Posted: 06 April 2013 at 5:15am | IP Logged
Superb topic Xari
There are too many questions. So let me try to answer them one by one.
The first one about whether society sees different..
I would go with Yes. Society does see Sons and Daughters differently. There is a change that is coming around of late. Economic and maybe social change towards the way the girls are looked at these days.. I think the concept of having one child has led to that change.
The foremost reason I think that the daughters occupied the lesser slot was because they were 'paraya dan'. A girl was considered to be the wealth of her sasural. She was supposed to leave the Maayka and go and live with 'her' own family. This meant that she was supposed 'not' to be spoiled by her Maayka but she could be by her sasural.
Some things drove this thought process/
In the olden days, a family would be quite large. Girls were supposed to be for the 'other' family (sasural) while boys stayed home. And girls were married at an early age too when they were as young as 5. 6.. This meant that there was not way of spoiling the child except for those few years.
The families did not want the child of 5,6 years to be so attached to her maayka that she completely refuses to go to her sasural. Poor kid. Thinks about her being uprooted after being spoiled at home. .
So that was used as an excuse.
But as laws came in, the age of marriage increased. This meant that the girl who is 'paraya dan' was not so paraya anymore. She would grow bonds, she would want love.
Some people adjusted to the change but the way of thinking never changed. It is still considered at many places that the girl remains at home only until marriage and the boy takes care of the family after that.
So is that true? Not as the new age sets by. The current generation does not see it that way but the past generations do. The point is, society did put in that thought process.
The same thought that has come over generations that girls leave and the boys stay around forever.
How many families do you see where the girls parents are supported by her? Very few.. It is a man's job you see
That is the thought that drives this girl/boy divide.. And in some communities, girls are considered burdens because she is you see equated to Dan literally.. I speak of Dowry..
So no wonder a girl child is considered in less than happy terms even now.
Now was Urmi right about her thought process? Then it is a big NO..
Urmi I don't think wanted to know the gender of the child for anything other than for her own satisfaction. To her a male child would mean that Rashi owns MM. But if the two babies are female, then I have a sneaky feeling that she would want Rashi to do what Rashi is doing right now.. Have fun and split the family in the name of saving the future of Rashi's children
You see, I don't think it matters to Urmi whether Rashi gives birth to a girl or a boy. Yeah, a boy would be perfect for her plans for her Dikri but the girl though a slight problem would have got the same love
This could have changed though had Meera been a boy. If Gopi had sired the 'male' heir of the Modis then Urmila would have surely wanted Rashi to have a boy. What more she may have also gone for an abortion..
Yes. I think Urmi would have and Rashi would have agreed with her if Gopi had a son.
I guess it is Meera and Gopi (or should I say Ahem) who has saved the twins
By Meera being female, she atleast has given the twins a chance to see this world.
I really at one stage did think that it would not have mattered to Rashi atleast. But no. I think it would have. Rashi's sole aim is still to be on top and if that means she has to try again to become pregnant she would after aborting her child. The harsh truth is her words of sympathy about finally falling pregnant are only to raise herself in the eyes of Modis.. Not for anything else.
If otherwise she would not gleefully think of harming Meera to get her own way