Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women (Page 3)

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 13897

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 2:08pm | IP Logged
I think you should cool down and then think what you are writing. Even now you're unable to see what is wrong with what you have written and with the way you have written them. You're assuming a lot of things about what the other person might be thinking and becoming agitated based on that. To be very honest, you're not being logical.

Moreover, you might like to think that you are more intelligent and more liberated than others but nothing gives you the right to look down on others and ridicule them just because they view some qualities in life as good which you don't.


Edited by souro - 08 February 2014 at 2:11pm
K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 1147

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 5:30pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro



I think you should cool down and then think what you are writing. Even now you're unable to see what is wrong with what you have written and with the way you have written them.




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.
return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21527

Posted: 08 February 2014 at 6:01pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.


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


How genetics?
K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 1147

Posted: 09 February 2014 at 12:18am | IP Logged

Originally posted by return_to_hades



How genetics?




Behavioral genetics to be precise.

We need to study the inheritance of behavioral traits so we can establish causal relationships between genes and behavior. The way it works is to first observe the behavioral pattern (male dominance in our case), then correlate that behavior to known brain areas and then understand the development of that system via genetics.

I am not sure if you are familiar with the brain's reward system and how it works? Basically, rewards serve as reinforcers. Certain behaviors (like aggression for instance) are presented with reinforcers causing the behavior's occurrence to increase. Dopamine chemical is the reinforcer released by the brain in the case of aggression.

It gets complicated after this (searching for "Quantitative trait loci" and stuff like that) but the basic premise is to associate genes to behavior. Once we have the mapping for male dominance, it is a matter of treating it as a genetic disorder and inserting "corrective" genes into the system. Most of it is early stage development but, in time, reprogramming the human system to have the desired traits seems entirely possible.

You may Google "behavioral genetics" to understand more.  It even comes up in the nature vs. nurture debate that you seem to be well-versed in.


return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21527

Posted: 09 February 2014 at 7:13pm | IP Logged
^^

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.
return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21527

Posted: 09 February 2014 at 7:38pm | IP Logged
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.
return_to_hades IF-Veteran Member
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 21527

Posted: 09 February 2014 at 8:16pm | IP Logged
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.

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

LeadNitrate

K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 1147

Posted: 09 February 2014 at 11:32pm | IP Logged


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.

Go to top

Related Topics

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

2 3 4

Author: LadyDabangg   Replies: 29   Views: 2204

LadyDabangg 29 2204 24 March 2014 at 12:34pm by Lavendar
Who is the worst among prominent politicians?

2 3 4 5 6 7

Author: pogo   Replies: 49   Views: 3078

pogo 49 3078 26 March 2010 at 11:18am by _Angie_
Women equal rights vs Women Reservation

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author: -Believe-   Replies: 71   Views: 6948

-Believe- 71 6948 02 September 2009 at 4:08am by angelic_devil
Inferiority complex among desi's

2 3

Author: raj5000   Replies: 20   Views: 1547

raj5000 20 1547 10 March 2008 at 7:57am by corvette
r women meaner to women?

2 3 4

Author: mkzara   Replies: 25   Views: 2964

mkzara 25 2964 23 February 2007 at 12:14pm by Morning_Dew

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

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.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index