As Bill is aware, I was raised in a very religious family. The exact type isn't important, let's just say "very hardcore Christian".
In studying the Old Testament of the Bible's section where the Jews were given an entire legal code (law of Moses), there's *major* importance given to keeping families in one intact financial and social structure. Seen in that light, the extreme prohibitions on adultery and homosexuality starts to make sense for that environment. Even punishment of murderers was primarily to be handled by the victim's family. Every 50 years all property sales get "reset" to ownership of the original family; ditto for what is poorly translated "slavery" but was really closer to "indentured servant" or in some cases "employee". Inheritence laws putting emphasis on the "firstborn" may seem non-egalitarian by our standards but again, it made for a single solid financial structure which presumably could insure the viability of the whole family, including those sick/injured/widowed/whatever.
My familiarity with this stuff allows me to see these Nepalese customs we're running into in the same light. It makes perfect sense. Native Americans universally did the same thing.
In the US, welfare codes often had the horrific side effect of penalizing intact family structures and/or their formation. That's starting to get cleaned up now, the days when a woman on welfare immediately lost all benefits by having any contact with a male are fading if not totally gone.
I feel that laws should allow groups of people to form "virtual extended families", perhaps based on things other than blood ties. I personally have no problems even allowing gays to do that. The truth is, even two working adults are NOT enough to form solid "backup" in case of accident, injury, illness or whatever. You need four or MORE working adults, minimum to cover their elders and kids in case one or two experience "downtime", the group can still function well enough. Or maintain a ratio of one worker to one child, ill or elderly non-worker...you can't get that ratio with "nuclear families" so in the US we have welfare, social security, unemployment insurance and lots more...it's NOT adequate.
Another comment on Nepalese customs: the idea of special terms of respect for those of greater years isn't anything horrible. It's a bit strange to Western ears but it's at least fair: wait long enough, you WILL get old
. The Japanese variant is different: terms of respect built into the language are based on "social and political rank" and are so deep into the language that no two males can really talk to each other without sorting out "who is superior, who is inferior". Japan's political system was pure Feudalism until VERY recently, and it shows. In Japanese business etiquette they have developed a "business card exchange ceremony", because by examining the cards they can sort out relative rank. A small business owner would be outranked by most Mitsubishi managers, for example.
To most Americans, this sort of rigid structure is just...nauseating, at least to the degree the Japanese take it. Ghostsix rankled a bit at the Nepalese version but I don't find it horrible like the Japanese system...which I know Ghostsix is also familiar with.
In US terms, respect comes pretty much entirely through one's actions, accomplishments, morals and ideas. Pala, I'm a product of my culture; I respect you greatly but it comes from my respect of your accomplishments as a soldier, businessman, helper of others, etc. I would feel pretty much exactly the same if you were even younger than me (35).
Jim March
