One day as me and Pradeep were just talkin on some random subjects ..He came across with this weird view as to why do girls remain unmarried beyond a certain age and more importantly why is it so important in terms of girls...i mean no one asks a man that why is he unmarried as long as he is financially and socially secure.
The answers to both these questions were what took most of our time. Infact pradeep had carried out a survey of a matrimonial site which had ads for girls above 30. And he found this common characteristic in almost all girls of this set...
a. Almost all of them were ugly- This is a view I agree with. An ugly girl is difficult to love and even more difficult to marry. I care two hoots about "beauty" of heart ...only for the reason that its very difficult to see. Skin deep beauty is convinient option. The only sad part is that as girls grow older they grow uglier and an intelligent girl is one who gets married young when age is supporting her.
b. Earning but not much- Almost all these girls were earning but were far below having a "career". This I really dont think is a criterion for their spinsterhood . But maybe their unwillingness to put the existent "career" on hold for marriage is the reason. Plus the fact that they are earning insufficiently compared to others who are better placed than them.
c. Feminist- Almost all profiles had very proud announcements . Nothing bad in that. But the fact of the matter is that no man wants to get stuck with an egoistic girl. He would rather marrry a meeker alternative. Many agressive and gung-ho females might disagree with that..citing examples of their husbands who are sensitive and caring and loving and yet have married them. That is true but I feel that there is a role reversal here. The husband is in fact the wife and vice versa..not a stable arrangement but as long as it lasts the wife is having fun.
We will leave such exceptions out.
Man as a rule are not interested in how great a girl is in acads or career...When choosing a wife they see her as a mother to their kids and a partner to themselves. An alpha female is a complete turnoff in both these regards..
Now we come to the question as to why do women need to be married..that too arranged.
The reason I feel is true only of India which had had around 2000 years of hit and misses to come to this arrangement. The sub reasons for this is as follows..
1. Marriage is a viable institution as it keeps men under control . The corollary is that if men are subdued the society gets the creative inputs to grow and survive.
2. If left to love, lots of people would get rejected. This is so because it is often seen that practical, marriageable persons are less romantic and the romantic ones are too irresponsible for starting a family. So if left to romance , the marriage might not be a stable one. Its as if there are two doors in series. One is romance..the other is marriage. A person with key to the first door lacks the second key. ..while a person with key to marriage door cant get to it because he lacks the key to the romance door.
3. Women are not useless but they have their limited uses. They are like worker ants ..extremely good at what they know and totally clueless about choices. Men on other hand are sex maniacs at marriageable age. They are guided more by testesterone than cerebrum at their prime. Left to choose a life partner for a stable marriage..both would commit mistakes(in majority of cases) . That is a destructive path and leads to much wastege in society like marital fights, childrens issues, courts, law and messy divorces. To prevent such losses to society moderation is required. Even at the cost of love...
We may not agree ethically with a lot of things followed in India about marriages,but I remain convinced that it still remains the most "workable" of the ideas. It is "wrong", reeks of "feudal mentality"..and "degenerates women" ..fine....but it has WORKED. It has managed to fulfill the basic aim of society ..which is to survive sustainably.We can challenge all of it ,inspired by the great American dream..but Its my personal expierance that a nation of 200 years can teach a lot to others ..but it cant teach survibability. Simply because it doesnt have the "expierance"....
No comments:
Post a Comment