neighborhood in Park Slope! Furthermore, when you add in matrimonials, friendster, myspace, facebook, and other forms of biodata, I'd say it's still the dominant way most desis I know meet each other.

my point is that those are not reliable in many individual cases.

If I remember correctly, there were 20,000 people in this survey. If everybody had an idiosyncratic approach, they never would have found these patterns in the data (although I wish I knew the certainty associated with these inferences). I know we all want to think of ourselves as individuals, but marketing studies do a decent job of predicting certain aspects of our behavior. Furthermore, I haven't seen a huge amount of disagreement in the 200+ comments thus far, leading me to think these criteria are more common that you think.

HMF,
You're completely going on a tangent here, I am not talking about the survival of the fittest, I am not talking about a soceity run by drug lords and gun slingers who walk the streets duking it out, I am not talking about JUST macho brute power
Do women want to mate with tall athletic men well hung like horses- The answer is yes.
Do women want to mate with rich succesful men who are not that genetically gifted- The answer again is yes
So does that mean if you don't belong to or have traits of either parties your chances of spreading the seed is less? The general answer would be yes BUT there are ways to work around it which is what the author of the book has tried to prove.
So on a GENERAL large scale evolutionary sense I still say the above 2 parties have a higher chance of replication than a nerdy computer guy who spends time on his soduku puzzles on friday nights. So does that mean that the lovable geek is doomed forever in isolation, the answer is No which is where the theory you read in the book comes in.

20000???

Not many disagreements on this thread is one of my complaints, but it is possible people on the thread are not speaking for themselves. Rather until people own up, I will go against my comment and believe Neal(with no e) that they may be saying things they believe to be true for the average. More faith in humanity that way :).

Post 242 is fair and square, Joat.

Hmm, oddly enough, I am reading through this thread listening to Count Basie/My Baby Just cares for Me

"My baby don't care for diamond rings, or all those things......" Isn't that how it goes?

Well, I don't have any answers. I think all these consumer choices we have, for our potential mates and otherwise, are quite dizzying. So many choices of shoes, soaps, cars, shoes, purses, computers, all that biodata online, all those people! It seems I never felt so strongly for things as I did when I lived in a small town, as a girl, and had only a few people on my horizon. Would I have cared as deeply if I had met those people, only a few laters, in the city? I don't know.

As for mother-in-law 'bashing': well, everyone has tensions with their mother-in-law. It's natural. It can be bit extreme in some corners of desi culture, though, from personal observation and more importantly, bitter observations of older family members. No reason to be defensive about it; some things just are. If desi culture has much warmth and closeness and family connection to recommend it, it's only to be expected that tensions will come with all that 'connecting'.

What's the margin for a guy to be "adequately taller"? And do you think she would bend it if he had mad money? How about mad skillz?

Adequately taller is someone that is still taller than me in my highest of high heels :-) I think mad skillz is what this one would bend for, money I don't think she could care for though yeah she's not going out with a pauper anytime soon. :-)

Janeofalltrades: How tall are you? You dont look short in your pictures.

5'2. I think that's pretty short in the grand scheme of things but I can tack on 3-4" on a good day with no problems, add the inch fluff of the hair and I'm as tall as the average desi guy :-) ***ducking***

So does that mean if you don't belong to or have traits of either parties your chances of spreading the seed is less? The general answer would be yes BUT there are ways to work around it which is what the author of the book has tried to prove.

No, I am not going off on a tangent, in fact I am staying precisely on topic. What I am telling you is, the PUA community (DeAngelo, Mystery, Style, and even SS to some degree) makes no claim to LTRs, infact they're downright unapologetic about it. The two modes of thinking are exactly divergent. Tall, athletic men hung like horses no longer trigger the species propogation sensors, as a long term evolutionary fitness level. Will women find them attractive in the short term, sure, but that's not the topic brought up in the post here.

I believe you are completely wrong when you say, the PUA community attempts to teach nerds ways to "get around" their low status. It teaches that monetary status is important to a degree, physical DHV is important to a degree, but otherwise its a matter of subtextual communication and qualification. IN other words, rich guys & good looking guys would benefit from those concepts as well.

Since people are looking for variations in viewpoints, I should admit that I'm intimidated by rich or aspiring-to-be-rich guys. I'm not against wanting to make money, but I could never be with someone who made that his life's primary focus. But who knows, maybe I'm not grown-up enough as yet?

Since people are looking for variations in viewpoints, I should admit that I'm intimidated by rich or aspiring-to-be-rich guys. I'm not against wanting to make money, but I could never be with someone who made that his life's primary focus. But who knows, maybe I'm not grown-up enough as yet?

Would having a good deal more money compensate for perceived deficiencies in other areas?

Then again, when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.

bytewords: It's all good. Misquote away. ;)

I could never be with someone who made that his life's primary focus

What if it was someone who was just very good at whatever he did, and that just led to more money incidentally? I mean, it can be hard to separate ambition from ambition to make oodles of money.

Would having a good deal more money compensate for perceived deficiencies in other areas?

Depends on the deficiencies. No amount of money makes up for a complete lack of compassion, sincerity, etc. On the other hand, money might be sufficient to make a woman overlook a gimply leg, legally blind without glasses, etc.

Would having a good deal more money compensate for perceived deficiencies in other areas?

No, certainly not.

(But I would avoid anyone who can't maintain at least a middle-class lifestyle without going into debt. That's about it...)

TMF,
Why you to trying to impress me with your thorough knowledge of PUA geeky acroynms, concepts or theories on an off-topic thread is beyond me :)

I think if a man was shorter than me he'd be legally a midget.

Hey midgets need loving too. And just remember, "when you're horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height."

I'm just saying ;)

ok, wtf is pua, ltr, dhv?

Specifically, on the height-issue: I'm a tall girl, and I have a height preference. I prefer dating guys who are between my height and 6'1. That's not to say that I wouldn't date someone shorter than me, or someone above 6'1 - those are just preferences. And that's just it - I think anyone can express preferences, but for the most part - a lot of the things mentioned in the comments seem like preferences, not dealbreakers.

Re: shorter men, I'm not sure who has more of a problem with it: the shorter men, or the taller women.

What if it was someone who was just very good at whatever he did, and that just led to more money incidentally? I mean, it can be hard to separate ambition from ambition to make oodles of money.

Of course. But for one thing, that kind of wealth generally takes time -- the person in question will probably be past the courting age. For another, I'm not sure a person like that would advertise his/her wealth to potential partners. I may be wrong.

It's not money that turns me off as much the drive to make it at the cost of other things. So I'd have nothing against a perfect someone with incidental wealth. However, between two people who are equal in every other way, I would pick the wealthier one only if his counterpart required me to substantially lower my present standard of living. Otherwise, I'd toss a coin.

TMF, Why you to trying to impress me with your thorough knowledge of PUA geeky acroynms, concepts or theories on an off-topic thread is beyond me :)

I'll just impress you with the ability to transcribe three letters.

ok, wtf is pua, ltr, dhv?

speaking of three letter transcriptions, wtf is wtf?

What if it was someone who was just very good at whatever he did, and that just led to more money incidentally? I mean, it can be hard to separate ambition from ambition to make oodles of money.

I think, like anything, certain things need to be quantified. First of all, being very good at whatever one does, does not lead to more $$ as matter of consequence. Perhaps ambition, in a strict American, Capitalist, Republican, F*** you I'm out for me and me only, context, will lead to oodles and oodles of money.

someone can be an ambitious playright, teacher, non profit volunteer, mentor, and hundred other things, and the oodles of money will be capped at maybe just "oo"

no i really mean it. what do those mean? you used wtf, so you know what it is. :)

I believe PUA = Pickup Artist, LTR = Long Term Relationships and DHV = Demo(?) of higher value..

I'm with Dan on this issue. In the real world, people (especially people, generally over twenty-five, who understand what matters in a relationship) choose their partners using complex criteria. The choice is not a scientifically detached one, that lies in wait for people who fulfill certain basic conditions, and then allows the heart to beat a little faster. Please - we are not robots. You meet someone, they seem like anyone else, you start talking, and then you notice your heart is beating a little faster than normal. And guess what? You take a look at the person who is making your heart beat fast and, most of the time, they won't be particularly hot or wealthy. At this point you can choose to be a normal human being or you can choose to be a worm. A worm dumps the not-hot/not-wealthy individual promptly. A normal human being trusts his/her instincts.

Hence the plethora of 'what the hell is he/she doing with her/him?' stories we've all heard. Hence the friends who tell you excitedly about the guy/girl they hardly noticed for a year and then fell in love with at the library/watercooler/bar. Hence (and thank God for this hence) the old couples who are together for forty years and still make eyes at eachother. Hotness/wealth do not make you want to hold hands when you're eighty. Mature individuals figure this out.

As for the 200 odd comments on here - apart from a few that make sense, quite a lot seem to be coming from befuddled and inexperienced individuals, some of whom seem unfortunately depressed by this study. Don't worry about it. In the real world, it's a crock.

You meet someone, they seem like anyone else, you start talking, and then you notice your heart is beating a little faster than normal. And guess what? You take a look at the person who is making your heart beat fast and, most of the time, they won't be particularly hot or wealthy.

What if most of the people you meet are your coworkers or friends of friends that you're not as interested in, and most of the people you date you meet online. Then the fact that you screen out people based on other criteria long before you meet them becomes relevant. I said clearly in the post that the dynamics change when you meet somebody face to face, the problem is that most potential dyads never get to that point.

Ennis, I agree your post was clearly limited to the online scenario. However many of the commenters are taking the generalizations in the study and applying them to all relationships, which is foolish and sad. How many people only do the online thing anyway? My problem with studies like this is that they invariably lead to untrue and demeaning generalizations about human behaviour outside the limits imposed within these studies. If someone wants to say that men and women who engage in online dating are superficial while they're doing so - fine. But instead many leap to the conclusion that men and women are superficial when choosing their mates, period.

PUA = Pickup Artist, LTR = Long Term Relationships and DHV = Demo(?) of higher value

anyone who knows what these means, much less incorporates them into their speech is a complete LOSER. i read about that guy's book in the times, and like everything else in the times, it was hyped as something new and stunning. about a year later i stumbled on the actual book at the bookstore and the cover was nice so i sat there and read it. about 1/5th of the way through i got this feeling as though i was about to vomit, but it just wouldn't come out. if there is one thing i learned from this book it is that there are lots and lots and lots of people out there who do not deserve any respect whatsoever. and to give them any would by extension be a desrespect to oneself, should that oneself be anything close to a functioning human being. something a little more tacit i took from this jerry springer type book was how important it is to treat these types of people and most others (save maybe 10%) like the crap they are. they are more comfortable that way, bowing before a real man.............................

all this talk of tall and short........people need to be specific. short for a man is less than 5'7". till 5'10" u are everage, till 6'1" u are slightly above average. and after that tall begins. and another important thing. since all desis lie (the real national sport) about their actual height, u can add 2 inches to ur measured-at-the -dr's-office height. i am 5'10" (actually, not desi terms, in which case i would be 6') and know i am average height at best......as far as girls obsessing over height, i have no clue why they do it. unless the are under 5'3" they are fine. all that matters is a pretty face, thin waist, big t------ and a matching a--.

Here is an old joke that could be flipped around for the other gender as well.

A store that sells husbands has just opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband.

Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the
store operates. You may visit the store ONLY ONCE!

There are six floors and the attributes of the men increase as the
shopper ascends the flights.

There is, however, a catch. ... You may choose any man from a
particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor, but you cannot go
back
down except to exit the building!

So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband. .

On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

Floor 1 - These men have jobs and love the Lord.

*********

The second floor sign reads:

Floor 2 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, and love kids.

*********

The third floor sign reads:

Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, and are
extremely good looking.

" Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

*********

She goes to the fourth floor and sign reads:

Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop- dead
good looking and help with the housework.

"Oh, mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!"

*********

Still, she goes to the fifth floor and sign reads:

Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop- dead
gorgeous, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign
reads:

*********

Floor 6 - You are visitor 4,363,012 to this floor. There are no men on
this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible
to please.

Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store. Watch your step as you
exit the building, and have a nice day!

What if most of the people you meet are your coworkers or friends of friends that you're not as interested in, and most of the people you date you meet online. Then the fact that you screen out people based on other criteria long before you meet them becomes relevant. I said clearly in the post that the dynamics change when you meet somebody face to face, the problem is that most potential dyads never get to that point.

Yes, it's true that if your only method of meeting people is on-line matchmaking sites, the screening becomes an issue. However, is that really a problem? If your objective is to meet a potential long-term relationship partner, wouldn't you want to find someone who is mature and looks for depth in a relationship? If someone is willing to reject because you're not n inches tall, attractive enough, or earn d dollars a year, isn't that a good thing? Isn't that a lot time you avoided wasting in following dead-end leads? There do exist some sites that cater to a more in-depth approach.

Of course, if you're looking for a more casual relationship, then I can certainly understand how being subject to arbitrary criteria is problematic. As such, if you are a person who would have problems matching up on an on-line site, the only real advice is to go off-line. Get involved in an activity that you enjoy and where you can meet other people. It may take more time and effort than browsing on-line listings from home, but it may be more productive.

Adam, you said:

it's a gross generalization. East Asian women say the same thing and it's not any more true for them as it is for Desi's. Also, it carries with it can implied view that all the "other" males are less likely to be overbearing patriarchs. Again, that view is just not true as well. There are men of every race, color, creed, etc., that will treat women like servants, and that have overbearing families, it's not race, religion, ethnicity, country specific.

So your argument is - don't say that East Asian or South Asian men are more likely to be patriarchal and don't attribute it to their cultural background because it's not true? That's kind of funny, what makes you decide it's not true? I agree that patriarchal and unpleasant men in all sorts of cultural backgrounds (I know a couple of American men who have the doted-on-son complex too), but there's a reason why desi women notice it more in their own, because it's more likely to be present among desis, and because cultural norms make it acceptable for in-laws and husbands and parents to treat women and girls in certain ways. No-one is saying all desi men are patriarchal, just that the probability that you'll have to deal with that stuff is higher when you marry a desi man. It's pretty subtle and many men grow up as the adored sons in such families with absolutely no idea that their sisters were being pressured to eat less and do housework from an early age and pick up after the men and be more self-sacrificing and all that. Believe me, when you live with its downsides everyday, you notice.

And Neale, I don't believe that it's primarily the MILs who are responsible for transmitting patriarchy. Men (in all cultures) do it passive-aggressively, by sitting by quietly while the mom/MIL plays the "enforcer," by not doing a thing around the house in the expectation that the woman will pick up the slack, not saying "oh honey don't bother cooking, we'll just have ramen," that sort of thing. I'm not saying all desi men or all men are guilty of this, I'm just saying there's another way to see "agency" in this regard, and the MIL is the easiest target because she's expected to keep the DIL and daughters/sons in line, but she's part of a wider set of behaviours and expectations.

I agree with Dan on the point that such studies focus on superficialities, there's the "first cut" and then there's the stage of getting to know someone. I wonder how many people end up marrying the person they found wildly attractive at a bar one night.

I'd really be interested to hear from anyone who has seen examples of the extreme types depicted in romantic literature/movies : you know, the kind where the millionaire's daughter runs away to be with a pauper etc

here's one

obviously an extreme case.

the reality is that most people marry within their class, caste, race, religion, etc., and this goes for everywhere. marrying "across lines" is the exception rather than the rule.

anyone who knows what these means, much less incorporates them into their speech is a complete LOSER

Glad to see you have an open mind. Personally , I see no problem at all in studying relationships as a science, incorporating biology, evolutionary concepts, and mating observables from the animal kingdom, which I believe most apply in human beings anyway. In fact with your quotidian remark of "I want one without a gut" You generally prove every principle the PUAs have come up with.

#280 Oldjoke

Here is an old joke that could be flipped around for the other gender as well

Interestingly, that joke resembles a Panchatantra story.

The math doesn't scale! "a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market." They should have used a multiplicative factor, not a constant shift. Someone making $23,325,000 a year does not have a significant advantage over someone making $23,000,000 a year, and definitely not enough to compensate for being a foot shorter. They probably are pegging it to median income, which is (guessing) around $45,000 (in places like NYC he mean, not median, is around $86,000). So you would need 7x the income to compensate. That makes more sense, someone making $161,000,000/yr will have an advantage over someone making $23,000,000/yr.

PUA = Pickup Artist, LTR = Long Term Relationships and DHV = Demo(?) of higher value

anyone who knows what these means, much less incorporates them into their speech is a complete LOSER.

How so? How is it any different than IM speak like internet short hand?

it was hyped as something new and stunning. about a year later i stumbled on the actual book at the bookstore and the cover was nice so i sat there and read it. about 1/5th of the way through i got this feeling as though i was about to vomit, but it just wouldn't come out. ... all that matters is a pretty face, thin waist, big t------ and a matching a--.

Oh the irony of it...

How so? How is it any different than IM speak like internet short hand?

Jane, I think he means anyone who subscribes to the principles. At least that's what I hopes he means.

at the bookstore and the cover was nice so i sat there and read it

You've proven over and over again, you do like to judge books by their covers.

Question for all the women who are so against 'patriarchy'...are you against only its extreme manifestations or are you against any (even very mild) manifestation of it? Since it permeates our culture, traditions, rituals, attitudes, etc. on every level, obviously you all come to some sort of compromise with it, which probably varies from woman to woman. Furthermore, since you all grew up in patriarchal societies to one extent or another, would you really want to do away with it completely and be left with a society that you don't recognize or find familiar anymore? Surely there must be some comfort derived from the culture and environment you grew up in, regardless of the fact that there are patriarchal elements to it. Lastly, as a guy, I just have to say this...although I am opposed to the extremes that patriarchy can take (honor killings, purdah, female foeticide, etc), I enjoy many aspects of it as filtered through modern Indian culture and as experienced in our homes...simply put, it works well for guys, and I'm not sure on what basis I should 'fight' against it. On the other hand, when I imagine what having a daughter would be like, I would never want her to be the victim of patriarchal attitudes...so this is sort of a complicated topic (for me).

JOAT you asked about 'Sex In the City' girls in post #49......To my mind they are the girls who use "The Rules" as their love life bibles and keep at least 3 copies in the house. And if you are a desi male pulling 6 figures+ you will see them at the desi conferences sliding up to you on some bright eyed 'so what do you do???' (notice the 'what do you do' question instead of say...hobbies and such)....and if like shallowthinker's brother you were treated different by said ladies once you started to get coin...the heart starts to get a bit colder. That's the thing about guys with money...they know that women desire them for that...and perhaps are only giving them the time of day because of their bank accounts.

so this is sort of a complicated topic (for me)

As well for me. There is a lot of comfort for me in knowing that the desi boys in my life tend to somehow automatically "take care" of me when in need. Simple things like during the winter whenever I'd visit my friends their husbands would go out and heat up my car for me so I wouldn't have to sit out there in the cold. My friend Aman for example runs and helps me anytime I reach out to him or am in distress, for no other reason I swear than the fact that he was raised a 'nice Indian boy' who helps girls.

I'm unclear whether this is considered patriarchy but a lot of it stems from 'take care of the girls' attitude the boys are taught in Indian household. I'd like to believe that men do it out of chivalry and because they are being nice but I can't discount the 'Indian' upbringing whenever I encounter this.

By the same token any cultural aspect that doesn't respect my POV, that disregards me as less important or immediately assumes I'm less capable because I'm a woman is negative. I think I'd prefer someone to tell me their definition of what "patriarchy" means in order to agree or disagree with it because the definition varies for a lot of women. I come from a very strong women dominated family, all girls, most of them overachievers, my boyfriend comes from an all boys male dominated family and the differences are mindblowing.

JOAT you asked about 'Sex In the City' girls in post #49......To my mind they are the girls who use "The Rules" as their love life bibles and keep at least 3 copies in the house. And if you are a desi male pulling 6 figures+ you will see them at the desi conferences sliding up to you on some bright eyed 'so what do you do???' (notice the 'what do you do' question instead of say...hobbies and such)....and if like shallowthinker's brother you were treated different by said ladies once you started to get coin...the heart starts to get a bit colder. That's the thing about guys with money...they know that women desire them for that...and perhaps are only giving them the time of day because of their bank accounts.

You know there are plenty of the so called "Rules" that are important like how to drop a guy if he's "unavailable and uninterested" or so many other mistakes women seem to make when they enter relationships or are dating. However sadly being a gold digger comes naturally to some women, they don't need a book of rules to tell them how to work it. Lumping assertive women who know what they want and go after it into the "Sex and the City" girls category is disrespectful.

S&TC was a phenomenon for a lot of women of my generation as trite as it sounds. Just as Seinfeld tickled our funny bones because there was finally a show about your daily life so did S&TC for so many wmen that live it everyday. It taught women to be assertive, accept their flaws, realize life isn't perfect and gave them hope. If you haven't really seen it but think it's fashionable to get on the S&TC sucks bandwagon I would suggest you see an episode or two.

However women as well as men are a lot more complex than that and frankly like my mother said "it's just as easy to love a rich guy" I've also learnt wealth isn't about your actual paycheck but your potential in life.

Amitabh, just out of curiosity, what counts as mild manifestations of patriarchy in your book?

Lumping assertive women who know what they want and go after it into the "Sex and the City" girls category is disrespectful. "

I like SATC..quite a bit...more than I care to admit (not enough to watch over South Park but still :)

That being said I have 3 specific friends who have followed 'The Rules' and found the (rich) men of their dreams. Nothing wrong with that. I'm happy for them. But as a guy who has gone full spectrum from poor to slightly wealthy it is a turnoff...no biggie I date painters and musicians...so I don't have to buy Balenciagas, then again the day is young.

JoAt said:

There is a lot of comfort for me in knowing that the desi boys in my life tend to somehow automatically "take care" of me when in need. Simple things like during the winter whenever I'd visit my friends their husbands would go out and heat up my car for me so I wouldn't have to sit out there in the cold.

Here's the question - do they do this for all their guests, male or female, or is it special treatment you get for being a girl?

I'm unclear whether this is considered patriarchy but a lot of it stems from 'take care of the girls' attitude the boys are taught in Indian household. I'd like to believe that men do it out of chivalry and because they are being nice but I can't discount the 'Indian' upbringing whenever I encounter this. By the same token any cultural aspect that doesn't respect my POV, that disregards me as less important or immediately assumes I'm less capable because I'm a woman is negative.

If they warm up your car for being a girl, then they're assuming that you're less hardy than boys are, and weaker. If Chivalry is extended to some and not others, it presumes inequality, that you're helping somebody out because they can't do it on their own.

I think the patriarchy you are comfortable with (mild, chivalrous gestures) and the patriarchy you don't like (overt disregard or telling you that you can't do something because as a woman you're weaker) might run together somewhat.

I come from a very strong women dominated family, all girls, most of them overachievers...

Just to add a few notes regarding 'the patriarchy', though it can permeate a culture, it certainly does vary from family to family, as Janeofalltrades points out. I come from a Latin culture which has its own sexist legacy; nonetheless, I think that my parents generally set a good example of mutual respect and esteem. I don't think I can necessarily say the same about some of my extended family.

My fiancée's family, which is Indian, is dominated by her mother. In this case, I think it is largely a function of the mother's personality, which tends to be a bit tyrannical.

What sort of expectations would my parents have from my husband other than treat me well and provide for me?

If only that was all my future mother-in-law expected from me... In any case, I do hope that whatever bit of the 'patriarchy' remains will work in my favour--allowing us to live our lives as we see fit (though I'm not holding my breath). On the other, hand I hate to see what the wives of my future brothers-in-law will have to go through.

Amitabh, just out of curiosity, what counts as mild manifestations of patriarchy in your book?

I know my name aint Amitabh, but I thought I'd offer an answer:

Say, opening a door for a girl repeatedly, when it's clear she is physically able, has the relevant motor skills, mentally aware of what a door's purpose is, and familiar with concepts of torque and angular momentum. (so as to exert an external force on the door when it's reached a sufficient opening distance, to comfortably allow the passage of human beings through.)

Here's the question - do they do this for all their guests, male or female, or is it special treatment you get for being a girl?

um.. my guy friends do this for girls.. although i know how to change a flat tire, it's nice when a boy offers.. or when they help jump start my car when my batteries are out..but i think that this 'chivalrous' nature goes beyond just the brown species..because other males from other races have been just as great with helping me out..you know, opening up a door for a female is so considerate.. i make sure i say thank you.. even when a male lets me enter the elevator before him.. it just shows.. manners.. or maybe that is in the south..

I think the patriarchy you are comfortable with (mild, chivalrous gestures) and the patriarchy you don't like (overt disregard or telling you that you can't do something because as a woman you're weaker) might run together somewhat.

i think it becomes too patriarchial, when they think you can't do it on your own... that is when i get peeved..when in fact you can..and have at times when you haven't had someone to 'sweep in and save the day'..whats even better is when you work on the problem (whether it be car trouble, painting a room, etc) together.. equal opportunity.. yes, there are things i can't do, but i'll call that out on my own..and my own will.. no need for others assuming my weaknesses without even asking but just presuming it on their own.

as for woman who are strong.. my mom is a firecracker.... but my dad holds his own ground as well.. i think after 38 years of marriage, their strengths and weaknesses balance each other out in such harmony.. it's very zen like, and very inspiring.. he let's her do her thing...and he does his.. but the integration of both their unique and different characteristics and flaws is amazing to watch.. to observe how they let it flow, is heartening...

as for woman who are strong.. my mom is a firecracker.... but my dad holds his own ground as well..
Wow sounds like life's gonna be/is a nightmare for your future significant other.

Wow sounds like life's gonna be/is a nightmare for your future significant other

PG: nope, you have it all wrong.
:)
it's going to be a dream.
great family.
firecracker means--spirited.. there are many connotations.. she is a free spirit.. my dad is more grounded.. it's a good combo.

#285 BNB,

That is not surprising, since old stories get reworked in many ways including in their avatars as jokes.

Here is another innovation.

Single guy outsources to find dates

HMF, Amitabh was talking specifically about South Asian manifestations of patriarchy, and he mentioned enjoying patriarchal practices that benefit guys, not women, so I don't think chivalry is what he was talking about.

Amitabh, if you had a daughter like I do, then you would understand why patriachal attitudes are something you would not want her to have to deal with.

HMF, Amitabh was talking specifically about South Asian manifestations of patriarchy, and he mentioned enjoying patriarchal practices that benefit guys, not women, so I don't think chivalry is what he was talking about.

You're probably right, I'm not sure what would be considered a mild form of South Asian patriarchy, however, chivalry is a mild form of patriarchy, as the word and concept is rooted in horses, warriors, knights, etc.. all epithets of men.

opening up a door for a female is so considerate.. i make sure i say thank you.. even when a male lets me enter the elevator before him.. it just shows.. manners.. or maybe that is in the south..

I've been socialized into doing that regardless of gender, it was the feminist solution ;)

I've been socialized into doing that regardless of gender, it was the feminist solution ;)

haha :)

I used to do all that giving up my seat for a grl stuff. then I though. if women are equal, I should not do this. They get equal benefits, and equal work. they should stand on the train like the boys. completely equal...If a grl questions that, ill just ask them if womens lib happened. Im all for equality, but it should be both ways.

P

I used to do all that giving up my seat for a grl stuff. then I though. if women are equal, I should not do this.

...If a grl questions that, ill just ask them if womens lib happened. Im all for equality, but it should be both ways.

It's not your height that's working against you, my Friend.

It's not your height that's working against you, my Friend.

I actually do really well in person. i was just cribbing about online filters...no real complains about real life. im not that much of a d!ck in reality. i have just been mentally throwing around the idea. not sure why womens lib dont work both ways. just dont make sense to me.
pl keep it civil.

It's not your height that's working against you, my Friend.

...and pl dont insult me then call me your friend.

It's not your height that's working against you, my Friend.

Right. It's your need to make sense.

Right. It's your need to make sense.

funny...

Well, I don't give up my chair for women unless they're elderly or pregnant, and then I do the same for men too.

BTW, OMFG We made it 300+ comments without a single flame war breaking out, despite the whole gender war aspect of this.

I don't want to jinx this, but have we reached a new era of civility on Sepia Mutiny? Wow.

That's the thing about guys with money...they know that women desire them for that...and perhaps are only giving them the time of day because of their bank accounts.

I know a couple of guys who are unhappy in there marriages but won't divorce their first wives for this reason. In all of these cases the first wife married the guy before he was in the $$$. Plus, the guys didn't have a pre-nup.

I know a couple of guys who are unhappy in there marriages but won't divorce their first wives for this reason. In all of these cases the first wife married the guy before he was in the $$$. Plus, the guys didn't have a pre-nup.

Here's the question - do they do this for all their guests, male or female, or is it special treatment you get for being a girl?

If they warm up your car for being a girl, then they're assuming that you're less hardy than boys are, and weaker. If Chivalry is extended to some and not others, it presumes inequality, that you're helping somebody out because they can't do it on their own.

I'd like to believe they do this for all women not because there is some deep seeded belief that women are weak but they have those kind of manners. And I appreciate it even if they know I'm quite capable of it. My mother always told me 'marry a man who would treat you better than anyone else' however I actually rather marry a man who treats everyone well and is good and kind in his actions towards everyone not just me.

I think the patriarchy you are comfortable with (mild, chivalrous gestures) and the patriarchy you don't like (overt disregard or telling you that you can't do something because as a woman you're weaker) might run together somewhat.

Oh I don't think that they are mutually exclusively completely but some men balance it far better than others in terms of where they choose to be employ this behavior and where they choose to let me pay the bill so to speak. Chickie said it best below...

yes, there are things i can't do, but i'll call that out on my own..and my own will.. no need for others assuming my weaknesses without even asking but just presuming it on their own.

Well, I don't give up my chair for women unless they're elderly or pregnant, and then I do the same for men too.

Actually honestly I give up my seat to anyone that looks like they need it, young old man woman anyone. Frankly it's a damn hour and I'm young it's not going to kill me to stand. I'm shocked at how many people are just pure a**holes (women as well) to pregnant women or people with children.

BTW, OMFG We made it 300+ comments without a single flame war breaking out, despite the whole gender war aspect of this.

I don't want to jinx this, but have we reached a new era of civility on Sepia Mutiny? Wow.

Oh My Gawwwwwd.
Ennis.. DON'T JINX..
Enjoy the discussion...

SHHHHH!

Somebody did a study about how not even lawyers get prenups, even though they know all the arguments for them. When it comes to marriage, they want to shut their eyes and say "It wont happen to me!"

I so believe that. My husband was vehemently pro-pre-nup and argued like a banshee in his contracts class, of course this was before he met me and we eloped. I am also pro-pre-nup for all of my friends.

Actually honestly I give up my seat to anyone that looks like they need it, young old man woman anyone. Frankly it's a damn hour and I'm young it's not going to kill me to stand. I'm shocked at how many people are just pure a**holes (women as well) to pregnant women or people with children.

one of the most sad moments i saw while riding the train in ATL... a few teenagers were cursing up a storm..and a small kid, around 5 yrs old, was sitting behind them... one of the elderly ladies told the guys to keep it down, since there was a kid nearby...

it led to a heated argument.. and one of the teenagers slapping an elderly female...
i was horrified...
just shocked...

a 15 year old slapping a 60+ old lady?
that was true chivalry aholeness.

BTW, OMFG We made it 300+ comments without a single flame war breaking out, despite the whole gender war aspect of this.

It's because a flame war would've affected the bet!

Sriram, you have to make bets at the start of each one of ANNA's posts, then you can keep away the flames :-)

a 15 year old slapping a 60+ old lady?

im not a v!olent man, but i might make an exception for such a kid...

If a grl questions that, ill just ask them if womens lib happened. Im all for equality, but it should be both ways.

I agree with you. I would NEVER expect a guy to give up his seat for me unless I was pregnant or incapable of standing for some reason, and I wouldn't take it if it was offered.

...brown?

I agree with you. I would NEVER expect a guy to give up his seat for me unless I was pregnant or incapable of standing for some reason, and I wouldn't take it if it was offered.

pregnant, sick, handicapped, old different. in the case of sick, handicapped, or old, i would give up the seat for a guy too. pregnant doesnt apply (if i remember my college pre-med classes correctly).

P

...brown?

i dont get it.

Well, I don't give up my chair for women unless they're elderly or pregnant, and then I do the same for men too.

Puliogre in da USA,
I'm certain no woman(grl) is going to ask you why you haven't given up your seat for her, yet you're ready with a retort about women's lib, as though things really were equal between the sexes. And it seems your effort in the equality movement is to give up offering your seat to a lady.

And when I wrote "my Friend", I was meaning it respectfully. My apologies for the offense it has caused.

Right. It's your need to make sense.

good one.

I'm certain no woman(grl) is going to ask you why you haven't given up your seat for her, yet you're ready with a retort about women's lib, as though things really were equal between the sexes. And it seems your effort in the equality movement is to give up offering your seat to a lady.

youd be surprised. people behave funny. some grls act like they have a god given right to have all the patronizing benefits of a patriarchy. i.e. the nice perks. and besides, this is more a thought experience than recurring practical social situation.

I cant correct broad social injustices. I can however behave in an internally consistant fashon with my thoughts. My effort in womens lib isnt JUST to give up offering seat. It is on the other side as well. treat women with respect, as my equal in every way. dont discriminate against a grl. when people assume that a grl job candidate isnt qualified (and then point to an equal candidate who is a boy as good), I preffer to stand against such injustices. I believe that laws/employment/achievements are more or less gender neutral. anyone can do anything with hard work. In line with this philosophy, i dont think i should be giving up the seat because it just seems patronizing. sort of like a grl is a wilting willow that cant stand. and the guy is stronger so should stand. I just dont think thats true. sorry if you dont like that attitude. this kind of filters into my love life as well. i want a truly equal partner. i tend to be attracted to grls who are about as smart/successfull as i am (and hope they are looking 4 same thing in a b0y).

Somebody did a study about how not even lawyers get prenups, even though they know all the arguments for them. When it comes to marriage, they want to shut their eyes and say "It wont happen to me!"

Interesting. I'd be curious to see what the age breakdown of the lawyers sample was. Lawyers fresh out of law school just don't have enough bank to justify a pre-nup, IMO. Now, a long time litigation partner at one of those fancy BigLaw firms on his third marriage? He is sooooo getting a pre-nup.

He is sooooo getting a pre-nup.

the idea of a pre-nip scares me. its like planning for a divorce before the wedding starts. although my mom has advised me to get one if i ever get married. scary to hear my mom say that.

I'm shocked at how many people are just pure a**holes (women as well) to pregnant women or people with children.

I hear ya JOAT. I don't even ride the bus with my kids here in SF. When I was pregnant I usually got a seat after some perfectly healthy person sitting down glanced over and saw me sitting on the floor... Well, before I stopped taking the bus.

Well, I don't give up my chair for women unless they're elderly or pregnant, and then I do the same for men too.

Yah, I'd give up my seat for a pregnant man too! :P Y'all know ya couldn't handle it! J/K

the idea of a pre-nip scares me. its like planning for a divorce before the wedding starts

I understand that, and that's actually why we didn't bother with pre-nups when we got married (and to be fair, we didn't really have any assets back then either).

However, I think it's just a matter of good planning. I mean, people have wills drawn up all the time, and that is basically planning for death while you're still alive.

However, I think it's just a matter of good planning. I mean, people have wills drawn up all the time, and that is basically planning for death while you're still alive.

death is inevitable. divorce is not.

It's true that death is inevitable, but most people don't expect to die at 40, more like 80. Does that mean it's a good idea to wait till you're 50 to make up a will? Of course not. It's just good planning to have a will drafted when you're say, 30, and have it revised every few years, as your circumstances change.

It's true that death is inevitable, but most people don't expect to die at 40, more like 80. Does that mean it's a good idea to wait till you're 50 to make up a will? Of course not. It's just good planning to have a will drafted when you're say, 30, and have it revised every few years, as your circumstances change.

good point. i havent even thought of that...

301 · Oldjoke on April 27, 2007 12:53 PM · Direct link

#285 BNB,

That is not surprising, since old stories get reworked in many ways including in their avatars as jokes.

Here is another innovation.

Single guy outsources to find dates

ugh don't even get me started on those international dating website...most are geared toward divorced middle aged white men who want "unliberated brides."

I find the idea of a prenup disturbing, good planning or not. It would have been a dealbreaker if my husband wanted one.

some grls act like they have a god given right to have all the patronizing benefits of a patriarchy. i.e. the nice perks.

True...a girl I knew in med school once said she would never date a male friend of ours, because when he went to pick up his then girlfriend, he honked his horn outside her house, and she wanted him to ring the doorbell and escort her to the car. My then boyfriend, now husband did the same thing and it never bothered me. I sometimes wish he would open the car door for me, but I know it's absurd for me to want that and yet want to be "equal" so it's fine with me that he doesn't usually do that. Another girl I knew, also in med school, held a firm belief that women shouldn't handle money in public so expected her date to always pay. It surprised me that these women who were clearly driven and successful felt that way. You can't control people's expectations, but you can control who you marry and fortunately for you Puliogre there are women who don't care two hoots for chivalry as long as you're nice.

I find the idea of a prenup disturbing, good planning or not. It would have been a dealbreaker if my husband wanted one.

Why? I mean you buy health insurance against catastrophic health calamities, you don't just rely upon clean living and exercise, right? Sometimes things go wrong in a marriage, despite your best efforts. Don't you want that possible situation to have as little legal messiness as possible?

Don't you want that possible situation to have as little legal messiness as possible?

I like to think that we'd be fair and split our assets fifty-fifty if that happened. I just find it personally disturbing--I don't care if other people do it. It's not for me. I wouldn't marry someone I couldn't count on to be fair in the case of a divorce.

I find the idea of a prenup disturbing, good planning or not. It would have been a dealbreaker if my husband wanted one.

Why? I mean you buy health insurance against catastrophic health calamities, you don't just rely upon clean living and exercise, right? Sometimes things go wrong in a marriage, despite your best efforts. Don't you want that possible situation to have as little legal messiness as possible?

The problem is that the success or failure of a marriage is not at all like the possibility of a catastrophic health calamity. Yes, clean living and exercise will improve your chances of living a full, healthy life, but they are no guarantee. On the other hand, the success or failure of a marriage is generally completely in the hands of the two people involved.

As such, it is important for each person to take the time to get to know each other well enough to ensure that marrying the other person is the right thing to do. If your idea of marriage is a commitment for life, you should be careful before making that commitment, and you should ensure that you live up to it. As such, if you believe marriage to be this sort of commitment, the idea of a prenuptial agreement goes entirely against that and would only serve to undermine the trust between the two partners.

In any case, for many young couples there probably isn't much of a need for a prenuptial agreement. For an nth marriage that involves children from previous marriages and each partner has a lot of assets, then a prenuptial may make more sense.

The "comforting" parts of patriarchy are the extremely superficial ones, like men opening doors and carrying your bags and so on. These are nice gestures that shouldn't be limited to male-female, but that we should all do for fellow humans. While some women might find the benefits of patriarchy comforting, (and I know that's true for many women who were brought up to think they'd marry a well-off guy and he'd provide for them and if they ever wanted to work it would be purely optional, for their entertainment and not to contribute to the family income) I find the cost too high.

All that "taking care of" comes at the price of respecting your independence, the right to make your own decisions, male family members often making the most minor decisions for you without asking, feeling free to ask you to make their cups of tea and fetch and carry for them, and more importantly, laying down where you may and may not go, whether you can ask your parents to pay for a postgrad degree or expect a share of the inheritance, judging you for relationships with the opposite sex that they'd turn a blind eye to with male children, and generally judging you more harshly and critically on everything from appearance to life decisions while indulging adored sons, expecting you to be primarily responsible for home and children even if you have a full-time job and generally defer to your father, husband and brothers and be more willing to "adjust" or give up what you want in favour of males. It's a high price to pay for getting doors opened, isn't it? If patriarchy were really so fine and dandy, you wouldn't hear so many objections to it.

On the other hand, the success or failure of a marriage is generally completely in the hands of the two people involved.

That isn't necessarily true. Especially in the case of families where lots of money is involved. I say a pre-nup should be automatic for all weddings, make that the default. Then sometime during the marriage, they can sign an agreement just called a "nup" where if they get divorced, half the assets are moved, or something like that.

See, if what we call "pre nup" is automatic, it wouldn't be called anything, it wouldn't have a special name assigned to it, there would be no awkwardness associated with it, it would just be common law. The way I see it, if either party has no fear, and no malintention from the beginning, they'd have no objection. The document would be moot in the first place.

Any woman who would object to signing it, is basically saying, "I don't trust you", it's not the othe way around

Somebody did a study about how not even lawyers get prenups, even though they know all the arguments for them. When it comes to marriage, they want to shut their eyes and say "It wont happen to me!"

They are absolute idiots or they are pretty sure that their spouses will make more money than them.

In the arena of relationships women hold the cards. One night stands: chemistry, pure animal attraction. But in the case of long term relationships it will be the women who sets the course and a man paying the bills. What do I mean by paying the bills? Well children. Women who want to have and care for children(s) have to make significant career sacrifices, so if the couple's standard of living is to remain stable the man has to make an appropriate high income for the years when the children are very young. Women are not dumb they marry for the money to insure this..then again if they wish to marry desi guys its cool..most desi guys are paid. Its just the ones who are not...and then are able to achieve who get a sense of the duality. I know Bengali Chick and some others have written of finding love early in life and that is a rare and wonderful thing...but for those who may not be as lucky a more practical approach usually suffices :( for chemical attraction.

In regards to prenups: I absolutely would want one, have no idea how one could actually bring it up though. I'm sure it would be a deal-breaker for most women. If you're a divorcee looking to get married for the 2nd time, then I don't think anyone, including your prospective bride, could reasonably object.

As for the patriarchy issue, these are examples that routinely occur in my family (both immediate and extended) as well as the circle of desi friends that I grew up with. Note, these are not things I would expect women to be nostalgic about, in fact I could understand why they would hate them, but they are things that seem to work well for men (including me). Just off the top of my head:

1)When the whole clan gets together, the men usually tend to sit around while the women (most of them educated professionals) pretty much do most of the work related to cooking, setting the table, getting the food ready, cleaning up afterwards, etc. I often do help out with setting up and clean-up, but just as likely you'll see me sitting around with the rest of the guys (some of my male cousins do help out too but it's always the women doing the bulk of it). Usually the men eat first too though there is some overlap.

2)While there is respect for all elders, regardless of gender, there is more respect and a different kind of respect for older males.

3)The whole concept that the woman is joining her husband's family after marriage and not the other way around seems to be pretty strong.

4)In terms of what SP said, "expecting you to be primarily responsible for home and children even if you have a full-time job and generally defer to your father, husband and brothers and be more willing to "adjust" or give up what you want in favour of males" seems to ring true for us as well.

I'm just wondering why women feel that guys should challenge any of this. This is not trolling, I honestly want some opinions. It's a different matter that we may not find women willing to put up with these things, and therefore we'll have no choice in the matter but to change. But given a choice, why would we challenge it?

Amitabh, your honesty is pretty striking, and it's quite refreshing actually. Here's why some men might not like patriarchy so much (and again, I speak from the experience of my family and friends) - a woman who is intelligent and not a doormat will likely be frustrated in a patriarchal family and relationship and take out at least some of this resentment on the men around her, particularly her husband (what men call "nagging," or blaming men for not meeting expectations or social ambitions, or being passive-aggressive, or hiding expenditures because one is tired of answering to one's husband for every little thing, which can slip into irresponsibility and deceit); not all men are ambitious and cut out to bear the pressure of social and financial ambitions (particularly if both they and their spouse are from well off families) single-handedly, and patriarchy is definitely not so great for men in this regard; in extreme cases, you see some uber-princessy women born of patriarchal contexts too, who really do expect to be taken care of in every way and can't be independent, and just as it sucks to have a helpless male at home and have to care for him like a child, it sucks to have a helpless wife who can't take care of bills and insurance and house hunting and that sort of thing. Lots of men are not cut out for the rat-race and professional grind and would rather explore different interests or focus on parenting, and you can't do that when you're responsible single-handedly for the family money. Perhaps most importantly, for every woman who is content in the role that patriarchy assigns her, there's one who resents it even if she conforms to it, and that makes for a lot of unhappy and frustrated women, and as we all know, unhappy and frustrated people are not the easiest or most pleasant to be around. And when the norm for dominant behaviour is set by patriarchal and controlling men, women who are strong and ambitious will model themselves on such men and be just as controlling and obnoxious in turn to those who are weaker (think repressive MILs). As a lot of desis probably know, patriarchy doesn't always produce women who are all sweetness and light, it can produce some pretty unpleasant and unlikeable women just as it produces unpleasant men. As for the most pragmatic reason of them all, which is what this thread is about - women who have a choice might rather not marry a man who relates to them in a patriarchal way. Some folks like to whine about it, but the "exit" option is a perfectly valid one, and a basic evolutionary mechanism.

Those are the pragmatic reasons. The ethical reasons, one hopes, are that men would find it distasteful to treat women that the care about and respect like lesser beings - a basic sense of fairness, perhaps. That's why people are able to challenge unjust social norms that they have been born into and brought up to feel comfortable in, no?

I'm just wondering why women feel that guys should challenge any of this. This is not trolling, I honestly want some opinions. It's a different matter that we may not find women willing to put up with these things, and therefore we'll have no choice in the matter but to change. But given a choice, why would we challenge it?

Well any of one us wouldn't want to change our situations if they worked to our benefit. But I think it's deeper than simply wanting to change to "accommodate" the woman. The level of my partners sensitivity to treating me equally, pitching in, making sure I don't get dumped on simply because it's always been that way in the house and making sure to avoid unequal nonsense situations has a absolute direct impact on his relationship with me and him having a happy successful marriage. Women only put up with it for so long, pent up frustration comes out in some form of the other.

Amitabh if you were married and your relationship with your wife was directly negatively affected by how the "system" is treating her wouldn't you want to change it?

I have young women in my family who very educated have chosen not to be with a punjabi male, and alot of it has to do with the points Amitabh said in post #347.

I came from punjabi family that was more modern then most, but still when I want to my white friends homes , I was amazed at how much the men did. Plus I also noticed that the men and women sat together instead of sitting apart.

Also with a young daughter, I will make sure she does have to deal with the ways of the old country.

Aunties can sleep better at night now that SCIENCE is on the job. Examining peoples’ behavior in online dating settings (which is equivalent to looking at biodata), they’ve noticed a few clear patterns:

Men are easy - they are generally interested in hotness above all.

Aunties are looking to arrange marriages, not hook-ups. Therefore the "hotness" equation is still low on their list, and second, third or fourth on the list of those willing to meet who their Aunties arrange a meeting with, due to the fact that when considering a marriage (arranged, assisted or whatever), there are other factors much more important than hot looks. Two of these would be honesty and loyalty, of paramount importance in a long-term relationship. Otherwise we would see more people marrying their "hottest" girlfriends or boyfriends, which rarely happens.

Many people want to date the "hot" girl or guy, but when it comes to settling down, the "domesticated cutie" is who they go for.

Amitabh

I'm just wondering why women feel that guys should challenge any of this. This is not trolling, I honestly want some opinions. It's a different matter that we may not find women willing to put up with these things, and therefore we'll have no choice in the matter but to change. But given a choice, why would we challenge it?

JOAT

Well any of one us wouldn't want to change our situations if they worked to our benefit. But I think it's deeper than simply wanting to change to "accommodate" the woman. The level of my partners sensitivity to treating me equally, pitching in, making sure I don't get dumped on simply because it's always been that way in the house and making sure to avoid unequal nonsense situations has a absolute direct impact on his relationship with me and him having a happy successful marriage. Women only put up with it for so long, pent up frustration comes out in some form of the other.

Amitabh if you were married and your relationship with your wife was directly negatively affected by how the "system" is treating her wouldn't you want to change it?

Amitabh, JOAT makes a good point that the overall relationship can suffer if a woman is not appreciated and just automatically "expected" to take on the household tasks because it's tradtion or the way it's always been done. How would that effect a husband? Do you think a woman would really open up to such a man 100% emotionally, mentally, sexually? Just the sexual holding back alone should get most men thinking. When women are treated like unpaid domestic maids or doormats, won't they act they same way in the bedroom?

Not to bring it down to sex only, but I always got the impression that the men who really knew how to please women in bed, and made much efforts to do so, also made similar efforts in other areas of the relationship too. When I see a husband who does his part in domestic duties - privately as well as when the couple are entertaining relatives and friends - that the same husband is the one who really goes out of the way to please his woman sexually - and a sexually satisfied woman is a happy woman who REALLY appreciates her man. This is simple sexual psychology. That is why, to be honest with you, when I see women in relationships like the ones you describe above - I think there must not be any area of life in which they are getting pleasure - maybe only from their children or religion, certainly not from their man. I just can't picture the Uncles who sit around letting their women do all the work - and even eat before they do, with no consideration, I just can't picture these same Uncles caring one iota for their wives' pleasure in the bedroom. And I think this is one reason why outsiders comment that women from such families seem so stoic, sad, dissatisified and a tad envious of other women who are not in their same situation.

This is a topic that interests me because we are currently working on a project regarding female roles in societies and how those roles effect female sexuality, and male sexuality for that matter too.

"When I see a husband who does his part in domestic duties - privately as well as when the couple are entertaining relatives and friends - that the same husband is the one who really goes out of the way to please his woman sexually - and a sexually satisfied woman is a happy woman who REALLY appreciates her man."

how is it you know this? meaning, how do you know that this is a condition apparent for lots of people rather than anecdotally only the one or ones you know?

there seems to be a lot of one sidedness to the discussion. i would like to hear from a women who is content, happy, ok, satisfied, with the way things are. also, i cannot think of a single friend of mine of italian or other western european heritage american or otherwise who isn't complaining about their spouses lack of help.

the argument that one should change it because women in those particular situations are acutely unhappy and they will be happier and more willing and more fulfilled doesn't seem to be universal based on my experience. some people are, can be, happy no matter what, and some just won't, even given the bestest of the most wonderfullest husbands.

i would like to hear from a women who is content, happy, ok, satisfied, with the way things are. also, i cannot think of a single friend of mine of italian or other western european heritage american or otherwise who isn't complaining about their spouses lack of help.

Dude - it's telling, isn't it? Perhaps you aren't hearing from women who are "happy" with this situation because they are very rare, particularly among the younger and well-educated crowd that frequents SM? No-one is denying that patriarchy is a universal problem, btw, the argument is that it's more culturally acceptable and prevalent among desis, and I can speak mainly for desis in desh, not in the US. Though the fact that women of all backgrounds complain about men not pulling their weight at home should be a sign to you that women tend not to like being, as JOAT put it so nicely, "dumped on because that's just the way it's always been."

yes, it is true, unlikely they are amongst the frequent readers/commenters on sm, but, this does not translate to they being a minority among the population somehow. maybe they are so happy and content that they don't have time for the internet or blogs.=)

this was my point, that what i have read intuitively does not seem to be a complete cross-section of views on the matter.

but, living in the desh now and having lived amongst des.h.is outside i do think there exists a difference amongst the groups. doesn't seem a complete dialog without hearing from more perspectives.

To Amitabh: SP and JOAT have given you some good reasons, but perhaps, also, a man might want to subvert patriarchy, not just to benefits his wife or daughter, but because he might see it as an inherently unfair system where people are "dumped on" because of their gender. Some people object to such things on the basis of principle, even if their self interest is at stake. For some people peace of mind can only result from an maintaining an inherent fairness in a situation. It might be noble, but it's also selfish since it involves one's own peace of mind.

SP I have to disagree that patriarchy is more culturally prevalent among desis. Having lived there and here, I feel like while it might be more obvious and blatant amongst desis, it's just as prevalent an attitude here, albeit in a more insiduous form

Desishiksa - I lived in the US for ten years and my ex was American, friends mainly American-born, and I certainly agree that patriarchy is present in many insidious forms in the US. It is, however, such a far cry from that I grew up with that I still flinch when I confront it at home now. I'm sure it varies from region to region and family to family, but that was my general experience.

SP I have to disagree that patriarchy is more culturally prevalent among desis. Having lived there and here, I feel like while it might be more obvious and blatant amongst desis, it's just as prevalent an attitude here, albeit in a more insiduous form

Patriarchy is prevalent everywhere. It's the great white hoax that America is more divorced from it. Ask anyone living in the Bible belt, a Christian man's role is to be strong, and a Christian wife's role is to submit. Clear as day.
Let me tell you though, growing up, I remember when I was 14, 15 years old, grown women were already doing subtle things that made me feel uncomfortable, like offering me the front seat in the car, offering the straw mats for me to sit during religious festivals.

I fondly remember telling my aunt, 15 years my senior, to sit on the straw mat instead of me, her reply, "those are for gents" So while we're still teenagers, we're already being taught we're "better" by the very women who abhor the system that prosecutes them so.

By the time you hit your mid 20s. You're just used to it.

the argument that one should change it because women in those particular situations are acutely unhappy and they will be happier and more willing and more fulfilled doesn't seem to be universal based on my experience. some people are, can be, happy no matter what, and some just won't, even given the bestest of the most wonderfullest husbands.

Having heard about complaints about husbands my entire adult life, and perhaps you only notice these things when husbands start showing up in your life among your family and friends. Husbands who don’t help “enough” not completely not help and seeing with my own eyes wives pulling more weight than anyone in the household especially after kids come I cannot agree with the above statement anymore. Though once upon a time I used to go by that set of rules.

I fondly remember telling my aunt, 15 years my senior, to sit on the straw mat instead of me, her reply, "those are for gents" So while we're still teenagers, we're already being taught we're "better" by the very women who abhor the system that prosecutes them so.

You make a very good point HMF. It’s the women in our culture, the very women who should be complaining about the unfairness who perpetuate the system and carry it generation to generation. But (perhaps) your aunt may not have had the option to question it or the strength to change it and didn’t know better I do. I already see my mother and my aunts have broken some of the cycles with their daughters and I know I will with mine. It’s hard to break free from what has been ingrained into you as a “good Indian girl” all your life. Hell I’m a grown woman completely aware of my options and my ability to smell bullshit still often questions whether I can be a “good Indian girl” if I simply say Not to something disrespectful to me. It takes a while but it’s not impossible.

JOAT, SP, Desishiksa, and even PG, thanks for your perspectives. I think you guys probably got the wrong idea about the state of the women in my family from my post. Like I said, they are all educated (my paternal grandmother even could read/write English), and as far as my female cousins are concerned, they are all working professionals. I think they have been socially conditioned so that the behavior I described comes naturally at this point. Have they spoiled the men/boys in their life? Definitely. Would altering this behavior take a HUGE effort on their part? Yes. Do I want to see this end? Not really. Do I think I'll marry someone who will do it to that extent? Probably not. Do I want my daughter to be raised that way? No. But I can tell you this...few women in my family are doormats. I honestly think that most of you (SP, Desishiksa, JOAT) would not find them different from women in your own families.

A funny story that my mom often relates...my parents were both medical residents in the late 70's. Out of necessity (both being very busy and having small kids too) they devised a system wherein they took turns with cleaning, cooking, shopping, etc. When my paternal grandmother came from India to visit for the first time, she literally cried when she saw my dad doing dishes and cleaning up around the house. She begged him to come back to India and leave this life of drudgery behind. In the end she told my mom "listen, we'll all take turns". So my grandmother would do her day, then my mom would do her day, but on my dad's day my grandmother would jump in and do his share too. And this continued the whole time she was there.

HMF: Are you for real? Indian patriachy is a 'great white hoax"? Wow. You must be related to my former desi in laws.....

HMF: Are you for real? Indian patriachy is a 'great white hoax"?

I dont believe he said that.

This is what he said

'Patriarchy is prevalent everywhere. It's the great white hoax that America is more divorced from it'

Sorry, HMF, I didn't finish the quote properly: "great white hoax that America is more divorced from it." But, isn't it? I mean, outside of the upper middle class types that post here and assume their experience of India represents all of India. My mother tells me stories about how girl babies were killed in her part of India in her grandfather's time. Were there similar killings in the US during the same time frame? I'm not being provocative; I genuinely want to know. It's not an\ "who is better thing culturally," it's just recognizing a part of a culture and wanting to do something about it. I get irritated when people automatically assume Indian women are treated worse, because I see how beautifully my father treats my mother and how close they are. Still, there are parts of Indian culture that see a boy as infinitely superior, and I would argue, there is a more extreme version of patriarchy in some corners of Indian culture because of this. Why is this so hard to accept? It doesn't mean India is a bad place, or the US is better. It just is, and I assume it will continue to change, as all things do.

HMF: Are you for real? Indian patriachy is a 'great white hoax"? Wow. You must be related to my former desi in laws.....

Thanks for misquoting me again, that train ain't never late.

My mother tells me stories about how girl babies were killed in her part of India in her grandfather's time. Were there similar killings in the US during the same time frame?

You cannot compare the worst of one country to the average of another. Compare baby killings in rural India, to forced marriages and child abuse in Salt Lake City. One could say it's the economical stimulus that forces parents to disregard their female children so callously. There could be a hundred reasons.

Obviously, I was making a comparison between middle class, city dwelling people of both. And the huge disparity you so desperately want to create, really isn't there.

You make a very good point HMF. It’s the women in our culture, the very women who should be complaining about the unfairness who perpetuate the system and carry it generation to generation. But (perhaps) your aunt may not have had the option to question it or the strength to change it and didn’t know better I do.

I thought of that to, that perhaps her husband would get mad if she didn't offer me the seat. But that wasn't the case, he wasn't even around, it was the constant drilling that she probably got when she was young. But, the point is, before we (males) hit puberty, we're being subtly informed that we're superior. That's gotta stop, and the woman is the first teacher of the child.

Yeah, well at least I correct myself and apologize. How many on this board regularly do that?

My in laws were middle class and it didn't stop my ex-husband or his educated sister from being an ass about gifts at the time of my wedding. I'm sorry, but as a woman, I note there is a disparity between the two cultures, both in positive and negative ways. My mother notes this, my grandmother notes this, my female cousins note this, and I am not the first Indian woman who has noted this. Why this personal experience should be discounted is beyond me. Why are so many females aborted among the middle classes if there is not some cultural founding, among the middle class, to the idea that females are inferior? Yes, patriarchy exists in the US, it exists in India, and even among the middle class in India, it takes forms I find completely and utterly stifling. I'm glad I didn't have to deal with it growing up.

And you know, as woman, I'm not trying to create a huge disparity between the two countries. It just make me incredibly, well sad, that when women bring things up about patriarchy in India, they run up against national pride.

Does anyone else find "it's the women in our culture who perpetuate patriarchy" comments kind of hilarious? I mean, yeah, I get the point. Still, it's hilarious given the context. Next time you are favored, boys, try not giving in so easily.

I remember when I was 14, 15 years old, grown women were already doing subtle things that made me feel uncomfortable, like offering me the front seat in the car

See, this is probably what I'm talking about. The American way is, if two couples are going out to dinner, the couple who own the car will sit in the front, and the couple who are their guests will sit in the back. The desi way is that the two men will sit in the front and the two women will sit in the back. I'm comfortable with both, depending on the context.

Next time you are favored, boys, try not giving in so easily.

I always give in. It's just too easy.

Cute, Amitabh. I'd probably give in, too :)

It just make me incredibly, well sad, that when women bring things up about patriarchy in India, they run up against national pride.

It's not national pride. I concede a disparity, just not such a wide one, when comparing say middle class US and middle class Indian families. I'd say if you compare rural america to middle class urban india, you'd find more patriarchy on the bible belt side.

Does anyone else find "it's the women in our culture who perpetuate patriarchy" comments kind of hilarious? I mean, yeah, I get the point. Still, it's hilarious given the context. Next time you are favored, boys, try not giving in so easily.

Every man was once a boy. When you're done laughing, think about that statement a few times.

Yeah, well at least I correct myself and apologize. How many on this board regularly do that?

How many on this board regularly give themselves the opportunity to do so?

So my grandmother would do her day, then my mom would do her day, but on my dad's day my grandmother would jump in and do his share too. And this continued the whole time she was there.

I forgot the main impact of this story...naturally my mom couldn't sit back and watch her MIL do so much work, so my mom would have to jump in and take over for my grandmother...so my grandmother, without ever ordering my mom to do anything, very cleverly subverted the system so that my dad did nothing and my mom did twice the work. But my mom laughs about it now.

Amitabh and HMF,

Neither of you are in a position to assert that patriarchy in America and patriarchy India are equivalent in their effects on women. You're not on the receiving end. While I appreciate your points about women perpetuating these systems (the same women who are formed by them, after all), and that patriarchy is alive and well in the States, living and working in both countries is simply not the same for a woman. Life in North America is vastly superior.

I recently had to immerse myself in Indian life in order to conclude some ugly legal/bureaucratic stuff surrounding the estates of relatives. I took care of most of the work myself, and this fact was of great surprise to most of the older Indian males I had to wrangle with. The only card I had to play was the 'powerful and culturally progressive North American' card - and let me tell you, I played it. I had to. Otherwise I would have had to put up with endless comments about inappropriate dress (jeans??), questions about why my relatives weren't helping me (I have very few who are alive), whether I am married, etc. As it was, I had to listen to Indian men (the educated lawyers, accountants, bank officials I was dealing with) condescend to me, cut me off repeatedly in mid-conversation, dismiss my opinions, and simply not listen. Take a look at a bloody Indian street, for God's sake - eighty percent male populated. You know why? Women are given a rough ride everywhere they go in India. No wonder they want to stay inside.

My mother, who retired there because of family, now resorts to the 'poor little me, a woman alone' card in order to get things done - the traditional tactic of females in an oppressive, traditional society. It's embarrassing. Over here she was an independent working woman who didn't have to use that line of approach. I was also told by several people that it is nearly impossible for a single woman to find an apartment for herself in India. Christ - if that isn't the measure of neck-deep patriarchy I don't know what is. What's the message? YOU ARE NOT A PERSON IN YOUR OWN RIGHT (and if you claim you are you are probably a whore). Do you really think this sort of madness is pervasive in North America?

there seems to be a lot of one sidedness to the discussion. i would like to hear from a women who is content, happy, ok, satisfied, with the way things are. also, i cannot think of a single friend of mine of italian or other western european heritage american or otherwise who isn't complaining about their spouses lack of help.

the argument that one should change it because women in those particular situations are acutely unhappy and they will be happier and more willing and more fulfilled doesn't seem to be universal based on my experience. some people are, can be, happy no matter what, and some just won't, even given the bestest of the most wonderfullest husbands.

"Dude" -- see where you contradict yourself above? You say you want to hear from women who are "happy" with that situation, then in the next sentence you say you can't think of a single woman who isn't "complaining" about their spouses lack of help. Key word - complaining. Complaint means not happy. That is why they are complaining about it -- they ain't "ok" with it.

I was also told by several people that it is nearly impossible for a single woman to find an apartment for herself in India.

DQ. I can vouch for that -- several times over. Seen it happen to me and to female Indian citizens as well.

In USA we have laws, a social system and the general culture behind us. In India, laws are in place for women's right, but the social system and culture(s) is/are not.

When my cousin was a victim of domestic violence her entire family said divorce the brute IMMEDIATELY. (yesterday, if possible).

There was no talk of "pati vrata dharma", wife's duty, toleration, mediation, compromise, waiting, working things out, "log kya kahenge?" (what will people say?), what Aunti Chameli or the chai walla down the road will think, etc. It was a done deal - "divorce the haramzada and get the hell out while you can". All her sisters and brothers offered their homes to her as a haven. The social system, the culture and her family and friends, - the entire society was behind her.

big Big BIG BIG difference!

A funny story that my mom often relates...my parents were both medical residents in the late 70's. Out of necessity (both being very busy and having small kids too) they devised a system wherein they took turns with cleaning, cooking, shopping, etc. When my paternal grandmother came from India to visit for the first time, she literally cried when she saw my dad doing dishes and cleaning up around the house. She begged him to come back to India and leave this life of drudgery behind. In the end she told my mom "listen, we'll all take turns". So my grandmother would do her day, then my mom would do her day, but on my dad's day my grandmother would jump in and do his share too. And this continued the whole time she was there.

I forgot the main impact of this story...naturally my mom couldn't sit back and watch her MIL do so much work, so my mom would have to jump in and take over for my grandmother...so my grandmother, without ever ordering my mom to do anything, very cleverly subverted the system so that my dad did nothing and my mom did twice the work. But my mom laughs about it now.

I've seen similar situations alot. What strikes me is why a woman would sympathize more with a man (her son) than with a woman (her dear bahu, daughter-in-law). Surely to have the work equally divided is only fair. Why would she want to see her daughter-in-law unfairly and overly burdened? Where is the respect for womanhood and the pain of childbirth?

I tell you, these are the things about Indian culture that made me very depressed over there. Life appeared so unfair to women and I found myself feeling sad seeing this very same type of thing again and again and again. For the life of me I just could not get it.

I just can't get why a mother would object and "cry" seeing her son doing simple household chores -- but I have seen it, lived through it and it's very real.

Ours is a very culturally and ethnically mixed group. It's always interesting to see when we have big gatherings -- how the Indian families, couples act compared to the non-Indian (latino, euro, north american, black, white, etc). The Indians are distinguished by the women being expected by their men to tend to the hosting, cooking, serving and kids. Very rarely do you see Indian men stepping up in such situations to take on these roles, and they kind of look on in a daze seeing the non-Indian men changing babies diapers while their wives are chatting with friends.

Being the observer of human psychology that I am, I usually sit off in some corner analysing the whole thing -- trying to come up with theories explaining "why".

Of course I'll have to clarify this with "not all Indians" are like that. We already know that. But considering the comments above - and that by Indians only - I think it's safe to say that we all know, given a social situation of Indian families mixed with non-Indian families, the non-Indian families (western?) will appear to have more "fair" and "equal" distribution of domestic type duties between the sexes.

Of course the circles I move in are religious in nature, so perhaps the Indians in those circles might be more "conservative" and "traditional" than the circles that you all are moving in.

Amitabh and HMF,

Neither of you are in a position to assert that patriarchy in America and patriarchy India are equivalent in their effects on women.

DQ, I never asserted that or even broached that issue.

Amitabh - very sorry - I didn't read your comments as carefully as I should have. I was just astounded at the MD/HMF debate and thought you were mixed up in it. Again, apologies.

You know what we could really use right now? Some farting elves. Just the thing to cut this toxic tension. The gas they pass...well, it's a thing of booty.

PG, aren't you affiliated with a Hare Krishna-type group? In my experience, strict Vaishnavas like the Hare Krishnas are a lot more socially conservative than other Hindus. Maybe the Indians I associate with are a bunch of freaks, but the Indian men I know are pretty good about doing their fair share when it comes to childcare/housework, and my family's temple has female directors, male cooks and cleaners, and no gender segregation.

Amitabh, you say that you wouldn't want your daughter to be oppressed by patriarchal custom, yet you don't have any problem with your female contemporaries serving and deferring to their male relatives. Since you think patriarchal practices are passed from one generation of women to the next, with men simply as passive bystanders (something I don't buy, by the way), how is your future daughter going to avoid being inculcated into a patriarchal mindset by women your own age?

It's not national pride. I concede a disparity, just not such a wide one, when comparing say middle class US and middle class Indian families. I'd say if you compare rural america to middle class urban india, you'd find more patriarchy on the bible belt side.

But rural American Bible belters and urban Indian middle class are both minorities in their respective countries. Therefore, the patriarchy of the Americans and the "gender equality" of the Indians are minorities whereas the opposite of both in each repsective country is the major predominant mood. In other words, it might be said that there is more patriarchy in India and more gender equality in America.

As someone who has lived extensively in both areas -- I would say from my experience the "gender equality" you find in Indian urban centers is in the work place -- more women are professionals there. But in the home, a wife is still a "bahu" -- roti banao! While the husband is still a son (refer to posts number 360 and 371 above to understand what that means).

Same s**t, different toilet only Sir!

Even though most middle class urban Indian families have paid domestic helpers, still, the majority of cooking is expected to be done by the wife, bahu. She is the one expected to assist her saas or the domestic helper in the kitchen when she comes home from work, not the husband. I have seen this in homes of PhD's. It's part of the protocol in "joint family" living. Nuclear family living may be different. I've been in a few of those homes too, not many, but some. I didn't see a difference in this dynamic though.

However, the family feels they are very progressive if the bahu is a doctor or some kind of professional. Nevermind the stereotypical protocol she has to follow at home.

I've only seen one man in India cleaning his infant's pooey butt. And I've seen lots of fathers with infants, so I think that says something.

I agree, cannot compare US to India -- the cultures are very different. Opposite poles almost.

PG, aren't you affiliated with a Hare Krishna-type group? In my experience, strict Vaishnavas like the Hare Krishnas are a lot more socially conservative than other Hindus. Maybe the Indians I associate with are a bunch of freaks, but the Indian men I know are pretty good about doing their fair share when it comes to childcare/housework, and my family's temple has female directors, male cooks and cleaners, and no gender segregation.

Not "Hare Krishna", otherwise known as ISKCON, but I have friends in that cult and have been around it alot. They have a male dominated bent to them, though they've improved in the past couple of decades.

The "hare krishnas" took alot of really, really, really, bad stuff from Indian culture -- along with some good. One of the bad things was the sexism, at a time when America was getting over it really rapidly.

Regarding male cooks in temples - in India that's all I've seen, women don't really "cook" in the temples in India - they help out by cutting up subzi and stuff, but the main, daily cooks are men. That's another form of gender bias and discrimination - if you read the history of various temples and the communities/cultures/priestly families surrounding them, you will find alot have rules against allowing women to be official pujaris or cooks for God/Goddess in the temple - stringing garlands and "helping" in the kitchen is fine though, as well as being on the board of directors or whatever. However, in all your travles around India, how many female "priests" (pujaris" have you seen in the temples? Very few, in very small mandirs, for me.

So what's your problem, PG? Ja, apni zindagi jee. Your obsession with our barbaric and horrible ways is getting really old. I've never heard you say anything good about India or Indian culture.

Amba, I never said men were passive bystanders. We are part of the whole system, obviously. As for having a daughter, I can only speak hypothetically. The way that my daughter would avoid being inculcated with a patriarchal mindset is because society itself is gradually changing. The patriarchy which still exists in my family, for example, is a pale shadow of what it was 2 generations ago. Of course, as her dad, I'd try to make sure that she's raised in equality with her brothers. That's about it.

PG,

At least you are now qualifying your statements !
"Of course I'll have to clarify this with "not all Indians" are like that"

Amitabh,(#347)

Just because a system is imbalanced in your favor or does not does not impact you personally in a negative way is not necessarily equivalent to your not wanting it to change.Basic humanity? Otherwise we would never have had abolitionists , Gandhi would not have protested against "untouchability" ,Schindler would not have helped the Jews .Extreme examples,I know but hopefully they convey my point.

In India, laws are in place for women's right, but the social system and culture(s) is/are not.

Good point. And this also applies to the laws against untouchability, child labor etc.

There is probably no culture on earth that mistreats women as badly as hindu brahminical culture. There are hindu fundamentalists today who are even keen on reviving the demonic practice of widow burning (Sati) that had been banned by the British in the 19th century.

PG, the temple my family frequents was founded by Indo-Guyanese (although about half the people that go there now are from the Desh), so the presence of male cooks, cleaners etc. isn't due to orthodox purity rules - there are women who do those jobs too. As for female pujaris, I've never encountered any, but so what? Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism and many sects of Protestantism don't allow female clergy either. Hinduism isn't uniquely patriarchal in that regard.

PG:

From your comments, it seems that contact with South Asia was disagreeable to you. Nevertheless, this contact seems to have defined a major chunk of your life experience, and you are unable to walk away from this forum. How do you resolve this dilemma? What's your story?

Actually PG , you may want to broaden your horizons a little

Please check this out

PG -- religious patriarchy cuts across all major religions. The standard reason is that women are too impure at that time of the month. Or in general, really. Read the Old Testament, there's much worse misogyny in there.

Amitabh - your story about grandma subverting gender equal roles at home rings SO true! It's all about shaming, and that's how traditions are maintained. DQ - I nodded my head many times reading about your experience in desh, particularly the cutting off mid-sentence, dismissing, etc etc. When I had to rent my own place in Delhi you wouldn't believe how the landlords behaved, practically wouldn't talk to me unless I came there with a Male Relative, and then spoke only to said relative, wouldn't treat me as an adult even though I was paying above market rate in a nice neighbourhood. Again - those of you who believe in abstract similarities in patriarchy across cultures should definitely experience life as a woman in Indian society, even among well off, well educated folks.

Oh, and btw, the district with the worst or near-worst male to female birth ratio in India (a sign of female foeticide) is a wealthy one in South Delhi.

Ok, I have to put in another of my two cents here. I think patriarchy in the US is much more prominent in the workplace. I find myself and my female colleagues constantly dealing with crap that male doctors don't have to deal with--from patients, from other doctors, from nurses, from patient's families. We just don't get the same respect. Patients sometimes call me "little girl". I doubt this would not happen to a female doctor in India. So...I sympathize with people who had to put up with crap for being a woman in India, but I put up with a lot of patronizing shit here. It just presents itself differently in the two countries.

Extreme examples,I know but hopefully they convey my point.

Runa, that was the point I was trying to make earlier, too. It's not about whether you'll have a daughter in the future or not, but about a basic desire for fairness.

Neither of you are in a position to assert that patriarchy in America and patriarchy India are equivalent in their effects on women. You're not on the receiving end. While I appreciate your points about women perpetuating these systems (the same women who are formed by them, after all), and that patriarchy is alive and well in the States, living and working in both countries is simply not the same for a woman. Life in North America is vastly superior.

As are you not in a position to assert, completely anyway, why men attain positions of "superiority" You say vastly superior, I appreciate your opinion, but maybe my data is skewed? I have female cousins that live in Bangalore, and sure, they may not to get to wear miniskirts and tank tops, and stay out until 2 am, but they can work, they can drive, they text much faster than their American counterparts, they hang out with their friends... I know of a group of female students living in the Koramangla district, by themselves...

I will however, even concede their freedoms are greatly infringed upon by their parents, as compared to their brothers. It just seems whenever this topic comes up, women yell "But they burn babies!" Those are crimes. Not patriarchy, crimes. murder. And who's going to deny that crimes should be stopped?

"I think patriarchy in the US is much more prominent in the workplace.

Desishiksa, I've definitely noticed that women in the US have to deal with assumptions of inferior intelligence that Indian women rarely do, which is odd. No Indian woman is told she isn't smart enough to be good at maths and science, just that a)she shouldn't get ahead of her husband in her ambitions and b) always put home and family before her career. But I've also heard enough stories from friends and family about women who get ordered around and treated condescendingly and taken less than seriously in workplaces in India. And there's very open discrimination against hiring young married women or marriageable ones because they are assumed to be hanging around only till they have kids. I think there are attitudes and there are actual legal and institutional barriers for women in workplaces, and while the latter may be more prominent in India, the former is more jarring in the US. Have you worked in both contexts?

HMF, you say:
"It just seems whenever this topic comes up, women yell "But they burn babies!" Those are crimes. Not patriarchy, crimes. murder."

They burn babies? No, actually, many of ours consciously abort their female babies. That's something to be worried about, and that's not just crime and murder because it's so normalised, because it's on the basis of gender, because you can get it done at posh clinics in fancy neighbourhoods and it doesn't have the same social stigma as murder. It's not like someone just up and decided to kill their kid some day. And it's not just women who find this abhorrent, thankfully, but most right-minded men too. I fail to see how anyone could see such crimes as unrelated to patriarchy. Though I do think that things are getting better for young adult women with careers, and they are gaining more independence and respect, and women like the cousins you mention in Bangalore are probably not seen as an oddity as they would have been 20-30 years ago.

I think it's healthy, though, to be able to discuss serious flaws in our society and communities without getting defensive or conflating such critiques with broad-brush prejudices about "backwardness" that firangs may hold about India, as suggested by your use of the charged phrase "they burn their babies."

They burn babies? No, actually, many of ours consciously abort their female babies.

I was talking about statements made about generations ago. In the early to mid 1900's how would they know before hand, to decide to abort? And like I said, I just think my data is skewed, I have no direct contact with any rural or village communities.

I think it's healthy, though, to be able to discuss serious flaws in our society and communities without getting defensive or conflating such critiques with broad-brush prejudices about "backwardness" that firangs may hold about India, as suggested by your use of the charged phrase "they burn their babies."

I think it's healthy too, but all too often I see those critiques not being made in and of themselves, always in comparison to how great it is US. And it's always squarely placing the blame on men, exclusively. Where as I mentioned earlier, that's simply too... simplistic.

HMF, I don't think I brought up stuff that happened generations ago, and most of the commenters on this topic have been fairly nuanced and on-topic. I don't see much reason to tie reasonable and factually-based critiques with some sort of wider worrying American superiority contest (believe me I have tons of critiques of American society on feminist grounds too - I just don't think it's anywhere near as frustrating and downright unpleasant for a woman like me to live in as Indian society, and I've tried both).

In the 1900s, and actually just ten years ago in my great-aunt's neighbourhood actually, girl babies weren't aborted of course, they were just not fed and left to die.

When I had to rent my own place in Delhi you wouldn't believe how the landlords behaved, practically wouldn't talk to me unless I came there with a Male Relative, and then spoke only to said relative, wouldn't treat me as an adult even though I was paying above market rate in a nice neighbourhood.

You are right, I wouldn't believe :p

One possibility is that there could be something else relevant to the situation that you are missing. Maybe the coldness doesn't ALL have to do with you being a woman... There could've been other reasons you didnt realize. And this is Delhi, you are talking about. I'm pretty sure a person of the female gender talking/negotiating with landlords should be fairly common. Heck, I'm positive there should even be a lot of female landlords in town.

PG is back!!!

Random, have you lived in Delhi and tried to rent a place? I did, for a couple of years. Care to fill me in on the "something else I was missing"? Can you point me to the numerous enlightened female landladies you have in mind? (I met a couple - they were just as conservative as the men in this regard). My broker told me quite explicitly after the first week of failures that women who want to rent places on their own, i.e. not paying guest accommodations or student houses with several others, are generally suspected of being hookers, in fact he had a lot of landlords say no right away when he mentioned it was for a single woman, and told me I should consider staying with a family, even after he explained that I was a very respectable Indian woman. The landlord behaviour wasn't "coldness" either, it was backtracking at best, rudeness and condescension at worst. At the end, I had to take my parents with me, and they had to say they were responsible for me, even though I was almost 30.

It's so delightful to be told by someone who wasn't there that you must have been imagining things or failed to understand.

HMF, I don't think I brought up stuff that happened generations ago, and most of the commenters on this topic have been fairly nuanced and on-topic

Not you, but this comment in particular did, My mother tells me stories about how girl babies were killed in her part of India in her grandfather's time. Were there similar killings in the US during the same time frame?

In the 1900s, and actually just ten years ago in my great-aunt's neighbourhood actually, girl babies weren't aborted of course, they were just not fed and left to die.

That's fucked up. But like I said, I've never heard of anything remotely close to that happening, in the areas Bangalore I originally hail from. So I accept my data is just skewed to the progressive side.

Random, have you lived in Delhi and tried to rent a place? I did, for a couple of years. Care to fill me in on the "something else I was missing"? Can you point me to the numerous enlightened female landladies you have in mind? (I met a couple - they were just as conservative as the men in this regard). My broker told me quite explicitly after the first week of failures that women who want to rent places on their own, i.e. not paying guest accommodations or student houses with several others, are generally suspected of being hookers, in fact he had a lot of landlords say no right away when he mentioned it was for a single woman, and told me I should consider staying with a family, even after he explained that I was a very respectable Indian woman. The landlord behaviour wasn't "coldness" either, it was backtracking at best, rudeness and condescension at worst. At the end, I had to take my parents with me, and they had to say they were responsible for me, even though I was almost 30.

It's so delightful to be told by someone who wasn't there that you must have been imagining things or failed to understand.

One of my relatives went to a posh South Delhi neighborhood to rent a place, had tea and polite conversation with the landlord, all the terms were agreed upon, when he got up to leave and shook the landlord's hand, he gave his full name (very Muslim sounding) and the Landlord told him that he could not rent to a Muslim. I have also heard similar stories from other Muslims.

DQ said..

As it was, I had to listen to Indian men (the educated lawyers, accountants, bank officials I was dealing with) condescend to me, cut me off repeatedly in mid-conversation, dismiss my opinions, and simply not listen.

It could have something to do with an ego clash, etc depending on the dynamics of your interactions. But honestly, I dont think all those people behave like that with just about every woman they find. Do you really think no man ever does those things to another man? Most women I know don't necessarily face that kind of shit all the time.

Take a look at a bloody Indian street, for God's sake - eighty percent male populated. You know why? Women are given a rough ride everywhere they go in India. No wonder they want to stay inside.

This is an interesting point. idk abt the figure of 80% but your observation has some truth to it. Getting around to places is not as convenient and simple in india as in the US. So, as a thought experiment, take a couple that doesnt have a private vehicle. In such a situation for example the man probably bothers getting stuff like groceries, lets say, 80% of the time because it mite even be physically strenuous and not as plain as driving over to a store in your car. Things like that could be the cause for the uneven ratio of sexes seen on the streets, etc. Its not fair to explain this by saying its because women are given a rough ride everywhere. you just sound terribly bitter for some reason.

This is an interesting point. idk abt the figure of 80% but your observation has some truth to it. Getting around to places is not as convenient and simple in india as in the US. So, as a thought experiment, take a couple that doesnt have a private vehicle. In such a situation for example the man probably bothers getting stuff like groceries, lets say, 80% of the time because it mite even be physically strenuous and not as plain as driving over to a store in your car. Things like that could be the cause for the uneven ratio of sexes seen on the streets, etc. Its not fair to explain this by saying its because women are given a rough ride everywhere. you just sound terribly bitter for some reason.

also, getting groped 900 times a day would keep me in doors.

My broker told me quite explicitly after the first week of failures that women who want to rent places on their own, i.e. not paying guest accommodations or student houses with several others, are generally suspected of being hookers

This sounds right, and it certainly is a product of patriarchy, but I think if you are reading it the wrong way. The basic taboo against a woman living alone is that it is unsafe for her. To assume that you might be a hooker for wanting to live alone may seem unjust, but the reasoning is simply that no woman in her right mind would live alone, so the ones do must have something up their sleeves. It's not a direct objection to independence but ironical as it seems, an attempt at protection.

Kathkavi, I think the desire to "protect" and infantilize women (protect them from whom? men's own worse instincts?) is very much a part of the patriarchal mindset. It's the same reasoning that men use to tell women to cover up and even veil, isn't it? It's always "for your own safety." I was rather happier in Bombay where I didn't have to deal with men trying to protect me from themselves.

Yes, I know it is. It's just that your description made it seem like you felt branded as a hooker-type, though that was probably not the landlord's intention. Also, I think a female landlord, however liberated, would advise you against living alone too (though the whole hooker issue could be avoided). Protection is an effect of patriarchy, certainly, but it can be dangerous to rebel against protection as a way to bring down the patriarchy.

SP said

My broker told me quite explicitly after the first week of failures that women who want to rent places on their own, i.e. not paying guest accommodations or student houses with several others, are generally suspected of being hookers, in fact he had a lot of landlords say no right away

So you gave the answer about what was missing there. It doesnt have as much to do with male female subjugation or anything. They just wanted to make sure some hooker wasn't renting and once they did, you had no problem getting the apt. The thing is they are just being reasonable for whatever their ridiculous assumptions are. Not because they think women are lesser creatures or anything. Statistically, maybe, there is a higher chance that a woman living alone in that area is a hooker because most normal women live with a family. So, they are worried abt it. Thats all. If they are 100% sure thats not the case, as they did when your parents offered a word of support, you got it, rite? You probably would've been as concerned about it if you were in their shoes.

and btw, many landlords prefer not to rent to single men either. So a fraction of them wouldn't have had their apartments for you even if you were a man :)

also, getting groped 900 times a day would keep me in doors.

psh. yea rite... and getting raped 10 times a day

Kathkavi, I think the desire to "protect" and infantilize women (protect them from whom? men's own worse instincts?) is very much a part of the patriarchal mindset

'Protect' and infantalize cannot be conflated and equated the way you so easily do. Because protect is a very broad term, that can cover quite a bit. Infantalize is much more specific.

In fact, many women are attracted to men because of characteristics indicative of protective ability. (They've been gone over ad naseum earlier in this thread). In many, many subtle ways, men are rewarded by being the one's that make decisions in relationships.(from small: where to go eat, to big: where to live, etc..)

We're told by everyone except aliens on Pluto that we need to be "strong-willed", "confident", "not a wuss" - these are all words that connote strength. Strength over who? To ask the question is to answer it.

A friend once told me, of her boyfriend, "I never knew I was really attracted to him, until he told me 'no'" And this was in reference to a small thing, like going to two parties one night instead of one, or some such triviality.

Again. let's stay focused here. I'm not sanctioning female abortion or the female inability to rent apartments in segments of North India. I am however saying, that women tend to favor (when I say favor, I mean, 'be attracted' to) characteristics that might be categorized as subtle forms of "patriarchy"

Apologies to HMF who has been contributing a ton of interesting material to this discussion but, was I the only person who expected something different at the end of this sentence?

I remember when I was 14, 15 years old, grown women were already doing subtle things that made me feel uncomfortable ...

;)

Apologies to HMF who has been contributing...

No apologies necessary... I dish it out a lot, I can take it.

I am however saying, that women tend to favor (when I say favor, I mean, 'be attracted' to) characteristics that might be categorized as subtle forms of "patriarchy"..

They do...but this can never be spoken of..not in polite company. Women want it both ways; guys have to be both Gordon Gekko and Ned Flanders in the same body...ain't gonna happen. [sarcasm]Straight up that's why the preffered man of choice for militant brown girls is the docile white guy; his kind can be found on college campuses all over N America [/sarcasm]

I am however saying, that women tend to favor (when I say favor, I mean, 'be attracted' to) characteristics that might be categorized as subtle forms of "patriarchy"..

They do...but this can never be spoken of..not in polite company. Women want it both ways; guys have to be both Gordon Gekko and Ned Flanders in the same body...ain't gonna happen.

Glass houses - bro, you are kidding right? I know you put that sweet little sarcasm code in there for the next statement but seriously, really?

And on a different note, HMF - chances are my experiences are vastly different anyway (being from NZ) but I am genuinely curious none the less - what subtle forms of patriarchy are you referring to?

"but seriously, really?..

Oh...quite serious Sonal...See what I mean...can't be spoken of... ..and I doubt you would understand given your inability to grasp subtle forms of patriarchy..I guess you never use handcuffs :)

Not in the patriachal sense, no ...

I remember when I was 14, 15 years old, grown women were already doing subtle things that made me feel uncomfortable ...

Oh...quite serious Sonal...See what I mean...can't be spoken of... ..and I doubt you would understand given your inability to grasp subtle forms of patriarchy..I guess you never use handcuffs :)

hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to say "patriarchy means different things to different people" or something rather vague like that--but that won't quite encompass casual misogyny or subtle patriarchy which is a pervasive and similar feeling in both women and men to different extents. Maybe some women like assertive men, but some men like assertive women. We're all above generalizations here.

Maybe it is safer for women to live with a family rather than alone, but it shouldn't be just because they're women. Women should have the same rational fears as men when it comes to living alone--"will someone mug me? would there be a fire when I'm out? what if I lose my keys?" Not "It's dangerous with all these men around." Men sitting at table while women sit on the floor, men praying in front of women, men being able to walk the streets--all of this is inconsequential to patriarchy, IMHO, unless women feel as if they're being deprived of an appropriate position or respectable treatment with these acts.

Women can clean the house because they care about the cleanliness of its inhabitants, not because it's their job. Men can do the same. There shouldn't be some kind of designation of duties based off gender--it should be based off comfort, preference, and respect. If women feel slighted in a life choice because they're women, respect that. If men feel slighted for being men, respect that as well. They didn't walk into the wrong place at the wrong time or experience something other than what it was--this is a reality for them and in that brief flash of time, it becomes injustice. It's strange how millions of women around the *world* who complain about this can just be "nagging irritations" are often written off as merely suffering from a million independent cases of hallucination of mistreatment (that statement wasn't to attack anything anyone has said previously, it's just from personal experience).

None of this was to attack anyone on this thread, it's just my two cents that added up from reading some very thoughtful posts. Good discussion.

MD wrote:

Does anyone else find "it's the women in our culture who perpetuate patriarchy" comments kind of hilarious? I mean, yeah, I get the point. Still, it's hilarious given the context. Next time you are favored, boys, try not giving in so easily.

I haven't read most of the comments..but here's my 2 paisa.

Blaming women for perpetuating the culture of patriarchy is like blaming guns for murder (and not the person who fired the gun). Having spent more than 20 years in India, I feel that most men don't derive any pleasure or satisfaction from 'practicing patriarchal methods'...it's just that this has been programmed in their minds ever since they were born, and hence they consider it as a way of life (norm). I'm not trying to use this as an excuse ('cos there is no reason for me to justify this patriarchal anomaly) but I feel that the will to change should come from both the parties. It's the men who will have to mend their ways, while the women will be required to strive for 'equality' and then 'follow what they preach'.

Blaming women for perpetuating the culture of patriarchy is like blaming guns for murder (and not the person who fired the gun)

So, what, you're saying women are just tools used by men to perpetuate extreme patriarchy? That women are somehow inanimate objects in this entire conspiracy? I don't buy that for a second.

but I feel that the will to change should come from both the parties. It's the men who will have to mend their ways, while the women will be required to strive for 'equality' and then 'follow what they preach'.

Totally disregards the point about men being trained to feel superior, before they even start shaving. Children, whether they're male or female need to be taught right from wrong, from the beginning.

Where else but on a desi thread would you have people falling all over themselves to make excuses for clearly sexist behaviour, insist there are good reasons for it, tiptoe around the matter and try not to make men feel bad about it and insist that it goes on because women "want it" somehow, or are responsible for perpetuating it? Several of the comments have actually been extremely revealing about the depth and persistence (and level of denial) about such attitudes among desis. Bas, no more from me, I can't deal with it any more.

So, what, you're saying women are just tools used by men to perpetuate extreme patriarchy? That women are somehow inanimate objects in this entire conspiracy? I don't buy that for a second.

Not at all. It's you who is trying to give this a spin.

What I meant was that you can't just blame women and brush off this issue under the carpet. Most of the blame in this case lies with the men.

The gun analogy that I used meant just one thing - you can't blame guns for a murder...you gotta blame the murderer.

Totally disregards the point about men being trained to feel superior, before they even start shaving. Children, whether they're male or female need to be taught right from wrong, from the beginning.

How does it disregard this when I say that the change has to come from both the parties ?

By 'follow what you preach', I meant that there are lots of women who believe in 'equality at workplace' but never raise their voices when they feel that they (or their fellow workers) are being discriminated against. This has to change.

Longtime lurker, sometime poster; I'm really curious to know what all the history with "PG" -- pardesi gori -- is. Anyone care to share?

The gun analogy that I used meant just one thing - you can't blame guns for a murder...you gotta blame the murderer.

Here's why I think the analogy doesn't fly: Murderers aren't raised by guns. Guns are simply tools that have no contributory capacity to the actions they do. Women are active agent human beings, why is it so hard to believe people (men and women) do things that they know to be harmful, to them and others? Women stay in abusive relationships all the time, are they not to retain some responsibility?

But I've already explained myself very thoroughly. What I am saying is, men and women are raised in a certain environment, and women do certainly contribute to perpetuating a system they themselves are victims of, because unfortunately, it's what they know.

Now once again, lets stay focused I am not talking about abortions, baby killing or any of those other horrible things. I am talking about giving young boys the feeling they are superior (by having them have special seats, eat first, never help around the kitchen, never learn cooking, etc.. etc..) as they grow up, and yes it doesn't feel proper, but you just get used to it.

This is not sweeping under a carpet or any kind of denial.

never learn cooking, etc.. etc..)

If my mom didnt take the effort to teach me cooking, i would probably feel less special. somehow my mom teaching me how to cook made me feel good...

Where else but on a desi thread would you have people falling all over themselves to make excuses for clearly sexist behaviour, insist there are good reasons for it, tiptoe around the matter and try not to make men feel bad about it and insist that it goes on because women "want it" somehow, or are responsible for perpetuating it? Several of the comments have actually been extremely revealing about the depth and persistence (and level of denial) about such attitudes among desis. Bas, no more from me, I can't deal with it any more.

SP, I dont blame you for saying that. You have obviously had an unpleasant ego bruise with a personal incident (landlords in delhi needing extra verification because you are a single woman) When that happens, it can be a little difficult to not let it run at the back of your mind all the time... There are infinite women in india who can vouch for the fact that they dont really face any unfair gender discrimination that requires attention from that viewpoint(I'm not talking abt renting apartments here). Just take my word for it. If what you insinuate was so completely true, that just couldnt be possible.

Maybe this is not a perfect example but its like for instance, I tend to feel similarly bitter when car rentals charge me extra, etc. just for being underage, single, whatever. If you think about it, it has nothing to do with you, or discrimination. They are just worried about their property, etc. I dont think its good for you to take it as a personal affront, which you obviously did.

Random - there are other examples. I had a friend - Indian born and raised but she went to college and graduate school in the US. She went back to India and traveled to Chandigarh to get her birth certificate. The bureaucrat told her to come back with an older male member of the family, and simply refused to get her birth certificate without one. If I remember correctly, this friend's mother is a judge, but even so, she couldn't get this guy to budge. I don't remember how it was resolved - whether she had to pull strings or whether she gave in, but she couldn't get this guy to do his job because she was a woman.

That's a story from an Indian woman who is very proud of being Indian and who almost moved back to India after her graduate work.

Was this rare? I have no idea. My other Indian friends were appalled / disbelieving when they heard the story, so it's not everyday, but people from a certain generation refuse to treat young women as equals.

If what you insinuate was so completely true, that just couldnt be possible.

In the sense that, the reality is somewhere in between the two extreme arguments. Just accept that its not as bad as you are trying to suggest...(should be fairly obvious to you, since you did claim you lived in india)

Sonia @421

Step 1)
Go into the Sepia Mutiny archives and put in that handle, along with her half dozen or so others like MoS, videsi gori, Mistress of spices, carib queen, etc.

Step 2)
Claw your eyes out after reading

Step 3) After a gap of a couple of weeks, read her new contributions and sever other body parts till the physical pain overtakes the mental torture.

Step 4) Resist,resist,resist the urge to respond to any of her new "contributions"

There are infinite women in india who can vouch for the fact that they dont really face any unfair gender discrimination that requires attention from that viewpoint(I'm not talking abt renting apartments here). Just take my word for it. If what you insinuate was so completely true, that just couldnt be possible.

I'd like to meet this women.

At the risk of again being called a "racist".... I have to say that situations similar to what Ennis stated above is frequent in the areas of India I resided. I wish I could tip-toe around it to sound more "politically correct" and whatnot, but I just cannot. It would be straight up lying.

Why is it so hard to accept the idea that perhaps India has more of an issue regarding women's rights than alot of other places on the globe? Personally I would be shocked if it didn't - taking into consideration the historical and religious perspectives of the country. Religion is a major factor in India, and religion is always a major factor in the repression of women (although paradoxically it is often a factor in women's liberation as well).

I'm sorry but there is just no tip-toeing around this issue.

I find it disheartening how some people here like to make fun of me or my comments just because I'm a white American woman basically saying the same things that Indian and Indian American women (and some men) are saying.

I can really relate to Anna right now.

I've got just as many or more haters on here as she does.

And I do feel it has to do with being a woman telling it like it is (my experiences).

Sorry, I'm not your mother, I'm not going to tip-toe around these issues, which have effected me directly every day of my life while living in India and basically are the sole cause for me being in America typing behind a computer right now, instead of over there, where I still have a home, of sorts.

It would be nice to be given a compassionate benefit of the doubt.

There are infinite women in india who can vouch for the fact that they dont really face any unfair gender discrimination

First, wow...I can't believe this discussion is still on.

Second, and at the risk of being pilloried, isn't some of the "unfair gender discrimination" in India actually generated by women themselves, and more importantly, by certain demands they place on society?

For example, in some places (and definitely in TN), there is special seating for women on buses, and men aren't allowed to use these seats. Of course, a woman isn't limited to sitting in the "ladies' seats." She can pretty much sit anywhere. Similarly, there are special lines for women to get movie tickets. These lines are always faster and shorter than the lines for men. Those are just a couple of instances where women appear to want to have the cake and eat it too. That is, "I'm just as good as any man, but you'll never catch me actually in the proximity of a strange one."

I feel that the generous people on these boards have given you more than a compassionate benefit of doubt. Your ranting is relentless and that is why people seem to pick on you. Please don’t compare yourself to ANNA as most of what you get is what you ask for. How would you expect people to be compassionate when you don’t give anything to back your stories, you perpetuate stereotypes and have never backed up any of your varied assertions. I feel people will take you seriously if you back up what you say with facts.

We're told by everyone except aliens on Pluto that we need to be "strong-willed", "confident", "not a wuss" - these are all words that connote strength. Strength over who? To ask the question is to answer it.

A friend once told me, of her boyfriend, "I never knew I was really attracted to him, until he told me 'no'" And this was in reference to a small thing, like going to two parties one night instead of one, or some such triviality.

Again. let's stay focused here. I'm not sanctioning female abortion or the female inability to rent apartments in segments of North India. I am however saying, that women tend to favor (when I say favor, I mean, 'be attracted' to) characteristics that might be categorized as subtle forms of "patriarchy"

HMF -

That "no" just symbolizes individual will to a woman. Much like a man who has a doormat for a wife will have an affair with a self-willed, self-determined, confident woman who is not so "needy" of him and does not let her walk all over him. It's about respect.

The doomat wife or husband who allows their spouse to walk all over them and dictate their very existence is ---- boring as hell.

And that's why certain marriages appear so dry and lifeless. And that's why extramarital affairs happen or a "memsahib" is invited for a cup of chai.... to get that injection of the self-willed woman in their otherwise boring dutyfilled grihasta jeevan.

We women DON'T want brutes ordering us around and playing all macho 24/7. But we do respect self-determined individuals - women and men alike. You will see this in (same sex) friendships as well.

It's not patriarchal or matriarchal. It's about respect.

For example, in some places (and definitely in TN), there is special seating for women on buses, and men aren't allowed to use these seats. Of course, a woman isn't limited to sitting in the "ladies' seats." She can pretty much sit anywhere. Similarly, there are special lines for women to get movie tickets. These lines are always faster and shorter than the lines for men. Those are just a couple of instances where women appear to want to have the cake and eat it too. That is, "I'm just as good as any man, but you'll never catch me actually in the proximity of a strange one."

Hema, these were put in place due to the large amounts of sexual harrassment we women face in India - daily. And you know what? It's the least the country could do for us. Better to have a separate line/compartment and not get groped and oogled constantly than to risk getting my ass fondled yet again by some stranger. Problem is there are not enough of these lines and seats. We need more. Until the sexual harrassment issue has been somewhat contained, which will take time, perhaps a long time. Until then - more separate seats and lines please!

How would you expect people to be compassionate when you don’t give anything to back your stories, you perpetuate stereotypes and have never backed up any of your varied assertions. I feel people will take you seriously if you back up what you say with facts.

dbd -

I back up most of my statements with personal experiences/anecdotes. Statistics on a computer screen don't mean as much to me. Anyway, just google, all the data is there.

I don't need data, I've got first hand experience - countless experiences in fact. Data pales in comparison to that.

But as you may not be ;

a) a woman
b) a resident of India

......... I can understand how statistical data would be important for you believe me.

Google is there for that.

PG,

I will go and follow steps 1 through 4 listed in 427 through 429 now.

Peace

Hema, these were put in place due to the large amounts of sexual harrassment we women face in India - daily.

Please don't patronize me. I don't need a lesson on how much sexual harrassment there is in India. Do you really think having special seats on a bus prevents sexual harassment?

It's not just about lines at theaters and seats on buses. It's about women perpetuating the stereotypes that they are weighed down with. It's about women treating themselves as the gender in need of paternalistic protection from the government. It's what allows employers to turn away prospective female candidates in fear of how their future marriages and pregnancies might impact productivity (yes, that still happens in India). "Oh, poor woman. I don't want her to have to suffer when she is pregnant, you know?" Indian women buy into this sort of thing, and it just comes full circle and bites equality in the ass.

there is special seating for women on buses, and men aren't allowed to use these seats. Of course, a woman isn't limited to sitting in the "ladies' seats." She can pretty much sit anywhere. Similarly, there are special lines for women to get movie tickets. These lines are always faster and shorter than the lines for men. Those are just a couple of instances where women appear to want to have the cake and eat it too. That is, "I'm just as good as any man, but you'll never catch me actually in the proximity of a strange one."

Hema, I've brought this very point up before. But again, I was using buses in Bangalore as my sample point. That story about the birth certificate is outrageous. That's infrastructural, not just social. I haven't heard anything like that happening in the parts of Bangalore I've been. I hate to turn this into a north/south thing - but I wonder, does anyone have any similar incidents to add from the southern parts?

Pardesi Gori: Aapkey comments itney chutiya kissam ke koyon hotay hain?

For the record the above comment was in jest if its not clear enough.

Please don't patronize me. I don't need a lesson on how much sexual harrassment there is in India. Do you really think having special seats on a bus prevents sexual harassment?

Yes. All the times I've been fortunate enough to have that option (very rare) I have not been sexually harrassed. All the times I did not travel with that option, I have been. At least while we women in India are travelling separately, we are not getting our tits, asses and choots felt up. Alongside the separate conveyances though should be signs all over the trains/busses whatever saying, "women are sitting separately because of you" followed by an essay on sexual harrassment. So that eventually, as society changes, there will be less and less need for the separatism, until one day there will be no need for it and we will feel safe and free travelling in India.

For someone who has spent the majority of her adult life in India, travelling on public conveyance (horn ok please), I can say that I always RUN LIKE MAD for a separate conveyance when there is one (rare). Why? It will be a ride without any strange hands on my tits, ass and choot. Basically I'll be able to breath for that short amount of time.

Why would I choose to enter a car full of men when I can ride in one full of women and not get molested?

For someone who has spent the majority of her adult life in India, travelling on public conveyance

Your implication being that others here have (a) either never lived in India, or (b) have no idea what it's like to take public transport, I suppse. I'll let the unsubstantiated assumption slide for now.

My point is a more general one than just having special buses set aside for women. It's that the Indian women who complain that they are subjugated by an overly patriarchal society also play their part in the subjugation, partly by allowing society to treat them in as paternalistic a way as possible.

My point is a more general one than just having special buses set aside for women. It's that the Indian women who complain that they are subjugated by an overly patriarchal society also play their part in the subjugation, partly by allowing society to treat them in as paternalistic a way as possible.

True. That kind of change is usually in the hands of women, in any society. Generally most men have changed because they were forced (educated) to. That was "called consciousness" raising back in the 60's and 70's days of the "feminist movement" here in USA. Sometimes that took radical, even violent forms.

Anyway, one part of women saying "enough is enough" was the demand for separate lines and seats, no? I don't know the history of that, maybe you can fill me in.

Anyway, one part of women saying "enough is enough" was the demand for separate lines and seats, no?

I'm not certain what spawned it, but I don't think it was because women made an enlightened plea to get away from men and sexual harassment.

In TN at least, most women won't sit next to a strange man on a bus, train, whatever (for fear of being "corrupted", I suppose). Having a whole side of the bus dedicated to ladies only seating eliminates this problem. I believe that's the real origin of the practice, rather than to avoid "eve teasing."

Hema,

Please refer to 427-429 for a primer on how to deal with PG, if physical pain doesn't ammuse you please wait for PG to respond to AMD's question.

You can write a post about flora and fauna in the amazon, PG can turn into the many evils of India, it truly is an art.

To all those who claim women are routinely sexually groped in india like everywhere on the streets, why dont you try out this controlled experiment for yoursefl if u r so confident? Make an attempt to touch (not even grope, since i know u are a good person) a random woman on the street and let me know how it turns out. I could place a good bet that, more likely than not that you'd get beaten up or sth (seriously, unless its in a really really crowded place where ppl are literally pushing each other for space and stuff.

the thing is, that kind of crowd never happens in this country(US), but again who knows what could happen from the perverts in the US if similarly crowded situations exist routinely in the US?) so yeah, i'm sick of the overabusing of the groping arguments in all these complaints(puliogre pointed it out earlier too)

I could place a good bet that, more likely than not that you'd get beaten up

Heh. A woman throwing her chappal at a man's face is way more effective (at least in India) than separate buses. Twenty women beating the crap out of one guy? Even better.

Re: groping

I have had the privilege of living /working in 5 cities in India and yes, while groping does exist its not endemic.

I don't want to start a region war here but the worst experiences I had were in New Delhi- groped, stalked, threatened in broad daylight.I always felt safe traveling -even at night - in Bombay and barring one bad incident never had a problem . Worked and traveled sometimes as late (early?) as 2 am in Pune - no problems. Traveled in 2nd class train compartments and to fairly rural areas in Gujarat - absolutely no problem. Traveled in the South ( Chennai,Bangalore) and did not face any issues - though those were short visits.

So to those who say that its a common occurrence all across India that's not true.

It happens and we all learnt to take standard precuations to avoid nasty incidents
Note: I am telling it like it is - please don't flame me and start an argument about how it is wrong that women have to take these precautions etc

Heh. A woman throwing her chappal at a man's face is way more effective (at least in India) than separate buses. Twenty women beating the crap out of one guy? Even better.

@hema: seen grindhouse? :D don't need twenty for beating up b@$!@(&s like that.

I think to have significant discussion we must fully quantify the notion of a grope and/or grab:

I believe these acts can be fully quantified by this model:

N = number of fingers used
P = average pressure applied during the grab (measured in PSI)
L = length of grab (in sec)
A = azimuth angle of grab, where 0 degrees is defined as the direction perpendicular from the coccyx
E = elevation of the grab, in inches (where 0 is defined as the gluteus medius muscle)

When these figures are fully taken into account, then plotted according to region, taking into account population size, number of buses per square mile, and of course
male:female ratio. Then we can continue this fascinating discussion.

In TN at least, most women won't sit next to a strange man on a bus, train, whatever (for fear of being "corrupted", I suppose). Having a whole side of the bus dedicated to ladies only seating eliminates this problem. I believe that's the real origin of the practice, rather than to avoid "eve teasing."

Why do you assume this? Are you from TN? Were you told this is how the practice evolved? Any other Tamilians on here want to comment?
They thought their pati-vrat-dharma would be broken if they sat next to another man or what?

I'm not very familiar with Tamil Nadu, only been there once, so don't know myself. As far as North India, sometimes there are separate seats on buses designated for "ladies", most of the time not. When they are available, I'm grateful. I assumed it originated out of a desire from the women to not get felt up. Maybe I was wrong. Will research the phenomena.

To all those who claim women are routinely sexually groped in india like everywhere on the streets, why dont you try out this controlled experiment for yoursefl if u r so confident? Make an attempt to touch (not even grope, since i know u are a good person) a random woman on the street and let me know how it turns out. I could place a good bet that, more likely than not that you'd get beaten up or sth (seriously, unless its in a really really crowded place where ppl are literally pushing each other for space and stuff.

Some Indian women do indeed slap or beat up men who do that to them. Mostly though I've seen the following responses;

a.) they ignore them and walk quickly away, or...
b.) they admonish them verbally

I've not actually seen anyone of them hit the men physically.

When I was first living there, for about the first 3 - 5 years I did not know how to react myself. Especially in the beginning, when I did not know Hindi and was trying to conform to the local customs and habits so as to fit in and make my life go smoothly (big mistake), I always felt terribly scared and victimized, silenced and at a loss as to what to do, and not really having anyone to advise me on such things. I was intimadated for a good five years, I would say. Then I started fighting (physcially) back. Yeah, most of them ran away from me. But I've not seen any Indian women doing that (doesn't mean they don't, just means I have not seen yet). One girl in the street saw me fighting some guy and she said, "you're doing what we wish we could". Why she felt she couldn't do the same, I don't know.

Like Runa says above, my experience also was that Delhi and the surrounding areas are the worst for this type of behaviour.
Problem was I was living in that area for a decade. I think I'm hardened for life now.

It just seems whenever this topic comes up, women yell "But they burn babies!" Those are crimes. Not patriarchy, crimes. murder.

HMF:

I think you should revisit your sentence above. Female foeticide is very much a part of patriarchy. Why else are only female fetuses aborted? Its an extension of considering females liabilities. Without patriarchy maybe they wouldn't be seen as a burden but as significant contributors to society and their families. Even if they don't work or bring in money, women even in their traditional roles would be seen as valuable.

think you should revisit your sentence above. Female foeticide is very much a part of patriarchy

Yes I understand, but there's a huge difference between saying to your daughter, "You can't stay out until 2 am with your new boyfriend, wearing a rubberband around your waist" and "you will not live because you dont have a dick" I'd say a whole lot more than patriarchy is responsible for the horrendous crimes committed. Thats what I meant by the statement. There's your revisitation.

I really don't understand the animosity towards PG here (barring any history she has with Sepia Mutiny which I am not aware of). She is a woman living in India but because she is White she can't contribute anything of significance to this discussion. I may have been born in India but she has lived there longer than I have. I am not going to dismiss what she has to say simply because she isn't ethnically Indian.

And, Hema: do you have any other examples of how women are being coddled in India other than separate seats which you refuse to believe have much to do with eve teasing? Lets assume it is true that women are sitting apart from men to avoid being "corrupted" simply for sharing space -- why don't men have this same fear of being corrupted? A woman's shame and honour is much more fragile in the Indian patriarchy. This is not a point to be so easily dismissed.

I understand your point about chivalry being dangerous for equality. A point I agree with but a point that is more suited to the current American culture and not India.

That doesn't mean I think all women in India are oppressed and that women don't have a role in this oppression but I believe your emphasis on women taking the easy way out is oversimplistic and removed from the dynamics of Indian society and the pressures women feel to stay away from men or to remain pure. Isn't this concern/desire an extension of patriarchy?

Mostly though I've seen the following responses;

I've lived in (south) india for all my life (~> 2 decades from the point of birth except the past ~

BUT, I wont agree to that sort of a thing as a random public street scene. If someone attempts that, I repeat, you'll likely be beaten up, by the passers by or something (maybe even the woman, as you urself pointed out), and considered insane, just like how you'd imagine such a scene would evolve on a US street. Perverts are not insane. So they wouldnt dare to do something like that in a non-discreet situation in full public view. nope no way. Sorry PG. You are just lying if you deny what I wrote above...

Chill, thanks for sticking up for me. I'm warmed.

I understand your point about chivalry being dangerous for equality. A point I agree with but a point that is more suited to the current American culture and not India.

If opening doors or showing other simple courtesies on a date is considered "chivalry", I'm all for it. I don't feel that's dangerous for equality. If my boyfriend takes pride in being able to "provide" some things for me, or to "protect" me from danger, I welcome it. I don't "need" that from him, but I appreciate the gesture and attitude behind it. Similarly, I do things for him he doesn't need either, but he appreciates the thought behind them.

I do agree with Hema to some extent that women in India are culpible to some degree in there own bondage -- but I don't see separate bus seats as part of that.

Women of India tolerate alot of BS from men that they wouldn't have to if they just stood up for themselves more and risked their reputations a little.

BUT, I wont agree to that sort of a thing as a random public street scene. If someone attempts that, I repeat, you'll likely be beaten up, by the passers by or something (maybe even the woman, as you urself pointed out), and considered insane, just like how you'd imagine such a scene would evolve on a US street. Perverts are not insane. So they wouldnt dare to do something like that in a non-discreet situation in full public view. nope no way. Sorry PG. You are just lying if you deny what I wrote above...

Hold on a minute here...... I'm lying if I don't have the same experience as you??? WTF?

I was molested almost every single day of my life in North India. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY came to my defense. Only after a decade of that crap did I finally defend myself.

South India may be different. However, when an old man with a cane groped my ass on a Chennai bus while i was standing up on it (no seats available) and I turned around and slapped his ugly, wrinkled face... and slapped it hard and loud... the people on the bus were shocked at me and young women were laughing at me.

How dare you say I'm lying.

Back off buster.

PG

have you ever considered the proposition that you were targeted for molestation BECAUSE you were white?

PG

have you ever considered the proposition that you were targeted for molestation BECAUSE you were white?

Hell yeah, I considered that. Until I talked to my Latina and Black sisters and other Indian women around me. Conclusion was Indian women get molested alot, foriegners slightly more.

The very dark black women (non-Indian) got molested slightly less, but hassled just the same.

since we're on the anecdotal track here...

my mother did her advanced Bharatanatyam studies in Chennai in the seventies...no molestation.

She frequently makes trips back to Chennai...no molestation...

i think people are reacting to PG in the way that they are because anecdotal arguments only hold up to the next anecdotal argument like one eye witness can contradict another. My saying that there was no molestation problem, based on personal experience, isn't a good argument even if it's true.

lived with my mother back in the early 90s (for a few month-long chennai trip). no molestation. extensive use of public transport.

what's my point?

muralimannered:
lived with my mother back in the early 90s (for a few month-long chennai trip). no molestation. extensive use of public transport.

Im glad your mom didn't get molested ever. My mother, aunts, cousins, and I were not as fortunate as her. I took a Hindi class at UC Berkeley once and a British girl in the class asserted that she felt she got molested more because she was White. All the Indian girls in the class were enraged. Their experiences were no different and resented the White woman for assuming she was "favored" for molestation because she was White.

Either way, PG is right. Molestation is rampant especially in North India.

PG:

If opening doors or showing other simple courtesies on a date is considered "chivalry", I'm all for it. I don't feel that's dangerous for equality.

I would have to respectfully disagree. I believe courtesy on both sides is good for everyone involved but chivalry assumes the woman "needs" it. That doesn't mean my boyfriend can't open a door for me but he doesn't have to. If I get to the door first I'll open it and if he does, he will. Neither one of us runs to open the door for the other.

Once on a subway, two men (one drunk) got into a fight because the drunk wanted a gentleman to give me his seat. I couldn't for the life of me understand it. I'm young and healthy. We get up to give our seats for the elderly and disabled. I resent being in the same category simply because of my gender.

Hold on a minute here...... I'm lying if I don't have the same experience as you??? WTF?

oh ok. maybe all those perverts and creeps who otherwise randomly keep grabbing women everywhere on the streets oh so publicly go and hide in the pot holes on hte road when I'm out in the public?

Funny thing, not many others I know either, think they see things like that going on as fearlessly as u potray in public view (I already granted you crowded situations where free movement is impossible, so dont fire me on that ok?)

Anyone else here who can vouch for casually sighting some pervert monkey guy gleefully popping up and grabbing women's asses and boobs on the street?

Back off buster.

ok, I'm not a pervert waiting to execute a virtual-grope on you or anything. Don't worry. Peace.

Im glad your mom didn't get molested ever

sarcasm, a bit? if you really feel this is an epidemic--go do some kind of work to make it an empirically-proved fact rather than just an oft-cited, anecdotal problem!

If you don't have time for that quaint old concept of empirical inquiry--make an inflammatory documentary highlighting the daily molestation of women!

do something!

Totally disregards the point about men being trained to feel superior, before they even start shaving. Children, whether they're male or female need to be taught right from wrong, from the beginning.

I agree with your point that boys are "trained" from a very young age that they are superior in some way and that often women are behind this training. But, lets not forget that these women were girls once themselves and they were "trained" they are inferior. When you and Amitabh yourself have admitted that it is too easy not to fight your upbringing, why assume it is easy for the women to do so? Admitedly, the men benefit from not fighting back while the women would benefit from doing so, but it is nonetheless oversimplistic to think even those taught to be "inferior" will magically fight back when they get older. Without the the social support and relevant structures in place this is not so easy. Otherwise, it would be very hard for instance to maintain a caste system. Those subjegated and opressed would simply refuse to take it.

Murilimannered and random:

Do a google search for eve teasing and see for yourself. PG and I are not the only ones ever affected by this.

DG: Can you please respond to what I precisely wrote above? Show me one sentence(or more) I wrote where you think you disagree with me.

PG,DG, whatever...

empirical enquiry usually involves citing peer-reviewed academic sources or developing a study of your own (or a combination of both)

there are at least as many articles about how "down-low" gay black men are causing an AIDS epidemic in straight black women, yet it's a claim which is statistically false.

can you supply an scholarly study supporting this oft written about theory of 'eve teasing' and it's attendant effects?

you would do a disservice to women in India by not substantiating your argument.

I agree with your point that boys are "trained" from a very young age that they are superior in some way and that often women are behind this training. But, lets not forget that these women were girls once themselves and they were "trained" they are inferior. When you and Amitabh yourself have admitted that it is too easy not to fight your upbringing, why assume it is easy for the women to do so? Admitedly, the men benefit from not fighting back while the women would benefit from doing so, but it is nonetheless oversimplistic to think even those taught to be "inferior" will magically fight back when they get older. Without the the social support and relevant structures in place this is not so easy. Otherwise, it would be very hard for instance to maintain a caste system. Those subjegated and opressed would simply refuse to take it.

This is exactly the point I made in another post wherein I gave my own cousin as an example of a bad marriage and victim of domestic violence. She had the social support and relevant structures in place that made it easy for her to walk out on her husband without worrying about what Lallu ke Baba down the street would say to her the next time she went to buy a bottle of Dettol from the family store.

She also had the social support and relevant structures in place to enter into more functional intimate relationships after the divorce, one after another until she met her current husband.

If you don't have time for that quaint old concept of empirical inquiry--make an inflammatory documentary highlighting the daily molestation of women!

They have the helmet cam, the buttom cam, the shirt cam, I'm sure they can come out with the ass cam soon enough.

I agree with your point that boys are "trained" from a very young age that they are superior in some way and that often women are behind this training. But, lets not forget that these women were girls once themselves and they were "trained" they are inferior.

Inferior to other men, not inferior to teenage boys 15 years their junior.

empirical enquiry usually involves citing peer-reviewed academic sources or developing a study of your own (or a combination of both)

there are at least as many articles about how "down-low" gay black men are causing an AIDS epidemic in straight black women, yet it's a claim which is statistically false.

can you supply an scholarly study supporting this oft written about theory of 'eve teasing' and it's attendant effects?

you would do a disservice to women in India by not substantiating your argument.

Peer reviewed academic sources? To prove I was molested countless times in India? For what?

can you supply an scholarly study supporting this oft written about theory of 'eve teasing' and it's attendant effects?

Nope. I don't deal in "eve teasing". I was sexually molested, not "teased". But I am gonna write a book. You bet your sweet paccha I am!

you would do a disservice to women in India by not substantiating your argument

Indian women substantiate my arguments with their own experiences.

And just because your mother's tits didn't get grabbed when as an older woman or a woman travelling in the company of a man, doesn't mean they never got grabbed when she was young and single. Why would she tell you about it if it did happen?

Since when are desi mothers comfortable talking about their sexual experiences (wanted or forced) with their children?

Get real!

How many women tell their kids they were molested or raped by their uncles? (in cases where that happens?)

There is probably alot your mother does not share with you.

there are at least as many articles about how "down-low" gay black men are causing an AIDS epidemic in straight black women, yet it's a claim which is statistically false.

Since when are statistics the whole truth anyway?

Statistically 45 percent of South Indian women may have never been sexually harrassed.

So what?

I was one woman sexually molested almost daily in North India. That's my reality. Not your's, mine.

Anyway, next time I'm in India I'll holla atcha and you can come to where I am and see for yourself.

not touching on your speculations about my mother which I find not in the least abhorrent and speculative to the point of inviting my very brown fist down your indignant craw, but I would point out that my mother is NOT Indian (your assumption #1) she actually DOES tell me about EVERYTHING that's gone down because the ability to lie was beaten out of her by my grandfather--in fact i've heard nearly every story about "drunk-confused-uncle" that i can stomach (your assumption #2) and...guess what...my mother DOES substantiate alot of her arguments with empirically-sourced materials.

too bad Karma Cola didn't come out before you were molested by the nation of India.

you could've caught a clue and not the plane.

It's that the Indian women who complain that they are subjugated by an overly patriarchal society also play their part in the subjugation, partly by allowing society to treat them in as paternalistic a way as possible.

Nobody's denying that fact that women play a part, but it's a very small part.

When I was in school (catholic), corporal punishment was an everyday thing. None of our teachers ever hit a girl, while the boys were slapped (and 'caned') at the slightest mistake. The girls had a free pass and they often exploited this 'unfair advantage' while the boys bore the brunt of the punishment. At that point, I used to think that the dice was heavily loaded in favor of girls. In every other aspect at our school, boys and girls were meted out similar treatment (save the corporal punishment). I used to question this differential treatment by our teachers, separate queues at railway reservation counters, bank-tellers, buses etc. I once stood up and asked a teacher to either slap everyone in the class or not slap at all. This was good enough reason for the teacher to beat the hell out of me. At that point, none of the girls stood up for me. These very girls used to debate voraciously on "equal treatment for boys and girls" but they never practiced it themselves. I was a bit naive then and had very little knowledge about the everyday "eve-teasing" (harassment) that most of the girls went through. Once I was made aware of this by my female friends, my attitude changed a lot and I started to see the other side of this story. The dice was in fact heavily loaded against the girls (save a few) and my 'corporal punishment' thing was a minor blip in this ugly picture.

PG,

typically i give acquaintances about 3 references to my mother before I fold their n-space into the nearest black hole available.

you're already on warning. don't continue in this vein.

Um, can you please enlighten me as to what I wrote that was insulting to your mother?

That she may have been sexually harrassed as a youth and not told you about it? And how is it that you would construe that to be an insult to her and not the lowly haramzada who may have molested her? Don't tell me you subscribe to the woman is always guilty theory?

Sheesh.

PG,

you need to start writing a personal-issues blog. that will cut about half the bullshit from the comments section on posts like these.

you are contributing to this discussion in much the same way as a rest-stop owner who pisses in the faces of thirsty passers-by.

you were molested in northern india. fine. write about it elsewhere--in a forum where people can share similar experiences without being challenged by idiotarian, suckers for reason/logic/rational enquiry like myself.

as to my mother, you insult her by insinuating that she would lie to me--lying is THE cardinal crime in my family.

the problem with your method of argument is that it cancels out anybody else's opinion.

I could easily comment as a "long-time resident of xxxx portion of India" and say that all women i saw there simply invited groping hands and inspired lecherous acts. That's just as bullshit as saying the opposite.

substance makes arguments. not hot air.

as to my mother, you insult her by insinuating that she would lie to me--lying is THE cardinal crime in my family.

Just because someone does not tell you all the details of their life experience means they are lying?

But you're right..... the blog, the book, it's all coming.

yes actually it is. Gunther Grass found that out, much to his dismay.

give me a holler when that book takes off and you're on oprah.

PG. you're in good form. You must have been training in some kind of camp in vienna or something.

brown_fob if it makes you feel any better my brown ass got wooped at Convent school in India ALL the time :-) It might have something to do with me being a bully and the leader of a pack of utter rats but I'm a girl and the nuns hated me! We didn't get caned. I got hit on the knuckles about 50 times. Makes for very strong knuckles to knock unruly boys out :-)

Um, can you please enlighten me as to what I wrote that was insulting to your mother?

And just because your mother's tits didn't get grabbed when as an older woman or a woman travelling in the company of a man, doesn't mean they never got grabbed when she was young and single. Why would she tell you about it if it did happen?

PG when you talk about someone's mama's tits being grabbed in a crude context it's open season to have some of the reaction you got come your way.

FYI when my mother was old the sort of rampant sexual molestation really didn't happen. She open admits it was a different world than the girls are subject to today and doesn't mean she disregards women getting molested today. Not everyone's mama's had to have their tits grabbed. And actually if that happened to my mama she'd definitely tell me that!

I really don't understand the animosity towards PG here (barring any history she has with Sepia Mutiny which I am not aware of).

Like my Grandmother said, "Beta, don't comment on things which you don't know. Because you don't know."

She is a woman living in India but because she is White she can't contribute anything of significance to this discussion.

No, she can't contribute anything of significance because she has exhausted her credibility. She gets banned, she changes her name/IP comes back...repeat cycle. Add to this her (albeit now toned down) tendency to try and out-Indian desi people and many of us tired of being lectured by someone who claimed to know all, especially how much it all sucked.

I may have been born in India but she has lived there longer than I have. I am not going to dismiss what she has to say simply because she isn't ethnically Indian.

You are in good company then.

BUT, I wont agree to that sort of a thing as a random public street scene.

Random - I've also read accounts from Indian women which were similar, although I cannot attest to the frequency. This was about a middle class woman having her breasts grabbed as she crossed a bridge. I also know that in Delhi many of my relatives were told not to take the bus for fear of getting groped. I'm not agreeing with PG, but I'm not about to dismiss her experiences as totally idiosyncratic either.

Random, Murali, HMF

This site should provide you with all the fodder you need.... and the cameras...

http://blanknoiseproject.blogspot.com/

And, I have a question;

If statistically in UP less women than more get molested in public, does that mean I got molested less than I did?

I don't exactly know where you are going with this statistic thing....

All I know is that I was sexually harrassed countless times and it sounds to me like you are saying I wasn't. Okaaaay. Whatever.

I'm not agreeing with PG, but I'm not about to dismiss her experiences as totally idiosyncratic either.

There's nothing to "agree" or "disagree" about. I'm stating the facts of my personal experiences with sexual harrassment. How could anyone say, "no, I don't agree that happened to you"??? Where is the room for agreeing or disagreeing when someone tells you what happened to them personally?

now that you've undoubtedly belabored to death your point about being harassed/molested, can we get to the point: is this an epidemic/societal problem? If so, where? how? to what extent? how can it be solved?

if all you're going to do is simply restate your personal experience, DO IT ELSEWHERE!!!!

Murali, this site can answer those questions for you;

http://blanknoiseproject.blogspot.com/

Murali,

She did provide a link to a major movement, organized by Indian women, against sexual harassment.

PG -

By agreeing I meant agreeing that your experiences were representative. The story I offered in support of your personal experiences.

I've been meaning to write about the blank noise project for some time, and hopefully I'll get to it later this week, but things are busy in the bunker.

long on anecdotal observations, short on science. societal change cannot be founded on such shaky foundations.

in fact, it looks like a blog-length set of ramblings rather than anything any rational human being could cite in an argument.

this is empirical. that blog is not.

I was molested almost every single day of my life in North India.

Hard to believe.

Murali, statistics are based on personal experiences.

The personal experiences are the statistics.

These women in India are raising awareness about the issue and more women are speaking up about it. More numbers. More statistics.

What else do you suggest? Interviews? They are doing them.

Rallies? That's going on?

Shaming of the perpetrators? Also happening.

Inferior to other men, not inferior to teenage boys 15 years their junior.

HMF:

Thats a silly point. Women like your aunt were raised to think men/boys are special and so you treats you as such. Much more so than she would treat a girl. That is the point I was making. This is a silly response.

Also, to the following

but there's a huge difference between saying to your daughter, "You can't stay out until 2 am with your new boyfriend, wearing a rubberband around your waist" and "you will not live because you dont have a dick" I'd say a whole lot more than patriarchy is responsible for the horrendous crimes committed.

The two things you mentioned are definately related. Why can't a girl stay out till 2 am? She might be seen with boys? She might have sex with boys? She might get pregnant? Those are all important concerns but then why aren't we concerned that a boy might have sex, might get a girl pregnant, might have his reputation ruined. Becuase, well, the latter simply doesn't happen to the same extent to boys and because pregnancy only affects the girl and the boy isn't held with the same responsibility/shame. Now, when you have such a lopsided system of responsibility and shame and a parent finds out they have a daughter they think, "Oh shit I have to deal with all that shit when I could have a boy who will carry on my name, take care of me, AND not be a social liability not to mention I won't have to pay a dowry? These are all related. Foeticide is a horrible extention of patriarchy and opression.

Blank Noise Project is actually a social movement - it's woman who organize in cities across India to confront public sexual harassment or "eve teasing". The fact that such a movement exists suggests that there is a problem. I agree that it is not a random sample, but it does indicate the depth of frustration with this issue if women organize in this fashion. Incidentally, they also videotape and photograph men who harass, which shows you how blatant the behavior by some is.

The Blank Noise Project is a community-public art project that seeks to confront street harassment, commonly known as eve teasing, in India.... The project works with the victims, the perpetrators and spectators of street sexual harassment and hopes to bring a change in the public perception of eve teasing, which is still largely considered a minor problem. [Link]

If you have any studies to suggest on sexual harassment in India, I would be happy to read them but it's disingenuous to suggest that because there isn't a study on the level of the Nurse's Health Study, that it doesn't exist. I've blogged several times on domestic assault, both in India and Bangladesh, which is a serious problem. here are the numbers from the studies:

37.2% of women in India who have been married have experienced spousal violence. [Link]

Certainly, it's a different problem, but when it's that frequent, it makes the allegation of lesser forms of physical violation more plausible.

In the context of TN, i am very willing to believe that such molestation is a daily occurrence suffered by any woman in a public space. Tamil machismo is not an oft-studied concept and it is certainly plausible that this machismo and chennai society create an environment in which this phenomenon can thrive.

I do however, need more than a blog to present such a cause to my friends and family (some of whom live in chennai), for their support. It's no indictment of the verity of the phenomenon you speak of, it's simply REALITY.

I was molested almost every single day of my life in North India.

Hard to believe.

Hard even for me to believe! I don't even want to believe a place is that far gone... imagine what it did to my faith in humanity at large.

Anyway, whatever.

Still willing to open my heart to a genuine and sincere man, Al Muhajid...

Murial,

Here is an abstract of an article which offers more "substantive" evidence of eve teasing. Since you are interested in the empirical evidence you can subscribe to the article and look up the references.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=G2kcgSHsLXhdgFZBLG3X1gkynRtmxPGN2YF9TdhDm723KJp1DWWp!-2005190064!-124666375?docId=5001920772

Thats a silly point. Women like your aunt were raised to think men/boys are special and so you treats you as such. Much more so than she would treat a girl. That is the point I was making. This is a silly response.Women are also raised by their mothers as well as fathers, who were raised by their mothers as well as fathers. It's not a silly response if you dig your head out of a certain location.

Young boys aren't sent away to the some Gulag for crazy Indian male brainwash treatment, only to return to India as misogynistic, "women are inferior" thinking machiness. Aren't you following the line of thinking here? I know the point you are making, and frankly, it's incorrect. You equate men and boys with the "/' in between, but children, including boys are confused, they're picking up on the way the world works, they're learning from what they see around them. They can be taught right from wrong. Men and boys cannot be equated.

Why can't a girl stay out till 2 am? She might be seen with boys? She might have sex with boys? She might get pregnant?

I never said she could or couldn't. All I said was it isn't the same as aborting fetuses, and starving young girls. Get some perspective, actually read the post. Understand this.. there is more at play, and the issue is much more complex than patriarchy if it's driving families to ending their own children's lives you make it seem like they spin a roulette wheel, and if it lands on black instead of red, they just cut their losses and throw another bet down.

Becuase, well, the latter simply doesn't happen to the same extent to boys and because pregnancy only affects the girl and the boy isn't held with the same responsibility/shame

Sorry, take it up with God. I didn't put the uterus in the female body. Because of the stark differences in physiology, females risk more when it comes to sexual activity, their bodies are taxed more, their bodies are more visiblly affected. Shouldn't families with daughters take these clear cut physiological differences into account? Wouldn't you?

Quite honestly, I don't know the point you're attempting to make. All I know is, the point I'm making is sailing clear over your head.

One of the reasons why women in India perpetuate the patriarchy and their own neglect/abuse is financial.

Another is "log kya kahenge".... what will the people think.

Shame-based cultures base alot of actions (or lack thereof) on "reputation". What people think about Usha Verma is very important to her. To uphold "kula dharma" is very important to her. If she walks out on a dry marriage - where will she go, with no money, no job? If she has money and job - where in her town will she be able to rent an apartment as "corrupted woman"??? All eyes will be cast on her and fowl language will be slurred at her. All her connections will be severed - because she walked out on an unhappy marriage.

Until woman are willing to risk their all-important repuations and "rough it" through life a little, on their own...... not much will change.

Who is forcing Usha to stay in a bad marriage? Nobody. But her mind tells her that her society, culture, family, reputation, peace of mind and very life depend on conforming and staying.

It boggles me how the concept of ego-anihilation sprang from this very same culture. Any takes on that?

HMF:

No, I understood your points. My argument is that the women you speak of were also girls once who were also raised to think a particular way and your assinuation that they can just change how they think about boys and men versus girls and women is oversimplistic. I don't understand what else your going on about. I never implied boys were brainwashed isolated from the rest of society. I only emphasized that we are all part of a society that enforces such thinking -- to put all the responsibility on the women to change because they wake up when they're older one day and say, "Oh shit -- this sucks -- I am going to be empowered and treat boys and girls, men and women equally" is all too simple.

Finally, lets not argue over syntax in regards to my second point. By saying, "Why can't girls do xy?" I am talking about societal rules not what you think or allow. And, you are missing my point. Sure, girls get pregnant and they should take extra precautions. Does that mean boys are free to get any one pregnant without any repurcissions? Well, in Indian society that is largely true. There is no responsibility or shame when it comes to them being sexually premiscuous. Sure, they can STDs as well, surely they can father children? Girls are a liability - sexually, socially, financially. Those are the reasons foeticide happens.

@ennis:

regarding the blank noise project---i followed them for a while since they first started. eve teasing is a real problem in many indian cities, even in the south.

eve-teasing is frequent enough that almost all women i know take precautions. however, at least in the south, it is not as rampant as some people are insinuating---not to the extent that every woman gets molested in broad daylight. there have been some instances like that though, they make big newspaper headlines whenever they happen.

coming back to the blank noise project: personally, i would go for more serious people. to me, they seem to go overboard (look at the whole list of eve teasers) as well. the point is, it is hard to defend their point of view in many of their statements. my guess: they are bunch of kids who have unfortunately seen/been victims, but they don't exactly know what they are doing. so they have my sympathy and support for their message, but i wouldn't point their site out if i had to blog about eve-teasing.

but let it not happen that in focussing the blank noise project, you overlook the very real problem of eve-teasing.

Random,

If being constantly cut-off in mid-sentence, dismissed, not listened to, were ordinary forms of human interaction, applicable to males and females equally, as you imply, I would certainly not have remarked them in my interactions with Indian men. If the problem were my ego, I would certainly have encountered this behaviour here as well. In other words, you didn't get it. Indian men, in general (and yes, there were exceptions) treated me with a degree of dismissiveness and self-righteous dominance which I have not seen in either North America nor in Europe. Your own dismissiveness of my and SP's experiences is no doubt a symptom of the same social illness.

Your point (for lack of a better word) about the 'strenuousness' of transport being the reason women tend to stay inside in India is such hogwash it's funny. I took the buses, trams, autorickshaws and metro on a regular basis with no problems (except getting my ass and thighs groped by men who, no doubt, thought I deserved it for taking on such 'strenuous' activity). None of this was nearly as physically strenuous as sweeping, washing, peeling vegetables, grinding spices - the kind of work female domestic help in India does daily. Take a look at the female brick kiln workers; it's comical and extremely condescending to assert that they wouldn't have the energy to walk down the street to get some groceries.

With respect to your point about kind-hearted landlords being concerned about the molestation of single female tenants, and therefore denying them apartments - man, you just get funnier. Elderly couples are regularly attacked in apartment buildings; do you see these same landlords denying rentals to old people? Since when do landlords care about anything but money?

I suspect that single female tenants bring down the reputation of a building, just as blacks were once deemed 'undesirable' tenants in the US. Why? Because, dear Random, of narrow-minded, if smarmy, individuals like yourself who STILL consider that 'normal women' live with their families. So let's see - that means a woman who travels to another city for work is abnormal; a woman who flees a family that beats her is abnormal; a woman whose family throws her out because she doesn't want to marry a loser is abnormal; a woman who wants to live independently so she can write, paint, study in peace is abnormal; a woman who no longer has close family members living is abnormal.

Thanks Random. Your obtuse inhumanity exemplify what is wrong with many men in India. Don't worry about me...I'm just bitter and have a vagina and don't know what I've really experienced anyway.

Young boys aren't sent away to the some Gulag for crazy Indian male brainwash treatment, only to return to India as misogynistic, "women are inferior" thinking machiness

funny..this actually happened to my hubby...i mean he was fine until a year after our marraige when he went to india alone and he started saying things like "why cant u behave like a wife; you behave as if we are in a bf-gf relationship" "you should get up early, give me tea....whn i come home dinner should be ready...blah blah blah" I dont know wht they did to him but they ( i guess my in laws) sure messed up my life

you will have to scroll up to the top of the page in the link i posted. something is not working with their site.

Random, try living in India as a woman, in four different cities, over twenty years, when you routinely plan your life around avoiding groping and are treated as an inferior being and condescended to and dismissed on a regular basis and have to write your father's and/or husband's name on even the most minor form, and then live on three other continents and see that things are different elsewhere. I don't know if your attitude stems from denial or from a genuine lack of experience and defensiveness/romanticising about a place you have visited on vacations only, but it's really quite laughable to hear you dismiss the experiences of every single woman on this thread as "exceptional" or as something one must have been imagining.

It is not for you to "agree" or not with the fact that harrassment happens either, it's simply a sad fact, hundreds of thousands of Indian women experience it every day and it's all over the newspapers. You won't SEE such things with your own eyes because Indian men and boys do them furtively, the woman it happens to frequently just feels a hand on her breast and then turns around and the culprit has run off or she can't tell who it was in a crowd (any woman this has happened to will be able to vouch for that). Things are much worse in North India, less so in Bombay and the South.

I have found PG's contributions rather unhelpful in the past but that doesn't mean her experiences should be dismissed out of hand, in fact it's a lot worse for a woman who looks foreign.

And FWIW, boys, it really helps when you listen to women and don't dismiss them and their experiences, and suggest that their "egos" are speaking or that your arguments just "fly over their heads" - you might have a lot more luck with women if you learn these basics.

How on earth did this thread denigrate into a slug fest of "yes it did, no it didn't" surrounding molestation?

Does it really matter? Molestation, harassment, being made to feel unsafe by the attitudes of others in unacceptable in any form. I don't care whether you believe the comments of one poster or another. If they said it happened then leave it at that. Offer support if you will but don't turn around and call someone a liar or belittle their feelings, I don't care what their history of commenting is here, sexual/physical/mental abuse and harassment is not a joke.

For the first time ever, I am disgusted about what has happened on a thread here. And I felt not saying so was to give silent consent to allow this to continue.

Enough all ready!

coming back to the blank noise project: personally, i would go for more serious people. to me, they seem to go overboard (look at the whole list of eve teasers) as well. the point is, it is hard to defend their point of view in many of their statements.
yes, they do go overboard, and even feel justified/ morally right to do so. what if a few grey area cases get judged prematurely or without benefit of doubt, overall we are bringing down the harrasment, right? ie "something is better than nothing" attitude. this kinda approach is there throughout the public sphere - even NGOs which would rush to blame it all on dowry and related stuff, go overboard. many of us accept it as the price we pay for trying to reform society, but it can be frustrating.

My argument is that the women you speak of were also girls once who were also raised to think a particular way and your assinuation that they can just change how they think about boys and men versus girls and women is oversimplistic

I'll say this one last time. Women are raised by WOMEN AS WELL to think this particular way. They can "just change" as easily as anyone else, Irrespective of the difficulty, active participation by females, women towards the boys in their family is necessary but not sufficient to effect the changes you desire. And it's not oversimplistic at all. In fact, it's whats done to every other group that's oppressed? What does the white majority and their model minority vestiges say about black and hispanic people? They're told to "take personal responsibility" for their own people. Any time the white majority is accorded any responsibility for their condition, the knee jerk response is, "why blame others for their own misfortune?"

And, you are missing my point. Sure, girls get pregnant and they should take extra precautions. Does that mean boys are free to get any one pregnant without any repurcissions?

That's not true at all, there are repercussions for men who get women pregnant illegitimately, ever heard the term "shotgun wedding"? I concede a disparity, but that disparity in repercussions you speak of, is in large part caused by the physiological differences I spoke of earlier. The fact that women hold prenatal infants within their bellies, is not a question of syntax.

what if a few grey area cases get judged prematurely or without benefit of doubt, overall we are bringing down the harrasment, right? ie "something is better than nothing" attitude.

i agree this happens with many NGO's. if you are going to a court of law, it may well be ok to be a bit like this. the system expects you to do it, and there is someone else opposing you to correct the imbalance. but this attitude is less benign in a country like india, where your victims may have no one to back them up.

if you are a NGO who is trying to mold public opinion, this is plain disastrous. you discredit yourself in the eyes of all but the lunatic fringe on some side. this is not the point, you want to get the person in the middle. to me, it is a sign of immaturity in most cases, but in some cases, there is malice as well.

I believe your emphasis on women taking the easy way out is oversimplistic and removed from the dynamics of Indian society and the pressures women feel to stay away from men or to remain pure

I didn't really intend any oversimplified generalizations, to be honest. I think we're basically in agreement. Indian women do face serious societal pressures that impact much of their behavior. All I'm saying is that some (note, not all) of that societal pressure comes from other women...the very group that ought to be the most cognizant (and therefore, the most sensitive to) those societal pressures.

To some extent, a few of these problems can be remedied by encouraging women to change their mindset. That's pretty much all I'm saying.

SP/DG/PG or a combination thereof said...

If being constantly cut-off in mid-sentence, dismissed, not listened to, were ordinary forms of human interaction, applicable to males and females equally, as you imply, I would certainly not have remarked them in my interactions with Indian men. If the problem were my ego, I would certainly have encountered this behaviour here as well. In other words, you didn't get it. Indian men, in general (and yes, there were exceptions) treated me with a degree of dismissiveness and self-righteous dominance which I have not seen in either North America nor in Europe. Your own dismissiveness of my and SP's experiences is no doubt a symptom of the same social illness.

No, I said it can happen in an interaction between two men also when there is an ego conflict. And I'm sure as hell all the infinite men in india who talked to you like that dont do it as a habit to every woman they find. Unless they are plain stupid. Because you know, they'd be the losers and there are lots of powerful women around in india too who can screw them up, they'd face almost the same repurcussions of what would happen if they behaved like that to every man they find. Indian women have ego too, just like you do.

Your point (for lack of a better word) about the 'strenuousness' of transport being the reason women tend to stay inside in India is such hogwash it's funny. I took the buses, trams, autorickshaws and metro on a regular basis with no problems (except getting my ass and thighs groped by men who, no doubt, thought I deserved it for taking on such 'strenuous' activity). None of this was nearly as physically strenuous as sweeping, washing, peeling vegetables, grinding spices - the kind of work female domestic help in India does daily. Take a look at the female brick kiln workers; it's comical and extremely condescending to assert that they wouldn't have the energy to walk down the street to get some groceries.

FOUL. This is what I said: if there was 50 times a family needed some random stuff, say the man does it 40 while the woman 10, because more men work outside, etc. etc. Its probably just convenient that way. When a woman needs to go out in india, she totally does without nearly as much trouble as u imply, especially if they do have a private vehicle. Using the relative skewdness on the streets as an argument for gender discrimination is not a good idea.

With respect to your point about kind-hearted landlords being concerned about the molestation of single female tenants, and therefore denying them apartments - man, you just get funnier. Elderly couples are regularly attacked in apartment buildings; do you see these same landlords denying rentals to old people? Since when do landlords care about anything but money?

That was soooooooooooooooooo phony again... I never even remotely sugested that.

I suspect that single female tenants bring down the reputation of a building, just as blacks were once deemed 'undesirable' tenants in the US. Why? Because, dear Random, of narrow-minded, if smarmy, individuals like yourself who STILL consider that 'normal women' live with their families. So let's see - that means a woman who travels to another city for work is abnormal; a woman who flees a family that beats her is abnormal; a woman whose family throws her out because she doesn't want to marry a loser is abnormal; a woman who wants to live independently so she can write, paint, study in peace is abnormal; a woman who no longer has close family members living is abnormal.

foul. foul. foul. WTF. are we discussing here or are you simply trying to contest with me and somehow slander me at any cost by attributing to me things that I didnt even remotely imply? I guess some people just can't keep their egos at bay.

Single female tenants dont bring down the reputation. Hookers do. Hence the landlord gave the apt to that single female once he was sure she isn't one. Get it? Do you understand what 'normal' means? Its the norm. Meaning, a majority. Thats all. I am saying anything negative about the minority. Don't you even have a bit of a conscience before twisting arguments like that when you sure know what I meant(I'm, of course totally assuming you aren't stupid or dumb, correct me if I'm wrong)?

Thanks Random. Your obtuse inhumanity exemplify what is wrong with many men in India. Don't worry about me...I'm just bitter and have a vagina and don't know what I've really experienced anyway.

Your vagina has nothing to do with what is wrong with you. I love humans with vaginas, but only as long as they dont twist arguments and make too many fouls in a game :p

Another person said...

It is not for you to "agree" or not with the fact that harrassment happens either, it's simply a sad fact, hundreds of thousands of Indian women experience it every day and it's all over the newspapers.

I've never outright denied sexual harassment happens. I only said what I said. Now, go back and if you wish to argue with me, quote me on what I said and point to me anything unreasonable/factual errors. I only contradicted what some of the foul players here were trying to insinuate. the few people who are most vocal about these things try to get it sooo over the top and paint a picture 1000 times worse than reality. For instance, its a fact that the US has the worst rape statistics in the entire world or something. So, somebody in a foreign country goes around quoting this, and says women are routinely raped in the US everywhere (no offence to those who actually went through such an experience). What some of these foul players (that woman PG, esp.) say tends to be a misrepresentation in a similar vein.

And btw, as you thought, I didnt just go to india for vacations. More like I never even went out of india for vacations (save since last year, I've been a grad student on this side of the planet) And yeah, I am also more than 2 decades old. I cant comment again till late tonite though. so take care and have fun :)

As it was, I had to listen to Indian men (the educated lawyers, accountants, bank officials I was dealing with) condescend to me, cut me off repeatedly in mid-conversation, dismiss my opinions, and simply not listen.

I realize this is DQ's quote, but I am responding to SP and DQ and others who support this. I submit to you that this may be more about young, or being perceived as being without "influence" than being a woman. The same people often treat me (a guy) in the same condescending way, at least until I intimate that I have "influence" (whether I do or don't is another story).

I can think of any number of Indian women of great authority to whom the babus are entirely deferential. One example is Naina Kidwai, the top Mumbai investment banker, who I had the pleasure of knowing. Boots would quake as she walked in the room, Babus would squeal in fear, and not a person would dare treat her with condescension. It was partly her position of power, but it was even more her bearing and demeanor. There are so many others in the worlds of business, arts, government and non-government, who are not treated with condescension.

India is a society where rank, age and influence mean a great deal. I would argue that many of the troubles that you identified that young women suffer in daily and business life are common to all of those that are young and without influence. This is not to say that this acceptable in a modern society, or that harassment is altogether a different matter, but I'm not sure the Indian business, government and quasi-government milieu is as gendered as you would suggest.

And FWIW, boys, it really helps when you listen to women and don't dismiss them and their experiences, and suggest that their "egos" are speaking or that your arguments just "fly over their heads" - you might have a lot more luck with women if you learn these basics.

oh oh, btw thanks for the generous advice aunty :p
But we, boys, for sure as hell, dont want to have ANY luck with women of the two types you just mentioned. And there are a good many for whom those dont really hold anyway. So hah.

"why cant u behave like a wife"?

RV...but do you ever tell your husband to 'behave like a husband"..I wonder? "Do the heavy lifting"..."be a man.." that kind of thing...because you can't have it both ways...

Not to make light of this argument (though the heated-up men are getting more funny than obnoxious), but I think we females should evolve something ingenious to keep away the guys.

(Sorry, but I just came across it, and I'm fascinated.)

Why go that far? Just use some of this

but I think we females should evolve something ingenious to keep away the guys

Seriously though, what's with the author of the article using the word "rape" ? They're ducks. Whats the a guy duck supposed to do? write poetry? woo the female duck with some Barry White? Sneak out while daddy duck isn't watching?

Rape = coercive sex. It is not as common among non-human animals as you might imagine. Only a handful (including ducks and geese) have been observed to force themselves on their mates. I think it's something like 5% (I'm pulling that number out of my memory) of all observed species.

The "hooker" issue when trying to rent an apartment in India.

Yeah, certainly there are hookers who do rent apartments, but also, a young, single female who has male friends visiting her apartment will be suspect to alot of her neighbors and the landlords as well. Especially if she's renting in an area or from people who grew up during an era of not having cross-gender friendships. I know plenty of young people even today in India who only have same gender friends. Their brother's or sister's friends are acquaintances whom they refer to as "bhaiya" or "behenji". So such type of people often mistake a cross-gender friendship for "shekhsy-shekshy".

Take it one level further - if the young, single, female tenant has a boyfriend or two coming and going from the apartment time to time, (perfectly normal behaviour in some places) - well, that is often considered "undesirable" also.

Forget if she is "young" - even a grown woman in her thirties, having male friends or a boyfriend will be treated very strangely in such a situation.

How do I know? I lived it.

Really, so if it's not coerced then what, does the monkey try and bribe the she-monkey with a banana? How exactly do you measure in the animal kingdom whether the female is a willing participant or not?

Also, my guess is the ducks aren't going to read the article any time soon, the word has some pretty nasty connotations in the human world, that go beyond the act of forced sex. I guess it's not that big of a deal, I just thought the word choice peculiar. As if the male ducks are going to stop out of being called rapists.

Really, so if it's not coerced then what, does the monkey try and bribe the she-monkey with a banana? How exactly do you measure in the animal kingdom whether the female is a willing participant or not?

Having observed the primates in my town very closely (there were alot of them), I have noticed that they often have some sort of foreplay, flirting, even romance between them before doing it. That means sitting together and touching, playing, pinching nipples, etc.

I've also seen homosexual monkeys doing it.

Having observed the primates in my town very closely .... I have noticed that they often have some sort of foreplay, flirting, even romance between them before doing it.

Tell me this isn't the coolest thread ever.

Random/Ranfom

I've even been in situations where the landlords ask you if any "boyfriends" will be coming to your apartment. And exactly how is this his/her business?

Some apartment managers will not rent to grown women in relationships.

Sometimes those very relationships are considered "illicit".

Your area may be different, but knowing what you know about it... do you think most landlords would rent an apartment to a single woman who says, "my two boyfriends may be coming and going from here time to time so don't be alarmed".???

Really, so if it's not coerced then what, does the monkey try and bribe the she-monkey with a banana?

Yes, in fact, many animals have evolved features and organs solely for the purpose of wooing a female. Practically all species of birds, several reptiles and amphibians, and a fair proportion of mammals, sea creatures, and insects exhibit ornamental sexual dimorphism. Further, several species have distinctive and highly elaborate rituals of courtship, including dances, songs, and gifts.

How exactly do you measure in the animal kingdom whether the female is a willing participant or not?

I imagine that if the female struggles to get away, screeches, and is generally non-cooperative, the act can be classified as forced.

the word has some pretty nasty connotations in the human world, that go beyond the act of forced sex

Like what? Besides the archaic, of course.

Further, several species have distinctive and highly elaborate rituals of courtship, including dances, songs, and gifts.

Dances, songs and such I've heard of. In particular for insects. Mating procedures are observable, I don't equate them to romance, I'm not sure, but I doubt other species have a highly developed limbic system as we do, capable of processing the wide array of emotions.

I imagine that if the female struggles to get away, screeches, and is generally non-cooperative, the act can be classified as forced.

On all the national geographic stuff I've seen, that's almost always the case. Then again, they may just edit in all the juiciest stuff.

Like what? Besides the archaic, of course.

All the social stuff, the shame, the neglect from society, yes it may exist in the animal kingdom, but surely not as pronounced in as in humans.

Yes, in fact, many animals have evolved features and organs solely for the purpose of wooing a female. Practically all species of birds, several reptiles and amphibians, and a fair proportion of mammals, sea creatures, and insects exhibit ornamental sexual dimorphism. Further, several species have distinctive and highly elaborate rituals of courtship, including dances, songs, and gifts.

The national bird of India -- the peacock is a good example of this;

He spreads his colorful feathers and dances to attract a mate, eventually one approaches him.

Hari - Thanks for the courtesy and intelligence of your response - others could certainly learn from you.

You have a point. However - based on the comments I heard about women, I consider that being female is an added liability on top of youth and lack of influence. Some of these comments were as follows: women who dress 'inappropriately' (ie jeans, sleeveless tops) deserve to be ignored and dismissed, a woman who goes to a marriage negotiation for herself without a relative is 'fishy' (I heard all the negative talk about her afterward), a woman who travels alone is suspect (I read this in a newspaper column), a woman who comes home at midnight is a tramp. You can see that all of the above combine to make free movement and an independent life far more difficult for a female than a male. I also noticed that there were very few females who ever spoke in a loud, assertive voice there (except some very old ladies), while there were many males who did so. As for the exceptional females who make male subordinates quake, one might ask why they have to adopt a certain demeanour and bearing at all. Men don't. Mind you, this particular double standard holds just about everywhere.

Random - You are a GENIUS. I've seen the light. Female foeticide is prevalent because, naturally, people don't want to bring girls into a world where they will have to navigate the savage street and take the nasty buses to go to college downtown. And dowry is prevalent because it is 'normal', don't you see, for parents to want to provide for their daughters when they go away from home. And there are so many malnourished girls and women because, naturally and normally, girls want to give their food to the boys who have to get the groceries four times out of five due to the lack of a private vehicle.

As for the lack of visibility of women on the Indian street, it is the most normal and natural thing of all. Why would they want to go out when they can stay inside? Why would they want to experience the world? Why would they want a taste of life? Their husbands, their brothers and their fathers can do it all for them.

The only thing FOUL here, Random, is the smell of your hypocrisy.

Some of these comments were as follows: women who dress 'inappropriately' (ie jeans, sleeveless tops) deserve to be ignored and dismissed, a woman who goes to a marriage negotiation for herself without a relative is 'fishy' (I heard all the negative talk about her afterward), a woman who travels alone is suspect (I read this in a newspaper column), a woman who comes home at midnight is a tramp.

That's me!

I was renting a place along with a large extended family all staying in one big "haveli" - where there were seperate sections and entrances for each family, like one big house but separate apartments you could say. I had my own little separate space there and would come in around 8:00 pm - but never after 9:00.

I heard the bahu of the house whispering in her visiting friend's ear (while wobbling head) -- she comes in at 12 midnite every night.

I guess 8:00 at night was considered late for her ... anyway, as if coming in at midnite is something scandalous to begin with anyway.....

What you write of above and of your experiences in India rings true in every fiber of my being --- been there, done that, got the saree....

No Thanks!

I feel so much safer and respected elsewhere.

Mating procedures are observable, I don't equate them to romance, I'm not sure, but I doubt other species have a highly developed limbic system as we do, capable of processing the wide array of emotions.

That's irrelevant to our debate. You suggested that most male animals coerce females into sex. The fact that many species have mating rituals, whether it is emotional or mechanical (and I agree it's the latter), indicates that this cannot be the case. Purely from evolutionary-biological terms, it is expensive for the male to develop organs and rituals that serve no purpose besides courtship. Complex bodies and behaviors take many more generations to develop than simpler ones, and if these bodies have no added defensive or predatory properties as a result, the species suffers a disadvantage. It is, practically speaking, easier for the species to just skip the mating-ritual evolution, and dictate that the males go grab any unwilling or disinterested female they want.

The reason a species prefers dignified courtship rules is that they make the females happier than forced sex (animals do have 'emotions' at the level of pleasure, fear, and anger): at any rate, violence is distasteful to any living creature. Happier females means healthier offspring, increased willingness to tend to the young, and increased chances for future matings, all of which are highly favorable to the survival of the species.

Well, the simple existence of courtship doesn't automatically negate that females are willing participants (as is the case in humans as well) but I get your point from a biological POV, that no expressed purpose is served.

I was answeing PG's claims of "romance" Either way, his usage of the word in the article is still peculiar and out of place, even if technically usable. The word has charged social connotations, and only humans are reading it.

No Thanks!

I feel so much safer and respected elsewhere.

Ni Pardesi Goriye, you still can't let it go, though, right? You have some problems. Face them. Address them. Forget India. Seriously. You need to move on with your life. I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Your time there really scarred you. But remember...YOU went there, no one invited you or forced you. This is why I've never visited Pakistan, much as I'd like to. I just don't feel it's worth the risk. It's a known entity with known qualities, and if I go there and get in trouble, it's entirely my fault. So I avoid.

Well, the simple existence of courtship doesn't automatically negate that females are willing participants (as is the case in humans as well) but I get your point from a biological POV, that no expressed purpose is served.

Not really. There's a strong negative correlation between the existence of courtship and the existence of forced sex (and I'm not just guessing... I've read a bit around this).

Humans are different, in that our behaviours are primarily regulated not by biological but by social needs. The procedures of human courtship are (obviously) not hard-wired into our brains. On the other side of the same coin, the idea of forced sex is not hard-wired either. That is, while we are driven by biological needs like hunger or the urge to reproduce, our bodies don't dictate the details of how we achieve them. I take your point about why 'rape' in the context of ducks is a wrong choice, and it's not just a matter of the stigma: rape in the human world is not motivated by the desire to father babies, and frequently, not even by the desire for sexual pleasure. So the relationship to courting doesn't really come into the picture. And human females will probably never evolve physical defenses like those ducks.

The reason a species prefers dignified courtship rules is that they make the females happier than forced sex (animals do have 'emotions' at the level of pleasure, fear, and anger): at any rate, violence is distasteful to any living creature. Happier females means healthier offspring, increased willingness to tend to the young, and increased chances for future matings, all of which are highly favorable to the survival of the species.

Amitabh, that should answer your question in #347...

I'm just wondering why women feel that guys should challenge any of this. This is not trolling, I honestly want some opinions. It's a different matter that we may not find women willing to put up with these things, and therefore we'll have no choice in the matter but to change. But given a choice, why would we challenge it?

There's a strong negative correlation between the existence of courtship and the existence of forced sex

So there must be instances where courtship in the animal kingdom does not exist? But as you claim, they are only in 5% of observed species? I dunno, it just seems too unscientific a study to determine willingness/unwillingness by simple screeching, etc.. Since you offered, what is your background ?

And human females will probably never evolve physical defenses like those ducks.

I figured you were joking about that...

So there must be instances where courtship in the animal kingdom does not exist? But as you claim, they are only in 5% of observed species?

Courtship is almost universal. It's not a 100% negative correlation, but it's very high. In fact, in the outliers, it is more likely that there is courtship and rape, rather than the inverse.

Also, the 5% (or whatever it really is, don't quote me on that) is not too surprisingly small, given the thousands of studied species.

The speculated reasons why animals (as a species) turn to forced sex are actually pretty interesting. Many female spiders, as you probably know, eat the male after the deed is done (don't ask why). A few spiders have adapted to this, so that the male now ties down the female, essentially forcing sex, mainly to avoid being eaten. In some species where several males fight bloodily over a single female, the males carry over the violence to the poor female when they finally get to her.

I dunno, it just seems too unscientific a study to determine willingness/unwillingness by simple screeching, etc.

I was just guessing. Don't know how they actually do it.

Since you offered, what is your background?

No credentials at all. This is purely from reading, and talking to people who know this stuff. So take what I say with a big grain of salt. :)

I figured you were joking about that...

Of course I was. I just backed up the idea that it is a joke. (After all, humans are probably going to evolve, so it's not immediately obvious why this wouldn't happen too.)

You have a point. However - based on the comments I heard about women, I consider that being female is an added liability on top of youth and lack of influence. Some of these comments were as follows: women who dress 'inappropriately' (ie jeans, sleeveless tops) deserve to be ignored and dismissed, a woman who goes to a marriage negotiation for herself without a relative is 'fishy' (I heard all the negative talk about her afterward), a woman who travels alone is suspect (I read this in a newspaper column), a woman who comes home at midnight is a tramp. You can see that all of the above combine to make free movement and an independent life far more difficult for a female than a male.

This is no way suggesting that any of the above its acceptable. In my book, its not. But I would argue that this is personal to your (and likely, many others') circumstance. I could argue that many others (my sister, cousins, etc.) who live or have lived in India have no trouble dressing as you suggest, travelling alone or bunking curfew, and have been thankfully free of marriage negotiations, but that would be trying to impose a one-off experience to make a broader argument, and that's not fair. What I will say is that there are broad and meaningful parts of India, where the experiences you raise (and PG raise) are simply not meaningful, and this is particularly true in the increasingly important professional realm - the offices of Hindustan Lever, Wipro, Ansals, etc. and the people who work with them are as progessive as they come.

I guess my point is that India is much too complicated, diverse to be put into a box about social attitudes, and anything you or I say is bound to be greatly limited. Westerners love to classify and catalogue - it doesn't work with India.

DQ said...

Random - You are a GENIUS. I've seen the light. Female foeticide is prevalent because, naturally, people don't want to bring girls into a world where they will have to navigate the savage street and take the nasty buses to go to college downtown. And dowry is prevalent because it is 'normal', don't you see, for parents to want to provide for their daughters when they go away from home. And there are so many malnourished girls and women because, naturally and normally, girls want to give their food to the boys who have to get the groceries four times out of five due to the lack of a private vehicle.
As for the lack of visibility of women on the Indian street, it is the most normal and natural thing of all. Why would they want to go out when they can stay inside? Why would they want to experience the world? Why would they want a taste of life? Their husbands, their brothers and their fathers can do it all for them.
The only thing FOUL here, Random, is the smell of your hypocrisy.

My dear Dairy Queen - I will accept your GENIUS compliment, but you are talking 100% bull-pure-shit elsewhere in hte above quote, in the context of how this discussion is evolving. To understand the how/why/what/where/when, reread the entire comment exchange more carefully. I dont have the time to explain things all over. Take care, and have a nice day :)

Hari, your point about youth being a disadvantage is of course correct, but it's in addition to being female. My male cousins at the same age had no trouble at all renting their own places or doing their paperwork, and nobody was asked to bring Daddy along. Your argument about progressive contexts - well, all of my family and acquaintances are as "progressive" as they come, corporates at multinationals, investment bankers, academics, that sort of thing, and I find that things don't change all that much as you move up the social ladder. My high-flying banker female cousin still had to deal with shit from her male co-workers (and husband, a fellow high-flying banker, both had met at IIM) at a foreign bank. Another cousin with a high-flying marketing job quit because her lazy-ass male co-worker always got the credit/promotions for group work. The cousin in Bombay could still, thankfully, get around pretty well on her own, while the one in Delhi still wouldn't take a cab alone after dark, and I suspect many of the differences in experience that people cite have at least something to do with different regional norms. Those are just a few examples. Things definitely are changing and getting better in the milieu you mention but it's nowhere near the level of equality in the US (and nobody's saying sexism doesn't exist in US workplaces, believe me).

ok, from what I understand, basically hari's post rendered your previous example useless in the argument so you exhibhited more examples. And what is this trouble with official paperwork that afflicts specifically the females in india? (From what I know, some of those official documents(passport?) have father's name and SPOUSE's name I agree, but they are same for both men and women. I grant that there is an inequality wherever they ask for father's name instead of mother's name?) And I take those infinite examples of all your "high flying" cousins facing professional troubles everywhere just because of being female. Just remember one thing, though: if what you really said happened to everyone extrapolating from every single one of your (high-flying) cousin's experiences, they couldn't even have become that "high flying" whatever thing it is, or even gotten hired, in the first place. So ladies and gentlemen, I guess its pretty obvious to everyone here that one needs to take these very freshly generated examples with a careful skepticism, IMHO. As for me, I can vouch for experiences similar to Hari's from people that I know.

Things definitely are changing and getting better in the milieu you mention but it's nowhere near the level of equality in the US

Your(I mean, the clique of SP/DQ/PG) softening tone itself reveals a lot about your arguments. It came down from "oh its so bad women can't even lead a normal/decent progressive life/can't even go out in public" to "yeah, its getting better in this/that 'milieu', but just that its not as good as the US".

Good nite :D

Random, I won't be engaging your remarks any more, and I'd encourage the others not to do so either. You are actually a fine example and reminder of why I decided to leave India. I wish you luck.

Things definitely are changing and getting better in the milieu you mention but it's nowhere near the level of equality in the US (and nobody's saying sexism doesn't exist in US workplaces, believe me).

Alright, so this is established and agreed upon. But, I haven't heard a lick of a solution offered by any parties? Are we to just continue with , "The US has its problems, but it's 1000 time better yahoo! go red white and blue!" I've suggested teaching men & women to act and think differently about each other when they are young, and this instruction must come from both men and women.

SP - you ask for suggestions. My personal view is that India is not suited for radical change in this, or any other arena, for better or worse. I think incremental change will come. I would argue its happening already at a noticeable base, though under no circumstances can it come fast enough. Time, education and perhaps most importantly, economic growth will all contribute to a solution far more than any explicit head-on measures.

HMF, the solution is obviously not going to be a simple one, change in attitudes is a slow process that is reinforced by ec opportunities, education and awareness, negotiations within relationships, men and women opting for partners on the basis of different values, decisions by women like myself to opt out of or avoid uber-sexist male company and relationships and particularly "protective" and "dominating" ones, and so on, that's the way change has happened everywhere, including India. Of course both men and women will have to be involved in this process, I think we can agree on that, women do buy into and perpetuate patriarchy too, though arguably this is due as much to the difficulty of fighting from a vulnerable position as it is to a Gramscian sort of acceptance of a hegemonic order/benefits that accrue to women in this arrangement (which they do for some well-off women).

This is really not about nationalism or defending the US or anything, so I don't understand the touchiness on this point. Your life and the lives of your daughters, sisters and female friends are all affected by sexism too, it's a human problem, and the recognition that things are different in one society and another is not about establishing superiority and inferiority. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion, btw, even if I haven't agreed with you very much.

though arguably this is due as much to the difficulty of fighting from a vulnerable position as it is to a Gramscian sort of acceptance of a hegemonic order/benefits that accrue to women in this arrangement (which they do for some well-off women).

I think its more the latter. One can hardly argue mother's relationship to her son is a vulnerable position.

...and the recognition that things are different in one society and another is not about establishing superiority and inferiority./blockquote>

Then what is it about then? Usually, on a microscopic scale, say when a mother tells her child, "Oh, do you know, so and so, got perfect on his SATs, and got a scholarship, and..." the implication, is..."you should do the same"

A salut to Sriram (comment #5).

I've come back to this conversation a little late, but Ennis, I hope you do write a post about the blanknoiseproject and "eve teasing". I know it's easy to doubt the veracity of PG's experiences, but I'm shocked at all the deniers of molestation out there. I lived in Hyderabad and took public transportation, and groping attempts were a DAILY phenomenon. My mom and aunts and my childhood friends have all had the same experience. My mom even got groped when she was PREGNANT. It's happened to me a couple of times in major US cities, but on nowhere near the same scale.

Random, I won't be engaging your remarks any more, and I'd encourage the others not to do so either. You are actually a fine example and reminder of why I decided to leave India. I wish you luck.

Of course. There is nothing to really engage or whatever. I wrote something in reply to what you said, and there is nothing unreasonable with any of what I said. Because I never make reckless blanket claims/exaggerate while saying something... something you should consider too, and you can hope to cut through to a larger segment of critical thinking people with your arguments.

Not once did I deny anything bad ever happens at all. My, (or even the others who argued with you) contention is just the scale at which you imply with your statements, which actually as you might've guessed, is pretty obvious to most people in/from india. Arguments should never be taken personally, especially when its with anonymous ppl, if you are smart enough. It serves no purpose. Peace.

I know it's easy to doubt the veracity of PG's experiences, but I'm shocked at all the deniers of molestation out there.

I'm not doubting the veracity of the various groping stories here, nor am I suggesting that it's a trivial problem. I just don't buy that molestations and concerns over eve teasing are the reasons for the paternalistic treatment of women in India. The government (and social institutions) had these attitudes long before eve teasing became the huge problem it is today.

You know, when some Hollywood celebs got ticked off at paparazzi following them all over with cameras, repeatedly taking pictures. They started carrying cameras themselves and photographing the paparazzo's. Gave them a taste of their own medicine.

It's not a permanent solution.. but it might work in the short term... get my drift?

It's not a permanent solution.. but it might work in the short term... get my drift?

Women groping men? It might work, but don't some men enjoy that sort of thing anyhow? ;)

Women groping men? It might work, but don't some men enjoy that sort of thing anyhow? ;)

Not if you grew your nails out, and tipped them benzene or something like that.

Nails laced with chili powder. Now there's something...

deshikashi said...

I lived in Hyderabad and took public transportation, and groping attempts were a DAILY phenomenon. My mom and aunts and my childhood friends have all had the same experience. My mom even got groped when she was PREGNANT. It's happened to me a couple of times in major US cities, but on nowhere near the same scale.

So I think for an accurate grope estimate for the general public based on the above data, we need to factor in a 'DGEF' for the above data (Deshikashi Grope Exaggeration Factor, a multiplicative factor we propose here, to get the estimate of the same for an average woman in the population). One insight for getting a crude estimate on the 'DGEF' is given next: Since Dkashi has been groped twice in the United states, if we can come up with an (at least lower bound) empirical estimate for the number of similar gropes by women in the US on average (which i would be surprised if its not somewhere very very close to zero!?!?), we can get a (lower bound) estimate for the 'DGEF', which extrapolating to India, you can get an acceptable (lower bound) groping estimate there on average. Peace.

HMF, are you excited about this? (ref. comment # 450 LOL :p)

Disclaimer: No offence

HMF - ROTFLMAO at your solution. Just had a nasty visual of myself groping the ass of some random (no pun intended) dude in the middle of a bus. The thing is, a girl has only two hands. How do we know which ass to choose? And what if said groping is seen as an invitation by the ungroped to grope? There has to be some protection of the rear guard (not to mention the flanks) before the army advances. This draft policy requires some very careful thinking through.

SP - agreed about Random. Advanced stage of self-delusion; symptoms: gibberish, poorly-aimed insults, defensiveness and more gibberish; no treatment currently available.

And what if said groping is seen as an invitation by the ungroped to grope?

Collateral Damage.

SP - agreed about Random. Advanced stage of self-delusion; symptoms: gibberish, poorly-aimed insults, defensiveness and more gibberish; no treatment currently available.

'gibberish' can be relative, so I give you credit on saying that out. I am RANDOM, after all.
But don't you think you are totally deluding yourself about the rest of what you said above? ;)
Thanks, and have a nice day :D

It's not a permanent solution.. but it might work in the short term... get my drift?

Haha...actually my aunt carried a pin and poked anyone who got to close. I know a lot of people who just called people out on it publicly, which also works (they never expect that). I just started carrying an umbrella for self defense and it actually seemed to work as a deterrent. Or stepping on people's toes. The problem is on a crowded bus, you are often never sure if it was accidental or on purpose or even who did it so you might end up attacking some innocent people!

SP, I never answered your question earlier. I have never worked in India but I'm not really trying to say that patriarchy in the workplace is worse in America, only that it does actually exist in a very real way.

Women groping men? It might work, but don't some men enjoy that sort of thing anyhow? ;)

Not if you grew your nails out, and tipped them benzene or something like that.

It can be plenty uncomfortable without any chemicals or nails. It's happened to me, in a crowded DTC bus a very long time ago. Of course, I was a really good looking fella, but it could happen to any other man too :). And yes, it was a girl in her mid-to-late teens, maybe she just wanted to round out her anatomy lessons a little. And it was very uncomfortable.

SP, I never answered your question earlier. I have never worked in India but I'm not really trying to say that patriarchy in the workplace is worse in America, only that it does actually exist in a very real way.

When it comes down to it, patriarchy in India/US comparison, is much like corruption. Corruption in India is rampant at lower/day to day levels, but in the higher levels, the US has its fair share and certiainly takes the cake (Enron, Worldcomm, Tyco) amongst the most recent and vociferous examples. I'd say much the same exists with patriarchy.

"my aunt carried a pin and poked anyone who got to close"

ah, and thusly, spreading infectious deseases to unsuspecting commuters, who, lying in bed, wondering why they are now in hospital with ebola or worse...

do this often enough, and one could infect many people, keeping them off the buses altogether...

ingenious...

"my aunt carried a pin and poked anyone who got to close"

ah, and thusly, spreading infectious deseases to unsuspecting commuters, who, lying in bed, wondering why they are now in hospital with ebola or worse...

Oh god, even like AIDS too?!?!?

When I was a kid, I actually heard about some funny stories about the existence of some sadist people who would place needles, etc. in cinema hall seats etc. so that when people unwittingly sit there, their butt gets poked with a needle, and the intention was to basically scare the shit out of them into thinking they mite've been infected with AIDS (or, by even actually doing it too, idk)

do this often enough, and one could infect many people, keeping them off the buses altogether... ingenious...

I agree.

my aunt carried a pin and poked anyone who got to close

In a crowded bus, this essentially means poking just about everyone around her with that pin she carried.

Forget pins, just go with this.

my aunt carried a pin and poked anyone who got to close

In a crowded bus, this essentially means poking just about everyone around her with that pin she carried.

There was an article/editorial in Hindustan Times extolling the methods and glories of this technique. Before that, I never thought of such a thing -- since then it has worked like a charm everytime!

There was an article/editorial in Hindustan Times extolling the methods and glories of this technique. Before that, I never thought of such a thing -- since then it has worked like a charm everytime!

That technique sounds more like a sure fire way of landing oneself in a mental asylum or even prison, for spreading aids liek wildfire (poking everyone around in a crowded bus with a pin/needle)

That technique sounds more like a sure fire way of landing oneself in a mental asylum or even prison, for spreading aids liek wildfire (poking everyone around in a crowded bus with a pin/needle)

Ahhhhh.... but the Vestern ladeezsh will be using a new pin everytime beta - only! (and as if i care if some groping, sexual harrassing, molesting pervert gets AIDS or not! Karma phal!)

In other words - don't want to risk the pin? Keep your hands off me!

In other words - don't want to risk the pin? Keep your hands off me!

if I could, I would make an active effort to keep myself at least 5 feet clear of maniacs who poke everyone around them

I prick myself with a needle every day. How do I stop?

I prick myself with a needle every day. How do I stop?

If its something like acupuncture, you dont really need to stop. If its a form of sadomasochism, just substitute the needles with noodles. Then I guess at least you wont hurt urself needlessly

if I could, I would make an active effort to keep myself at least 5 feet clear of maniacs who poke everyone around them

That's the point!

That's the point!

...that you are a "maniac"?
I guess I'm with you on that :p

That's the point!

...that you are a "maniac"? I guess I'm with you on that :p

To keep guys I don't know (and don't want to get to know) away from me.

I am white and I dated and married a desi. I would say that I am reasonably attractive, 5 feet 7 and my husband is 5 foot 7 and no, he does not make 386,000$. In fact, I make more than him. He is the most warm, cuddly person I have ever met. The fact that I am a good 3 inches taller than him does not bother him in the least. Without taking too much credit, I can safely say that I have played a very significant role in his personal development and his integration into American society.

I could have married someone white and taller than me who made a million dollars a year but I did not. Studies such as this are too simplistic.

Ha! Ha! Ha! No that's not me.

There is probably no culture on earth that mistreats women as badly as hindu brahminical culture. There are hindu fundamentalists today who are even keen on reviving the demonic practice of widow burning (Sati) that had been banned by the British in the 19th century.

Prema, I don't know about that. History tells us several cultures on earth have treated women horribly.

As far as "sati", was that a strictly brahminal invention? I thought it was a ksyatriya thing.