Makes me wanna SCREAM

This post is a response to Bhagwad's comment on Sorry, no Saree. He said that "People must stand up for themselves. There is always emotional pressure and one assumes she can withstand it." He wondered if there was a physical threat to the woman who refused to wear the saree.

In this specific case, I don't know what she meant when she alleged that she was forced to dress in a certain way.
However, in several families, it has become an accepted norm for family members to dictate the clothing choices of their adult children or children-in-law. Such interference is more common in case of women.

Several people – related and unrelated, older and younger - comment on or give hints to women on a plethora of personal issues throughout their life. Women recognize this fact and while some welcome it, some don't.

Conflict arises when women don't want to act upon these suggestions. Our society is conditioned to think that “good” women shouldn't really be opinionated – leave alone be unbending about their choices. A woman who does not want to do as she is asked to, is viewed as being in the wrong. She is described as rigid and arrogant - ziddi aur gamandi.

Once you dismiss the woman's right to free choice as wrong, or worse, silly, then it's easy to undermine her stand and laugh at her opinions as just another evidence of her zidd. Zidd is totally discouraged in women even during childhood, while obedience and respect for elders is promoted.

The family's “izzat” is entirely tied to the behaviour of the women of the house – particularly the daughters and the daughters-in-law. The older women of the house who have been trained into a certain kind of behaviour and have adopted specific styles of dress, pass on these traditions to the younger women. They adopt several strategies to force them to toe the line. When the younger woman still refuses to bow down, the men are brought in to persuade, starve, deprive or even beat her into submission.

Even in the most modern households, where daughters are treated on par with their sons, family members acknowledge that the conservatism of the wider society around them is hanging like the cliched Damocles' sword over their daughter's head. The mention of her sasural is always an effective curb of any unseemly effervescence of spirits or display of zidd. From an early age, it is assumed that the daughter will not remain a part of her parental family for long.

Meanwhile, the male child is also brainwashed into certain accepted norms of behaviour. Among them, he is slated for the role of lifelong caretaker of his parents and he is taught that his dharm is to care for his family – get his sisters married and protect their honour, discipline them when needed and ensure that his wife and children conform to the household norms and submit to the household elders. Any man who fails in the fulfilment of these duties puts himself in the wrong.

Even though much has changed in terms of choices and education as well as the inflow of suspect Western thought, these essentials remain the same across the nation, even in supposedly cosmopolitan and liberated households. The extent and nature of conformance expected from a son or a daughter has changed, but the expectations are still there. Children are not trained to be independent but rather are institutionalized into The Family.

Even parents who allow their adult children to choose what to study, what to work as, what to wear and whom to marry, still place the burden of gratitude on their children. They expect that the children will accommodate their ideas because they have given them “so much freedom.” When their “reasonable” requests are denied, parents either sulk or lash out.

A common example is of a parent who allows the child freedom of choice in marriage, but expects the child's spouse to follow the family norm. Many sons, who are unable to get over the constant brainwashing of childhood, believe that he has the right to ask his mate to make “small adjustments” for his parents' sake. A change of dressing style perhaps, or food habits, or maybe job choices.

A majority of women conform because to refuse would mean getting into an endless cycle of resentment and argument. The son who has seen and accepted these norms in his home all his life simply fails to understand why his wife can't just shut her trap and wear the damn saree, since his mother is determined to make her.

At this point, the younger woman often bows to the wishes of the older one. Women who conform, have more and more requests piled upon them, while those who don't are outcasts right away. One compromise is often the start of a whole series of changes as she is assimilated into the family and rewarded with privileges - including affection from members of her marital family, freedom to communicate with the outside world, and more private time with her husband.

The woman's parental family, however liberated, does not feel comfortable when her in-laws complain that the daughter is “rebelling at her marital home.” Often, the mother scolds her into submission and the father emotionally blackmails her saying that she is ruining his “izzat.” Sometimes the parental family even cuts themselves off from the woman, refusing to welcome her home or associate with her until she gets a good name from her -laws.

Ultimately, all the family that the woman has, arraigns against her on the side of her in-laws. It requires immense strength and courage to stand against all of these people and continue your marriage in the face of such universal disapproval. The woman who stands up for herself finds herself very much alone against an overwhelming hostile majority. Many buckle under and give in to purchase day to day peace.

In the case of non-working women or those who are not financially independent, this problem becomes even more pronounced as there is no source from where the woman can derive strength or where she can go for peace of mind. In many small towns across India, this problem is exacerbated by the homogeneity of the community. Young women in such places usually don't travel unaccompanied to stores or cinemas, so it's not as if she can take off to the mall or the gym or the restaurant with her like-minded friends.

Often, as mentioned in a comment by ummon in response to the same post, the family even prevents her from communicating with the outside world and discourages younger members of the family from associating with her. They fear that the rebellion is contagious.

So to answer Bhagwad's question, this I think is what many people mean when they say they are 'forced' to do something. Unless we stop burdening our daughters with the family izzat and the sons with the family dekhpaal, we are depriving them of the right to make free choices.

The stability and existence of hierarchies rest upon authoritarianism. And authoritarianism was never based on principles of right and wrong, or justice and unfairness. It has always been about power and always will be.

Marriage is a part of life – albeit a very important one. But it is not all of life and never should be. Sorry to sound like a panic-mongering doomsday type, but unless the institution of marriage gets a little more space and breadth, a couple of generations down the line, people will begin to wonder if it's just an outdated practice and choose to stay away from it.