WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/21877
Dear Dr. Pal,
I'm trying to take the challenges Kisan made to me to heart, by not reacting
hastily to your posts regarding family life and American morality. Also,
I've read over all your posts about this, (I think all), so I don't react to
only one part of what you say.
In one post, you said all the cases of families that the person described
were cases where women were sexually immoral. I was ready to react by
re-telling the story from the Bible about the woman caught in adultery.
After reading more of your posts, I still think the story is relevant. You
probably know it, but anyway, it's the one where the crowd is about to stone
a woman to death in the town square, because she was caught in adultery, and
Jesus steps forward and says, "Let he who is without sin among you cast the
first stone." All the men drop their stones and walk away . . . May I
suggest that you examine your image of women, that your statements express,
in light of your own life and the lives of men.
Another reaction I have is to your frequent statements to the effect that
everyone can certainly agree on this or that premise, and, linked with that,
your emphasis on the infallibility of science and reason. For example, you
state that everyone can agree that the purpose of a family is for a man and
a woman to have children, and to raise them to be moral people. Well, I
have to take issue with this, partly for the sake of the statement in
itself, and partly as a way of taking issue with your way of discussing
ideas. As for the content of that particular statement, the definition of
"family" is not one on which everyone agrees, not at all. As you no doubt
know, there's a pitched battle going on in the US now over whether two men
or two women living together can constitute a family. In my view, any group
of people who are committed to one another--committed to being present to
one another day in and day out, to devoting their love and time and
resources and energy to the well-being of the others--that group is a
family. Marriage or lack of marriage is not relevant; homo- or
heterosexuality is not relevant. Gender is not relevant. Age is not
relevant. So, not everyone agrees with your statement.
In a larger sense, I see two problems in your approach. One, democracy,
which is based on collaboration, depends on people not presenting their
views as THE authoritative version of reality. As soon as people do this,
they narrow their vision. Then it becomes almost impossible for them to see
beyond their own ideas, almost impossible to really listen to anyone else
and be open to adapting what they think based on the views of others. I
think Jesus' saying in the above story is quite relevant to this. Two,
science and reason are no more important--and no less important either--than
emotion, compassion, and the imagination. Either of these realms of human
motivation alone, without the other, leads down a dangerous road. Witness
the atomic bomb, and eugenics, as examples of science driven by brutality,
devoid of compassion.
On the other hand, I found your thoughts on the mediocrity of American
culture because of consumerism and advertising to be quite cogent--in other
words, I agreed with you in many ways. I think the US emphasis on wealth as
the measure of worth, that pervades our culture, is pernicious and immoral.
In my view, though, it's not sex that's the problem. Consensual, mutually
enjoyable, safe sex is good. It's the undermining of mutually supportive
relationships that's the problem. Privatization, branding (as in
identifying oneself with a brand), and advertising as a mode for culture,
are pernicious because they convince us that getting money is the only
important thing--and that's empty, and causes alienation, poverty,
unnecessary illness, and violence.
Carolyn
My original post :
**************
- I hope sexual relationship between a man and a woman is simple ! This is one of the classic case where neither religion nor science will ever succeed to
penetrate and come to a mutual conclusion!
However we can try an objective scientific approach!
Basic postulate in which every sensible leftist and conservative should agree:
�Purpose of a family and a relation is to raise kids,stronger and better kids that will keep the civilization rolling for better�
Having said that, we need to understand what kind of education is necessary for a man and woman so that they can raise a kid scientifically. We can prove,
every aspect of the sexual ethics is a derived systhesis from the above postulate.
There are two aspects of training of a kid.
First, a child learn through cognitive development. He/she learn through the games they play, learn through some impositions/restriction laid down by
their parent, they also carry the fear of faiths and finally, they accept the culture of the family or certain aspect of social behavior of their parent.
Secondly, formal educational training. This is correlated with first level of cognitive development. If he/she finds logical step in the attitude of
his/her parent, he/she will be more analytical and thus will be a better student in any subject. Also, if their parents are good in science or arts or history, a child will be groomed with much more solid ground works to consolidate his/her career.
From cognitive learning point of view, a mom or a dad is an ideal icon for the kids. If he/she finds from the childhood that their dad is an alcoholic and mom
is a woman of easy virtue, which is often the case in USA, a kid will be grown up with tremendous grudge against the parent and if not properly guided, they
will land up in drug or in anti-social activities. Also, if the parent decides for a divorce, that will be end of a normal life for the kids in term of their
cognitive development.
So, we should all agree, relationship should be such that a kid can be grown up in a normal family and divorce is never an option. So, our first task will be
to reduce the probability of divorce. In US, since people get married after long dating, 98% of the cause is extra-marital relationship. In India, since they do not date, the cause is incompatibility of the partnership. So, taking care of both the causes, we should agree:
[1] Young men and women should see more women and men for dating before they come to conclusion. If necessary, they should be allowed to do live-together
so that there can not be any issue with future compatibility.
[2] Once marriage is decided, they should not be involved in extra-marital relationship.
This clause is little bit against the nature of men and women. By birth, all of us are polygamous. But as we can see, for the sake of the society, we need to
stay monogamous. In order to keep our polygamous nature in control, first
[a] We all should agree and understand that we do have a polygamous tendency and that we need to check.
[b] Husband and wife should have their respective girlfriends and boyfriends with whom they should be able to discuss the issues that they can not discuss
with their partners. However they should keep the number more than one! Each of them should allow space to the other.
[c] They should maintain a strong sexual relation and be careful about satisfying each other�s need. Sex is like food and hungry stomach can eat anything without much discrimination. So, I guess it is the responsibility of each partner to take care of other�s need.
Now for the best cognitive development of the kids,parents should be careful about their own behavior before they try to straighten their kids'. This should
include
[1] All the disagreement should be fought logically and not through verbose or physically. This seems to be quite impractical since, as soon as logical
statement will indicate some negative criticism towards the wife or wife�s family, the situation explodes. I have dated quite a few women with very
advanced educational background, but in one respect they all turn out to be same: None of them can take up objective criticism from their boyfriend or husband and they consider that as an emotional attack/torture etc.. I guess, first thing that a girl or a woman should be taught, is how to deal with an objective criticism.
[2] Second is the aspect of materialism and spiritualism: A parent is responsible for inducing the path that their kids will choose. I believe a middle path is the best path in this case. Unless, the parent practices a high thinking, simple living life style,there is hardly any chance that a kid will not fall into the trap of materialism and run after the illusionary toys. Also, it will be better to keep the kids away from religious faith till their formative age.
[3] Aspect of entertainment: art & culture:Again, it�s your choice. If you see Bollywood movies all the times, your kids will know Bollywood culture as true Indian culture. If you read and listen to Rabindranath, your kid will learn RabindraSangeet to be their companion. If you have fascination for outdoor activities, your kids will be grown up with that. I guess choice is yours!
Then there are unpleasant aspect of dealing with parent-in-law and the society. Those are secondary aspect since neither affects the first postulate,except your kids learn how to deal with the society from you.
So, if we are aware of our nature and the basic postulate, I believe we can hope to resolve much of the issues.
-Biplab,
California,
12/22/04
No comments:
Post a Comment