Debate Mansion

   

Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women (Page 2)

Post Reply New Post

Page 2 of 44

Page 1
Page   of 44
Page 3 Page 44

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 1:14am | IP Logged
There wasn't any question of losing cool or losing argument, because this wasn't an argument per se. It was a discussion on Draupadi's character and I expressed my disgust at glorification of the concept of Sati which, besides slavish devotion to husband, also considers woman's death before / immediately after husband as a virtue - and that's a horrible thing. I don't think my outrage was uncalled for. I don't know how many of you are based in India, but if you are familiar with the condition of widows here, I'm sure you'll feel similar disgust at such beliefs. Widows are blamed for 'eating away' their husbands and are treated as a sign of bad luck on the family; they are damned to a life of seclusion and repentance, often their heads are shaved and made to live on a fistful of grains, and barred from attending all occasions. 'Holy' cities of India like Vrindavan, Kashi, Mayapur etc have some of the most horrible ghettos of widows. Few months back a Tanishq ad on widow remarriage was applauded by the media as 'bold' and one of a kind. If standing in the second decade of 21st century we consider widow remarriage to be something 'bold', its enough indication how screwed up we are as a society.






Edited by Rehanism - 08 February 2014 at 5:21am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

-bLEu98-

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women (Page 2)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 1:15am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades



Is dominance always wrong? Or is there wiggle room?

Depends. What is the purpose behind the selfishness to be dominant? Is it just survival? What are the trade-offs between being dominant and being subservient? If we were to control it (by manipulating, say, "selfish genes" and "altruistic genes", what would be the implications for life as a whole? Does "life as a whole" even mean anything?


OT: Taking an Astrobiology class on Coursera. Lots of discussion on origins of life.

This might not be such an off topic actually (even though Astrobiology sounds like a made-up name). Understanding how traits evolve over time is important to understanding why people behave the way they do. And it all starts with the origins.

On a lighter note, when your course instructors start talking about "self replicating molecules" that's when you would realize that they hit a brick wall and  are filling "gaps" instead of acknowledging that  they have no clue how a molecule replicated.


K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 1:31am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

There wasn't any question of losing cool or losing argument, because this wasn't an argument per se. It was a discussion on Draupadi's character and I expressed my disgust at glorification of the concept of Sati which, besides slavish devotion to husband, also considers woman's death before / immediately after husband as a virtue - and that's a horrible thing. I don't think my outrage was uncalled for.


Based on the discussion you reproduced, I didn't get the impression that XYZ was condoning Sati. XYZ seemed to be expounding on what qualified for satitva back then. Perhaps, it's best to ask XYZ for a clarification on whether XYZ was promoting sati in any shape or form before taking umbrage.




Vinzy

IF-Stunnerz

Vinzy

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 26805

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 1:53am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

How to deal with a situation when women themselves consider the most misogynistic social evils like 'Sati-hood' to be a matter of honour and high virtue? Recently I had been to a forum dedicated to the TV show Mahabharat, that I follow. They were discussing whether Draupadi was 'chaste' enough to be regarded as 'Sati' alongside Sati, Sita, Savitri etc..One girl listed the criteria for being Sati. Here's a conversation that followed.

XYZ : Sati - in a broader sense- refers to all the women who are chaste, loyal and unflinchingly faithful to their husbands.

Draupadi's name occurs in the Panchakanya's list- for a different reason.

But to answer your question, Draupadi is also considered a Sati for the simple reason that she did epitomize the qualities mentioned above. She was chaste loyal and devoted to all her five husbands. When Jayadrath abducts her, the way she describes the Pandavas is so beautiful.

Yudhishthira claims that the loved Arjuna the most, but that's just his opinion. Even if we assume she did love Arjuna the most, she did so covertly- never overtly. There's not one incident in the entire MB which supports this charge on her.

In fact after Bhima rips of the divine Mani from Ashwathama's head, and presents it to Drauapdi, she gives it to Yudhishthira - not Arjuna

When Virata throws dice on Yudhishthira's cheek and he starts bleeding Drauapdi rushes to him to staunch the flow of blood, despite the fact that Yudhishthira ignored her pleas for help when tormented by Keechak.

The Drauapdi of the original MB was a noble lady.

AFAIK, her so-called relationship with Karna is contrived, convoluted and crass.

It is said that the characteristic of a Sati lady is that she does not suffer widowhood. Draupadi too didn't.

Now before everyone jumps at me pointing that Mandodari was a Sati and Ravana died before her, I would like to explain. out that for a period of twelve days after a man's death, his wife is still considered a wife. it is only after the thirteenth day ceremony is performed that she is considered a widow. If within a period of tweleve days after her husband's death, his wife too dies, she is considered to have died a suhagan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME : What a disgustingly misogynistic set of criteria of 'Sati' listed in the previous page!! Especially the one about a woman not suffering widowhood and dying within 12 days of husband's death. And this epithet is supposed to be a matter of pride for women? No wonder why India is so f**ked up to the core.

I hope Draupadi is NOT a sati, because she's the only likable woman I find in entire Indian mythology. If she qualifies for that title, she's officially struck off from my mind.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XYZ : Do loyalty, fidelity respect and honour towards one's husband come under the category of "misogynisctic" ?

No, India is not f**ked to the core because of these values.

Rather, the West is f**ked to the core because of the absence of these values.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME : Yes it is.

And the fact you don't understand this is the reason why India is one of the most dangerous places for women.

Spitting on those 'values' of yours would be an insult to my saliva. And I have no regret for this statement of mine. Any sane person who has read your post, anyone who has slightest regard for humanity and hopes for a more free and equal world would agree with me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
ME : Ofcourse women were (and are) considered as properties of men. Why else is daughter called 'paraya dhan' (literally - another man's property)? Why else is husband called 'Swami' (literally - owner/master)? Master of what? A slave or a commodity! Free humans do not have masters. Why else no one among Pandavas even bothered to ask Draupadi's opinion before deciding that they all would marry her? When Karna justified Draupadi's disrobing by claiming that Draupadi was already lost when Pandavas were lost, why else couldn't knowledgeable people like Vidur and Bheeshm think of a rebuttal? Because they knew that woman is a man's property that he has now lost to another man.

But despite being treated like shit all your life, if you still consider it to be a matter of pride and the purpose of your life to lick your husband's feet incessantly, and jump into fire at his death, you are an ideal woman! That's Great Indian Kaalchaar for you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XYZ : We indians have the culture where women perform their duty as a daughter,wife,mother,daughter in law in a religious manner...this is what we are born with and is in our blood how much modern we become...this is the reason why we have so much of respect for our elderly people...why still infront of our parents and in laws we still bow our heads...husband in india or in western countries are karta of the family...even in christianity during marriage wife takes oath to love and care for her husband and his family and husbamd take oath of taking responsibility of fulfilling all the needs of his husband...it is not vice vrsa...in western countries too husband is a master of the family...is the head and takes all the duty...isnt it an exception when a husband is taking care of family sitting at home cooking food for his wife waiting for her in the evening and wife comes from office ask her husband to serve food for her...dear even a woman doesnot feel good to marry a man who will be dependent on her rather she will always ask for a partner whom she will feel dependent on...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this I was warned by the MODs and my post was deleted and they continued with their patriarchy licking posts.

When we discuss issues like rape, bride burning, honour killing, etc we tend to see them in isolation however almost no effort is done to delve deep into this sort of deep entrenched and widely accepted culture of misogyny that breeds them.

The question is -- Isn't it our defeat that a large chunk of Indian women themselves (and that too educated ones using most modern technology) suffer from such Stockholm syndrome and consider feminists and liberals as their enemies and proudly lend their shoulders to a thoroughly sexist and abusive culture and its role-models? How does one, then, respond to arguments like **
see women here have no problem with it, then what is your problem**?




@Draupadi, am adding Sita alsoSmile...I feel It is true that in every Indian Women, we do have Sita and Draupadi. However women are still exploited despite of the fact that women can also be a Durga and Kali if need arises... But Sita and Draupadi Both, of them have shaped the Indian psyche... They were torch bearers of women's rights who have only grown more relevant in the modern age... Let's analyze all the aspects of their struggle and story, and understand how the modern day women can relate with them...Both of them also challenges the male authority structures, but in different ways. Draupadi questions why she is seen as something to be bartered in a wager, suggesting that the notion of womanhood, in general, is not something to be seen as objects. Sita's devotion to Lord Ram is the standard for all loyalty, yet she refuses to stand by him when she cannot be welcomed back to Ayodha with open and authentic reception, leaving him to be alone.

In the modern predicament, both of them are seen in some level of divergent lights. Draupadi is seen as someone who forces men to acknowledge their own savagery and cruelty, as she does not fight back, but rather devotes herself to Krishna during the disrobing...While Sita is the epitome of devotion, there is a tendency to dismiss her as the victim of patriarchy. This is a misreading of her because she, like Lord Ram, is a product of the time period which curtailed everyone's freedom. The tendency to reduce her to this quality is one element that might cause her to be viewed in a different light than Draupadi.

A man is born free and lives free but a woman compromises at every nook and corner..either in the name of society or her frail condition..so we have a Sita and Draupadi syndrome still rampant in modern Women of India..the situation of women in the developed countries too..and came to the conclusion that even they are as submissive as SITA and as assertive as Draupadi..what I mean to say.. that terms are dictated to her as to how she should be and what she should do by the society or by men..or the Media.Smile


Edited by Vinzy - 08 February 2014 at 1:53am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Angel-likeDevil

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 1:57am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Rehanism

There wasn't any question of losing cool or losing argument, because this wasn't an argument per se. It was a discussion on Draupadi's character and I expressed my disgust at glorification of the concept of Sati which, besides slavish devotion to husband, also considers woman's death before / immediately after husband as a virtue - and that's a horrible thing. I don't think my outrage was uncalled for.


Based on the discussion you reproduced, I didn't get the impression that XYZ was condoning Sati. XYZ seemed to be expounding on what qualified for satitva back then. Perhaps, it's best to ask XYZ for a clarification on whether XYZ was promoting sati in any shape or form before taking umbrage.





Ofcourse she was. She didn't try to defend or clarify herself when I expressed my disgust on her statement on widowhood (and that was a general statement, not dedicated to her, but to the concept of Sati). She in fact went on to cover that up as 'values' like 'fiedelty, loyalty and honour'. She could have said  something like 'Oh, I don't support such things. I was merely stating why Draupadi is called a Sati'.

But I didn't post this conversation to get it decided who was right on that occasion nor to analyze Draupadi's character. My objective was to bring into notice the larger issue of deep seated and well accepted misogyny in our society, with an example.





Edited by Rehanism - 08 February 2014 at 2:21am

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 5:13am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

I get what you are trying to say about patriarchy and issues with perception of women in Indian culture. As a woman, these concepts like sati' definitely do piss me off. I do have a problem with some notions women themselves adhere to. Unfortunately, as Mister. K pointed out, your approach was wrong. You failed to explain what exactly the problem with the notions and why they can lead to bigger issues.

 

"Loyalty, fidelity, respect and honor towards one's husband" To me that is a very sound concept. These values are some of the fundamental building blocks of a relationship. A wife should have these feelings toward her husband. But marriage is a two way street that demands reciprocity. It should be complemented with "Loyalty, fidelity, respect and honor towards one's wife".

 

Indian traditions suffer because there is no balance or reciprocity. There are many lopsided expectations of the wife, but not many of the husband. There is an unfair imbalance. So we do need to address these issues. Although as a caution, not everyone adheres or believes in the lopsided notions. I think we can use this topic to address these issues.

 



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.





Edited by Rehanism - 08 February 2014 at 5:39am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

SophiSays

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 12:58pm | IP Logged
Rehan, I share your revulsion for barbaric social practices. I too find sexism and male chauvinism deplorable. But denigration of women is a global problem; ensuring the elimination of violence against women in all its forms is a global priority.

What according to you is the cause behind the male dominance? Culture? Religion? Tradition? Nature? Bear in mind that if the problem exists across different religions or across different cultures, then the cause could be more deep rooted than you think it is.

More importantly, what according to you is the fix for the problem? Are we going to keep on cursing and condemning or are we going to do something about it?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Angel-likeDevil

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 1:11pm | IP Logged

I see two choices. Either be a reformist like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and fight against social evils or focus on genetics.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do women HAVE to be thin??

2 3 4

LadyDabangg 29 2033 24 March 2014 at 12:34pm
By Lavendar
Who is the worst among prominent politicians?

2 3 4 5 6 7

pogo 49 2887 26 March 2010 at 11:18am
By _Angie_
Women equal rights vs Women Reservation

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vinzy 71 6555 02 September 2009 at 4:08am
By angelic_devil
Inferiority complex among desi's

2 3

raj5000 20 1458 10 March 2008 at 7:57am
By corvette
r women meaner to women?

2 3 4

mkzara 25 2767 23 February 2007 at 12:14pm
By Morning_Dew

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.