A column (thanks, Fuerza Dulce) from the women’s magazine Marie-Claire on Anjali Mansukhani’s enthusiasm for arranged marriages (including her own), didn’t really start in what seemed like the best possible way:
By age 26, after attending more than 150 weddings, I was fast approaching my “expiration date.” (link)
“Expiration date” at age 26? That’s pretty young; personally, I think women get “expired” these days at around 27 or 28…
But it gets so much better. Anjali, a Bombayite, meets a guy who seems like Mr. Right — a New York based banker — and moves to his 40th story Manhattan apartment after three dates (and a marriage). Life there is blissfully happy:
While I craved privacy in India, the lack of neighbors and family dropping in left a shocking void every day as I ate breakfast and lunch alone. My husband worked late most evenings, and I sat in front of the TV, unable to call home because it would be 2 a.m. there.
After a few weeks, I learned that I’d married a “jetrosexual.” He had an exhausting travel schedule (four cities in four days). I joined the ranks of corporate wives who saw every show, opera, and ballet in town, just to fill the hours.
To make friends, I joined a gym, went to the library, and took Italian classes. I discovered that having an arranged marriage was a great icebreaker, and my social circle mushroomed each time I retold my story.
Marriage, I soon learned, wasn’t easy — especially to a modern man. My husband had acquired a mistress, and her name was BlackBerry. She had the power to stop discussions midsentence, her red signal lighting up his face in the way I only dreamed of doing. (link)
Such happiness. It really brightens your day.
Off to a great start, no doubt. But Anjali’s new life really takes off when she learns to name-drop consumer goods and lifestyle choices like a professional New Yorker:
As peers in India opted for motherhood and worked on post-baby waistlines, I took Spinning and pole dancing at the gym to work off exotic dinners of sweetbreads, foie gras, chocolate mousse. After reading about America’s obsession with Venti decaf skim mochas, I went to try one — but came back instead with a spiced chai latte. Amazingly, Starbucks was providing my childhood drink on every corner.
I found a job as a financial consultant. The New York Times in one hand, coffee in the other, I realized that my saris of bright pink, violet, and salmon were not exactly subway wear. Quickly, I succumbed to Levi’s and Ralph Lauren.
I started to realize that I just might have the best of both worlds. I marinated my Indian marriage in the flavors of Manhattan. I kept the sari and bought the Jimmy Choos. I made fabulous curries, seasoned with spices from Dean & Deluca. And after months of enjoying decidedly non-Indian experiences of seders, Saks, and sake, I felt confident enough to direct Indian guests to a hotel, occasionally throwing in a MetroCard.
I’m not hating, really I’m not. In fact, I’m thrilled she’s so happy — with those Jimmy Choos that she got from Bloomie’s, drinking Chai Tea Latte at Starbucks (which is just like the Chai in India, isn’t it?), before her pole-dancing class, where she’ll burn off the foie gras from the night before. Arranged marriage can be great that way.
That’s very nice of you, Camille.
Sometimes, what starts as a rear-ending might end in a pile-up.
Done.
I went through this experience in high school, not as a ‘rite of passage,’ but because my uterus and my ovaries hate me.
Honestly, Jasmine, I’m not disputing biology, and I actually agree with your sentiments. They just seem like a poor reason to assert that yenta-style arranged marriage is the solution to all our problems.
Confuddles?
I guess thats a perfectly cromulent word.
I know Desis all over Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, Queens Village, Richmond Hill, etc. You sound like the NYC Confused Desi (no offense, I’m also ABCD) – divided between liberal NYC and traditional Indian household.
and for the i-bankers, pink slips?
clearly the author is full of shit, the article is clearly contrived and i’m sure she’s not buying or doing half of what was declared. you see this writing style in the lifestyle supplements of the times of india and other papers. this woman has watched too much entertainment and lifestyle television. even a hardcore wannabe who’s living her supposed lifestyle would write about it more authentically. to anyone from the city, her take on the manhattan life is so hackneyed it could have been written from nagpur.
Heh…never saw that coming
JGandhi, no offense taken. My parents are kind of weird (then again, whose aren’t?), but yeah, you would be right, for the most part. At least there are other desis around who can relate.
Isn’t that always the story on Wall Street?
the thing that bugs me the most about this article ,is that it establishes a dichotomy between the “ancient motherland” and the “modernity of the US.” Implicit in her narrative is the oppression of ‘poor third world indian women’ – who have an expiration date and are riddled with kids before the age of 30 – while she enjoyes her freedom through consumerism and pole dancing. i can’t wait to be asked questions re: arranged marriages prompted by this is oh so informed and informative article.
Not when you know which way interest rates are going in advance. [link]
serenityha – totally. It’s that dichotomy that I try to work my way out of. 🙁
touche!
I was just wondering if I’m the alone one who after reading the article thought: What! He cheated with Blackberry? The Bastard!
I ummm… feel so stupid
Pardesi Gori #217, I actually had the converse experience. I met an alabaster skinned, blue eyed blond off the casual encounters section on Craigslist and traipsed off to a park for some daring semi-public sex in the afternoon. We spied a lissome dark-haired, doe-eyed Indian girl with a full bindi and a glowing brown complexion through the bushes when Claire (that was her name, the blond’s) asked me if she would join us for a threesome. When I replied that it was unlikely, she turned to me (well, it was reverse cowgirl, if you must ask) with a single tear running down her cheek (I still remember how it glistened in the afternoon sun) and asked why. “Well, her husband will check her virginity on her wedding night”, I replied, “and, her parents cannot afford hymen reconstruction surgery as they will have to pay off their life savings for the man who will support their daughter.” Her voice cracked as she told me, “Alas, these primitives and their customs that hold them back!”
It was then that I realized the oppressiveness of Indian culture. Just before I… well, I wouldn’t want Claire to blush.
I met an alabaster skinned, blue eyed blond off the casual encounters section on Craigslist and traipsed off to a park for some daring semi-public sex in the afternoon.
I know the above was posted in jest but Craiglist is in fact unbelievable.
You call her, the vaguely orientalist farishta, but she does not answer. So sad.
So a tear was running down Claire’s cheek because the Indian girl’s hymen could not afford a tear?
will your male children blame their lack of game to the gold-digging propensities of the spence-school-going-i-banker-loving little miss mansukhanis?
No, hopefully by then such nonsensical propensities would’ve been eradicated. More and more women are keeping it real as we speak, you should try it sometime.
remember, it was an arranged marriage. her parents were desperate. and don’t forget the in-laws chose her. there just seem to be too many variables for this to be a sinister plan
Actually it wasn’t clear as I said it. I didn’t mean she’s a golddigger in the anna nicole sense, (may she breast in peace), rather her parents were pushing her to get married, and using the money as rationalization. The terms of the arrangement wouldn’t be accepted if the guy wasn’t rolling in it. Where does it say the “in laws chose” her? I missed that.
She would most likely impart that value system of “doesn’t matter how wellyou know your spouse, as long as he’s got money” to her children. That’s what I meant by cyclical.
Thanks to all this innuendo, I now have a mental image of a person with piles being vigorously rear-ended.
This will affect whether the i-banker now needs dough. All Padma Lakshmi’s bad influence, I tell you.
Anjali writes: ‘After our 10-day honeymoon, we were ceremoniously dispatched to Manhattan’.
Er, She got her US visa pretty fast!
not as long as i have my looks. seriously, HMF, i mostly don’t disagree with what you have to say most of the time, and i hear you on the materialism and cynicism that pervades most cultures, but must every conversation always reduce to – “women run after the greenbacks”? let’s just entertain this argument for a second. empirically speaking, shouldn’t it be true for at least some number of cases (i emphasize some here): males with “desirable” qualities for mates: socially well-adjusted, intelligent, driven, hardworking, smooth-talking etc do well financially. that is, financial success may just be a proxy for these desirable traits. so while it may look like some women are “gold-digging,” they are actually attracted to these alphas for their character traits rather than bank balance. this, of course, disadvantages those males who might have those desirable traits but never got any opportunities to develop them because of more institutionalized factors (race, class, access to education, healthcare etc).
in response to this question:
i found this in the article:
really HMF, i was only teasing. i’m really good at it, too.
But whenever anyone brings up the ‘women are wired for relationships, men are wired for sex’ point, I cringe, because it makes all heterosexual relationships seem like the woman is trapping some poor (or rich), unsuspecting male for the rest of life with the lure of sex
Wouldn’t you at least concede that’s the majority case? In any event, I think the ‘wired’ descriptor is key here. As you say, there are men that want relationships and women that wanna just f(ck but, but couldn’t that go against our natural wiring?
Hmmm…re: the author’s experience (or not)at age 27…don’t you think that it is possible that she thought that her husband, parents, in-laws, aunties, etc. might read this article? It is possible that that she might have experienced the not-uncommon wedding night “amnesia”…
Rahul:
Was this you? 😉
not as long as i have my looks.
“In ten years you better have a personality…” -Vince Vaughn, from ‘Be Cool’
: socially well-adjusted, intelligent, driven, hardworking, smooth-talking etc do well financially. that is, financial success may just be a proxy for these desirable traits.
I’ve heard this BS argument before. Now, you did qualify your statement with “some”, which I acknowledge. I find the “money is a proxy for other good stuff” the quintessential female rationalization, and inability to separate & compartmentalize human characteristics.
You are right, such a connection is indeed possible, but i dont believe it’s a true “implication” relationship, that is, it’s not the case that:
if { smooth && intelligent && driven } then { rich as hell }, rather, I’d say those are orthogonal. (unless that “driven-ness” is the drive to just earn money no matter what)
because :
if { lucky || robber || criminal || dumb fuck who has rich parents } then { rich as hell } is equally possible.
Look at history, Look at all these drug dealer & murderers that were rolling in money, did their wives leave them the moment they found how that money was obtained? No. because the “desirable traits” meant squat compared to the other perks.
i found this in the article
seems like more of an aggregate decision, and completely verifies my claim that the individual personality and compatibility meant nothing, rather that he was rich, and she was…. well, I’m still trying to figure out what she brought to the table.
You pegged that right!
Good points. Pressure is pressure, whether it’s being made to feel dorky because you are not having uncommitted sex, OR being made to feel like a whore because you are. Who’s to say one is better than the other really? However, in today’s world of globalization and mass media, it can get annoying when even signing in to your email account you are bombarded with images of scantily clad women (rarely men, damnit) advertising “relationship” (sex?) sites. There is such a thing as balance and I don’t think today’s modern (western?) world has it. Nor do I think that cultures wherein women are expected to derive pleasure only and exclusively from serving others (as mentioned by Nala above) is balanced either. (And I know exactly how deep such traditions run in some areas of the globe because I have lived amongst them, and wouldn’t expect anyone who hasn’t experienced that first hand to even have an inkling of how deep the rabbit hole goes).
I don’t neccessarily think men are hardwired for sleeping around and women are not. It is not really an established scientific “fact” at this point, it remains a theory. It may be that both sexes are hardwired for sleeping around (enjoying variety) but one more than the other needs a permanant relationship and space in addition to their “fun” to accomodate pregnancy and child-rearing. There are many women who have extra-marital affairs, but we hear more often than not about men doing it. There are two sides to every story and women have kept theirs more on the downlow. Even some ultra-conservative looking and acting “aunties” have a little pau bhaji snack on the side before their main course evening meal of dal bhaat, even in some of those more traditional regions/communities (it’s hard to maneuvor such things in an environment where everyone knows everybody and tabs are kept on all, but somehow they’ve managed).
Really I think we are too easily swayed by literature expounded gender differences. Real life and practical experience often tells us otherwise. Humans are products of their living environment and if you are conditioned (brain-washed) since practically before exiting your mother’s womb that “this is how girls are and this is how boys are”, well, more than likely you will grow into that mold.
Being that humans develop sexually in their teens, I am not against teen marriages in environments that provide enough support for them to succeed. Modern day, technological societies generally do not have that support system in tact, but it could be done if it was made a priority, like selling useless items have been made priority. But let’s face it, the reason why staying single for a long time supports the system is because more single people than married people consume items for “image”. How many married women are going in for breast augmentation surgery? The demographic for that is young, single women, for the most part. Sure, you get a granny or two who goes for boob-lift, but once you have fallen in love and captivated your partner to agree to a long term relationship and you are confident that he or she loves you the way you are, you are less likely to obsess over your looks and buy expensive products or go for surgeries that will “improve” them. So to stay single for a very long time feeds this artificial, materialistic economy. The longer you stay single, the longer it remains neccessary to acquire the looks or the goods (specific types of cars or whatever) that will impress other single people, things that alot of married and “settled” people just don’t spend alot of money on when they have their kids educations and family bills to worry about.
dude, so far the likes of you haven’t evolved enough to not feel insecure about my personality.
again, my “some” qualification pre-empted this. let me rephrase. if a man is rich, i did not imply that he must be in possession of desirable traits. if a man possesses alpha traits, then there is an increased probability of doing better financially. hope that helps. i know you’re intelligent. why get so defensive as to make a strawman out of a reasonable observation? now i feel badly that i’ve had to use a maureen dowd column in my defense. some days are just that bad.
again, my “some” qualification pre-empted this. let me rephrase
And again, I acknowledged the CYA “some” qualification. But I even dispute your intended statement:
if a man possesses alpha traits, then there is an increased probability of doing better financially. hope that helps.
because those alpha traits must be pointed in the direction of earning money, so
not driven, but driven to earn money
not smooth, but smooth in interactions that yield money *besides, “smooth” is such a vague descriptor, it really doesn’t make sense anyway.
not intelligent, but having intelligence that yields money (here’s a counterpoint, the man with the highest IQ is a bouncer, certainly not making large heaps of money)
Unless you’re saying of course, that by definition “alpha” means higher probability of making money, then indeed you prove my point that women have as one of their primary “desirable” traits as large amounts of money, which is fine, just be upfront and admit the sh*t.
Damn. screwed that up, lets try again: (feel free to delete the previous)
again, my “some” qualification pre-empted this. let me rephrase
And again, I acknowledged the CYA “some” qualification. But I even dispute your intended statement:
if a man possesses alpha traits, then there is an increased probability of doing better financially. hope that helps.
because those alpha traits must be pointed in the direction of earning money, so
not driven, but driven to earn money
not smooth, but smooth in interactions that yield money *besides, “smooth” is such a vague descriptor, it really doesn’t make sense anyway.
not intelligent, but having intelligence that yields money (here’s a counterpoint, the man with the highest IQ is a bouncer, certainly not making large heaps of money)
Unless you’re saying of course, that by definition “alpha” implies traits geared towards making money, then indeed you prove my point that women have as one of their primary “desirable” traits as large amounts of money, which is fine, just be upfront and admit the sh*t.
exactly. that is why i used the phrase “increased probability.”
let’s cut out the BS and coolly discuss some data. from the study i quoted in my previous comment:
care to expound on these findings? who comes off as more shallow?
also, HMF: and the strategy of using outliers to prove your point is just so specious. when talking of average tendencies (ie the huge generalizations you’re so fond of making), don’t give one example and think that your point is proven. if the person with the highest IQ on the planet is a bouncer, it says nothing about the average financial condition of a general range of men with smart IQs. second, IQs might be a factor in explaining wealth, other traits like motivation, perseverance, social skills, and a host of others might be predictors of financial success as well. your super-smart bouncer may have lacked these, or discount labor steeply, and value leisure a lot more than the average joe. more power to him.
exactly. that is why i used the phrase “increased probability.”
So then theoretically, one could possess the “alpha traits” you mentioned, but not be financially strong. Those that fall into this category usually do not fare with women (because lack of financial strength) Yet according to you, they’re still “alpha”? – which by definition assumes they attract women disproportionately.
Even if the vague “alpha” traits shows an increased probability for wealth (and the traits are indeed the attractors, and not the wealth itself), using wealth as an indicator of having those traits is completely illogical, as the counter examples I mentioned above.
What’s the conclusion? Financial strength is itself an alpha trait that women seek (in addition to the stuff you mentioned)
care to expound on these findings? who comes off as more shallow?
The argument here isn’t who is or isn’t shallow. It’s about being upfront about what men and women seek. I readily admit that men are more looks oriented in their choosing, as our brains are hardwired to respond to fertility indicators. I’m waiting for that admission from your types, rather all I hear is “It’s not the money we admire, it’s the drive and intelligence and all that other BS you claim to want to cut”
other traits like motivation, perseverance, social skills, and a host of others might be predictors of financial success as well.
We’re going in circles here, those “host of others” could include luck, born into wealth, motivation to earn money, perseverance to earn money….
What I take issue with is your generalization that even “some” men have these “general” alpha qualities of motivation and perseverence and somehow that “sometimes” translates to money. Whether you admit it or not, statements like these have a strong undertone of, “if you don’t have money, chances are you don’t have alpha qualities”, yes I know you made qualifications, but thats the basic implication.
What I’m saying is, qualities like motivation, perseverance, strength, translate to money when those qualities are geared towards making lots of money! And if women find those specific traits, when aimed at money to be alpha, then just admit the sh*t.
What’s so difficult about this?
Nothing to feel bad about. Here’s a better source.
HMF, if women are constantly trading up and preventing those with a marginal tax rate of less than 35% from breeding, surely the benefits of inheritance will ensure that we are all super wealthy, no? Unfortunately, the ranks of scruffy hipsters playing knock-off British garage rock who infest the sidewalks while necking with their girlfriends seems to put paid to that idea.
Naah, I’m more a UWS type, and wouldn’t restrict my “Indian casual” scene by requiring “interesting” women
ok, HMF, just so we clear, about what “my types” want. I don’t care about the money. I care about the smarts, drive, ambition, pluck, humor, sincerity, maturity, and emotional security (this list of traits might explain why my types steer clear of your types). and, to answer your question: someone could be alpha, even if he was poor. i don’t think anyone cared about the fonz’s tax return 🙂
nice work there, btw: “we men choose looks because we’re hardwired.” i assume you’d give credit to a woman who said that she’s look for a guy who was wealthy because the advantages he could give her children. after all, women are hardwired to look for a chap who’ll be the best provider to their progeny. but both those assertions have limited, albeit some, explanatory power in the modern context. because both good looks and ability to provide are socially mediated and do not necessarily coincide with what would be best in terms of evolutionary success. just because a man has lots of money doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll father the healthiest and most long-lived kids (evolutionary def. of success), and just because a women is pretty according to modern norms of beauty (very skinny, narrow hips), she’ll have kids with the best genetic advantages.
always gallant.
grand, maybe i could be your uptown girl? i’m good with role-play – can do interesting and un-.
American men tend to be more conservative, I find. I can’t imagine most of the guys I know thinking that way.
ok, HMF, just so we clear, about what “my types” want. I don’t care about the money. I care about the smarts, drive, ambition, pluck, humor, sincerity, maturity, and emotional security
Alright then, why act as an apologist for those women who do “care about the money” Indeed, they are a well represented group and can do their own bullshitting themselves. Why aid and abet?
i assume you’d give credit to a woman who said that she’s look for a guy who was wealthy because the advantages he could give her children. after all, women are hardwired to look for a chap who’ll be the best provider to their progeny.
I absolutely would. that is, if she admitted that fact plainly, and didn’t try to disguise it by saying “oh no, I’m into his drive and ambition, and oh golly gee he just happened to be a millionaire too!” In fact, this point was agreed right here Remember, books will be written about how real I keep it.
because both good looks and ability to provide are socially mediated and do not necessarily coincide with what would be best in terms of evolutionary success.
True, they don’t, however in our reptilian brains (amygdala – control of the limbic system), logic rarely comes into play and we respond to hereditary evolutionary signals, even if those have been somewhat tempered by whatever social constraints exist in the modern era.
For example, a lot of guys don’t find paris hilton attractive (as she doesn’t fit “evolutionary” standards, as say, Salma Hayek or Halle Berry does) , but how many would turn down a night with her , just based on her popularity and “alpha female”ness.
Sure. As long as you promise not to get tired of your high class toys, and all the presents from the uptown boy.
I care about the smarts, drive, ambition, pluck, humor, sincerity, maturity, and emotional security
I notice honesty didn’t make the cut.
which might explain this:
this list of traits might explain why my types steer clear of your types
then indeed you prove my point that women have as one of their primary “desirable” traits as large amounts of money, which is fine, just be upfront and admit the sh*t.
I think, from an evol. psych. perspective, a man’s ability to earn money is nearly universally attractive.
Also, human societies aren’t geared towards alpha males, as in some primate societies, where the big motherfuckers among the chimps (along with a couple of lesser allies) get all the sex, while the rest of the macacas watch from the adjacent trees, knocking themselves off and wishing. (Chimp males are much bigger than females, which shows they’ve evolved through fisfights for sex; human males, like bonobos, are not substantially larger than females.) Humans, like bonobos, are structured so that all males can get something; we’ve evolved some tendency for trust. In our ape society, you may not get the prize reproductive catch, but hey, better than nothing.
Also, re: fidelity. Upwards of 10% of children in western societies are the product of someone other than the thought-to-be father. 1/400 cases of twins involve cases where the sperm came from two different men.
I think, from an evol. psych. perspective, a man’s ability to earn money is nearly universally attractive.
The guy who did work on this is David Buss – he surveyed women in like forty cultures.
I think, from an evol. psych. perspective, a man’s ability to earn money is nearly universally attractive.
Which is why Im always a bit baffled when women trip over themselves to deny, minimize or downplay this fact.
I agree with HMF’s points that the alpha traits would have to be applied to areas of making money in order to succeed financially. Otherwise all of the extremely intelligent, analytical and deep men I know (ambitious in their creative or spritual spheres) would be wealthy, but they are not. However they are excelling in the fields that they give attention to, but they are not at all money focused. Some of them could be classified as clergy, monks, etc. And come to think of it, a few of the ones who are not reclusive are quite popular with both men and women, by virtue of their perceived “spiritual qualities”, even though it is not acceptable for them to enter into intimate relationships with women, some women do tend to be drawn to them in a “platonic” way, and again, they do not have any money to speak of.
Jasmine’s dichotomy of lots of pre-marital sex = bitterness and marriage for a woman = bliss, as well as her men have a need to have sex with more than one while women have a need to have only one stable relationship seems to take into account only persons who are seeking relationships with the opposite gender as a main goal in life, whether committed or casual. She leaves out the literally millions of people who, due to religious or other affiliations, do not put emphasis on that but prefer to remain single for the most part, dedicated the larger part of their time and energy to other (higher?) pursuits. These people ALSO HAVE SEXUAL NEEDS that need to be fulfilled, but they do not want to involve themselves in the bindings of family, society and all that jazz. Rather they are simply satisfied by, every once in a while, having some intimate involvement with members of the opposite sex who are similarly inclined towards a “monastic” lifestyle and do not want to bind anyone or be bound themselves to a lifetime of family entanglement. Unfortunately oftentimes these types of people have to keep their liasons secret because it is not acceptable behaviour in their religious communities, hence a great sense of guilt and shame accompanies such behaviour, and I don’t see why it should. Let people be monastics dedicating themselves to God, Spirituality and the service of humanity and at the same time let their sexual needs be met once in a while, what is the harm?
I saw first hand what kind of damage “celibacy” or brahmacharya can do to people practicing sincerly a spritual or yogic lifestyle when they have to pretend for the sake of acceptance that they have no sexual needs. They have sexual needs, but they have grown beyond the need for samsar or family entanglement. Why get married and get into a totally distracted lifestyle just because once in a while you have a need for intimate female or male companionship? This is the hypocrisy of religions and cultures that value celibacy. The point of celibacy is to not get engtangled in samsar so that you can serve God and humanity with all your energy. But you can still do that while satisfying your sexual needs as they come up, in a regulated manner, with another monastic person who feels the same way as you do and who has the same dedication. There is no need to marry and have kids. Religions need to accomodate these types of people instead of just encouraging complete abstinence or family entanglement. There is a middle path.
How can two twins be the product of two different fathers? How would that happen? What is the scientific mechanisms of such a possibility?
It’s called heteropaternity.
Let your imagination be your guide.
This is the second hit piece by Amardeep after the one ridiculing that girl blogger from Bombay. This time Amardeep was quite prompt in disclaiming that he isn’t hating on her unlike the last time when he belatedly left a seemingly friendly comment on that blogger’s post. What else was the purpose other than to kindle the fire and then let the mostly foolish commenters here do the dirty work of faulting a private person for everything including her own looks and her wide-eyed fascination with brands? Interestingly the snide comment about her looks comes from a female commenter who has a stupid avatar or something next to her profile on her blog rather than a clear picture of herself.
Both the posts have taken aim at women who have either been published or are soon going to be published in marquee media. The suggestion is clear – they don’t deserve it. And the reason cited most likely ( in this case )? That she drops names of brands. That she is faking it. Take another look at the piece. Yes it’s not great writing but it is her voice and it is an honest one. Ask those who grew up in an India of no reputable brands, no choices. You have heard stories about middle class people in India throwing parties at Mc Donalds. Haven’t you? It’s her reality. And so is her conservative upbringing. Why is she lying if her life in Bombay differed from that of your cousin? There’s enough great writing out there. Sometime good publications are just looking for a unique, honest perspective. Hers is that of a middle class girl from India all of a sudden finding herself amidst a highflying NYC lifestyle. Some here are just jealous of her riches, some are jealous because they think they can write better than her but have had their submissions only rejected by Marie Claire. Maybe if you were intelligent enough to see life by stepping into another person’s shoes you’ll have the smarts to come up with original material yourself and then get it published.
It’s called heteropaternity.
It’s also called this (this is a joke by the way)