Debate Mansion

   

Stockholm Syndrome among (Indian) Women (Page 4)

Post Reply New Post

Page 4 of 44

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13885

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 12:49am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism


 In India the most common blessing to a woman is 'Saubhagyavati bhava', which insinuates 'May your husband outlive you'. 
That will be Sada suhagan raho, not Saubhagyavati bhava.

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 4)" 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!

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 5:25am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by Rehanism


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

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 6:23am | IP Logged
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.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20401

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 8:02am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

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.



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.


Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 9:18am | IP Logged
"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 February 2014 at 11:34am

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3458

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 9:34am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

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.

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.


BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 9:57am | IP Logged

^^ great thread Rehanism and great counter-points from everyone.

i agree with many of your observations Rehanism  There's no question that sati is abhorrent. While there might have been a historical context for it, no one should have been forced into it... To the extent it was out of free-will, it is perhaps no different from euthanasia... perhaps as understandable to those who think suicide should be permissible. The question then would be if the sati women of the scriptures did it of it own free will.. I think they did, but i might be wrong.

that apart, there does seem to be a strong streak running through our culture where women were considered property, being asked to prove their chastity even if it meant self-immolation, while the men were free to have countless concubines. There's an unfairness to it all..

the point i disagree with is the "sada suhagan" bit. I seriously dont think anyone means it the way you have it. But if they do, it is perhaps because they don't think the woman would be happy living without her husband, and so it's not out of a male-oriented nasty intent. I really think all it is is someone wishing the woman a happy married life. It's unfortunate if it is taken literally.

another thing, the points you have made are applicable to other religions/ cultures as well. No one's been immune to social evils, though they have manifested themselves in different ways. It just seems like something societies everywhere evolved to, either because it was expedient for the men in control or for the greater good at that point of time... Of course we need to evolve, and that's one of the positives we have going for us since our philosophies are not meant to be bound in time...  .  

hope i made some sense in what has otherwise been a great discussion.Smile

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 10 February 2014 at 11:03am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism


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.




Regardless of your justifications to censure her profanely, the parallel to a patriarchal society remains, where the underlying theme is of one making himself an authority figure, rationally or through violence, and trying to exert control over others including but not limited to women. What I am saying is that you cannot unilaterally decide what is "due".

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 2021 24 March 2014 at 12:34pm
By Lavendar
Who is the worst among prominent politicians?

2 3 4 5 6 7

pogo 49 2882 26 March 2010 at 11:18am
By _Angie_
Women equal rights vs Women Reservation

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vinzy 71 6521 02 September 2009 at 4:08am
By angelic_devil
Inferiority complex among desi's

2 3

raj5000 20 1448 10 March 2008 at 7:57am
By corvette
r women meaner to women?

2 3 4

mkzara 25 2751 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.