All over the greater diaspora, Aunties bemoan that desi children are picky. How will they ever be satisfied? How will they ever settle down and start popping out the requisite grandkids?
Aunties can sleep better at night now that SCIENCE is on the job. Examining peoples’ behavior in online dating settings (which is equivalent to looking at biodata), they’ve noticed a few clear patterns:
Men are easy – they are generally interested in hotness above all. 
Women are choosier, but it turns out their preferences are fungible. This is good news for aunties because it gives them a metric with which to translate different suitor’s attributes to a common scale, allowing them to rank apples and oranges. They can tell, for example, whether an average woman (in this study) is likely to prefer the not quite as handsome, shorter i-banker or the more gorgeous, slightly taller, high school English teacher.
What is this common scale? Money. According to these researchers, women will forgive men’s flaws if (gasp) they earn more.
Consider looks. A guy can compensate for ordinary looks with more moola, which tells us what he has to reveal in his biodata if he wants to be a playa:
Suppose you’re an ordinary-looking guy whose online picture is ranked around the median in attractiveness… And suppose you’d like to be as successful with women as a guy whose picture is ranked in the top tenth. Then you’d need to make $143,000 more than him. If your picture is ranked in the bottom tenth, you’d need to make $186,000 more than him. [Link]
Cash also acts like elevator shoes for our shorter brothers:
… a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market. [Link]
Race matters too. Generally speaking, men were more willing to date somebody of a different race than women, with the exception of Asian women who preferred White men over others. (3/4ths of Asian-white marriages have Asian women and white men [Link] )
For equal success with an Asian woman, an African-American needs no additional income; a white man needs $24,000 less than average; a Hispanic man needs $28,000 more than average. [Link]
It’s not clear whether brown women act like their other Asian counterparts – any thoughts?
Lastly, if you want to get around these sorts of hurdles, skip the biodata and move straight to cha:
… people who are terribly picky in choosing partners online will relax their standards if they spend just three or minutes talking to someone at a speed dating session. [Link]
There you go. Now that science has helped Aunties, maybe it will come up for a way for the rest of us to be able to evade them. Oh yeah, it’s called caller ID 
In case you’re interested, here is the academic paper in question
.
Related posts: Speed kills (part 1), Speed kills (part 2)
also, getting groped 900 times a day would keep me in doors.
This sounds right, and it certainly is a product of patriarchy, but I think if you are reading it the wrong way. The basic taboo against a woman living alone is that it is unsafe for her. To assume that you might be a hooker for wanting to live alone may seem unjust, but the reasoning is simply that no woman in her right mind would live alone, so the ones do must have something up their sleeves. It’s not a direct objection to independence but ironical as it seems, an attempt at protection.
Kathkavi, I think the desire to “protect” and infantilize women (protect them from whom? men’s own worse instincts?) is very much a part of the patriarchal mindset. It’s the same reasoning that men use to tell women to cover up and even veil, isn’t it? It’s always “for your own safety.” I was rather happier in Bombay where I didn’t have to deal with men trying to protect me from themselves.
Yes, I know it is. It’s just that your description made it seem like you felt branded as a hooker-type, though that was probably not the landlord’s intention. Also, I think a female landlord, however liberated, would advise you against living alone too (though the whole hooker issue could be avoided). Protection is an effect of patriarchy, certainly, but it can be dangerous to rebel against protection as a way to bring down the patriarchy.
SP said
So you gave the answer about what was missing there. It doesnt have as much to do with male female subjugation or anything. They just wanted to make sure some hooker wasn’t renting and once they did, you had no problem getting the apt. The thing is they are just being reasonable for whatever their ridiculous assumptions are. Not because they think women are lesser creatures or anything. Statistically, maybe, there is a higher chance that a woman living alone in that area is a hooker because most normal women live with a family. So, they are worried abt it. Thats all. If they are 100% sure thats not the case, as they did when your parents offered a word of support, you got it, rite? You probably would’ve been as concerned about it if you were in their shoes.
and btw, many landlords prefer not to rent to single men either. So a fraction of them wouldn’t have had their apartments for you even if you were a man 🙂
psh. yea rite… and getting raped 10 times a day
‘Protect’ and infantalize cannot be conflated and equated the way you so easily do. Because protect is a very broad term, that can cover quite a bit. Infantalize is much more specific.
In fact, many women are attracted to men because of characteristics indicative of protective ability. (They’ve been gone over ad naseum earlier in this thread). In many, many subtle ways, men are rewarded by being the one’s that make decisions in relationships.(from small: where to go eat, to big: where to live, etc..)
We’re told by everyone except aliens on Pluto that we need to be “strong-willed”, “confident”, “not a wuss” – these are all words that connote strength. Strength over who? To ask the question is to answer it.
A friend once told me, of her boyfriend, “I never knew I was really attracted to him, until he told me ‘no'” And this was in reference to a small thing, like going to two parties one night instead of one, or some such triviality.
Again. let’s stay focused here. I’m not sanctioning female abortion or the female inability to rent apartments in segments of North India. I am however saying, that women tend to favor (when I say favor, I mean, ‘be attracted’ to) characteristics that might be categorized as subtle forms of “patriarchy”
Apologies to HMF who has been contributing a ton of interesting material to this discussion but, was I the only person who expected something different at the end of this sentence?
😉
No apologies necessary… I dish it out a lot, I can take it.
I am however saying, that women tend to favor (when I say favor, I mean, ‘be attracted’ to) characteristics that might be categorized as subtle forms of “patriarchy”..
They do…but this can never be spoken of..not in polite company. Women want it both ways; guys have to be both Gordon Gekko and Ned Flanders in the same body…ain’t gonna happen. [sarcasm]Straight up that’s why the preffered man of choice for militant brown girls is the docile white guy; his kind can be found on college campuses all over N America [/sarcasm]
Glass houses – bro, you are kidding right? I know you put that sweet little sarcasm code in there for the next statement but seriously, really?
And on a different note, HMF – chances are my experiences are vastly different anyway (being from NZ) but I am genuinely curious none the less – what subtle forms of patriarchy are you referring to?
“but seriously, really?..
Oh…quite serious Sonal…See what I mean…can’t be spoken of… ..and I doubt you would understand given your inability to grasp subtle forms of patriarchy..I guess you never use handcuffs 🙂
Not in the patriachal sense, no …
hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to say “patriarchy means different things to different people” or something rather vague like that–but that won’t quite encompass casual misogyny or subtle patriarchy which is a pervasive and similar feeling in both women and men to different extents. Maybe some women like assertive men, but some men like assertive women. We’re all above generalizations here.
Maybe it is safer for women to live with a family rather than alone, but it shouldn’t be just because they’re women. Women should have the same rational fears as men when it comes to living alone–“will someone mug me? would there be a fire when I’m out? what if I lose my keys?” Not “It’s dangerous with all these men around.” Men sitting at table while women sit on the floor, men praying in front of women, men being able to walk the streets–all of this is inconsequential to patriarchy, IMHO, unless women feel as if they’re being deprived of an appropriate position or respectable treatment with these acts.
Women can clean the house because they care about the cleanliness of its inhabitants, not because it’s their job. Men can do the same. There shouldn’t be some kind of designation of duties based off gender–it should be based off comfort, preference, and respect. If women feel slighted in a life choice because they’re women, respect that. If men feel slighted for being men, respect that as well. They didn’t walk into the wrong place at the wrong time or experience something other than what it was–this is a reality for them and in that brief flash of time, it becomes injustice. It’s strange how millions of women around the world who complain about this can just be “nagging irritations” are often written off as merely suffering from a million independent cases of hallucination of mistreatment (that statement wasn’t to attack anything anyone has said previously, it’s just from personal experience).
None of this was to attack anyone on this thread, it’s just my two cents that added up from reading some very thoughtful posts. Good discussion.
MD wrote:
I haven’t read most of the comments..but here’s my 2 paisa.
Blaming women for perpetuating the culture of patriarchy is like blaming guns for murder (and not the person who fired the gun). Having spent more than 20 years in India, I feel that most men don’t derive any pleasure or satisfaction from ‘practicing patriarchal methods’…it’s just that this has been programmed in their minds ever since they were born, and hence they consider it as a way of life (norm). I’m not trying to use this as an excuse (‘cos there is no reason for me to justify this patriarchal anomaly) but I feel that the will to change should come from both the parties. It’s the men who will have to mend their ways, while the women will be required to strive for ‘equality’ and then ‘follow what they preach’.
So, what, you’re saying women are just tools used by men to perpetuate extreme patriarchy? That women are somehow inanimate objects in this entire conspiracy? I don’t buy that for a second.
Totally disregards the point about men being trained to feel superior, before they even start shaving. Children, whether they’re male or female need to be taught right from wrong, from the beginning.
Where else but on a desi thread would you have people falling all over themselves to make excuses for clearly sexist behaviour, insist there are good reasons for it, tiptoe around the matter and try not to make men feel bad about it and insist that it goes on because women “want it” somehow, or are responsible for perpetuating it? Several of the comments have actually been extremely revealing about the depth and persistence (and level of denial) about such attitudes among desis. Bas, no more from me, I can’t deal with it any more.
Not at all. It’s you who is trying to give this a spin.
What I meant was that you can’t just blame women and brush off this issue under the carpet. Most of the blame in this case lies with the men.
The gun analogy that I used meant just one thing – you can’t blame guns for a murder…you gotta blame the murderer.
How does it disregard this when I say that the change has to come from both the parties ?
By ‘follow what you preach’, I meant that there are lots of women who believe in ‘equality at workplace’ but never raise their voices when they feel that they (or their fellow workers) are being discriminated against. This has to change.
Longtime lurker, sometime poster; I’m really curious to know what all the history with “PG” — pardesi gori — is. Anyone care to share?
Here’s why I think the analogy doesn’t fly: Murderers aren’t raised by guns. Guns are simply tools that have no contributory capacity to the actions they do. Women are active agent human beings, why is it so hard to believe people (men and women) do things that they know to be harmful, to them and others? Women stay in abusive relationships all the time, are they not to retain some responsibility?
But I’ve already explained myself very thoroughly. What I am saying is, men and women are raised in a certain environment, and women do certainly contribute to perpetuating a system they themselves are victims of, because unfortunately, it’s what they know.
Now once again, lets stay focused I am not talking about abortions, baby killing or any of those other horrible things. I am talking about giving young boys the feeling they are superior (by having them have special seats, eat first, never help around the kitchen, never learn cooking, etc.. etc..) as they grow up, and yes it doesn’t feel proper, but you just get used to it.
This is not sweeping under a carpet or any kind of denial.
If my mom didnt take the effort to teach me cooking, i would probably feel less special. somehow my mom teaching me how to cook made me feel good…
SP, I dont blame you for saying that. You have obviously had an unpleasant ego bruise with a personal incident (landlords in delhi needing extra verification because you are a single woman) When that happens, it can be a little difficult to not let it run at the back of your mind all the time… There are infinite women in india who can vouch for the fact that they dont really face any unfair gender discrimination that requires attention from that viewpoint(I’m not talking abt renting apartments here). Just take my word for it. If what you insinuate was so completely true, that just couldnt be possible.
Maybe this is not a perfect example but its like for instance, I tend to feel similarly bitter when car rentals charge me extra, etc. just for being underage, single, whatever. If you think about it, it has nothing to do with you, or discrimination. They are just worried about their property, etc. I dont think its good for you to take it as a personal affront, which you obviously did.
Random – there are other examples. I had a friend – Indian born and raised but she went to college and graduate school in the US. She went back to India and traveled to Chandigarh to get her birth certificate. The bureaucrat told her to come back with an older male member of the family, and simply refused to get her birth certificate without one. If I remember correctly, this friend’s mother is a judge, but even so, she couldn’t get this guy to budge. I don’t remember how it was resolved – whether she had to pull strings or whether she gave in, but she couldn’t get this guy to do his job because she was a woman.
That’s a story from an Indian woman who is very proud of being Indian and who almost moved back to India after her graduate work.
Was this rare? I have no idea. My other Indian friends were appalled / disbelieving when they heard the story, so it’s not everyday, but people from a certain generation refuse to treat young women as equals.
If what you insinuate was so completely true, that just couldnt be possible.
In the sense that, the reality is somewhere in between the two extreme arguments. Just accept that its not as bad as you are trying to suggest…(should be fairly obvious to you, since you did claim you lived in india)
Sonia @421
Step 1) Go into the Sepia Mutiny archives and put in that handle, along with her half dozen or so others like MoS, videsi gori, Mistress of spices, carib queen, etc.
Step 2) Claw your eyes out after reading
Step 3) After a gap of a couple of weeks, read her new contributions and sever other body parts till the physical pain overtakes the mental torture.
Step 4) Resist,resist,resist the urge to respond to any of her new “contributions”
I’d like to meet this women.
At the risk of again being called a “racist”…. I have to say that situations similar to what Ennis stated above is frequent in the areas of India I resided. I wish I could tip-toe around it to sound more “politically correct” and whatnot, but I just cannot. It would be straight up lying.
Why is it so hard to accept the idea that perhaps India has more of an issue regarding women’s rights than alot of other places on the globe? Personally I would be shocked if it didn’t – taking into consideration the historical and religious perspectives of the country. Religion is a major factor in India, and religion is always a major factor in the repression of women (although paradoxically it is often a factor in women’s liberation as well).
I’m sorry but there is just no tip-toeing around this issue.
I find it disheartening how some people here like to make fun of me or my comments just because I’m a white American woman basically saying the same things that Indian and Indian American women (and some men) are saying.
I can really relate to Anna right now.
I’ve got just as many or more haters on here as she does.
And I do feel it has to do with being a woman telling it like it is (my experiences).
Sorry, I’m not your mother, I’m not going to tip-toe around these issues, which have effected me directly every day of my life while living in India and basically are the sole cause for me being in America typing behind a computer right now, instead of over there, where I still have a home, of sorts.
It would be nice to be given a compassionate benefit of the doubt.
There are infinite women in india who can vouch for the fact that they dont really face any unfair gender discrimination
First, wow…I can’t believe this discussion is still on.
Second, and at the risk of being pilloried, isn’t some of the “unfair gender discrimination” in India actually generated by women themselves, and more importantly, by certain demands they place on society?
For example, in some places (and definitely in TN), there is special seating for women on buses, and men aren’t allowed to use these seats. Of course, a woman isn’t limited to sitting in the “ladies’ seats.” She can pretty much sit anywhere. Similarly, there are special lines for women to get movie tickets. These lines are always faster and shorter than the lines for men. Those are just a couple of instances where women appear to want to have the cake and eat it too. That is, “I’m just as good as any man, but you’ll never catch me actually in the proximity of a strange one.”
I feel that the generous people on these boards have given you more than a compassionate benefit of doubt. Your ranting is relentless and that is why people seem to pick on you. Please don’t compare yourself to ANNA as most of what you get is what you ask for. How would you expect people to be compassionate when you don’t give anything to back your stories, you perpetuate stereotypes and have never backed up any of your varied assertions. I feel people will take you seriously if you back up what you say with facts.
HMF –
That “no” just symbolizes individual will to a woman. Much like a man who has a doormat for a wife will have an affair with a self-willed, self-determined, confident woman who is not so “needy” of him and does not let her walk all over him. It’s about respect.
The doomat wife or husband who allows their spouse to walk all over them and dictate their very existence is —- boring as hell.
And that’s why certain marriages appear so dry and lifeless. And that’s why extramarital affairs happen or a “memsahib” is invited for a cup of chai…. to get that injection of the self-willed woman in their otherwise boring dutyfilled grihasta jeevan.
We women DON’T want brutes ordering us around and playing all macho 24/7. But we do respect self-determined individuals – women and men alike. You will see this in (same sex) friendships as well.
It’s not patriarchal or matriarchal. It’s about respect.
Hema, these were put in place due to the large amounts of sexual harrassment we women face in India – daily. And you know what? It’s the least the country could do for us. Better to have a separate line/compartment and not get groped and oogled constantly than to risk getting my ass fondled yet again by some stranger. Problem is there are not enough of these lines and seats. We need more. Until the sexual harrassment issue has been somewhat contained, which will take time, perhaps a long time. Until then – more separate seats and lines please!
dbd –
I back up most of my statements with personal experiences/anecdotes. Statistics on a computer screen don’t mean as much to me. Anyway, just google, all the data is there.
I don’t need data, I’ve got first hand experience – countless experiences in fact. Data pales in comparison to that.
But as you may not be ;
a) a woman b) a resident of India
……… I can understand how statistical data would be important for you believe me.
Google is there for that.
PG,
I will go and follow steps 1 through 4 listed in 427 through 429 now.
Peace
Hema, these were put in place due to the large amounts of sexual harrassment we women face in India – daily.
Please don’t patronize me. I don’t need a lesson on how much sexual harrassment there is in India. Do you really think having special seats on a bus prevents sexual harassment?
It’s not just about lines at theaters and seats on buses. It’s about women perpetuating the stereotypes that they are weighed down with. It’s about women treating themselves as the gender in need of paternalistic protection from the government. It’s what allows employers to turn away prospective female candidates in fear of how their future marriages and pregnancies might impact productivity (yes, that still happens in India). “Oh, poor woman. I don’t want her to have to suffer when she is pregnant, you know?” Indian women buy into this sort of thing, and it just comes full circle and bites equality in the ass.
Hema, I’ve brought this very point up before. But again, I was using buses in Bangalore as my sample point. That story about the birth certificate is outrageous. That’s infrastructural, not just social. I haven’t heard anything like that happening in the parts of Bangalore I’ve been. I hate to turn this into a north/south thing – but I wonder, does anyone have any similar incidents to add from the southern parts?
Pardesi Gori: Aapkey comments itney chutiya kissam ke koyon hotay hain?
For the record the above comment was in jest if its not clear enough.
Yes. All the times I’ve been fortunate enough to have that option (very rare) I have not been sexually harrassed. All the times I did not travel with that option, I have been. At least while we women in India are travelling separately, we are not getting our tits, asses and choots felt up. Alongside the separate conveyances though should be signs all over the trains/busses whatever saying, “women are sitting separately because of you” followed by an essay on sexual harrassment. So that eventually, as society changes, there will be less and less need for the separatism, until one day there will be no need for it and we will feel safe and free travelling in India.
For someone who has spent the majority of her adult life in India, travelling on public conveyance (horn ok please), I can say that I always RUN LIKE MAD for a separate conveyance when there is one (rare). Why? It will be a ride without any strange hands on my tits, ass and choot. Basically I’ll be able to breath for that short amount of time.
Why would I choose to enter a car full of men when I can ride in one full of women and not get molested?
For someone who has spent the majority of her adult life in India, travelling on public conveyance
Your implication being that others here have (a) either never lived in India, or (b) have no idea what it’s like to take public transport, I suppse. I’ll let the unsubstantiated assumption slide for now.
My point is a more general one than just having special buses set aside for women. It’s that the Indian women who complain that they are subjugated by an overly patriarchal society also play their part in the subjugation, partly by allowing society to treat them in as paternalistic a way as possible.
True. That kind of change is usually in the hands of women, in any society. Generally most men have changed because they were forced (educated) to. That was “called consciousness” raising back in the 60’s and 70’s days of the “feminist movement” here in USA. Sometimes that took radical, even violent forms.
Anyway, one part of women saying “enough is enough” was the demand for separate lines and seats, no? I don’t know the history of that, maybe you can fill me in.
Anyway, one part of women saying “enough is enough” was the demand for separate lines and seats, no?
I’m not certain what spawned it, but I don’t think it was because women made an enlightened plea to get away from men and sexual harassment.
In TN at least, most women won’t sit next to a strange man on a bus, train, whatever (for fear of being “corrupted”, I suppose). Having a whole side of the bus dedicated to ladies only seating eliminates this problem. I believe that’s the real origin of the practice, rather than to avoid “eve teasing.”
Hema,
Please refer to 427-429 for a primer on how to deal with PG, if physical pain doesn’t ammuse you please wait for PG to respond to AMD’s question.
You can write a post about flora and fauna in the amazon, PG can turn into the many evils of India, it truly is an art.
To all those who claim women are routinely sexually groped in india like everywhere on the streets, why dont you try out this controlled experiment for yoursefl if u r so confident? Make an attempt to touch (not even grope, since i know u are a good person) a random woman on the street and let me know how it turns out. I could place a good bet that, more likely than not that you’d get beaten up or sth (seriously, unless its in a really really crowded place where ppl are literally pushing each other for space and stuff.
the thing is, that kind of crowd never happens in this country(US), but again who knows what could happen from the perverts in the US if similarly crowded situations exist routinely in the US?) so yeah, i’m sick of the overabusing of the groping arguments in all these complaints(puliogre pointed it out earlier too)
I could place a good bet that, more likely than not that you’d get beaten up
Heh. A woman throwing her chappal at a man’s face is way more effective (at least in India) than separate buses. Twenty women beating the crap out of one guy? Even better.
Re: groping
I have had the privilege of living /working in 5 cities in India and yes, while groping does exist its not endemic.
I don’t want to start a region war here but the worst experiences I had were in New Delhi- groped, stalked, threatened in broad daylight.I always felt safe traveling -even at night – in Bombay and barring one bad incident never had a problem . Worked and traveled sometimes as late (early?) as 2 am in Pune – no problems. Traveled in 2nd class train compartments and to fairly rural areas in Gujarat – absolutely no problem. Traveled in the South ( Chennai,Bangalore) and did not face any issues – though those were short visits.
So to those who say that its a common occurrence all across India that’s not true.
It happens and we all learnt to take standard precuations to avoid nasty incidents Note: I am telling it like it is – please don’t flame me and start an argument about how it is wrong that women have to take these precautions etc
@hema: seen grindhouse? 😀 don’t need twenty for beating up b@$!@(&s like that.
I think to have significant discussion we must fully quantify the notion of a grope and/or grab:
I believe these acts can be fully quantified by this model:
N = number of fingers used P = average pressure applied during the grab (measured in PSI) L = length of grab (in sec) A = azimuth angle of grab, where 0 degrees is defined as the direction perpendicular from the coccyx E = elevation of the grab, in inches (where 0 is defined as the gluteus medius muscle)
When these figures are fully taken into account, then plotted according to region, taking into account population size, number of buses per square mile, and of course male:female ratio. Then we can continue this fascinating discussion.