How stupid can this get?:Mod note pg19 - Page 11

Originally posted by: pallavi25

Ah Haa, here too the woman is saddled with the baby ...even though she tried to pass it on to the bio dad and step mom as their own kid. Finally Pari is back with her mom! Its the man's responsibility to use protection and be careful...Arjun wasnt! But now see, hes scot free, and Purvi and her noble husband are bringing up baby! So what is Purvi's fault in this? At least she got little Pari a nice, new dad who is a true gentleman!😃

And please dont call Pari illegitimate! Its no fault of hers, shes the most innocent party here. In the Western society here, nobody even bothers abt illegitimacy! They believe a CHILD IS A CHILD IS A CHILD! I wish Indians would learn to accept babies as they are, not who is born in or out of wedlock!

Said the same thing, Pallavi, about babies in my response to Kalapi above. What is the baby's fault in all this, that it has to be saddled with passed on hate carried from mom to child?

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Dear Pallavi,

Abortion is her choice and if she feels ok with it, that is it. I would not condemn her at all.

I frankly do not see where artificial insemination comes into this debate. It seems to me completely off track.

I too have seen maidservants as single mothers.In that class, there are not so many problems, including with common law marriages and common law divorces. They used to throw the thali (the mangalsutra) in the man's face and walk out, and as they could work and were economically self-sufficient in a bare bones kind of way, they could go back to their parents or live by themselves with their kids.

Similarly, at the top end of the social scale, divorce, remarriage et al are relatively easy, but even there, an child born out of wedlock would be a problem. But not as much as for a middle class woman, and especially one from the lower middle class, chawl resident category to which Purvi belongs. There, the pressure of public opinion, the iron hold of family discipline and the demands of 'family honour' are very hard to resist, and then she has to live in the same environment.

Finally, did your mother really approve of the Aradhana kind of goings on? I somehow doubt it, but you would know better. I am much younger than she must be, but my mother must be about a decade older, and she used to condemn it unreservedly. Personally, I do not consider approval of pre-marital intimacy as a pre-requisite for being modern.

Moreover, it is one thing to be broadminded about a fictional depiction on screen, and quite another to have to cope with the results of such broadmindedness at first hand. I doubt very much if even very liberal women would be accepting and welcoming if women from their own family went the Sharmila Tagore way. That is when the real test comes, and very, very few will pass it when it comes too close to them for comfort,

There is also the question of the child. One might declare that it should be "a woman's personal choice. Every woman must choose her own destiny where motherhood is concerned", but no one asked the kid whether it wanted to be born without a proper legitimate framework. It is very selfish to choose to have a child out of wedlock and expose it to a lifetime of social problems. Purvi of course did not choose it, she blundered into it, but the end result would have been the same but for Onir.

Finally, my dear Pallavi, I remember telling you categorically that I was an unregenerate holdover from the 20th century, not at all in sync with the brave new world you all espouse. As I also said, good for you, but by the same token, I do not want to argue endlessly and pointlessly about this topic. So please write finis to this and let us agree to disagree. There is no meeting ground between us at all, and actually I never intended to write this response either, but old habits die hard! Having done so, I at least am declaring closure to this unproductive exercise.

Shyamala Di

Originally posted by: soapwatcher1

Dear Kalapi, I think you did not read my post at all. I do not recall ever mentioning or referencing babies, let alone illegitimate babies, not once. Where did I talk about babies, my mind must be playing tricks on me? Of course, if you want to call Pari an illegitimate baby and brand her with the sins of her father, you are more than welcome.

I too work in a place of forward Western outlook (your words) and have seen many children born out of wedlock to friends' and friends' kids but am glad to say I have never heard them branded, not once, as "illegitimate." I might glean from the conversations that the parents were not married at the time of the child's conception or by their different last names (even that doesn't say much as the kid might have taken on a different last name 'cos of remarriage or divorce) but never are the children labelled by any term and they shouldn't in my opinion as they had as much say about coming into the world as the next child over with parents in traditional, gay, multi-spousal, and/or dysfunctional marriages. The branding of the child I am thinking must be due to our Conservative Eastern culture (to borrow your words again).

Well JAnhvi, even in the West a pregnancy out of wedlock is no bed of roses. People do look down on such a rush acts, in fact, even girls who are involved in such acts regrets their lack of judgment. In my work place, I have the opportunity to work with many interns, and I do get the sense that they knows that getting pregnant without the right environment or being economically stable or in a stable relationship can backfire. Actually, the sex education that they get, is aimed to teach just that. That every action (even done in the height of passion) comes with consequences. Besides, I have seen quite a few similar cases too. My colleagues got pregnant from her BF, who walked out as he wasn't ready for that responsibility. She had to fight her way through maintaining work, taking care of baby. It was simply hell, for all her walking hours were spend just between these two. It was no cake walk nor a Onir was there for her. Similar story of a HS kid getting pregnant and raising her baby. Left school, took up hour jobs with minimum wages. Can one imagine. My housemaid eloped at 17 yrs...she is dead against pregnancies where the other partner isn't committed. In an India context you might have seen single unwed mom's, I haven't...

Going back to PR and my post, I talked about love and commitment in marriage. The arranged marriages you are describing do have that last, commitment, even if the love takes a while in developing, there is no thought of divorce or "leaving" your husband ever. So (it took me a while to figure out what you meant by ONS) if a girl wants to be intimate with her husband and then abandon him the next morning, that is not the kind of traditional arranged marriage you are describing either, that is a kind of one night stand in my opinion.

Well, in the case of Ovi, the love was there on part of Ovi (I think Shymaa mentions it). guess the commitment or whatever of it was there from Arjun. Besides, there isn't even a talk of divorce here - not on behalf of Arjun nor from Ovi. So, there are committed alright.

Now, let me share you another interesting story. My maharastrian friend here who came to US herself had an arrainged marriage. She sponsored her hubby and they settled here. She tells me they were always problems, but everytime - both parents said - it will be OK - you need a child to bind your marriage. She gets pregnant, the hubby leaves her at 8 month pregnancy - they are going through divorce now, the daughter is 20 months old. Is she legitimate in your opinion - she is , in my POV...I ask, for to me the hubby had every intention of leaving her, and left her at 8 month pregnancy - so both the love and trust is highly questionable - life is much more stranger than these serials, I tell you...

Intimate relations even between a married couple (in the instance of marital rape) do not become hallowed automatically if lacking one of the two ingredients. A mangalsutra is never just a license to make babies, it means more than that, marriage is a sanctity in its true sense of the word. And I will use that oft used crutch, "strictly my POV."

And Kalapi, even though I made no mention of babies, I am curious now so going back to your own argument mangla sutra gives the respectability of engaging in sex and having legit babes is that all a marriage is about? making babies? What about those couples that cannot have babies, are their marriages to be thrown out of the window?

Marriage isn't about making babies, but the babies that are born of marriages aren't considered illegitimate nor pointed fingers at, and aren't question even if one or both the partners aren't in love. Btw, this world order wasn't invented by me, but I abide by it...I guess I am not much of a rebel😆

If a mangalsutra was all that was needed to make a marriage work, even absent love and commitment, Arjun and Ovi would have been in heaven and no one would be asking Ovi to leave Arjun because their marriage is lacking the other ingredient, love.

But I don't feel taht love is the only ingredient for marriage. Rather marriages works without lov. The problem with Ovi?arjun marriage awsn't love, rather the third wheel, the extramarital affair. Arovi marriage could have worked fine, with Ovi loving Arjun and Arjun being committed to her (even if he didn't love her back according to you). It is the third whel that killed it mercilessly esp. cause there is an illegitimate baby in this equation now...

After reading today's update, I realise that PR may soon go off air with this deteriorating storyline. I am so tired of this triangle between ovi, arjun and purvi. Its too much for too long, it esem as though there is nothing else the cv can think about.

with the rating keep spiraling downward, its better they close it off now and go down on a good note rather than a bad one

Dear Kalapi, I see you edited out the question about whether I would term that baby of the mother whose husband left her, illegitimate. I will answer that question anyway, no, I would not. I would not label any child legitimate or illegitimate for that matter, born out of wedlock or within the bonds of holy matrimony. I sincerely believe no child deserves to be branded such, the parents can be condemned for the act, for their foolishness, stupidity, rashness, or whatever but that can never be foisted on the baby, just my humble opinion.

Originally posted by: pallavi25

What?!! You wont give me a chance to reply to ur queries? Now, that isnt fair, is it?

Let me just answer ur questions. My Mom didnt condemn or approve of Sharmila's "sins" in Aradhana. She just accepted it...as something that may happen between 2 lovers. The same as I do...neither approve nor condemn Arjun Purvi's premarital relations. I accepted it...even though like you I totally rejected the idea that they did anything that night. Well, knowing Ekta Mata I shd have known better, she just loves to show premarital sex and pregnancy. I was deeply disturbed, in denial when they revealed it later but accepted it eventually. I dont judge ArVi for that.

In maidservants cases, the woman seldom walks out, the husband or lover runs away, deserting the hapless woman with child or children to bring up. In Indian society, the woman always gets the raw deal in life.

As for it happening in one's own family, some people will throw the erring daughter out, disown her...but wouldnt that be putting the girl and her child at risk? There are other ways to deal with that. like abortion, adoption, or just plain bravura of accepting the raw deal and moving on! There are much worse things that could happen to a daughter!

Originally posted by: soapwatcher1

Dear Kalapi, I see you edited out the question about whether I would term that baby of the mother whose husband left her, illegitimate. I will answer that question anyway, no, I would not. I would not label any child legitimate or illegitimate for that matter, born out of wedlock or within the bonds of holy matrimony. I sincerely believe no child deserves to be branded such, the parents can be condemned for the act, for their foolishness, stupidity, rashness, or whatever but that can never be foisted on the baby, just my humble opinion.

Marriages are man made for a reason (and rightfully so just as law and order are in society) that is why in certain religions/countries, multiple wives are still legal. Children on the other hand are God given, a gift of life, and hence cannot be constrained by limits that society has placed for peaceful co-existence of its denizens.

Moving on to the rest of your post, I agree with you, single parenthood is difficult especially for a young girl with no means of support and left to herself. That is why I was surprised at the outpouring of venom towards Purvi when she found herself in that situation, she was not a home-breaker, the conception happened when neither of the parents were married and it was her good fortune that Onir volunteered to take care of her and her unborn child. I would not wish my worst enemy to be in that position as I have seen girls in this country struggling as you say with multiple priorities, motherhood, child custody, job, school, etc.

You write, Besides, there isn't even a talk of divorce here - not on behalf of Arjun nor from Ovi. So, there are committed alright. I wouldn't call that commitment at all on the part of Ovi, I hope you would not consider "separated but married" as committed to each other either, She is planning to leave him with or without that piece of paper (divorce), though I believe she did tell him earlier she did not care how they separated and that he could even bring Purvi to live with him, that does not speak of commitment to me. There are marriages of convenience, open marriages and contract marriages, there is no commitment to the spouse in those marriages even if there is no divorce.

Do you believe Arjun loves Ovi? You say Arovi marriage could have worked fine, with Ovi loving Arjun and Arjun being committed to her (even if he didn't love her back according to you). It is the third whel that killed it mercilessly esp. cause there is an illegitimate baby in this equation now...If you believe Ovi loves Arjun and Arjun loves Ovi, what is the problem then? Why applaud Ovi for leaving Arjun? The third wheel that you refer to cannot be Purvi, she is already married and has not been part of Arjun's life in that way since he married Ovi. If you mean Pari is the third wheel, well, she is gone too, Arjun has at the behest of his father set about to right his marriage with Ovi and as he tells Ovi proudly he will do everything in his power to see this marriage through even give away Pari. So if the commitment is there on his part and the love too (acc to you) and Ovi loves him and is committed to him as well, there should be no issue, she should not be miles away in Canada. They should be happily celebrating in the rain again.

Janhvi 👏

How is it that people in the most populous democracy justify classism and have different standards for people from different strata in society. From some of the posts in this thread it would appear that there are different standards for the rich, the average income earners and the poor. Some posts are extremely insutling of poor people and their values, such generalisms are hurtful. I deliberately do not discuss specifics as I would prefer not to start a debate about the class system.

Janhvi,

What follows are merely some questions about points re:this story that need clarification.

What happened to the 17 year old boyfriend? Did he offer to take at least partial responsibility for his child? Seeing that he was so keen on his girlfriend not having an abortion, one would have expected him to step up to the plate. Did he?

It is obvious that she did not marry him in the end, as he cannot be the " this wonderful man she met in grad school". Why is the baby girl, who must not be a baby by now but an 8 year old, not with her mother and her husband, but with her parents? the mother has a job and so, presumably, has her husband, so surely they should be able to support an 8 year old. Also, as the husband is such a nice man, he would surely not object to his wife's child being added to the family.

Have they told the child who her real parents are, at least her mother? If not, do they intend to do so? In any case, it will surely come out very soon, and it would then be an unpleasant shock for the child, given that she would conclude that neither her mother nor her father wanted her.

Since you say that the parents enabled their daughter 'to move on from her mistake' (it does not need the inverted commas, for if it was not a mistake, the girl should now be with her mother), are they going to bear all the responsibility for the girl while both the bio-parents, to borrow a term that is a forum favourite but not mine, do not take up any of it?

If this is so, all that it means is that a teenage girl produced a kld for which she was first unable, and later, apparently unwilling to take any responsibility. I know that you have cited this case only to illustrate the wisdom of the parents in making the best of a bad job, and I would go along with that. But I am surprised that the mother seems, if the inference I have drawn from your account is not wrong, to have, in effect, washed her hands of the fruit of her affair with her boyfriend.

Well, I do not know about how happy her parents are to have to bring up another 'daughter' all over again, and I dare say they are keeping their fingers crossed that they do not have a repeat performance with her. That would be a bit too much to take.

To sum up, your example only goes to reinforce the point that premarital affairs leading to a baby are very foolish and avoidable. If they did have to have an affair, surely there are easily available methods now to avoid a child? If she had not had such kind and adjusting parents, her life would have been in a shambles, which is ok as she chose that herself, but so would the baby's and that is not excusable at all.

Shyamala

Originally posted by: soapwatcher1

Pallavi on that last para, I would like to share something. A friend's 17 yr old daughter got pregnant some years ago. The desi community that knew the family was agog with disapproval, very quick to give advice to the mom of the girl and also to cast stones. The girl and her 17 yr old boyfriend steadfastly refused an abortion. The mother threw a baby shower for her daughter (her only child) and again many in the friends circle refused to even attend. The mother in hindsight was wise, she accepted an otherwise unalterable situation. The girl who was a straight A student went on to college leaving her little daughter behind. She is now 26 with a job, married to this wonderful man she met in grad school and the baby girl now lives with her "parents." The mother's thinking was that if she threw the daughter out, the girl would be the loser, she would not continue her schooling and she would find herself in a vicious cycle of poverty and dependence on others. By coming to terms and welcoming the baby, her daughter was free to move on from the "mistake" she had made and set her own life straight.

Dear Sakhile,

If you mean what I had said in one of my posts above, as reproduced below, you need feel at all hesitant about saying so. I will explain what the para meant.

I too have seen maidservants as single mothers.In that class, there are not so many problems, including with common law marriages and common law divorces. They used to throw the thali (the mangalsutra) in the man's face and walk out, and as they could work and were economically self-sufficient in a bare bones kind of way, they could go back to their parents or live by themselves with their kids.

There are no really classless societies anywhere in the world, not in supposedly Communist China, not in Russia, or in Europe or in Africa, and definitely not in India. There are thus classes everywhere, and no government, even if it wanted to,has been able to eradicate this, for class consciousness is rooted in the inbuilt desire of man to feel superior to at least some fellow humans.

Now, what I have stated above is not meant to insult poor maidservants, but rather to , firstly ,state a sociological fact that, while I was living with my grandparents in Mylapore in Chennai, I have observed at first hand repeatedly. Pallavi might insist that it is their husbands/lovers who abandon them, but that is not universally true, and it cannot negate what I know of my own knowledge.

Plus, far from being an insult to those women, it is a compliment to their independence and their bindass attitude, and to the social set up in that class that makes it possible. I have seen at least half a dozen such women jettison their drunken wastrel husbands along with their thalis (mangalsutras). and march off, head held high, to live with their parents or with a sibling's familiy, earning their living and supporting their children plus bearing a part of the household expenses as well. So their sisters-in-law do not behave like Manjusha, as they are not an economic liability. Some of them remarried with no problems, others did not, but the fact was that they were far more liberated women that their middle class employers.

The rich can evade most social strictures, and the attendant criticism and likely ostracism when they are infringed, because they can afford not to care, with their wealth insulating them from all these hassles.

It is only the middle class, and that too the women from that class, who bear the brunt of the demands of the society they live in. In a chawl set up, as in PR, these pressures are magnified, with everyone poking their nose into everyone else's business. That is all.

Class structures cannot be wished away by law or by fiat. That is why any sociologist will factor the class structure in while discussing social problems, which are not equally serious at all levels of the population.

One last example. In the ghotuls in some of the tribal areas of India, young people are encouraged, indeed forced to live in a community dorm and have physical relations with members of the opposite gender to assess their suitability as future marriage partners. This practice is applauded by sociologists, but the rest of India would be horrified if asked to follwo suit. But there is nothing to condemn in them, they are valid for the concerned tribes and so we cannot stand in judgement on them. It is the same with the different social norms applied by society to different classes, except those that actively damage one or the other. .

Shyamala

Originally posted by: Sakhile

How is it that people in the most populous democracy justify classism and have different standards for people from different strata in society. From some of the posts in this thread it would appear that there are different standards for the rich, the average income earners and the poor. Some posts are extremely insutling of poor people and their values, such generalisms are hurtful. I deliberately do not discuss specifics as I would prefer not to start a debate about the class system.