[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ADMINISTRIVIA : Matrimonials
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA : Matrimonials
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 28 Aug 1996 19:51:24 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Hindu Students Conference, Rice Univ Chapter
-
References: <ghenDwJuJy.1v3@netcom.com> <ghenDwLMnx.3A1@netcom.com> <ghenDwqLwL.BLG@netcom.com>
In article <ghenDwqLwL.BLG@netcom.com>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps you would consider explaining why one could consider casteism
>as paramount.
Seems like you've tried to make it a reduction to an absurd argument.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that casteism should be supported, but I
imagine that the matrimonials might look something like:
"Parents seek a match for their tall, fair, Punjabi Hindu daughter,
22, from professional Punjabi Brahmin boys (25-30) settled in the
US. Send photo with biodata"
If we take the above example, we see the following:
a) implicit measures of beauty
- tall being a desirable characteristic
- fair skin being notable
b) regional preference - only Punjabis are invited to correspond
c) "caste" preference - only Brahmins are invited to respond
d) gender preference - only males are invited to respond
e) ageism - there is both an upper and lower limit on applicants
f) educational/economic segregation - note "professional" and "settled"
g) physical beauty - note request for photo
I made up this matrimonial in less than a minute, but it's no
different qualitatively from the hundreds of matrimonials found in
various Indian newspapers in the US.
Are any of a-g objectionable to the readers of this group, and if
matrimonials are to be allowed on this group, which of those selection
criteria are to be banned, if any?
-Vivek
