>As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a >problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to >eliminate. > >Cheers, Anthony ____________ If I'm not wrong, 'Dowry', which I don't think would be the correct word in this case, used to be the daughter's share of parental property. Husband and husband's family had no right on it. That's why it was mostly in the form of jewlery and expensive saries etc. things that mrked it as the private property of the woman and which usually maintained their value over long period of time like land. Now a days, of course, dowry has become a curse for women of India. Cheers, ajit sinha > >Anthony P. D'Costa >Associate Professor Senior Fellow >Comparative International Development Department of Economics >University of Washington National University of Singapore >1900 Commerce Street 10 Kent Ridge Crescent >Tacoma, WA 98402-3100 USA Singapore 119260 >Ph: (253) 692-4462 >Fax: (253) 692-4414 > >On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: > >> anzalone/starbird wrote: >> >> >The way to say it without sounding like a chauvanist is to say it like a >> >feminist. There is no cultural basis for asserting that Sr. Nirmala is >> >acting out of an Indian cultural perspective. The beauty of culture is its >> >adaptability. The Indian pantheon of religions include many female deities, >> >and their is no Hindu sanction against abortion. The cultural imperialism >> >of Europe and the patriarchy of Roman Catholicism (objected to by most >> >Catholic women I might add) is what Sr. Nirmala is dutifully regergitating >> >as per the requirements of subservience in her Catholic church heirarchy. >> > >> >The rigidity of the backward patriarachal Euro-Centrated position you find >> >objectionable in Sr. Nirmala comes from Rome and hundreds of years of >> >Vatican mysogynist jibberish. It hails from no where else. >> >> So what about dowry, widow burning, restrictions on property ownership, and >> all that stuff? >> >> Doug >> >> >> > >
