How should India save its family values?

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
http://devdutt.com/articles/modern-mythmaking/is-divorce-an-indian-word.html

In India, everybody is either married or on the way to getting married. The unmarried man arouses curiosity, the unmarried woman pity.

Traditionally, no one asks if you want to marry. The spouse is simply chosen for you. Just as you don’t get to choose your gender or your parents (hence your caste, family or inheritance), you do not get to choose your husband or your wife. You have to submit to it. You have to adjust and accommodate just as you adjust and accommodate to your gender and your family.

But what if it does not work out. If the husband is a jerk or the wife a pain, could one terminate one’s marriage? Was divorce allowed in traditional Indian society? It’s a question that is difficult to answer.

Vyasa, the author of the pan-Indian epic, Mahabharata, arrogantly proclaims, “What is not there in the Mahabharata is not there anywhere!” But there is no mention of divorce anywhere in the Mahabharata. In the epic there are tales of men with many wives (Arjuna), a woman with many husbands (Draupadi), women who have sex before marriage (the birth of Karna), infidelity (the beheading of Renuka), women who want a man only to have children (Uloopi), women who want a man for pleasure alone (Urvashi), men who dress as women (Brihanalla), men who force themselves on women (Jayadratha), husbands comfortable with their wives going to other men (Pandu), men who become women (Bhangashvana), men who have mistresses (Dhritarashtra). So many stories of sex and sexuality and the social context of the same, but none of a man and woman terminating their relationship as husband and wife and moving on.
 

prasadr14

PrasadReddy
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
1,998
Likes
7,120
Country flag
But what if it does not work out. If the husband is a jerk or the wife a pain, could one terminate one’s marriage? Was divorce allowed in traditional Indian society? It’s a question that is difficult to answer.

Vyasa, the author of the pan-Indian epic, Mahabharata, arrogantly proclaims, “What is not there in the Mahabharata is not there anywhere!” But there is no mention of divorce anywhere in the Mahabharata. In the epic there are tales of men with many wives (Arjuna), a woman with many husbands (Draupadi), women who have sex before marriage (the birth of Karna), infidelity (the beheading of Renuka), women who want a man only to have children (Uloopi), women who want a man for pleasure alone (Urvashi), men who dress as women (Brihanalla), men who force themselves on women (Jayadratha), husbands comfortable with their wives going to other men (Pandu), men who become women (Bhangashvana), men who have mistresses (Dhritarashtra). So many stories of sex and sexuality and the social context of the same, but none of a man and woman terminating their relationship as husband and wife and moving on.

Divorce is a fairly new concept to Hindus.
If a man is a jerk and a woman a pain, I see them being jerk and a pain in their next marriage as well. If a man is violent, he will be violent in the next relationship as well.

Marriage like any relationship, be it sibling, parent, friend or neighbour needs nurturing and unlike all these relationships needs a lot of patience, understanding and forgiveness.

So, divorce from a abusive relationship is a must. The relationship can be spousal, sibling, parent, friend or neighbour.

Many(most) of the modern divorces happen not because of abuse. In fact people in abusive relationship out of fear of the other person tend to stick it out. Most divorces now a days happen because of lack of communication and ego. If this is the reason for divorce, I am afraid it is bound to continue in their next relationships as well.

Not saying Hindu relationships are good. In fact, I don't see a modern day Draupadi nor do we see a Sita. We hindus have regressed a lot from our glory days of Mahabharatha vis a vis our respect and rights to woman. The centuries of bigotry and male dominance needs to be washed away but I am afraid it will take time.
 

Rowdy

Co ja kurwa czytam!
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
3,255
Likes
3,045
One a more practical note we need to fight the propaganda aimed at women. As women decide (in most cases) and are limits to reproduction. As long as they present a good enough deal most men will marry.
If the careerist is hoping for a ready made husband at 30 and pop out a kid Just in time then lord save "Hindu" marriages.
 

jackprince

Turning into a frog
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,084
Likes
4,584
Country flag
http://devdutt.com/articles/modern-mythmaking/is-divorce-an-indian-word.html

In India, everybody is either married or on the way to getting married. The unmarried man arouses curiosity, the unmarried woman pity.

Traditionally, no one asks if you want to marry. The spouse is simply chosen for you. Just as you don’t get to choose your gender or your parents (hence your caste, family or inheritance), you do not get to choose your husband or your wife. You have to submit to it. You have to adjust and accommodate just as you adjust and accommodate to your gender and your family.
Whoever the author is (I did not bother going into the link and see the name of this worthless moron), he is completely divorced with reaity. Not only in this modern age, but even in earlier times, people had their freedom of accepting or rejecting brides or grooms aelected by the parents. Albeit men had more freedom and of course it was more of a family issue rather than social issue, hence not terribly highleghted matter. The function of 'arranging' marriage was never as hard and fast as this author seems to think. He seems to have derived the idea of arrange marriage by watching too many bollywood films and serials!

In most cases, even in past, the consent of both bride and groom's were usually taken; and they also mostly consented given marriage is a natural part of life and traditionally parents arranged those. So what was wrong in that? It was a norm in almost every civilised society which did not give open license to promiscuity.
 

DingDong

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
2,511
Likes
4,478
Country flag
Whoever the author is (I did not bother going into the link and see the name of this worthless moron), he is completely divorced with reaity. Not only in this modern age, but even in earlier times, people had their freedom of accepting or rejecting brides or grooms aelected by the parents. Albeit men had more freedom and of course it was more of a family issue rather than social issue, hence not terribly highleghted matter. The function of 'arranging' marriage was never as hard and fast as this author seems to think. He seems to have derived the idea of arrange marriage by watching too many bollywood films and serials!

In most cases, even in past, the consent of both bride and groom's were usually taken; and they also mostly consented given marriage is a natural part of life and traditionally parents arranged those. So what was wrong in that? It was a norm in almost every civilised society which did not give open license to promiscuity.
Marriage is a social institution, and there few very "dark reasons" behind what our ancestors brought into common practice, some of the practices were adopted to suppress our basic instincts about which we no longer talk about.

Parallel theory about Marriage claims that Marriage as an Institution evolved to contain the high rate of "infanticide" resulting after men and women switching partners. Theories claim that rate of infanticide before "Marriages" might have been as high as 50% of all live births.

Marriage regulated the sexual conduct, reduced sex-related conflict and allowed our race to grown in numbers faster than ever. It took our race several thousand years to touch the figure of 10,000.
 

aliyah

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
698
Likes
843
ban all news channels , strict sensor board for tv and films .
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
764
No one is trying to police things here. We do not want govt. to come and interfere in our living rooms and that is why we need to protect family values.
... If govt. withdraws the support for child care and pro-divorce laws and alimony, you will see women sticking to men to ensure benefit of their offspring and in turn sustain families.
These assertions are contradictory to one another. Also why would you want laws to be tilted against women in order to preserve families? Why not make laws that impose insecurity and punitive action against men to preserve families instead?
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
These assertions are contradictory to one another. Also why would you want laws to be tilted against women in order to preserve families? Why not make laws that impose insecurity and punitive action against men to preserve families instead?
How are they contradictory?

Current US laws are tilted towards women rather than kids. The child custody goes to women in 80% of the divorce cases. The men have to pay for child and women support even when it is a no fault divorce etc. etc.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
How are they contradictory?

Current US laws are tilted towards women rather than kids. The child custody goes to women in 80% of the divorce cases. The men have to pay for child and women support even when it is a no fault divorce etc. etc.
:pound: so making a gender neutral law which removes the alimony bull shit is now punishing to women. This is what feminism has done to western men- equating female entitlements as a basic right which when denied is a denial of basic right and punishing


This is why I never understand the morons who support feminism in India . if they wanted slow death , they could try suicide by arsenic poisoning than try to kill other men along with them:rolleyes:
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
Marriage is a social institution, and there few very "dark reasons" behind what our ancestors brought into common practice, some of the practices were adopted to suppress our basic instincts about which we no longer talk about.

Parallel theory about Marriage claims that Marriage as an Institution evolved to contain the high rate of "infanticide" resulting after men and women switching partners. Theories claim that rate of infanticide before "Marriages" might have been as high as 50% of all live births.

Marriage regulated the sexual conduct, reduced sex-related conflict and allowed our race to grown in numbers faster than ever. It took our race several thousand years to touch the figure of 10,000.
More than regulation of sex family and marriage was important for raising the children better. That holds true even now. State can never raise the child as well as a father can.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
:pound: so making a gender neutral law which removes the alimony bull shit is now punishing to women. This is what feminism has done to western men- equating female entitlements as a basic right which when denied is a denial of basic right and punishing


This is why I never understand the morons who support feminism in India . if they wanted slow death , they could try suicide by arsenic poisoning than try to kill other men along with them:rolleyes:
They should now use birth tax on men!!
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,616
Likes
3,067
Country flag
Want to save traditional values? Eradicate communist+/socialists, the filth of any progressive society. Secondly, respect women and love your woman. Thirdly, do not spare the rod and spoil the child.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
764
How are they contradictory?
Because one post rails about not wanting government interference, followed by another post highlighting government playing a key role in enforcing a policy designed to make "women stick to men to ensure the benefit of their offspring". Yea boss, that's contradictory.

Current US laws are tilted towards women rather than kids. The child custody goes to women in 80% of the divorce cases. The men have to pay for child and women support even when it is a no fault divorce etc. etc.
I have no idea what this means. Custody generally goes to women because they are the primary care givers.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
Because one post rails about not wanting government interference, followed by another post highlighting government playing a key role in enforcing a policy designed to make "women stick to men to ensure the benefit of their offspring". Yea boss, that's contradictory.
Really. Removing the assistance given by govt. to let economic and market forces decide the outcome is equal to govt. interference. Seriously, you are too brain-washed to even know what govt. interference is!! Asking to remove crutches of welfare security is govt. interference!


I have no idea what this means. Custody generally goes to women because they are the primary care givers.
Custody goes to women because this way they can extract alimony and child support for rest of their life. And modern western societies are too brainwashed to oblige them.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
764
Really. Removing the assistance given by govt. to let economic and market forces decide the outcome is equal to govt. interference. Seriously, you are too brain-washed to even know what govt. interference is!! Asking to remove crutches of welfare security is govt. interference!
LOL. We're deploying "market forces" and "welfare security" here? You do realize that only women have the biologic ability and wherewithal to conceive, gestate and deliver a child yes? And you also realize that women are primary care givers for children for a multitude of complex reasons (many of them biological) yes? Which is precisely why you (like me and pretty much everyone else on this message board) should thank our lucky stars that we were born men. Oh and while you're at at also be thankful for the fact that reproduction within a familial setting (vs. surrogacy) is not subject to market forces, because if it truly were, you'd be on the losing end.

It's interesting that you started this entire thread by raising the alarm about Western individualism and consumerism and then resorted to "market forces" to bolster a point of view. This is a bit puzzling considering individualism and consumerism are central to free market economics.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
LOL. We're deploying "market forces" and "welfare security" here? You do realize that only women have the biologic ability and wherewithal to conceive, gestate and deliver a child yes? And you also realize that women are primary care givers for children for a multitude of complex reasons (many of them biological) yes? Which is precisely why you (like me and pretty much everyone else on this message board) should thank our lucky stars that we were born men. Oh and while you're at at also be thankful for the fact that reproduction within a familial setting (vs. surrogacy) is not subject to market forces, because if it truly were, you'd be on the losing end.

It's interesting that you started this entire thread by raising the alarm about Western individualism and consumerism and then resorted to "market forces" to bolster a point of view. This is a bit puzzling considering individualism and consumerism are central to free market economics.
You know that you are making no sense in your first paragraph except parroting the stand taught in your classes.

Yes, this is a thread where we are debating how to hold family as a social unit in a free market system i.e. generate incentives for having a family rather than single parents and low fertility rate. Re-read the thread again to understand the arguments and see how these are two different things i.e. sustaining a family system and free markets.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
764
Yes, this is a thread where we are debating how to hold family as a social unit in a free market system i.e. generate incentives for having a family rather than single parents and low fertility rate.
Who are you expecting to generate incentives?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top