I am quite torn on Serena Nanda's article, I have never really thought too much about arranged marriages before. Growing up in "Western" society, of course the idea of such a matrimony is considered ridiculous and primitive. Although that thought was predisposed in my mind, after reading this article I am not so sure that I completely disagree with the arrangement of spouses considering the many promising aspects of it.
I learned today in my world literature class that the idea of Western society came about when Europeans began differentiating themselves from the cultural "other," which in their case would be those in Asia. "Eastern" society was exotic to them, customs and culture. When I read through this article I could see that the ideas of meeting a person and getting to know them before marriage greatly differed from having my mother decide that I will be marrying Joe Shmoe. But I thought about it, and I realized that in America, this idea of "romantic" love has its consequences. We have plenty of time in life to find a mate and get to know them, however, we choose to rush into relationships and base our futures on what we have encountered with our significant others in a matter of months or maybe a couple of years. This leaves room for many problems, both financially and emotionally.
Nanda's friend who was arranging her son's marriage was keen on finding a suitable match for her son, one that would not cause any problems to the family when it came to gossip, money, etc. She would not let her son marry a girl who came out of a family with too many girls (145) because that would be potential economic and social damage for the son's family. This reminds me of the story behind Pride and Prejudice, where it was not suitable for a wealthy man from a higher class to consider a marriage between a girl that was in practical destitution with a pack of five sisters at home. Let us not mention, that also in that story was the problem of the daughter Elizabeth being too out spoken and well learned for her own good, which brings us to another problem that tears me between liking and disliking arranged marriages.
The son was given another prospect with a woman who was very well educated and could hold her own in the outside world (145), which was a problem for the family because they did not want a girl who was too well educated. This distaste for an intelligent woman is oppressive in my opinion, because I have been a girl brought up to show off as much of my brain power as possible, never considering the feelings of the opposite sex. Giving the opinion on the mother's end, I can see that she does not want a girl to be too full of herself and not get along "harmoniously" (145) with the boy's family. I do believe that the behavior they wish for their son is shooting too high, no one person is perfect.
Reaching perfection in their son's marriage is an amiable goal, but it no two people are completely "perfect" for one another, and makes me think of Hitler and his hope for a perfect race and world. Perfection is a great thought, and of course we all wish that our lives were blessed with perfection, but to deny every girl her place in a son's life is rather excessive. Where one girl is too educated, the other is too loud, and another is too poor. This Nazi marriage is too much for me to fathom, however, I do remember my own mother saying that she wanted me to find a good guy to marry, and she'd hate the dude otherwise.
I also recognized that the references to the caste system was mentioned several times. I have been afflicted with my own version of the caste system in my own family. My family is against me marrying outside of the Catholic faith. In India, the Brahmins would not want someone marrying an Untouchable, it would be dirty and low. In any case, I do not understand this disgust towards lower castes of people, but I do see how it would be desirable for two people to be apart of the same caste in order to have less complications between not only themselves, but with the families involved.
As you can tell, I was all over the place in reading this article. I am still not quite sure I agree with arranged marriages, but I do like the idea of a worry-free matrimony. The ideals are all there, but there are glitches in the plans based on how Western society as brought me up. I must remember though, I am not in the East, so I do not know all of the good that can come from such an upbringing.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Response to "Shakespeare in the Bush"
At the end of my senior year in high school we had to read Hamlet, and of course, our teacher taught us the "interpretation that was universally obvious" (Bohannan 216). This story was absolutely hilarious. Never again will I view the play the same way again. It was funny for me to read because the way I learned it, Claudius was the person at fault for everyone's death at the end, but these chiefs and elders blamed Hamlet and Laertes for all of the turmoil that ensued. They validated Claudius' marriage to Gertrude, claiming that the "Europeans were more like [them]" (218), it was a rule for the dead man's brother to marry the grieving widow immediately. Of course the Europeans did not see this union as proper, and so that was a difference in the upbringing of these two communities. Customs are very different no matter where you travel, and if you expect everyone to act and understand the same things, you are obviously living in a bubble.
It was funny how the elders would interjected with their customs while Bohannan told the story. Saying things such as, "But he must have many wives! Who else can brew beer and prepare food for all of his guests?" (219), which left Bohannan confused and frustrated. Her irritation was caused because there was no "universal" custom, not everyone follows the same rules and ideals in every culture. That is what culture is, a way of life that sets one community of people apart from another. Of course, groups of people imitate one another's cultures and guidelines on living, but no two tribes of people are the same.
I found it quite interesting that when the elders of this tribe talked about the Europeans, although they would correct their interpretation of Hamlet, they still said something that struck me. An elder said that "people are the same everywhere" (225), which is a statement that you do not often hear. There are always people who are racist or believe that their customs are the only way, but this tribe recognizes cultural differences and still believes that ultimately everyone is the same. I found it refreshing to read that, it was the nicest line I have read all semester. For once it was a positive view on societal differences.
It was funny how the elders would interjected with their customs while Bohannan told the story. Saying things such as, "But he must have many wives! Who else can brew beer and prepare food for all of his guests?" (219), which left Bohannan confused and frustrated. Her irritation was caused because there was no "universal" custom, not everyone follows the same rules and ideals in every culture. That is what culture is, a way of life that sets one community of people apart from another. Of course, groups of people imitate one another's cultures and guidelines on living, but no two tribes of people are the same.
I found it quite interesting that when the elders of this tribe talked about the Europeans, although they would correct their interpretation of Hamlet, they still said something that struck me. An elder said that "people are the same everywhere" (225), which is a statement that you do not often hear. There are always people who are racist or believe that their customs are the only way, but this tribe recognizes cultural differences and still believes that ultimately everyone is the same. I found it refreshing to read that, it was the nicest line I have read all semester. For once it was a positive view on societal differences.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Shop Like a Man
The title of this article really should be "Learn to Shop Like a Woman." I am unclear as to what the message behind the article was. Underhill began by saying that men do not spend as much time shopping as women do, yet he also says that "as women's roles change, so do their shopping behaviors--they're becoming more like men in that regard," (187), so what is going on in this article? Are women too involved with shopping or are they becoming less involved in the experience? And what about men? Is their shopping habits, or lack thereof, desirable?
Underhill's ideas were a bit scattered. He would discuss a man's intuition to pay for everything at the check-out counter for a natural ego boost, but then would talk about how men are too quick to shop and not smart enough when choosing simple items such as groceries (189). His final decision would be based on flashy boxes and his children begging for whatever lunch snack they wanted.
Underhill shifts again to say that shopping is stressful for a wife when her husband is involved because he is not entertained enough. He suggests that stores such as Victoria's Secret, a lingerie store, should attempt to appeal to the opposite sex using tools such as a Sport's Illustrated section or a big screen that includes the lingerie fashion shows (192). Although the idea seems like a sure fire way to attract men into that shopping establishment, I think that Underhill should consider his other suggestion; it would be more appropriate for the owner to open the store next to a computer or sports equipment shop in order to keep the men occupied (192), no need to have a room of gawking men occupying the store where women measure their cup-sizes.
So, Underhill wants an integration of men and women in shopping in order to occupy both sexes in the shopping situation, or at least that is what i was getting out of the essay. This seems all fine and dandy, but is the title not "Shop Like a Man," and is this form of integration really teaching men to take their time shopping and women to not rush due to their man's inability to stay controlled in a clothing store? This is not shopping like a man, this is shopping like a woman, if Underhill's stereotypes are correct. Steady, controlled, and timely shopping falls under the generalization that women spend more time shopping than men do, as said in the beginning of the article (187). What is the point of Underhill's article then? Is it beneficial to shop the brief and careless way that men do, or do we begin a transition into steady and controlled shopping where we all check price tags and monitor our budget?
I feel as though I've written my own response to this essay as scattered as Underhill had written his observations.
Underhill's ideas were a bit scattered. He would discuss a man's intuition to pay for everything at the check-out counter for a natural ego boost, but then would talk about how men are too quick to shop and not smart enough when choosing simple items such as groceries (189). His final decision would be based on flashy boxes and his children begging for whatever lunch snack they wanted.
Underhill shifts again to say that shopping is stressful for a wife when her husband is involved because he is not entertained enough. He suggests that stores such as Victoria's Secret, a lingerie store, should attempt to appeal to the opposite sex using tools such as a Sport's Illustrated section or a big screen that includes the lingerie fashion shows (192). Although the idea seems like a sure fire way to attract men into that shopping establishment, I think that Underhill should consider his other suggestion; it would be more appropriate for the owner to open the store next to a computer or sports equipment shop in order to keep the men occupied (192), no need to have a room of gawking men occupying the store where women measure their cup-sizes.
So, Underhill wants an integration of men and women in shopping in order to occupy both sexes in the shopping situation, or at least that is what i was getting out of the essay. This seems all fine and dandy, but is the title not "Shop Like a Man," and is this form of integration really teaching men to take their time shopping and women to not rush due to their man's inability to stay controlled in a clothing store? This is not shopping like a man, this is shopping like a woman, if Underhill's stereotypes are correct. Steady, controlled, and timely shopping falls under the generalization that women spend more time shopping than men do, as said in the beginning of the article (187). What is the point of Underhill's article then? Is it beneficial to shop the brief and careless way that men do, or do we begin a transition into steady and controlled shopping where we all check price tags and monitor our budget?
I feel as though I've written my own response to this essay as scattered as Underhill had written his observations.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Pipher is Full of It
I never had a chance to respond to Mary Pipher's Academic Selves, so I have decided to take this opportunity to say that her article is very outdated. I realize that the article was not written recently, but her views on how girls are frail and afraid of displaying their true intelligence is an old and dead idea.
She goes on to say that "boys are more likely to be praised for academics and intellectual work" (280), which used to be the case before the new millennium. She says that "girls are more likely to be praised for their clothing, behaving properly, and obeying rules" (280), and maybe in some cases that is true, but it is not the first expectation that we have for young girls anymore. Society is not expecting all boys to be aggressive, competitive, and genius, as well as girls to be dainty, frail and well mannered.
Sports have for many years been dominated by men, but now high schools and junior highs are getting praise for their women's teams, who are on top of their game in softball, soccer, volleyball, and golf. High Schools have actually allowed women to be on their football teams and wrestling teams with much discretion, however, these acts of competitiveness proves that women are not going to break if a ball hits them in the head.
Girls may have been perceived as math boneheads, especially in Pipher's article, "girls get anxious, which interferes with problem solving, and so they fail and are even more anxious and prone to self doubt the next time around," (280). This woman is lumping every girl into this group of failures. She tries to come off as someone who wants to help spread inspiration, that she feels for young girls and knows what they are going through. She expresses deep concern for the future of girls in education, but she is only representing herself as a woman who has suckered herself into all of these sexist beliefs. She is a sexist herself.
Maybe I am being to harsh, I don't remember the 90's, I was barely alive in the 80's, so these conflicts in education did not have a lasting effect on me, but if this woman had written this article present day, I would have wondered if she had been living in a box for twenty years.
She goes on to say that "boys are more likely to be praised for academics and intellectual work" (280), which used to be the case before the new millennium. She says that "girls are more likely to be praised for their clothing, behaving properly, and obeying rules" (280), and maybe in some cases that is true, but it is not the first expectation that we have for young girls anymore. Society is not expecting all boys to be aggressive, competitive, and genius, as well as girls to be dainty, frail and well mannered.
Sports have for many years been dominated by men, but now high schools and junior highs are getting praise for their women's teams, who are on top of their game in softball, soccer, volleyball, and golf. High Schools have actually allowed women to be on their football teams and wrestling teams with much discretion, however, these acts of competitiveness proves that women are not going to break if a ball hits them in the head.
Girls may have been perceived as math boneheads, especially in Pipher's article, "girls get anxious, which interferes with problem solving, and so they fail and are even more anxious and prone to self doubt the next time around," (280). This woman is lumping every girl into this group of failures. She tries to come off as someone who wants to help spread inspiration, that she feels for young girls and knows what they are going through. She expresses deep concern for the future of girls in education, but she is only representing herself as a woman who has suckered herself into all of these sexist beliefs. She is a sexist herself.
Maybe I am being to harsh, I don't remember the 90's, I was barely alive in the 80's, so these conflicts in education did not have a lasting effect on me, but if this woman had written this article present day, I would have wondered if she had been living in a box for twenty years.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
What are Homosexuals For?
It was refreshing to read something that was not centered around education and reading an article about reading. It was becoming old. "What are Homosexuals For?" moved me. I had never really sat down and thought about how difficult it must be for a homosexual male or female to "come out" in a society that at one point completely rejected the sexuality.
Andrew Sullivan gives an example about a professor who lived a very dull life and never could announce his homosexuality to the public. His life was lived without joy, just a day to day cycle of repetitiveness that contained little human contact, and the contact he had was with other males in which he could not even pursue a relationship. Eventually this man became very open about his sexual preference and lived the best three years of his life before dying of cancer. His life was cut short, but the time he had been out and free to pursue the many relationships that he had once hoped for were fulfilled (381).
Sullivan continues on to talk about his own hardships that he experienced when struggling with his sexuality. He had known he was gay, but like most that are exposed to anti-gay messages, he tried to reject this part of his life for as long as possible. Like the university figure, he was left lonely and confused, but soon was able to announce his secret and begin the steady climb into acceptance among those that understood him and his feelings.
When I first moved to Long Beach a few years ago, I was aware that there was a significantly large gay community here, and so through the years it never phased me when I saw a gay or lesbian couple at a local shop or coffeehouse, whereas in my old town it was very rare. I never thought, however, that for these people and couples to be so comfortable and open there could possibly have been personal struggles and even periods of loneliness and confusion going on inside of their heads. Though society is beginning to settle their disapproval and become more accepting of this sexuality, there are still many more that are prejudice and discriminatory, and it is quite possible that these homosexuals have felt the brunt of these disapprovals.
Homosexuals are made up of the same eyeballs, skin, and organs that heterosexuals are made of, they just happen to feel attraction to the same sex. They also have different ways of expressing their love or friendships, some are more flamboyant and display their homosexuality more than others, and some may hold hands in the streets the same way that a heterosexual couple will hold hands. Because society has been so tough to deal with, those who can publicly display their sexuality are those that have dealt with the uphill battle of acceptance, and even if they haven't been accepted, so what? They are people too and they will fight for those rights that they deserve more than any other heterosexual bigot.
Homosexuals are not for anything. They are here for the same reasons that heterosexuals are here. They are here to be mother and father figures, they are here to be political figures, they are here to work for the rights that are being kept away from them. They are here to start the revolution. They are here to fight for the freedoms that they are said not to have, and they are here to walk and breathe and take up space the way any other heterosexual would. When a homosexual is "out of the closet" or whatever you want to call it, they could care less if you embrace them with open arms or shun them with a door to their face, but they do care when their rights are being revoked, because they are people too and deserve the opportunity to marry if they so choose and buy a coffee if they so choose without judgment or maltreatment.
Andrew Sullivan gives an example about a professor who lived a very dull life and never could announce his homosexuality to the public. His life was lived without joy, just a day to day cycle of repetitiveness that contained little human contact, and the contact he had was with other males in which he could not even pursue a relationship. Eventually this man became very open about his sexual preference and lived the best three years of his life before dying of cancer. His life was cut short, but the time he had been out and free to pursue the many relationships that he had once hoped for were fulfilled (381).
Sullivan continues on to talk about his own hardships that he experienced when struggling with his sexuality. He had known he was gay, but like most that are exposed to anti-gay messages, he tried to reject this part of his life for as long as possible. Like the university figure, he was left lonely and confused, but soon was able to announce his secret and begin the steady climb into acceptance among those that understood him and his feelings.
When I first moved to Long Beach a few years ago, I was aware that there was a significantly large gay community here, and so through the years it never phased me when I saw a gay or lesbian couple at a local shop or coffeehouse, whereas in my old town it was very rare. I never thought, however, that for these people and couples to be so comfortable and open there could possibly have been personal struggles and even periods of loneliness and confusion going on inside of their heads. Though society is beginning to settle their disapproval and become more accepting of this sexuality, there are still many more that are prejudice and discriminatory, and it is quite possible that these homosexuals have felt the brunt of these disapprovals.
Homosexuals are made up of the same eyeballs, skin, and organs that heterosexuals are made of, they just happen to feel attraction to the same sex. They also have different ways of expressing their love or friendships, some are more flamboyant and display their homosexuality more than others, and some may hold hands in the streets the same way that a heterosexual couple will hold hands. Because society has been so tough to deal with, those who can publicly display their sexuality are those that have dealt with the uphill battle of acceptance, and even if they haven't been accepted, so what? They are people too and they will fight for those rights that they deserve more than any other heterosexual bigot.
Homosexuals are not for anything. They are here for the same reasons that heterosexuals are here. They are here to be mother and father figures, they are here to be political figures, they are here to work for the rights that are being kept away from them. They are here to start the revolution. They are here to fight for the freedoms that they are said not to have, and they are here to walk and breathe and take up space the way any other heterosexual would. When a homosexual is "out of the closet" or whatever you want to call it, they could care less if you embrace them with open arms or shun them with a door to their face, but they do care when their rights are being revoked, because they are people too and deserve the opportunity to marry if they so choose and buy a coffee if they so choose without judgment or maltreatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
