Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women - Page 3

^^

Isn't it a dangerous proposition to try and genetically modify humans to display certain characteristics? Wouldn't it be some sort of eugenics. We determine what are "good" traits, what are "bad" traits and alter human genetic makeup to eliminate the "bad" ones?

Also "male dominance" is a tricky issue. We haven't determined if it is nature of the male to be dominant or it is nurture of the male to be dominant. Margaret Mead discovered Polynesian tribes where the woman was dominant. Amazon women in Greek myth must have come from some sort of rooted reality of female warriors. Walter Raleigh and Chris Columbus also describe fierce female warrior tribes in the Amazon basins in their journals. So there are certain pockets of civilizations where women dominated. We have also had few but notable dominant assertive female leaders like Nefertiti, Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, Razia Sultana, Queen Boadicea, Joan of Arc Apart from studying genetics (nurture), I think a sociological study (nurture) of these female dominated civilizations and strong dominant females also has to be done.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Why are you seeing the statement out of context? No one denies that loyalty and fidelity are virtues, but is 'not suffering widowhood' an expression of those virtues? In India the most common blessing to a woman is 'Saubhagyavati bhava', which insinuates 'May your husband outlive you'. A woman who dies before her husband is considered to have attained heaven and her death as a 'suhagan' is understood as a fruit of her pious life. And a woman who suffers widowhood is known as 'Abhagi' - as per this belief its the woman's lack of virtue, devotion and loyalty that has hastened her husband's death, therefore she must either die shortly after her husband or live a life of austere penance to escape hell. The stupid and diabolic theory of karma comes into play here in almost same fashion it wrecks the life of lower castes who are believed to have been born as shudra due to bad karma of past life. Victim blaming and glorification of victimhood is an inalienable aspect of Hindu culture, often to a point where victims themselves embrace it wholeheartedly or start considering their position as one of honour.

Leaving myth aside, the prospect of losing a loved one scares me. Forget husband, the idea of even losing my parents or grandparents before me is a heartbreaking one. There is a part of me that hopes/wishes that if any virtue/goodness of mine stalls/averts such experiences, it is worth it. I am sure every human has similar feeling towards their loved ones.

To me "Saubhagyavati Bhava" doesn't necessarily imply "May your husband outlive you" but rather "May you never experience the grief of loss". Being virtuous is just a part of the hope/wishes to avert unhappiness and not a societal burden.

The problem comes when simple notions are taken too far. We all know that logically fate is uncertain. We never know when and why someone will die. To attribute long life to a virtuous wife and short life to a non virtuous wife is an extremely illogical notion as there is no link between the virtue of a wife and the life of a husband. Also to have doubles standards for men is also problematic. Not only does it not expect virtues of a man, but it also fails to acknowledge the love and emotions of men.

The problem wasn't that there is nothing wrong with some cultural views. The problem was that you failed to explain why there was something wrong with it. A person was extolling the virtues of sati, you called barbaric without explaining why. Also perhaps that person may have never thought through all the implications of their beliefs, so to call it barbaric without fully asking for an explanation of their stance is also a bit unfair.

You have a point. You are right in many aspects. However, in that particular interaction you missed making the point and didn't use the right methods to express your viewpoint.

In terms of our Indian mythology, here are a few problems of what I have with XYZ's views on Sati.

Sati is a woman who is chaste, loyal and unflinchingly faithful to her husband. These are virtues that any person should be proud of. Both men and women should aspire for such fidelity towards their spouses.

However, there are problems with that "unflinching" faithfulness.

In the case of Draupadi, she loved and married Arjuna. She viewed herself as his wife. Why should she share her love, loyalty and body with all five brothers simply because of a misunderstanding. What right does Kunti or the other four Pandavas have over Draupadi's will and choice as a woman? Today if a woman marries a man expecting to be his wife and is then expected to share herself with his brothers, it would be considered sexual abuse/slavery. This might sound harsh and objectionable to many, but if Draupadi wasn't willing heart and soul, but complied solely out of the social pressure then the Pandavas are guilty of rape.

In the other case Yudhishthira bet his wife and not a single brother objected. She was abused and insulted and not a single Pandava speaks up for her. No human is property to be wagered like that. Secondly no women master or servant should be harassed or insulted. If a man doesn't have respect and honor towards his wife, if he is incapable and unwilling to stand up to her, then I don't see why she should be loyal and faithful to him. He doesn't deserve it.

That being said Draupadi was a product of a different time. I think she was a good wife and a strong woman for her times. She accepted fate and did her best to be a good wife, but at the same time as I said in my previous post - she stood for herself.

Similar thing with Mandodari, Ravana was a womanizer. He had a harem full of women. There are many tales of his sexual prowess. He seduced many women and sometimes spent days in his harem having sexual escapades. Why should Mandodari be faithful to him and be chaste, if he isn't faithful to her? What if Mandodari had a harem full of men for her sexual pleasures and Ravana was a chaste, loyal husband? Why are there double standards for men and women?

Finally, I find it interesting how the sati myth has been interpreted. The story of Sati reads a lot like the story of star crossed lovers. The daughter falls in love with a man the father disapproves. She elopes and begins living with the man. The father leaves no expense spared to insult and humiliate the husband. In a fit of rage against her father and in a show of love for her husband, she immolates herself in fire. If tomorrow a woman falls in love with a man against her fathers wishes, elopes and then commits suicide for all the insults heaped on her beau - these very people who elevate Sati as the epitome of love and unflinching loyalty will chide the woman as a sinful woman who got her karmas due for defying her father whom she should have revered.

Sati was a roopa of Parvati and the man she loved the yogi phase of Shiva. But I don't think being God's changes the crux of the myths plot. Also why don't we see the myth as a cautionary note against judging someone as unworthy easily. Daksha loathes Shiva as a dirty ascetic judging by outward appearances and not seeing his qualities. Why isn't the myth a cautionary note to use dialogue and compassion to resolve differences, not retaliation. In order to chide Shiva, Daksha ends up losing a daughter he loves.

Ultimately, myth is just a story. What morals and messages we extrapolate from it depends on the thoughts and values of the person doing the interpretation.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Isn't it a dangerous proposition to try and genetically modify humans to display certain characteristics? Wouldn't it be some sort of eugenics. We determine what are "good" traits, what are "bad" traits and alter human genetic makeup to eliminate the "bad" ones?

I would think that the risk is contingent on what therapeutic outcome we are desiring and how "ready" we are for human clinical trails. I understand this field is highly regulated so till we completely understand how genes respond to social stimuli and how genetic variations influence brain functions and social behavior, there wouldn't be any human experimentation done. For instance, in U.S. no gene therapy has been approved yet whereas in Europe they recently approved gene therapy for a protein disorder.

As for which character traits are good and which are bad, we would have to go with the same ethical standards that the law enforcement tries to uphold. For example, empathy, kindness, compassion are values that are considered universally good so the desired therapeutic outcome should aim for upholding exactly those.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

 In India the most common blessing to a woman is 'Saubhagyavati bhava', which insinuates 'May your husband outlive you'. 

Originally posted by: souro

That will be Sada suhagan raho, not Saubhagyavati bhava.

They both mean the same thing. 'Sada suhagan raho' is a colloquial version of 'Saubhagyavati Bhava' just as 'Jug jug jiyo' is the colloquial version of 'Ayushman Bhava'.

http://www.shaaditimes.com/love/after-marriage/blessings-041123

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The problem wasn't that there is nothing wrong with some cultural views. The problem was that you failed to explain why there was something wrong with it. A person was extolling the virtues of sati, you called barbaric without explaining why. Also perhaps that person may have never thought through all the implications of their beliefs, so to call it barbaric without fully asking for an explanation of their stance is also a bit unfair.

You have a point. You are right in many aspects. However, in that particular interaction you missed making the point and didn't use the right methods to express your viewpoint.

That's because of two reason :

1. The thread was dedicated to a different discussion and I knew it would be unwelcome if I went for an elaborate debate on the issue of Sati. I tried to keep it short yet strong.

2. I assumed that 21st century homo sapiens equipped with higher education and capable of using latest gadgets won't require it to be sat down and explained discretely why its wrong to extol death of a woman before/immediately after her husband as the highest possible merit of her life that distinguishes her as 'Maha Sati'. I believed we had evolved enough to feel nothing but repugnance towards such a thought. Apparently I was wrong. I had underestimated the power of religious and cultural indoctrination.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

That's because of two reason :

1. The thread was dedicated to a different discussion and I knew it would be unwelcome if I went for an elaborate debate on the issue of Sati. I tried to keep it short yet strong.

2. I assumed that 21st century homo sapiens equipped with higher education and capable of using latest gadgets won't require it to be sat down and explained discretely why its wrong to extol death of a woman before/immediately after her husband as the highest possible merit of her life that distinguishes her as 'Maha Sati'. I believed we had evolved enough to feel nothing but repugnance towards such a thought. Apparently I was wrong. I had underestimated the power of religious and cultural indoctrination.

You are making a lot of unfair presumptions here.

 

Firstly, you never tried to better understand what XYZ meant by extolling Sati. She could have been extolling the virtues of loyalty and faith, and not exactly extolling the death before/immediately after the death of the husband. You made a similar presumption about "saubhagyavati bhava" to be "may your husband outlive you" rather than a more innocuous "may you never suffer the grief of loss". You appear to have a fixed bias against people of faith assuming every belief to be of negative connotation.

 

Secondly, you didn't engage in a dialogue with XYZ asking her to extrapolate her views on Sati in terms of death. Does she actually believe that women whose husbands die before them are unchaste or disloyal? Or does she acknowledge that death is unpredictable? Does she actually believe that all men who outlive their wives actually had chaste and loyal wives?  Did you ask her if she believed abusive and unfaithful husbands still required chaste loyal wives or does she acknowledge the woman's right to leave such a man? Many people have a distinction between what myth & faith vs practical real life applications. Believing in certain myths doesn't always necessarily mean that people take everything literally for practical purposes. It is important to determine what the person believes in the most practical terms.

 

Finally not everyone is privileged to have the highest education or have latest gadgets. Even those who get a better education do not have the fortune to be exposed to a variety of ideas and a variety of cultures. Most people are confined to the cultures and beliefs they were born in. Quality education itself in many parts of India is not about questioning and exploring curiosity, but an indoctrination of the syllabus. People are not taught to reason, to extrapolate, to learn how to critically think. They are taught to take the teacher's word and never question them on anything. They are taught learn by rote blindly what is stated in a textbook.  Religion and education are both about listening to the elders and blindly believing the book. So how can we accuse religious indoctrination when the basic tools that harness our sapient abilities are nonexistent.

 

The problem is not solely of religion but also failure of society in general to promote knowledge. It is more the fault of the educated who are experts at blaming the ignorant, the uneducated, the religious, but with all their knowledge and intelligence have failed to come up with solutions for the problems.

"Firstly, you never tried to better understand what XYZ meant by extolling Sati. She could have been extolling the virtues of loyalty and faith, and not exactly extolling the death before/immediately after the death of the husband. You made a similar presumption about "saubhagyavati bhava" to be "may your husband outlive you" rather than a more innocuous "may you never suffer the grief of loss". You appear to have a fixed bias against people of faith assuming every belief to be of negative connotation.

Secondly, you didn't engage in a dialogue with XYZ asking her to extrapolate her views on Sati in terms of death. Does she actually believe that women whose husbands die before them are unchaste or disloyal? Or does she acknowledge that death is unpredictable? Does she actually believe that all men who outlive their wives actually had chaste and loyal wives?  Did you ask her if she believed abusive and unfaithful husbands still required chaste loyal wives or does she acknowledge the woman's right to leave such a man? Many people have a distinction between what myth & faith vs practical real life applications. Believing in certain myths doesn't always necessarily mean that people take everything literally for practical purposes. It is important to determine what the person believes in the most practical terms."

Shutting your eyes to reality doesn't change it. Just because you are not comfortable with confronting religion and culture doesn't mean that they are harmless. Its not how I interpret 'Saubhagyavati Bhava' that matters, but what it REALLY means is all that matters. And I have provided you with an article. If you are not satisfied with my explanations find out for yourself. Have you ever thought why there's no similar blessing for men, who are mostly blessed 'Ayushman Bhava' or 'Yashashvi Bhava', if 'Saubhagyavati' simply means 'fortunate' or 'sorrowless' in nominal terms? Or why there's practically no restriction on the life of a widower, including the restriction to remarry?

I simply give up. OK? I was wrong. She was right. Happy? Now please get along with the thread.

But please don't get started with that 'interpretation is everything' non sense once again. Its easy for you to say 'They are just myths. We don't need to take everything literally', but there seems to be millions who, despite quality education, do take stupid stories quite literally and allow them to influence their daily lives. Why, in your own country, with 98% literacy and a significantly high exposure to social media and other mediums of information, half of the population believes that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs lived alongside humans until the great flood. They even have a museum dedicated to that asinine dogma where they have exhibits of dinosaurs with saddles on their back. So to suggest that religion doesn't have a major influence over people's way of thinking is plainly ignorant.


Also as a reminder, I wish to reiterate that I didn't open this thread to complain or get decided who was right on that occasion. The purpose of this thread was to bring into discussion the issues of well accepted sexism in Indian culture and religion.
Edited by Rehanism - 10 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

If XYZ is a she and Rehan knows that XYZ is a she, then I thought it was ironic that Rehan hates to see men dominating women in any walk of life, but at the same time Rehan is not averse to using such strong language at a woman and dominating the conversation in the process. Language is a a very powerful tool to dominate people; dominance need not always be physical, it could be done verbally too.

It was her thought that I rebuked and not her gender. I would have said the same thing if she were a HE. The idea of feminism or liberalism is not to raise women to a pedestal or make them immune from harsh criticism when due.