tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post1215126017339142259..comments2024-03-27T21:40:20.298+00:00Comments on Anglobitch: On Anglo-Saxon Puritanism: Guest Post by Monsieur ChauvinRookh Kshatriyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-62620259206776296582010-07-30T19:36:38.613+01:002010-07-30T19:36:38.613+01:00It is incorrect to say pre British Indian culture ...It is incorrect to say pre British Indian culture was "licentious", there was a more open attitude to sex yes. For example prostitution was generally legal and in the classical Hindu period courtesans held important positions at court and were trained in the arts and literature. But there was a VERY strong emphasis on female chastity for the common female, much stronger than even in contemporary European culture then. For example there are instances of hundreds of females immolating themselves so as not to fall into the clutches of the Muslim invaders, just one example of the emphasis placed on female honor/chastity. The classical heroines like Sita from Ramayana are paragons of chastity similar to Homer's Penelope.<br /><br />But India had and still does to a large extent have marriage not defined by the foolishness of "romantic love" but by other considerations aka arranged marriage/non-companionate marriage. Marriage is seen as the union of 2 different families and romantic love has very little to do with it in rural areas, I have known of couples who only saw each other like for 15 minutes at their engagement still together married decades later. This is one reason why India has one of the lowest divorce rates in the world (something like 2%) and this can also be seen in the Indian diaspora.<br /><br />I believe the roots of modern feminism began with the Victorian notion of "romantic love" as the basis for marriage, before this most marriages were arranged. This was when women were give the choice to pick and we all know what kind of men they gravitate to if given free choice.<br /><br />The following passage struck me as I was reading it the other day and I think clearly sums up the difference between companionate and non-companionate marriage:<br /><br />"A woman of [tribe] does not desire to be a "companion" or a "lover," but a mother; and not the mother of one child, to serve as a toy and distraction, but of many: the instinct of a strong tribe speaks in the pride that large families inspire, in the feeling that barrenness is the hardest curse that can befall a woman and through her, the tribe. Out of this instinct arises the primitive jealousy which leads one woman to take away from another the man whom she covets as the father of her children. The more intellectual jealousy of the great cities, which is little more than erotic appetite and looks upon the other party as a means of pleasure, and even the mere fact of considering the desired or dreaded number of children who are to be born, betrays the waning of the tribal urge to permanence; and that instinct for permanence cannot be reawakened by speeches and writing. Primitive marriage...was anything but sentimental. A man wants stout sons who will perpetuate his name and his deeds beyond his death into the future and enhance them, just as he has done himself through feeling himself heir to the calling and works of his ancestors."<br /><br />Its from Oswald Spengler's "The Hour of Decision".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-59912106101300454502010-07-10T14:19:23.340+01:002010-07-10T14:19:23.340+01:00Another great post! Interesting how the "pro...Another great post! Interesting how the "protestant work ethic" fits into all of this. Sexual repression and work alcoholism seem to go hand in hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com