How much do the qualities of a mom and a wife make a difference in a family?

It is interesting that Nepal is a man dominated society. But at the same time we say that it is the woman that makes a home.
We say that it is the good qualities or the bad qualities of the women in the household that makes or breaks a home. So how can it be that we are a male dominated society, if we attribute so much power to the women in making or breaking a home?

Do women really have that much power to set the atmosphere of a home? Is a good woman that valuable?

It is interesting that if a family goes downhill, the men don't get blamed. It is the women that get blamed for the children being ruined. So though men have the power in Nepali society, it is the women we hold responsible when things go wrong in the family.

I agree with you Vivant. People make their own choices and I respect it. I was just giving my overall opinion about housewives and how it enslaves women in a male dominant society like ours. What might start out as a choice to raise kids and be involved in their upbrining might turn a woman venurable to insecurity and abuse from her husband.

Great discussion, guys. Vivant it's wonderful to hear from you.

I want to echo on one of the points that Pulsar Beats made. I think that we are so busy highlighting, fighting for and just going nuts over the importance of establishing the 'equality' between men and women that we have completely lost touch with how they are different. I think this is soooo unfortunate.

I don't know if I can begin to start from where to make my point. But let me try to give an analogy:

If we lived in a world where the different kinds of fruits felt threatened with who they individually were, wouldn't that be unfortunate?

In other words, imagine if an apple felt threatened and felt like he was second best because he was not more like a banana. Or imagine if an orange felt like he did not have the right to be proud because he was not as purple as the grape. Or the grapefruit could not be satisfied with itself because it did not have the flavor of the guava.

If all the fruits in the world engaged in politics and fought for equality, wouldn't it all kind of come out a little bland and tasteless, don't you think? Wouldn't that be kind of unfortunate for the rest of us. Don't you think?

I see the same thing with men and women. We, in the world, have been so freaking busy fighting for the equality between men and women that showing how they are both as good enough as the other in the same criterias....that I think we have really missed the point in highlighting how they are different.

I don't know if I can state my point better but this topic hurts me at a personal level somewhere.

वि त्राइ तु फित एभ्रिथिङ इन्तु आउर कोम्पर्त्मेन्तलाइज्द वे अफ थिन्किङ

व्हाइ नट जस्ट दु व्हाट वोर्क्स

फोर सोम पिपुल इत मेक्स सेन्स फोर द म्यान तु स्ते होम एन दु हाउसहोल्द कोर्स व्हाइल फोर सोम इत मेक्स सेन्स तु दु सोम्थिङ एल्स वि ह्याव तु गो विथ द फ्लो

नो निद तु बि रेस्त्रिक्तेद बाइ रेलिजिओन, सेक्स, क्यासत । दोज आर फोर पिपुल विथ ब्याकवर्द थिन्किङ। लेत्स मोभ ओन फोर अ बेतर नेपाल

http://neprikans.com

But don't you get it guys, the point is that we as a society screwed up. That is the point. The point is that we as a society screwed up big time. How?

We as a society disrespected the role of house wives and stay at home moms. It was us who looked down on them. It was us who didn't see the value of the contribution that they made. It was us that took their services for granted. It was us that didn't calculate the impact of their contribution to the national wealth. Don't you get it? That is the point. THAT is the point.

It was our short sightedness and our taking for granted 'house wives' and 'stay-at-home moms' that was the problem. We saw being a house wife and a stay-at-home mom as second best choices that are done by women without better opportunities. That was the problem. The problem was with our societal vision. Not with the career choices of 'house wives' and 'stay-at-home moms.' That is the point.

The point is that we as a society got so damned caught up in economics and politics that we lost sight of what is important: the future of the children. They are the future of the nation. Their well-being is what matters. But being such a poor nation where resources have to be fought for so dilligently, it is hard to remember the importance of raising healthy and strong kids. That is the point.

Homey ji,

I like your analogy - reminds me of the expression missing the forest for the trees.

On another note, the struggle for dignity loses it's moral standing once the newly liberated become power hungry and  stop at nothing  to consolidate  power and lord over the others. Remember the Bolsheviks? Or the Iranian islamists? Dare  I say the feminists? The dictatorship of the liberated replaces the dictatorship of the overthrown. Those advocating radical change, and I speak mostly of young gullible Nepalese who seem to get swept up in anything that has the word "equality" or "progress" or "freedom"  stuck to it, need to remind themselves of how the law of unintended consequences has a habit of popping-up at the most inappropriate and inconvenient times. Change that disrupts one order without replacing it with another, is not called progress, it's called a vacuum. 
 
Maha Sakti

Agreed. One needs to watch out for people, husbands and wives included, who take undue advantage of others but at the same time fear must not be the main driver in the quest for a more fair and just world.

And for your information, there are Nepali men who are very close to me who have been stay-at-home dads raising their kids while their women worked. Admitted, these men live in the States. We in Nepal are too backwards to digest this. 

Do any of you feel that these 'stay-at-home dads' and 'home husbands' are any less as men because they don't earn 6 figure salaries? Do you? You as an individual may not, but Nepali society will definitely consider them inferior and less respect worthy than a 6 figure earning male.

What does that tell you about our value system? We don't care about men or women...or children for that matter. All that matters to our society is money. 

I think if there should be a revolutionary movement in Nepal there should be one where all Nepalese, whether they are men, women or children should all unite and try to gain equality with the power of money.  Now that's a movement I would love to see!

Vivant,

I like what you're saying. Could you explain how you're applying what you're saying to the Nepali context please.

Homey Ji

"Could you explain how you're applying what you're saying to the Nepali context please."

I simply mean that I dont believe discrimination is as rampant in Nepal as is made out to be and we need to think with a clear head and look at things on a case-by-case and issue-by-issue basis before making broad and sweeping generalizations about Nepal or America or anything else.

"I think if there should be a revolutionary movement in Nepal there should be one where all Nepalese, whether they are men, women or children should all unite and try to gain equality with the power of money.  Now that's a movement I would love to see!"

Perhaps we need a Kathmandu chapter of Occupy Wall Street :)

Behoove Me,

My sentiments exactly.

I completely disagree with beehove_me's statement  "while I agree that women should bring home the bacon like men do, I also believe that kids are raised well under a stay at home mother."To believe than a woman is better than a man at raising a kid is completely untrue. It is precisely this kind of thinking that actually allows men to then get back on women when their kids take wrong tracks. This I believe was homeyJi's initial point. How in Nepal, a mom is always blamed for bad upbringing of a kid.
The point is, a kid needs proper upbringing with love and discipline. He is lucky if this is done by both his dad and mom. I have seen many moms badly raising their kids and many very responsible dads. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a mother will always raise her kid better than a father. This is an ancient thinking of an ancient male dominant society.

The other point I was making about empowering housewives by giving them financial freedom is, in Nepal and elsewhere, there are many couples where women are abused but they dare not to leave their husbands because they don't know where to go and how to make a living since they chose or were forced indirectly by the society to stay home and raise kids. Why do you think many women in Nepal who are housewives choose to turn a blind eye over the fact that there husbands are having affaires than file for divorce?

Maha -sakti,

I am sad you chose to read only that and not this -

."....Just like I do not entirely believe men should claim their success over silk ties, mahogany tables and a fat paycheck."

I am was not comparing men and women when I made that statement, I was only trying to validate my stance that a working mom is no better than a stay-at-home mother, or a stay-at-home-father for the same reason.

I am not a male chauvinist - if you carefully read homeyji's point, in his first two paragraphs, he mentioned only the role of a women, and how their role impacts a family.

Would men make a better home maker than women? Absolutely! There is no doubt about that. However, is society the only source to be blamed? I am not sure about that.

Think about this, women reproduce, they lactate, their hormones change and since they are considered more emotional than their sexual counterparts, the NATURE inadvertently grants them unanimous right to bestow a significant emotional investment to a child as compared to the father. Don't blame society or mere men for that, and please don't call everyone a chauvinist because they 'partly' believe in it.

I advocate for womens' financial freedom more than most do, but does feminism only mean challenging men? How about loving them?

Financial freedom doesn't make anyone superior or better, it is their choice and interest that makes them so.

Behoove me,

Well said. Wow what a quote:

"I advocate for womens' financial freedom more than most do, but does feminism only mean challenging men? How about loving them? "

Behoove me, you further said:
Think about this, women reproduce, they lactate, their hormones change and since they are considered more emotional than their sexual counterparts, the NATURE inadvertently grants them unanimous right to bestow a significant emotional investment to a child as compared to the father.

I want to build on this. Let's talk more about how it is the differences between Nepali fathers and Nepali mothers that make a more diverse, and thus a stronger team. If all Nepali mom's had qualities like Nepali fathers. And all Nepali fathers had qualities that Nepali moms have. There would over-all be an over all weaker team.

Think of your teams at work. If everyone had the same skillset. Wouldn't be a weaker team?

I put togethor a table to see if I could communicate my thoughts clearer:

	Similarity	Diversity
Get along	Having similar skillsets, back ground, tastes, culture gives us a sense of intimacy. It helps us get along a lot easier. That is why Nepalese tend to hang out with other Nepalese. That is why it is natural to be drawn to the people we associated with in our childhood.	But, if you can get over the hurdles of differences, diversity gives you a lot more richer resources and potential for synergy. I think the success of the United States is a great example of this (the melting pot of immigrants).   I think the American work place is a great example of embracing diversity.   I think many things American would go in this square
Don’t get along	But there are examples of people in the same family not getting along. So just because you have things in common—familial relationship, cultural background etc, doesn’t necessarily mean that you will get along with everyone that you have things in common with.	The more diversity you have, initially, at a superficial level, the harder I think it is to find things in common with to get along. You have to make more effort to get along. This is why people with very different backgrounds have a harder time in marriages and cultural assimilation without putting active work into building better relationships.

So what I am saying is that the strongest position one an be is where you can Get Along and appreciate Diversity, whether it is in a marriage or a team a nation or whatever. But it takes work to overcome our superficial biases. It takes maturity and a sense of a higher purpose to unite while appreciating differences.  

Humor me. How much can I extend this concept to Nepal's politics?

	Similarity	Diversity
Get along	Panchayat – Everybody who had a similar agenda with the Royal palace “got along” and didn’t get harassed or busted. There was unity in a sense, at least there was a sense of law and order and there being a sense of someone being in control.	Trying to democractically sit as gentlemen and ladies and write Nepali constitution that is all inclusive. Trying to find a consensus. Considering Nepal is so rich with so many different ethnicities and religious flavors, there is a lot of room for synergy.
Don’t get along	Despite all of us being Nepalese, the political process didn’t feel all inclusive. This created the perfect environment for Jan Andolan 1 and 2 and finally for the Maobadi insurgency.	The scenario described in this thread: http://sajha.com/sajha/html/index.cfm?threadid=93761   The more diversity you have, the harder I think it takes to find things in common with to get along. You have to make more effort to get along. This is why people with very different backgrounds have a harder time in marriages and cultural assimilation.   This is Nepal’s great challenge. How to find common ground across race, religion, gender, etc and not letting our differences split the nation into chaos. When there is too much diversity then either the population needs to be enlightened enough for there to be a healthy democracy. Or stability is brough on by force like in fascist governments and dicatotorships.

Homiji,

First, the title you have given to the topic is misleading. When I read it first I thought you are talking about the role of mom and wife from a son and husband’s point of view. I think we have explored that avenue of the relationship to its extent. Thanks to Indian tv shows, they made me realize the misery of being man in my early age ;). Second, when I read your elaboration, I got further disappointed. I would have been more than happy if you had said “role of woman in a family”. Well, if you are thinking it is just the matter of choosing words, than you are wrong. Words reflect individual’s wit and the way you have put forth your words, I feel, you see your woman just as a wife and as a mom. It always bothers when woman is defined by her relationships. She is an individual herself. Recognizing and respecting each other individuality is key to build up a good family. Either she wants to stay home and raise kids or she wants to become an activist or a corporate hot shot that must be her choice. If any woman complains that she has compromised her goal/dream because of getting married or having kids or other way around then she is not resolute enough. I have seen spoiled family of stay home wife and blissful home of working mom. Hence, woman is not solely responsible for building a good family. A good family is build up by individuals (man and woman) who share it with their attributes and understanding. Naturally, women are more likely to express love and care, which gives emotional comfort to other family members.

P.S. I have not read other comments. If I am chanting same mantra, ignore me.

Nakkali Keti,

I really want to understand what you're saying. Is there a complaint or a comment that I can specifically address? I feel like you're offended with something...but I can't quite grasp what it is.

If you dont wanna have all these problems. Just dont have kids. Problem solved. Live life for yourself, not for some wife or kids. Living life the way we wanna live is the hardest thing to do. We always choose to live for something or somebody. I feel that we are all trapped in a cycle. Imagine a hamster running in a wheel. Well, maybe that is what real life is. LOL

	Similarity	Diversity
Get along	Independence, without wife or kids is in this quadrant. Some people choose to live as a bachelor (Krishna Prasad Bhattrai, is an example) their whole life. If they are at peace, who is to complain?	But living by yourself without wife or kids misses out on the opportunities that are gained by those people who have the maturity to be able to get along with wife and kids.
Don’t get along	But just because you live independently, by yourself doesn’t necessarily mean you will have peace of mind.	Violet, you are right: Some people consider that living by yourself without wife or kids is better than being with wife and kids and fighting all the time.

Homiji,

Either the point I am making is too subtle for you to grasp or my writing is ambiguous. Whichever the case, I can not explain it better. Let me share you this expression instead. Hope this helps you to understand what I am saying. If we all could think the way the writer is thinking, the question you are asking would never even occur.


"To the Sister I Never Had"
-Sanjay

Nakkali keti,

Is the point that you are making that...a woman is a lot more than a wife and mother? Yes? That a woman has a seperate identity different from any relation to any man.
And that we need to appreciate who a woman is...in her own essence...as a woman. Is that it?

"I feel, you see your woman just as a wife and as a mom. It always bothers when woman is defined by her relationships. She is an individual herself. Recognizing and respecting each other individuality is key to build up a good family. Either she wants to stay home and raise kids or she wants to become an activist or a corporate hot shot that must be her choice. If any woman complains that she has compromised her goal/dream because of getting married or having kids or other way around then she is not resolute enough. I have seen spoiled family of stay home wife and blissful home of working mom. Hence, woman is not solely responsible for building a good family. A good family is build up by individuals (man and woman) who share it with their attributes and understanding"

Very well said Nakkali_Keti.

"If you dont wanna have all these problems. Just dont have kids. Problem solved." You are right Violet7.

People tend to have kids because everybody around them has them. They put in more thoughts before getting a pet than before having a baby. Having a kid in life is not obligatory. But a lot people seem to feel that way.