Why is Marriage so inevitable in India?

Views expressed here are personal. Not intended to offend anyone willing to marry or already married. Read on.

The vicious circle

People marry for sex? People marry for financial security? Or, people marry because it’s vital for survival and acceptance in society. Whatever the reasons may be, marriage in itself has no meaning. It is a means to achieve goals, not an end in itself, I feel.

Mostly, we marry for self-gratification, to prove our worth to the world. People who marry late or don’t marry at all have to face irksome questions. Despite all efforts, they fail to satisfy others of their choice of single hood.

People who remain single are either judged as sadists or psychic. Except those who dedicate their life to a cause. Rest for everyone, staying unmarried is looked upon with suspicion.

The problem is with the age-old mentality that has been obsessed with the tradition of kinship. For years, women have been an integral resource to extend the family tree, of which they are not even considered a part. They are supposed to serve as a silent spectator. This is the core reality of most of the rural India. The irony is that women themselves are content to play this role.

Despite all this, women love to marry. For many, marriage seems to be a “safe passage” to break the monotony of a tiresome middle-class life. By the time they reach 25, it becomes almost indispensable for them to leave their homes and “look outward”. It may also be due to the family members’ changing behavior towards them. A new home, new room (though, with a partner) and a whole new wardrobe seems exciting. For men, the reasons may be otherwise.

But as they say, nothing comes for free. All the fallacy associated with marriage vanishes after the encounter with reality. Be it a working woman or a home-maker, challenges are myriad. But she accepts it in exchange of the other benefits.

Those unable to cope up with the changes either land in divorce or an embittered marriage.

Family upbringing and cultural background play a great role in an individual’s perception about marriage. Looking at the number of cross-culture marriages in my family, I have come to believe that marriage should be considered a “personal” rather than a “family affair”.

However, even if a person marries for family's sake, ultimately he/she becomes part of the larger section of society that advocates marriage. Marriage is a legal arrangement between two people to stay together without being poked by the society. That's what differentiates it  from a “Live-in” relationship. 

“Live-ins” do not come with a bond nor garner the same respect as marriages in India. A married couple, however estranged, gets more societal support than a live-in couple in love.  The trend we say is catching up, but the patriarchal mindset hasn’t changed much. When I say “patriarchal”, I am referring to every man and woman who may possess this mentality.

When two people stay together, under marriage or Live-in the need for a child is inevitable. To have a child out of wed-lock in India has legal implications. Moreover, both the partners may not even agree.

Therefore, one needs to marry to have a child. Again marriage becomes a "means" to get your need fulfilled. Adoption is seen as an alternative but every child deserves the love and care of both the parents. Hence, I do not advocate being a single mother if there is an option to marry.

For men, passing on the family name is a responsibility. They have to marry for family’s sake. It’s not that boys don’t fight for love marriages; they might be few who fight for marriage. They do not face as many questions as girls do, even if they marry at 30.

Marriage is a single word holding different meaning for different people at different points in their life. Still I would say, it has implications in the long run but no meaning on the surface.

Father's Day: Not A Daddy's Girl

Father’s day may not just be about expressing your love for Daddy but also about missing the most vital thing in one’s life. And that is the care and guidance of a quintessential “father figure” in the life of an average intellectual girl.

This Father’s day and several days of the year the thought of fatherless girls and girls with indifferent fathers troubled me.

There are millions of children across the world devoid of the benefits of having both parents. Several couples in India have to live separately in different cities due to financial constraints. This is a trend catching up not just in rural areas but also in the metropolitan cities. Better job opportunities in other towns are forcing fathers to compromise on the precious time spend with kids.

But what about those fathers who are in the same city yet never stand up for their children. I am more concerned about fathers who are not empathetic towards their offspring, specially the girl child.

The father is the “first male” in a girl’s life. And, if the relation with this first man in her life is “distressed” due to whatever reasons, it can have long-term harmful effects on her personality, to the extent of becoming socially-insecure.

Later as she would grow up, she may find it difficult to have sustainable relations with her male friends, her boyfriend and even with her husband. The grave concern is that she may never realise this.

Lack of direction in various spheres like studies, career and social activities may force her to look outwards. Such girls are more likely to become emotionally-volatile. Mood swings, anti-men syndrome and bouts of loneliness are common things.

Not that am advocating for a male-regulatory childhood, but fathers who have almost no interference in the daily activities of their daughters may end up ruining latter’s personal life. Fathers stand not just for financial security but help in building a strong foundation in the making of an emotionally-secure individual.

I am not sure if it’s true in case of boys, but I have observed the side-effects in most girls.  The only positive thing, so to say, of having an unsympathetic Daddy is that it makes you do every little thing “on your own”. From filling admission forms to shifting a house, fixing the cooler or getting the cooking gas filled. But who wants to achieve independence at such a cost.

The picture is different for ladies living alone or separate from their partners. They have seen the world and the men around. But for those little angels who are yet to step into the “man’s world”, their Daddy is supposed to be the first Teacher, Guru and Guide.

If a man fails to be a good father, in my view, he doesn't qualify to be married. Unfortunately, the process has to go in the reverse order, at least in my country!

A Man Who Couldn’t Work And A Woman Who Couldn't Cook!

"Women can't cook to save their lives." Controversial British celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay said once in an interview to BBC that more men were learning what to do in the kitchen, while women were more likely to be able to mix a cocktail than cook.

It’s my third year of living in Delhi. When I first shifted to the capital in September 2007, I had no experience buying vegetables. And my cooking skills included boiling eggs and making tea. Thats about it. I lived alone in a small flat in Amar Colony surviving the heat and cold alike for more than a year. I never thought of getting a cook for myself.

Reasons:

1. Food was just a formality to show others I was human :)

2. Night Shifts —  Spoiled my face value and eating habits alike.

3. Money was definately a constraint.

4. And, the most important of all– I had to prove my family (specially my Mom, that I could cook!)

Every girl in almost all parts of this country is expected to be an average cook by the time she completes college. And here I was, didn’t know how to cook daal-chawal (Cooked rice and pulses) even after my PG and 2 years of job. I learned to cook only after living alone. I remember the half cooked rice and half-baked rotis I made initially. My mother was most concerned when I left home. She always asked–”So, what did you eat today? Momos!” After all, half of the hostelers in South Delhi thrive on them.

Now, I cook and cook quite okay. But the truth remains that I do not enjoy cooking. It’s an art, that I can only try to imitate but can’t enjoy. It can be a mechanical job if you don’t enjoy doing it. I am my sister’s biggest fan [for she is a food enthusiast and a great cook. Hope she's reading :D ] She has always been pushing me to learn cooking before I found a pit to fall (oops! I mean marriage). But I always declared, that I would either marry a guy who was less fond of eating at home or would help me in the cumbersome process. Mom always said: Where would you get such a guy?

And I always wondered that even as the biggest chefs in this country are males, the concept of ‘cooking’ at home is strictly associated with the female of the house. Women who either remain slow or incompetent after their marriages in this feat are considered lowly and not-that-great wives! I have inferred this over the years. But why are cooking skills a prerequisite for being a woman, specially when you are married. Can’t you be an average cook and still be a good wife. All you need is an understanding husband, who is not judgmental about your nature. After all, cooking is an art and anyone trying to do that may not reach the A+ level.

Many of my colleagues@work never brought their lunch from home, for their mothers/wives couldn’t get up early to cook. (My mother being the opposite kind. I never saw her missing the tiffin as long as I lived with her, except in extreme conditions ). But that’s normal. Isn’t it? I have heard people making fun and cracking jokes on women who can’t cook, at workplaces. What bothered me was the comparison between their mothers and wives. Every woman, working or housewife, is expected to cook and cook really well. Why? I ask? One of my school friend’s mother didn’t cook good. And that was the reason, she never called me for lunch. Amazing hun! :)

I observed this with many of my friends. They were embarrassed to admit: Their mothers couldn’t cook! We, the makers of this society, have made this the rule. If you are a woman. You ought to cook! If you can’t…you are lacking as a woman. :D

When it comes to men. Their life is no easy.

They can do if they can’t cook. Infact, there are men who shy away from sharing if they do. There’s a strange innuendo of machoism in saying that I can’t cook. (The picture has changed in the metros and to an extent in Tier II cities but most males want their better halves to cook). The picture is different when he’s around his female colleagues. And you know why! :)

For a man, it’s more essential to be working and being the bread earner of the family. A man, however benevolent he might be, earns no respect from the society if he has no money. Again, it’s the gender-biased society that has made these things so very acceptable. I remember my early days spent in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghaziabad district. Our then landlady’s eldest son used to stay in a separate room cut off from the large house and was deprived of all the comforts, available to his younger brothers. His children never played with him and neither was he seen at family functions. I was too young to know the reasons.

Recently realised, it was because he did not earn for the family. His kids were raised by the owner of the house, his mother. He was an irreverent man for everyone. He was just one among several like him in the Indian middle classes, where his manliness is directly associated with his ability to earn. What if a man didn’t want to work? Does that make him pansy? I find it hard to understand…

Everyone on this earth needs to eat, for which he/she/LGBT should cook. For cooking one needs money, that comes after hours of hardwork. So why to divide the roles as Cooking for Woman and Earning for The Man. Let there be a role reversal, let the person decide whether a woman cooks for fun or for family and a man earns due to compassion or compulsion. :) :)

  

I am waiting for some brickbats after this NERVE-WRECKING post!  :P… With Lots of  Love… From My Inner Voice

Originally posted on: http://palsinnervoice.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/a-man-who-couldn’t-work-and-a-woman-who-could not cook/