Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[.]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM, ss  wrote:
>
> In the absence of social support a pregnant girl is in serious trouble. If she
> is married - support from a husband helps. Abortion and pregnancy all carry

Marriage is not necessarily the solution. There are men who abandon
their wives just as they abandon their lovers or remarry after
converting[0] and still abandon them.

[0] http://www.indianexpress.com/news/chand-married-me-only-for-sex-fiza/439250/

The reality is Indian women lack social support, unlike developed
nations which have appointed counseling agencies and have developed a
social security and health care system, even if its not perfect. This
root problem (of lack a proper support system, whether its pregnancy,
sexual assault, marriage or any other aspect of a womans existence in
India) has no co-relation with marriage and should not be
inter-dependent or a pre-condition.

-- 
.

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[ss]

On Thursday 09 Apr 2009 1:04:49 pm . wrote:
> If Shefali Anand did live in India, especially through the 90's and
> the current decade, she would know that Indian women are not exactly
> demure as most misconceptions go. The author would have been
> enlightened if she had taken the trouble to actually live and meet
> some (so-called repressed rural and urban) Indian women[0].

> > Marriage is a human social construct in which monogamy is forced. As I
> > have stated earlier I believe it has social benefits that are
> > unrecognised by randy men and women who have access to birth control. In
> > the absence of birth control, the human female gets to pay a higher price
> > for polygamy than the male.
>
> How so? The women can still abandon the kid at an orphanage or abort
> them at a local illegal quack, risking her life in the process. Such
> 5x5cm articles were an everyday occurrence in local papers.



Unfortunately being demure or not is not the problem IMO. Women end up having 
sex as often as men on average - given that it takes two to do it. 

In the absence of social support a pregnant girl is in serious trouble. If she 
is married - support from a husband helps. Abortion and pregnancy all carry 
some risk to life and health. Pregnancy is a burden. A live baby is a burden, 
as is a dead baby. Its fun all the way for the man. The more he scores - the 
better.

In the absence of contraception the cost is invariably higher for the woman 
unless the cost is raised for men by forcing a man to stay and support the 
woman he has impregnated on pain of some punishment (in other words - 
marriage :D LOL


shiv

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[.]

If Shefali Anand did live in India, especially through the 90's and
the current decade, she would know that Indian women are not exactly
demure as most misconceptions go. The author would have been
enlightened if she had taken the trouble to actually live and meet
some (so-called repressed rural and urban) Indian women[0].

[0] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1381303.cms

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:53 AM, ss  wrote:
>
> In a Dawkinsian sense the
> highest payoff for a human female in such a society would come from a
> faithful partner who would support her in times of vulnerability, while

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ahmedabad/Most-sex-workers-in-city-are-homemakers/articleshow/4363241.cms

In the 1990's (before the online versions of TOI), a Masters/PhD
student at Mumbai University had researched a similar topic as part of
her thesis which claimed (among other things) that educated men with
"good" jobs wanted to marry "PYT's" as the *pretty wife* would be the
ladder for his career advancement.  The phenomenon called "One
Kapoot" obviously didnt find this story "Indian" enough. A public
loss.  Unfortunately the University researcher was embroiled in a
quarrel over the research credits with her thesis advisor and TOI
did'nt bother to publish the final storyline... whether her thesis was
accepted or not.


> Marriage is a human social construct in which monogamy is forced. As I have
> stated earlier I believe it has social benefits that are unrecognised by
> randy men and women who have access to birth control. In the absence of birth
> control, the human female gets to pay a higher price for polygamy than the
> male.

How so? The women can still abandon the kid at an orphanage or abort
them at a local illegal quack, risking her life in the process. Such
5x5cm articles were an everyday occurrence in local papers.

-- 
.

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[ss]

On Tuesday 07 Apr 2009 12:17:36 am Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:
> If females had lower life expectancy and infant mortality was high,
> society as such would move to polygamy. Once female and male life
> expectancy got closer, and infant mortality rate was lower, given the
> need for a proper home for the child, society as a whole would have
> encouraged monogamy.

I am guessing that it is exactly the opposite.

Societies with high maternal and infant mortalities would be "normal human 
societies" until about 100 years ago, and about 50% of the human population 
today.

Apart from disease, which affected every segment of society, malnutrition as a 
cause of maternal and infant mortality affected the poor more than the 
wealthy, and obviously women far more than men. In a Dawkinsian sense the 
highest payoff for a human female in such a society would come from a 
faithful partner who would support her in times of vulnerability, while 
simultaneously supporting older but vulnerable children that she has. I 
suspect this has skewed things towards monogamy.

Marriage is a human social construct in which monogamy is forced. As I have 
stated earlier I believe it has social benefits that are unrecognised by 
randy men and women who have access to birth control. In the absence of birth 
control, the human female gets to pay a higher price for polygamy than the 
male.

shiv

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Ravi Bellur]

>
>
> > Marriage has historically been an economic arrangement first and
> > foremost, a partnership to weather the rough waters of life. Ancient
> > Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because
> > people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax
> > sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day.
>
> Shot in the dark - skewed sex ratio apart, what about female life
> expectancy, infant mortality rates?
>
> If females had lower life expectancy and infant mortality was high,
> society as such would move to polygamy. Once female and male life
> expectancy got closer, and infant mortality rate was lower, given the
> need for a proper home for the child, society as a whole would have
> encouraged monogamy.
>
I watched a multi-part series about vervet monkeys on National Geographic.
It seemed to (savagely) explain why we are compelled to behave in certain
ways we think we are consciously choosing (oh, yes, there was blood). We
just invent the justifications post-facto.

In the 24th Century, Picard will remind us that we're better than this...
and we don't need Propecia or Rogaine.

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Radhika, Y.  wrote:
>> I didn't realize a flat screen TV could be a determining factor in marrying
>> someone-guess i would never have made it to any matrimonial list in any case
>> especially since i clean my own bathroom! my husband had only an
>> air-mattress in his name thanks to his free wheeling, globetrotting
>> lifestyle prior to our marriage. the only concession he made to lifestyle
>> were his golfclubs and icehockey equipment.
>
> Marriage has historically been an economic arrangement first and
> foremost, a partnership to weather the rough waters of life. Ancient
> Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because
> people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax
> sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day.

Shot in the dark - skewed sex ratio apart, what about female life
expectancy, infant mortality rates?

If females had lower life expectancy and infant mortality was high,
society as such would move to polygamy. Once female and male life
expectancy got closer, and infant mortality rate was lower, given the
need for a proper home for the child, society as a whole would have
encouraged monogamy.

And when life expectancy and quality of life reach their peak, and
there are no perceived threats, society as such loses the will to
reproduce

Simplistic perhaps, but somehow I feel there is more to all this than
just economics. I tried to find some study which captured life
expectancy trends for males and females.

Kiran

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Radhika, Y.]

Cheeni, please do stir up the pot! going by the logic of your argument
though since the lady Anisha _ quoted in the article doesn't need a
man's money as she is quite well off and therefore doesn't need to marry,
why does she still care if the man makes more money or less? something
inconsistent...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Radhika, Y.  wrote:
> > I didn't realize a flat screen TV could be a determining factor in
> marrying
> > someone-guess i would never have made it to any matrimonial list in any
> case
> > especially since i clean my own bathroom! my husband had only an
> > air-mattress in his name thanks to his free wheeling, globetrotting
> > lifestyle prior to our marriage. the only concession he made to lifestyle
> > were his golfclubs and icehockey equipment.
>
> Marriage has historically been an economic arrangement first and
> foremost, a partnership to weather the rough waters of life. Ancient
> Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because
> people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax
> sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day.
>
> It is no surprise then that arranged marriages even today resemble the
> harsh haggling and negotiation of a bazaar.
>
> Ancient love stories notwithstanding, marrying for love is a
> relatively recent phenomenon worldwide, less than 100 years old. It
> remains to be seen if marrying for love is a sustainable idea, afaik
> there is very little evidence either way at the moment.
>
> On a related note, the human gene is inherently polygamous - obviously
> therefore modern social conditioning of monogamy runs contrary to
> genetic traits, and is in a somewhat risk prone position. Marriages in
> ancient Rome or India carried no such rider of monogamy for example.
> OTOH, modern society seems to have aids to counter the genetic urges,
> such as pornography. Porn is a socially acceptable (in most cultures)
> outlet for genetic urges. Ironically therefore pornography saves
> marriages more often than not!
>
> Some reading:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7982132.stm
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20020321.shtml
>
> Cheeni
> P.S. Couldn't resist stirring the pot a bit, the thread was getting boring
> :-)
>
>

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Indranil Das Gupta]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Thaths  wrote:


> I find the entire social construct of marriage (arranged or find your
> own) quaint. Of course, there are important financial implications
> (inheritance, benefits, taxation, etc.) of formalized cohabitation.

or implications based on nationality and citizenship in case one of
the partners happens to be a foreign national

-someone-trying-to-foresee-hassles-around-procurement-of-an-x-visa (aka indra)

> Thaths

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

ah. an excuse for when the wife catches you with a copy of playboy ..

Srini RamaKrishnan [06/04/09 17:43 +0200]:

OTOH, modern society seems to have aids to counter the genetic urges,
such as pornography. Porn is a socially acceptable (in most cultures)
outlet for genetic urges. Ironically therefore pornography saves
marriages more often than not!

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Thaths]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:
> Ancient
> Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because
> people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax
> sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day.

Someone should tell the USian government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

> Ancient love stories notwithstanding, marrying for love is a
> relatively recent phenomenon worldwide, less than 100 years old. It
> remains to be seen if marrying for love is a sustainable idea, afaik
> there is very little evidence either way at the moment.

I find the entire social construct of marriage (arranged or find your
own) quaint. Of course, there are important financial implications
(inheritance, benefits, taxation, etc.) of formalized cohabitation.

> On a related note, the human gene is inherently polygamous - obviously
> therefore modern social conditioning of monogamy runs contrary to
> genetic traits, and is in a somewhat risk prone position.

Are these traits *in homo sapiens* uniformly distributed between the
males and the females of the species?

> Marriages in
> ancient Rome or India carried no such rider of monogamy for example.

But didn't the riders apply to the female population (rare instances
like Draupati notwithstanding)?

Thaths
-- 
   "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." -- Homer J. Simpson

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Radhika, Y.  wrote:
> I didn't realize a flat screen TV could be a determining factor in marrying
> someone-guess i would never have made it to any matrimonial list in any case
> especially since i clean my own bathroom! my husband had only an
> air-mattress in his name thanks to his free wheeling, globetrotting
> lifestyle prior to our marriage. the only concession he made to lifestyle
> were his golfclubs and icehockey equipment.

Marriage has historically been an economic arrangement first and
foremost, a partnership to weather the rough waters of life. Ancient
Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because
people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax
sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day.

It is no surprise then that arranged marriages even today resemble the
harsh haggling and negotiation of a bazaar.

Ancient love stories notwithstanding, marrying for love is a
relatively recent phenomenon worldwide, less than 100 years old. It
remains to be seen if marrying for love is a sustainable idea, afaik
there is very little evidence either way at the moment.

On a related note, the human gene is inherently polygamous - obviously
therefore modern social conditioning of monogamy runs contrary to
genetic traits, and is in a somewhat risk prone position. Marriages in
ancient Rome or India carried no such rider of monogamy for example.
OTOH, modern society seems to have aids to counter the genetic urges,
such as pornography. Porn is a socially acceptable (in most cultures)
outlet for genetic urges. Ironically therefore pornography saves
marriages more often than not!

Some reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7982132.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20020321.shtml

Cheeni
P.S. Couldn't resist stirring the pot a bit, the thread was getting boring :-)

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[ss]

On Monday 06 Apr 2009 7:48:26 pm Radhika, Y. wrote:
> his golfclubs

Aha! This man knows life.

shiv

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Deepa Mohan]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan
 wrote:
>>
>> Its what feminists sarcastically call most men's perception of an 'ideal
>> wife' - an angel all day long but suddenly turns into a pornstar in the
>> bedroom.
>
>
> I thought feminists were those who believed that's what most men want,
> devoid of any sarcasm :)
>
> Kiran
>


Actually, I find that song"konjam amudham konjam nanju" (some
nectar, some poison) or whatever is the order in which feminine
qualities are listed in the movie "thirudA thirudA" .is what women
would like men to realize...that there is a bit of everything in them,
as in men, too! Just in different proportions

Deepa.

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Radhika, Y.]

I didn't realize a flat screen TV could be a determining factor in marrying
someone-guess i would never have made it to any matrimonial list in any case
especially since i clean my own bathroom! my husband had only an
air-mattress in his name thanks to his free wheeling, globetrotting
lifestyle prior to our marriage. the only concession he made to lifestyle
were his golfclubs and icehockey equipment.




On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan <
kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Its what feminists sarcastically call most men's perception of an 'ideal
> > wife' - an angel all day long but suddenly turns into a pornstar in the
> > bedroom.
>
>
> I thought feminists were those who believed that's what most men want,
> devoid of any sarcasm :)
>
> Kiran
>

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Kiran K Karthikeyan]

>
> Its what feminists sarcastically call most men's perception of an 'ideal
> wife' - an angel all day long but suddenly turns into a pornstar in the
> bedroom.


I thought feminists were those who believed that's what most men want,
devoid of any sarcasm :)

Kiran

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Its what feminists sarcastically call most men's perception of an 'ideal
wife' - an angel all day long but suddenly turns into a pornstar in the
bedroom.

On Mon, April 6, 2009 4:46 pm, Ravi Bellur wrote:
>> To be fair, there are some red-blooded, white-breaded American males
>>
> looking for such demure companions as well. Unsurprisingly, usually these
>  guys are conservative, christian, and Republican. The cartoon "Morel
> Orel"
> on Adult Swim does a good job of satiring, in general, that group.
>
> But I do agree (in my case happily) that they are a vanishing breed in
> the US. Unless they want to be that way of their own free will and choice,
>  understanding they have options, in which case, by all means. It's the
> "forcing" part that rubs my "Free-Society" fur the wrong way.
>
>

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Ravi Bellur]

>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123896998996190775.html
>
>  For instance, he says some overseas Indians
> want a bride who is smart, fluent in English, and "simultaneously, docile
> in
> the house." He says such women are now harder to find, so he bumps up his
> fees for some searches."
>
> To be fair, there are some red-blooded, white-breaded American males
looking for such demure companions as well. Unsurprisingly, usually these
guys are conservative, christian, and Republican. The cartoon "Morel Orel"
on Adult Swim does a good job of satiring, in general, that group.

But I do agree (in my case happily) that they are a vanishing breed in the
US. Unless they want to be that way of their own free will and choice,
understanding they have options, in which case, by all means. It's the
"forcing" part that rubs my "Free-Society" fur the wrong way.

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Ashwin Nanjappa]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 18:11, Ashwin Nanjappa  wrote:
> Matrimonials – Chinese style by Pallavi Aiyar

Sorry, forgot the link:


~ash

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Ashwin Nanjappa]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 17:38, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:
> If you find this unbelievable check out how the Chinese get married.
> With a male:female ratio that's even more skewed than in India, and
> with no social stigma against marrying non-Chinese, the Chinese men
> have it much tougher.

On the other side side of the Himalayas:

Matrimonials – Chinese style by Pallavi Aiyar
"""
Held every Sunday afternoon, the market is a forum for parents who
have come to despair of their educated, career-driven offsprings ever
finding appropriate life-partners on their own and have thus decided
to take matters into their own hands.

“Boy, 28 yrs, has own apartment in Fuxing district, no mortgage,
Communist Party member,” advertises the piece of paper offered up by
one bespectacled father.
"""

And the non-stigma about marrying non-Chinese:
"""
I (Pallavi) am quickly approached by several people anxiously asking
if I am “available”. When I shake my head in regret they quickly
change tack and inquire about prospective single friends I might have.
"""

~ash

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Divya Manian  wrote:
> Came across this, and found it too funny!
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123896998996190775.html
>
[...]

> I suspect this is satire, even the names of the marriage bureaus seem too
> fantastic!

Really? In my observation this sort of thing is pretty common.

If you find this unbelievable check out how the Chinese get married.
With a male:female ratio that's even more skewed than in India, and
with no social stigma against marrying non-Chinese, the Chinese men
have it much tougher.

Cheeni

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Deepa Mohan]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:

> This is Krish Ashok blog material
>



and I hope he will write about it and I can have a wonderful time reading
it! :)

Deepa.

Re: [silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

This is Krish Ashok blog material

On Mon, April 6, 2009 10:45 am, Divya Manian wrote:
> Came across this, and found it too funny!
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123896998996190775.html
>
>
> Here is an extract:
>
>
> "Given the difficulty in finding matches for Indians abroad, some
> matchmakers are now charging them more. Mr. Dave of Klassic Match charges
> a minimum fee of $100, versus $50 for candidates living in India. He
> charges more for specific requirements. For instance, he says some
> overseas Indians want a bride who is smart, fluent in English, and
> "simultaneously, docile in
> the house." He says such women are now harder to find, so he bumps up his
> fees for some searches."
>
> I suspect this is satire, even the names of the marriage bureaus seem too
>  fantastic!
>
> - divya
> http://nimbupani.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[silk] Indian Men Living in U.S. Strike Out

[Divya Manian]

Came across this, and found it too funny!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123896998996190775.html

Here is an extract:

"Given the difficulty in finding matches for Indians abroad, some
matchmakers are now charging them more. Mr. Dave of Klassic Match charges a
minimum fee of $100, versus $50 for candidates living in India. He charges
more for specific requirements. For instance, he says some overseas Indians
want a bride who is smart, fluent in English, and "simultaneously, docile in
the house." He says such women are now harder to find, so he bumps up his
fees for some searches."

I suspect this is satire, even the names of the marriage bureaus seem too
fantastic! 

- divya
http://nimbupani.com/blog