 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
30 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
41 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
97 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
1 new comment | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
|
| | "That is what Nisha Sharma, a 22-year old software developer, did to her greedy would-be husband, Munish Dalal. The act has turned her into a Indian celebrity overnight, with thousands of supporters writing and phoning their support. Young women appear unanimous in condemming the groom. 'The man should be put behind bars,' fumed college student Shruti Mathur. Most young men feel the same way, but some feel that dowries are okay, if given willingly by the girl's parents. Viewpoints largely depend on which end of the social spectrum you come from.
In contrast to the strong sentiments against dowry expressed by the middle class, Chandna, a 20-year-old who works as a domestic help in south Delhi, said despite what the 'big people' felt, those of her social status cannot get away from the tyranny of the system. 'How will I get married if my parents don't give some dowry to my husband-to-be?' Chandna asked innocently, quite unaware of the ripples that Nisha's act of social defiance had caused.
"The custom of dowry may have had its origins in the system of streedhan - the woman's share of parental wealth given to her at the time of her marriage. But that was in an era where women had no right of inheritance; streedhan was a round-about way for women to access this wealth. Nowdays, it has mutated into gifts of gold, clothes, consumer durable goods and large sums of cash. Rather than enriching the bride, it impoverishes the bride's family.
"Netherless, despite its illegality, dowry continues - and with it, the habit of the family of the groom extorting the bride's family for every rupee they can get.
According to a 16 state survey by the All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA), the practice of giving and taking dowry, and the consequent harassment to young women, continues unabated. This, despite changes in the law, additional provisions in the criminal procedure code and years of campaigning and awareness building by women's groups and others. The survey, which drew upon responses to 9,000 questionnaires, confirms that far from declining, the practice has actually grown over the last decade.
"At worst, the practice results in deaths.
It has taken 16 long years for a court to convict five people charged with the murder of [Kamlakar Bhavsar]. She was killed by her husband, his parents and sisters. The reason? She did not bring in enough dowry, and also refused to stand by and accept the torture and harassment that was meted out to her.
"Hats off to Nisha Sharma, I say." |
| | |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Are we westerners that much better? | | | | by joshv |  | | | at Sun 18 May 6:47am | score of 1.5 interesting | | | | | | |
Sit down and watch "Father of the Bride". This movie depicts the modern American twist on the dowry quite nicely (granted, highly exaggerated for comedic effect).
The bride's family, ideally, is still expected to pay for the lion's share of the wedding. Now granted, among my friends, this tends not to be the case — as American weddings have gottens so idiotically expensive, pretty much everyone has to chip in. Or perhaps my friends and their families are just not all that wealthy.
I doubt anyone in the US has every died in a fight over who pays for the wedding. But I guarantee that those fights do happen, and sometimes the cops get called.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 3. Re: Are we westerners that much better? | | | | by MAYORBOB |  | | | at Sun 18 May 7:03am | score of 2.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
As a former and soon to be once again Father of the Bride, I derived a good bit of entertainment from watching the movie. However, I think that the day when the parents of the bride were on the hook for the entirety of the costs of the wedding are on the exit ramp of tradition. I know that when our youngest daughter got married, both his parents and us got together and scoped a plan that would allow them to have the wedding that they truly wanted. Essentially, what it came down to was us splitting the costs of everything where it was a truly common cost (e.g., church, priest, limo service, flowers, photographer, rehearsal dinner costs, etc.) and paying per head for the guests that each side of the family was going to invite.
It was truly a great experience because it allowed us to sit down early with the bride and groom, make the decisions as to where the reception would be held, and plan mutually on what would happen, when, and how. I think it helped us to arrive at the wedding day as two families who were united in a common purpose — celebrating the union of our daughter and their son.
The younger daughter is getting married next year but they are following what I see becoming a trend among those who wait until their late 20s or early 30s to get hitched. They really don't want either of their parents to pay for the wedding. Because they're established in their careers and earning a decent buck and have a good bit of control over their personal lives, they have decided to extend that control to their wedding.
So, as a result of all of this, I don't have any Steve Martin-like moments to share in this thread. I got to walk down the aisle with one daughter, as I will with the next. Because the first one was so well planned without any rancor over who paid for this and who was on the hook for that, I was able to enjoy myself to the max at the reception. I am assuming that all I will have to do at the younger daughter's wedding is smile and enjoy myself again.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 4. Re: Are we westerners that much better? | | | | by silver222 |  | | | at Sun 18 May 9:39am | score of 3.5 funny | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
The bride's family, ideally, is still expected to pay for the lion's share of the wedding.
I think there's a good reason for that. Sit down 100 couples that are soon to be married. Ask them what their perfect wedding would be like (don't ask them together, separate the men and the women!)
Most of the women will have these huge elaborate plans, how many of the men will have that idea? The modern American wedding is done pretty much solely for the bride and her mother at this point. The groom just stands there and tries to look good in a tux.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 10. Re: Are we westerners that much better? | | | | by Checkers | | | | at Sun 18 May 12:20pm | score of 2.5 funny | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
By extension, that means that same-sex weddings will be either outrageously lavish in the case of two women, or sublimely simple where two men wed.
I leave humorous hyperbole to the wit of followup posters.
"If Plastic was any prettier, I'd have to stick my dick in it." --CaptainLiberal
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 5. Re: Are we westerners that much better? | | | | by veratrine | | | | at Sun 18 May 10:00am | score of 2.5 astute | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
Yes, it is a great deal worse. If paying for the wedding caused the same problems, it would be illegal to ask the bride's family for a cent for the wedding.
American weddings are expensive, but they don't have to be. It's culturally acceptable for us to get married by the county clerk for practically nothing. India is a culture where not only is the wedding an enormous and expensive celebration but on top of that, although it's illegal, huge amounts of wealth exchange hands between the families. And if the groom's family perceives that the bride brought inadequate wealth, she may die mysteriously.
How would you like to know that you had paid all you could to your son-in-law's family, hoping it would buy not just happiness for your daughter but continued life, only to find that his family had other ideas and your daughter was harrassed by her new inlaws for months before suddenly suffering a painful death for which no one would ever be brought to justice, in all likelihood? That's what the dowry tradition means in India, and that's why it's illegal. There is just no comparison to our American traditions.
eggiwegs...I'd like to smash 'em!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 7. Perspective | | | | by Screename2000 | | | | at Sun 18 May 11:32am | score of 3.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
Before we Plasticians begin our typically ill-informed opinions, gross generalizations and lovely widesweeping culturally-reductive one-liners that typify responses to any article that does not involve America, allow me to provide some perspective.
Dowries involved a large payment, usually household goods (pots/pans to be used) and gold jewelry given to the bride (as a nest egg for a rainy day) and was meant for the new couple to help them begin their lives. The dowry was paid by the daughter's family because the new couple often lived with the groom's family who would support the couple for several years after marriage. Given that marriage took place at an early age in India at the time (though ceremonies occurred as early as 12, the bride only left to live with the groom a few years after puberty at 16), the daughter's family was offsetting the costs of the groom's family's expenses in supporting the new couple. Dowry was not about inheritance; it was about both families equally sharing the burden of helping the new couple within the context of the new couple becoming part of the groom's parents' extended family. Very wealthy Indians (obviously fewer percentage) used dowry as a showcase of one's social status and wealth. "Check out my daughter's wedding! See how much richer I am than you?"
Dowry is still widespread in India because new couples are still being supported by the grooms' families. The reason the practice of dowry still exists is because in the overwhelming number of cases, it does not involve a bride burning to death or outrageous demands as this one story portrays. This case is the exception not the rule. Extortion from the bride's family is not a "habit" in India, and saying so is callous ignorance. I know none of you have been immersed in Indian culture and are only exposed to such accounts as these in Western media so immediately think all marriages in India involve such horrendous circumstances. You're wrong. Hell, just look at the story: Nisha's become an "Indian celebrity overnight" for standing up against her groom's parents, given these circumstances. There are few families in India that have only sons and wouldn't sympathize with Nisha as much as any of you here. I'd like to see a bit more evidence of the occurrence of bride-burning/beating over dowry than what the author provides: a vague reference by an organization to the problem being "unabated" and one case which actually resulted in a conviction, albeit too delayed for the author. P.S. How long does a murder conviction take in America after all appeals?
Ok, with that perspective, dowry is a serious problem in India because even a small percentage of despicable dowry demands means many lives harmed in a country of a billion. And yes, it's obviously more of a problem than any kind of pseudo-dowry here in America (on which I disagree with MAYORBOB and believe still exists here within the lower and upper echelons of American society, just as dowry is most popular with such strata in India). Further, any system which can be manipulated to take advantage of women will be done so. Though I despise reading pathetically inaccurate accounts of the dowry system by Westerners trying to get their Boys/Girls Scouts' moral high for the day, I despise the dowry system even more. Any groom or his family that accepts let alone requests dowry should be socially stigmatized by Indian society. The many daughter's families who want to give large dowries as a way of socially establishing their position and wealth should not be allowed to do so and similarly stigmatized for continuing a sexist practice. Both parties should face fines and possibly imprisonment even if no complaint is filed. The fines collected can support the system of compliance and monitoring.
Please don't make the task of individuals such as myself calling for reform more difficult with any further ignorant, inaccurate, uneducated statements regarding Indian society and culture. Just go bash Bush somewhere instead to make yourself feel liberal and good.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 16. Re: Perspective | | | | by Eric Blair | | | | at Sun 18 May 6:33pm | score of 3 informative | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Yes, it looks like at least some Plasticians can have "typically ill-informed opinions." Your posts about India unfortunately often fall into the "typically ill-informed" category. Even worse, some Plasticians actually seem to believe that you know what you are writing about.
Let me show you how little you actually know about India. This is Your Post.
Yes, not one of the potential brides was a physician. The reason that you gave for this is wrong. Actually you might be right about your opinion of my personality but that is not the reason I could not get a doctor. One reason is that, at least in my caste/sub-caste, medicine has become less popular with women. Computer science/engineering has become more popular. It is generally easier to go to America or other countries as a computer scientist/engineer than as a doctor. Also comp.sci./eng. does not require passage of difficult exams like the United States Medical Licensing Exam Parts I,II,and III. Back in the 1980s it was far easier for guys to marry doctors, today it is more diffcult.
Also you have to remember that in other castes medicine is still quite popular among girls. I could have married a woman of any caste but many girls and their families in India only want to marry people of the same caste. For example, my wife only married me because I was her caste, if I was in a different caste she would not have done it.
You obviously do not know how the marriage system actually works in India. The standard method (at least in the state where I was born, and based on talking with others, something commonly practiced throughout much of India) is for the potential groom to meet the girl for around 10-15 minutes. The questions asked are standard questions, about education, jobs, etc. A person's personality is not really revealed in this situation. The potential groom's family then leaves the girl's parents' house. At least in my state (and probably pretty much throughout India) what happens next is the groom then decides whether he wants the girl or not. Girls are sometimes given a choice or (in some cases ) they are not given a choice as to whether they like the groom or not.
That is how things worked in my interviews. I talked with the girl for 10-15 minutes and made a decision.
Also, some women who are doctors only want to marry doctors. It is a prestige thing. Let's use another example. When I got married I had a college degree. If I did not have that degree my wife (and the majority of women I interviewed) would not have married me, even if I had the same level of wealth that I presently have.
Your post that I linked to received a score of 3 yet what you wrote was completely wrong. The people who modded you up possibly thought that you knew what you were writing about.The point of your post was that it was my personality that was the reason I did not marry a doctor. My personality, as I explained, had nothing to do with it. Your post was actually disingenuous. I did not respond then because I wanted to see if the moderation system would actually work properly. It did not.
I showed your post to my wife. My wife was born in India and lived there for 25 years. She graduated from a school the equivalent of Duke, USC, Notre Dame, etc. In other words, she graduated from a good school, though not a top school. She also thought you did not know what you are writing about. Having seen more of your posts, she felt that you were not nearly as "well-informed" about India and what goes on there as you seem to think. Her words about your linked post?: "This guy got a 3 karma for this bullshit?" Looks like the "Web's Smartest Readers" may not, at least in this case, have been so smart after all.
Your theory for the reason for the dowry might be correct, but their are also other views. (I don't know what enlightened source or book you picked it from). One theory my people have told me is that women did not work outside the home in the good old days so a wife could be seen as an economic burden. A dowry helped to offset the burden.
You despise the dowry system. OK, that's great. Remember, however, that many women and their families want them to "marry up" in life. So the women in many cases are reaping an economic benefit. I was offered dowries of $50,000. If a married a girl who came with that dowry she would have received an economic benefit, as my family was far more wealthy than hers'.
I know of a recent case where a guy got a $200,000 dowry. He was a wealthy hotel/resteraunt owner and his family was rich, much richer than mine. So the family of the girl (from India)wanted to move up the ladder. Instead of just being rich in India the father wanted his daughter to be rich in America, a major step up the ladder. At this point that girl is pretty much at the top of theread the entire comment...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 17. Somebunny Upset! | | | | by Screename2000 | | | | at Sun 18 May 7:58pm | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
Eric, let me fill you in on a little secret: the post that's got your balls in a knot was a jab at you, a joke, not an exposition on Indian culture. It was modded up because your constant posts about your "romantic" marriage to your wife shows you up for being an asshole, and everyone here agrees. And it has a grain of truth to it as well (since it's too subtle for your dumbass to get, let me help you out): your prospects sucked because most women who are well-educated in India are not going to risk ending up with an asshole who'd fly from America to India for the purpose of finding a life partner in 10-15 minutes. Obviously the only thing they can gauge and are looking for are wives more obedient than Indian-American women. It ain't no secret to women in India why schmucks like you are into the "arranged marriage to a FOB" motif.
I know many Indians in America who go through the exact process you talk about: flying to India, seeing a hundred photos, interviewing the 10-15 hottest, selecting the best looking/most obedient/most economically beneficial of the dozen or so. Here's a little insight for everyone as to these individuals, including Eric Blair who get a "mail-order" partner. They are always male . Ever wonder why? Because women don't have a fairy land of darkies from which they can import spineless husbands which they view as commodoties with the benefit of fucking and one day possibly even loving (but hey, if not, America's the sweet land of divorce! Send the bitch back if it don't work out!). Because many educated South Asian men, foregoing the benefit of education and life in a liberal society, are still looking for conservative wives, who are virgins (as I'm sure your wife was and given your knowledge of brothels you probably weren't), obedient (who controls the money in your house Eric?), ass-kissing (who initiates sex in your marriage Eric? Can your wife deny you? Has she ever?), per dhona (who cooks Eric since you both work? Who cleans the house?) beauty queens and, nowadays, who can earn lots of moolah. That's why your ass went to India, that's why every sand nigga from the West goes. So if you want a reality check on Indian culture, trust me, I'm your man. You take advantage of the cache of your American life, and you take advantage of Indian women's poverty, desperation, conservatism, lack of freedom, etc. That's why you had to goto India and find a wife rather than meet a lovely lady on shaadi.com who's also born and raised in the West and wouldn't stand for the kind of shit you spew. That's why, dear friend, you're a grade A asshole, and I'm a genius.
As for your point that was actually on topic: brides and their families who willingly support a dowry system because they're able to "move up" in society (i.e., buy their way into richer families) are making life that much tougher for all brides, especially ones with families who are a) not as resourceful or b) don't give as much a shit about their daughter. These willing supporters of dowry (I know there are many, my parents for one) are just as guilty as the grooms and their families sucking up the dowry cash. That's something this western audience doesn't get: the dowry system is a cultural practice that is not only accepted, but many times lauded by brides and their families as a matter of prestige or, as you mentioned, an avenue to greater social status. But it's also not an excuse for your backwards ass nor your wife's (if she can't get into America without buying your dick for a few lakhs, her tough goddamn luck) to try to keep India in the last fucking century. As for India being lawless, give any CM or Police Commissioner (including your uncle's drinking buddy) 10% of any dowry confiscated as illegal contraband and I assure you the problem of dowries will be gone within a month in India. India's not lawless, it just works with a different set of rules that people in India are too unwilling to formalize because they haven't had the benefit of a good dose of political postmodernism. Your pathetic little threat to me shows that very well. Now, be a good little boy and show this post to your wife.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 18. Re: Perspective | | | | by Ahriman | | | | at Mon 19 May 5:55am | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
Eric, it's hard for me to describe how disgusted some parts of your post makes me feel.
For instance, you briefly describe a system where one family (A) pays another family (B) shitloads of money to accept their daughter. If B accepts it will improve the financial position of A.
Apparently an incentive to accept the marriage is the height of the sum offered, so even to B the amount must be considerable. Which means that for A this is a burden we cannot imagine (having saved up for it for years, possibly being in debt because of it for many more). You admit the girl in question frequently has no choice in the matter, and even if there seems to be a choice we have to consider pressure from and sense of responsibility towards her own family.
And you condone all this?
So you despise dowry. So what?To quote Metallica ("Holier than Thou") "Who the Hell are you?"
The greater injustice is to recognise it, and not act accordinly. Who gives a hoot about who 'screename2000' is, or wether he might even like to torture puppies in his spare time. He makes a strong case against the dowry, it's all that matters for the discussion.
My grandmother had an arranged marriage at the age of 9. I do not believe this makes me any more entitled to have an opinion on the matter than my western friends whose grandparents (mostly) married out of love.
Locked in the arms of a crazy life - CB
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 19. Re: Somebunny Upset! | | | | by Eric Blair |  | | | at Mon 19 May 9:40am | score of 0.5 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
Your post is factually incorrect. As of this time, your post has a positive moderation, but it is just plain wrong. Let me go through the process to show you where it is wrong.
According to you, the people who are in America who go to back to India to get married "are always male." You boldfaced this to emphasize your argument. You are profoundly incorrect.
I know of at least 10 girls who were brought up in this country who went back to India to get married.
Also, just go to a major metropolitan area like New York, Chicago, Silicon Valley area, Los Angeles, etc. Ask people if they know of cases where Indian-American girls went through the Indian marriage process.
I think you are living in Mississippi. If that is the case, what may be going on here is that you have not seen the larger Indian communities. You may be just living in a small world. You are wrong here. The daughter of the owner of one of the Indian resteraunts I regularly go to just went through the Indian marriage process.
Now, because these Indian-American women have American citizenship the process is somewhat modified. There have been cases where, instead of the man choosing from a number of potential female brides, the American girl could choose from a number of potential hisbands. So, it is a little different from the traditional model. But it still is the basic Indian marriage system, it just got modified because in this situation the American woman would probably be in high demand by Indian males, as she is a ticket to America. Your idea that it is only Indian-America males who get "mail-order" brides is incorrect.
I did show your post #17 to my wife. She again said that you don't know that much about what you write about, as she herself knows of cases where an Indian-American woman gets a "mail-order" husband. Also, my wife said that you appear to be a very bitter man.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 20. Re: Somebunny Upset! | | | | by munchkin | | | | at Mon 19 May 11:27am | score of 3 succinct | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
I know of at least 10 girls who were brought up in this country who went back to India to get married. ... Ask people if they know of cases where Indian-American girls went through the Indian marriage process.
In America, we preferred to be called women.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 21. Re: Somebunny Upset! | | | | by Screename2000 | | | | at Mon 19 May 11:55am | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
I know a few women born and raised in the west (U.S., England, Canada) who went to India to get married. Their number is few and proportionally very low in comparison to males. Besides, their marriages are almost always at the behest of their parents, often against the woman's wishes, and the success rate of such marriages is low (at least in comparison to the men, given the expectations of South Asian men from the motherland for a submissive wife, and unless the bride was raised under parental "lock-down," which is often the case, she's too strong-willed to put up with that crap). The only people I know who willingly go through the cross-national arranged marriage process are men looking for virginal brides (I noticed you didn't point out how I was factually incorrect about the assumptions I made about yours and your wife's virginity, the delegation of duties in your household, etc.).
You think I am living in Mississippi is correct thinking bhaisaheb, unfortunately, if your argument is that people residing in Mississippi have no knowledge of what goes on in the world outside them, the argument is an idiotic act of desperation. I assure you I know more about desi livin' in Silicon Valley than you ever will. Most of South Asian American reality is inaccessible to self-proclaiming millionaire fob's with mail-order brides, such as yourself. Stick to your pathetic attempts at mimicing "Amrikan" lifestyle at your lame ass parties with fellow boaters where you chat about how Robert Mondavi is the best wine, avoiding at all costs any discussion about anything Indian, talking in English despite Hindi being everyone's first language.
As for why I'm so vehement in my response to you on this issue, I'll be utterly frank: we're posting on a cracker website and you're doing nothing more than painting South Asians with the same fucking stereotypical brush that I'm ardently fighting against. Fucks like you give me and so many other South Asian men (here and even in India!) a bad name. Your wife's pop psychology is crap. I, and so many other Indian-Americans, are well aware that we can go to India and find a greencard lovin' hot piece of ass to bring home and screw and birth babies and cook for us, that won't mind being our parent's retirement plan, that we can put to work so we can buy that brand new Lexus that every sand nigga drives, who's never even been looked at by another man let alone fucked (after all, when you view women as property, you certainly don't want used goods! Right Eric?). But here's the thing pal, we're not like you. We don't want that. We don't want to view women as potential sources of income to be measured against each other economically and then choose the best partner. Here's a revelation for you: WE THINK IT'S FUCKING DISGUSTING. And even more so, WE HATE MOTHERFUCKERS LIKE YOU WHO MAKE THAT DISGUSTING SHIT OUT TO BE "INDIAN." Now do you understand Mr. Blair? Since you enjoy crying to your wife, let her read this one too. Personally, I could care less if the idiot enjoys having been treated like a piece of ass. It's how she was probably raised by her parents and certainly the way society trained her. Women are constricted from birth. She has an excuse. She deserves sympathy. You, Eric Blair, do not.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 24. Re: Somebunny Upset! | | | | by Frito KAL | | | | at Mon 19 May 2:26pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
But you didn't answer his questions.
Who controls the money in your house?
Who initiates sex?
Who owns the cars, the house?
Who cooks, who cleans? Who will leave their job to raise children?
Who balances the checkbook?
Can your wife go out BY HERSELF without you having a hissy fit?
...
I had a husband like you once. He was white. And over here, in Enlightenment Land, where genders are equal...
We call what you do, spouse abuse.
And to answer the comments I'm -sure- your 'wife' will make — I'm not single, barren, jobless or lacking in appearance, intelligence, money or happiness.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 25. two assholes | | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 20 May 3:29am | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
in a no-holds-barred battle to the death. you're both such idiots — blair for being such a pathological control freak, and screenname for being the ball-less emasculated little bitch proposing ways to "correct" sexism that are so harebrained, so militantly stupid that gloria steinem and camille paglia would not have considered them even in their most bellicose phases. i'm so stunned, i cant figure out who to root for.
but please, continue.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 26. Re: two assholes | | | | by ceylon | | | | at Tue 20 May 5:59am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
I agree. While this argument has been running I have had mod points, and have been trying to find a way to end the discussion. It has devolved into personal attacks.
There may be some merit in the arguments on both sides, but I don't want to encourage this sort of thing, so I have refrained.
This is something that Blair and Screenname need to solve between themselves.
Possibly at dawn, and at 20 paces from the tone of it.
Ceylon
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 11. Re: Are we westerners that much better? | | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Sun 18 May 12:56pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
I'm at that age when many of my friends are getting engaged and/or married. So, I'm seeing a lot of wedding mania in the last couple years.
Believe me, in 90% of the cases I'm seeing, it's only the bride that wants the big lavish wedding. She's the one insisting on the huge ceremony with hundreds of guests and a zillion flowers and an enormous reception with band and dancing and lavish dinner. She's the one that wants to spend a fortune on a dress she will wear once. The guy stands back and lets the wedding whirlwind go on around him, confiding quietly to me that he can only hope is fiance will return to her usual sane self after the damned wedding is over.
It's not that these guys don't want to have a nice wedding, it's that they'd be perfectly happy to buy a bouquet for the bride, get married in the park in front of both sets of parents and grandparents, have a nice lunch with the dozen guests, and be done with it. (Which is, in fact, exactly what I had planned once.)
Given that every case of "big wedding" I've seen has been very definitely bride-driven, I think it's perfectly appropriate that the groom's family not be stuck with the bill.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. Please stand by whilst I argue with myself. | | | | by wrestler | | | | at Sun 18 May 10:44am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I started this comment intending to argue against India's anti-dowry law as a restraint on the freedom of contract. Then I read this page on divorce in India. It appears that divorce is harder to get in India than is typical in the west, and that the stigma for women is much more severe. So circumstances combine to make Indian marriage even more like slavery than it is in the west, at least for women.
Where marriage is more like slavery, a dowry is more like buying a person. While allowing someone to buy someone else might increase the freedom to contract of the buyer, it decreases that freedom for the person who is bought.
Of course talking about this in terms of slavery risks overstating the case. While Indian marriage might be more like slavery and dowries might be more like a slave purchase, this is just a difference in degree from western tradition. Indian wives are not slaves even if their lot is more slave-like than, say, British wives.
But Indian marriage is much the same with or without the dowry. Perhaps an unrepayable dowry might create additional pressure on the bride to tolerate the intolerable, but it just increases the pressure by a few millibars. The real pressure comes not from dowries or strict divorce laws, but from social stigma that is unreachable by law. Laws forbidding dowries or liberalizing divorce do little to dispell the stigma.
In the end I'm back where I started. A dowry is just one component of a marriage contract, which without more compelling reasons, should be left to the private parties negotiating the deal. Real freedom for India women will come with the economic prosperity necessary to give them better choices than a bad marriage, and economic prosperity is linked to such institutions as the freedom to contract. Allowing dowries isn't going to set Indian women free, but allowing freedom to contract might, eventually.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 8. Response to The One Point of Yours I Got | | | | by Screename2000 | | | | at Sun 18 May 11:38am | score of 0.5 incoherent | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
The real pressure comes not from dowries or strict divorce laws, but from social stigma that is unreachable by law. Laws forbidding dowries or liberalizing divorce do little to dispell the stigma.
Reforming social pressures and ideals is clearly preferable to legal reform or solutions. However, the two are not mutually exclusive and legal reform does yield real benefits to the situation. Without the illegalization of dowries, Nisha would have had no real recourse, and she would not be standing as an example upon which social ideologies are reforming as we speak.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 12. Re: Please stand by whilst I argue with myself. | | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Sun 18 May 1:14pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
Where marriage is more like slavery, a dowry is more like buying a person. Uhm... huh?
With slavery, the recipient of the person pays.
With dowry, the recipient of the person is paid.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 15. Re: Please stand by whilst I argue with myself. | | | | by robozoid | | | | at Sun 18 May 4:59pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
In the end I'm back where I started. A dowry is just one component of a marriage contract, which without more compelling reasons, should be left to the private parties negotiating the deal. Real freedom for India women will come with the economic prosperity necessary to give them better choices than a bad marriage, and economic prosperity is linked to such institutions as the freedom to contract. Allowing dowries isn't going to set Indian women free, but allowing freedom to contract might, eventually.
This is not a matter of contract law. As others have pointed out, in many strata of society a significant stigma is attached to an 'unmarried' woman of a certain age. Although one may have the "freedom" to refuse dowry, the social consequences (which are not recognized by pure economic principles) are severe.
As such, freedom is an illusion in this case. Although the problem is much reduced in today's India, it is still enough of a problem in certain parts of the country and in certain levels of society.
Karma Karma chameleon - you come and go, you come and go...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | | 23. A bit of historical perspective... | | | | by GraniteStater | | | | at Mon 19 May 1:09pm | score of 2 informative | | | | | | |
While the institution of dowry may be prevalent in some parts of India, its opposite, bride price, is the norm in others, where the ratio of eligible women to men favors the women.
India is a huge multicultural society — the norms in Punjab are quite different from the norms in Bengal.
That having been said, the Indian form of dowry is particularly pernicious — it would be more appropriately termed "groom price", as the bride does not maintain control over her dowry. In medieval European societies, where dowry was also prevalent, the bride retained control over her dowry, and could dispense with it as she saw fit. It was not simply folded into the groom's patrimony, as seems to be the case here.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled" ---Plutarch
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 27. My wedding story | | | | by 72beetle | | | | at Tue 20 May 9:24am | score of 2 brilliant | | | | | | |
I paid for my wedding out of my pocket. It cost me 35 bucks, with 10 dollars off from a coupon I got out of the pennysaver.
Did I have a big elaborate ceremony? HELL no. Why throw big money at a single event when you would be much better off throwing it at, oh, a down payment on a house instead?
My wife's first wedding cost over 10k — and the marriage lasted a little under 2 years. One of the reasons they fell apart was constant struggles with finances.
Our marriage (my first, her second) is now approaching the 8 year mark (come halloween) and going strong.
What the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand? Actually, quite a bit. The emphasis should be on the marriage, not the wedding, and no amount of dowry, legal or not, is going to change that fact. People that marry for status, people that marry from catalogs, people that let their families or their religion tell them who to marry will never truly be happy.
If you can't be happy in your marriage, then why the fuck would you get married in the first place?
-72
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
|
