interesting how the hands in the poster most likely belong to brown people :) even though this is a british campaign to address a specific human rights violation. granted this may occur mostly in south asian countries, but still, way to reinforce the cultural misunderstandings about "arranged" and "forced" marriages by having brown hands in the ad.

Fact is, "forced marriage" is a phenomenon pretty much in the brown community in England (primarily South Asian, and possibly some middle-eastern). So well, I don't really see the need for excessive political correctness here by showing white hands or whatever. It's a problem our community has to address, and we better begin by accepting that the problem exists within our community.

Technophob - I don't disagree with anything you have said. However, reinforcing cultural stereotypes on a macro scale is not the most effective way to foster inter-cultural dialogue in avowedly multicultural societies.

At first glance those hands don't even look that brown to me though. When I was reading that I was thinking that unless desis (and desi women in particular) felt that this was an organization that was open to (and maybe geared towards?) desis they might not feel that this would be a government organization that was actually looking after their interests. I used to be a DV counselor and on top of unique ethnic community pressures etc that would present barriers to women seeking help many minorities didn't feel these social organizations/shelters were "meant for them."

(And I'm so glad you all are up late with me! Do you all have deadlines too? Maybe we're all just on different parts of the planet. God I love the Internet.)

interesting experience rupa...also its called Pacific Standard Time :)

on a similar note, the UN just approved the Human Rights Council with the US being one of the lone dissenters...but still, good news in all.

...also its called Pacific Standard Time :)

Well, you know us midwesterners. In bed by 9, up with the sun ;)

And...on to the more serious discussions. Carry on.

it is something that takes place everywhere. india, pakistan, america, uk. every place where there are desis. it takes place in some form or manner where women are given little choice and eventually submit. it is very sad. i know of some women in nyc who lived here their whole lives and gave in to pressure and such sick tactics.

I am glad that the British government is taking this so seriously. It's not the time to worry about stereotyping, it is the time to clean up the mess in the backyard of SOME desi homes.

I saw a documentary last year about a lady from Manchester who escaped a forced marriage and now works for the FMU. Those desis who worry about the stigmatisation and essentialising that will happen will just have to live with it - brushing this under the carpet is not an option anymore. Those concerns are secondary. It's not nice, but then it is sad that this practice persists. Kill it and the stereotype won't be accurate anymore.

There was also a few articles in the UK news several months ago about a small movement to forbid cousin-marriages, which is mostly a Pakistani problem. The people behind it say it's a public health issue, because their rate of birth defects is so outrageously high. I asked a Brit Pakistani about it (who's married to his cousin from Pakistan, and whose wife's brother just got sent back to Pakistan to marry a cousin) and he claimed it was the gov't trying to destroy cultural traditions and break up communities. Whatever.

Imagine external intervention to prevent intra-parsi marriages :) the rate of birth defects within the parsi community where cousin-marrying is encouraged in order to preserve their endangered numbers, is extraordinarily high...

I asked a Brit Pakistani about it (who's married to his cousin from Pakistan, and whose wife's brother just got sent back to Pakistan to marry a cousin) and he claimed it was the gov't trying to destroy cultural traditions and break up communities. Whatever.

"Whatever", indeed. That's unfortunately an example of the victim-mentality paranoia that's prevalent in some (by no means all) quarters of that particular community here in the UK.

There is a parallel discussion on this same topic currently underway on the (British) Pickled Politics blog, so I am going to paste the message I just submitted there:

=>”an anti-forced marriage law could be combined with a sex-trafficking law, to make an equivalence between the actions.”

This has occurred to me too. Let’s be completely honest here: If a woman is forced into marriage with a man she doesn’t want to be with, then — apart from the obvious psychological impact & trauma of having to spend the rest of her life with the guy — the fact that she will be expected to have sex with the man on her wedding night is almost like a form of emotionally-blackmailed consent to rape (even if the woman grudgingly submits to sleeping with the guy due to the various dynamics & pressures involved).

The reality of this entire scenario becomes worse and worse the more you consider the actual details, both emotional and physical.

There was also a few articles in the UK news several months ago about a small movement to forbid cousin-marriages, which is mostly a Pakistani problem. The people behind it say it's a public health issue, because their rate of birth defects is so outrageously high.

Rilly? Your facts pls. Kissin' cousins, day-see style ain't so risky.

The straight dope says:

The U.S. is virtually alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. European countries have no such prohibition First-cousin marriage isn't a surefire recipe for congenital defects. True, marriage among close kin can increase the chance of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual, with dire consequences. The problem isn't cousin marriage per se, however, but rather how many such genes are floating around in the family pool. If the pool's pretty clean, the likelihood of genetic defects resulting from cousin marriage is low. A recent review (Bennett et al, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2002) says that, on average, offspring of first-cousin unions have a 2 to 3 percent greater risk of birth defects than the general population, and a little over 4 percent greater risk of early death. While those margins aren't trivial, genetic testing and counseling can minimize the danger. [Link]

By comparison:

In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age. [Link]

Another source:

Marriage between first cousins, long a major legal, social and religious taboo, is far less likely to produce abnormal children than is commonly believed, a study by leading genetics researchers says.
"Stigma still attaches to these unions," says Robin Bennett, a genetics counselor at the University of Washington and the study's lead author."But there's no good social or biological reason that should be."
The researchers concluded that children of marriages between cousins inherited recessive genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, in 7% to 8% of cases. For the general population, the rate was 5%.
The study suggests that doctors and genetics counselors not discourage cousins from procreating. Instead, it says, they should take family disease histories and offer ordinary genetic services such as fetal and newborn disease testing. [Link]

Set my Parsi brothers and sisters free!

Though I am not in favor of cousin marriages personally there was a study published a few years ago that there was no greater risk of birth defects because of marrying one's cousin. The following link has some information about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm

interesting how the hands in the poster most likely belong to brown people

>>Forced weddings...Duress includes both physical and emotional pressure.

I'm all for the law coming down hard on those "parents" who conduct shotgun weddings, kidnap and forcibly lock their children, conduct forced abortions etc.

However, it is very dangerous and actually illegal for the law to go after those parents who put emotional pressure on children. Under free-speech laws, a person has a legal right to say to his/her offspring: "If you don't marry that doctor and have a child within a year of marriage, then I will never speak to you again." The law cannot prohibit this kind of speech. If there are people cheering this law, it will come to haunt them very soon.

As for the ban on cousin marriages, it is un-constitutional. Who's the government to tell you whom you can or cannot marry? The only reason why people don't bother challenging these laws is that very few actually marry cousins in the west.

And as for the government's "concern" about birth defects - I can only laugh. Are they trying to create a pure and healthy race of people? What will they do if first cousins have sex and she gets pregnant? Force an abortion on her? Arrest them? Ban sex between first cousins? How about a Ministry to Check Fetus Health? Pass a law that all fetuses have to undertake a defect test? And if there are defects (like the wrong color of skin or wrong color of eyes), then abort it? These are shades of Nazism that have to be uprooted.

M. Nam

Huh? Even my pasty-white Ashkenazi hand looks darker than the hands in that poster. How light does skin have to be before looking "brown"?

Without wishing to divert this into an off-topic flame war, I should probably mention that the South Asian population here in the UK is disproportionately Pakistani and north Indian; so within that context, the colour of the hands on that poster is actually pretty common amongst desis in this country.

Moor Nam

It is not an issue of banning cousin-marriage. It is just an issue that cousin-marriage is widely practised in some sections of the British Pakistani community and calls have been made for the issue of health concerns to paid attention to when making these matches. The link that midwestern eastender gives is quite specific on this. It is a call for greater public awareness and discussion amongst the Pakistani community of the possible health risks involved.

I am glad that the British government is taking this so seriously. It's not the time to worry about stereotyping, it is the time to clean up the mess in the backyard of SOME desi homes.

Stereotyping is wrong, no matter what the cause. I agree that forced marriages are a major issue but stereotyping is no way to solve it. Just a hypothetical question, would you feel the same way if you were stereotyped as a terrorist just because SOME desi people are? Oh wait, that kind of stereotyping already exists in the US and UK. Never mind.

The brown or not brown verdict:
I have a beautiful new mac that's has a freshly calibrated monitor. The hands are indeed brown.... not to make light of the matter. END.

Anyways, I'm fine with them being brown - sometimes you risk stigmatization in trying to reach your target audience. So be it. We've seen ads with cliches and gross stereotypes thanks to Manish, but this is not one of them. Truth be told, I've never heard of this as a mass problem in Canada (I have heard of guilt-emotional marriages, not forced marriages per say - fine line here), but many Brits have commented that this explicitly forced marriage is a problem in the UK.

Mouspad Marauder

Stereotyping stinks. This is not the norm. But it is a problem. Bringing greater awareness of the problem is something that needs to be done. We cannot brush it under the carpet for fear of how white people will stereotype us. That stuff makes me mad. But we have to clean up the mess in SOME desi homes. Then we can be pro-active and deal with it and still address the issue of essentialising when it crops up. But we can't ignore this problem any more because we don't want to be stereotyped.

Trust me, I hate the ignorance and sterotypes that exists, but we have to tackle them at the same time as tackling some other things simultaneously now.

Anand,
Point taken. Educating the community and facilitating the law to deal with these situations is one thing, gross stereotyping is another. I hope the end result is the former.

Anand writes: >>Bringing greater awareness of the problem is something that needs to be done
MM writes: >>Educating the community...

Since when did this become the Government's job? When the State takes over Society's responsibilities, what you end up eventually is Fascism.

How about this: Spending beyond one's means is a big problem in the West. If there is a Ministry to "Bring greater awareness" and "Educate people" about the virtues of thriftiness, I would like to moonlight and head the department. Hey, a bit of money on the side doesn't hurt, does it?

>>It is a call for greater public awareness and discussion amongst the Pakistani community of the possible health risks involved with cousin marriages....

I give a call for greater public awareness and discussion amongst the White community of the possible health risks involved with extra-marital sex. Person A screws B and B gets pregnant. B want to go the Murphy Brown way and wants to have the baby AB. Person A moves on to person C and C gets pregnant and AC is born. 25 years later, AB and AC look at each other across the bar and hit it off. There's a good chance that their offspring will have birth defects. I demand a Ministry to monitor such cases and educate people, with me and my cronies running it.

Cousin marriages are common in South India as well. However, they practice the "Gotra" system to make sure that birth defects are minimised. Now if only we could get the Pakistanis to follow the Gotra system....

M. Nam

for me, this discussion is part of the larger discussion surrounding dave's post on BBCD's blog post and arranged marriages. Granted, very different practices, but it comes down to one idea:

women are treated as chattel.

That is something that we as a society have to address and deal with. I don't think, as several of the thread commentators have already addressed, that the government should get involved. it doesn't work with in a structure set up in these different countries. i do think that there needs to be more advocacy on the grounds because you have to remember that once the government gets involved in these situations, there is more silence, more pressure for government's to define things in a narrow context, and all programs are some how tied to money, which either way doesn't get to the root of these cultural problems.

However, it is very dangerous and actually illegal for the law to go after those parents who put emotional pressure on children. Under free-speech laws, a person has a legal right to say to his/her offspring: "If you don't marry that doctor and have a child within a year of marriage, then I will never speak to you again." The law cannot prohibit this kind of speech. If there are people cheering this law, it will come to haunt them very soon.

The same is for people who dont think for themselves. I am not in favor or against arranged marriage but
people who dont think for themselves will allways find themselves in a mess.

OHHHH where was the FMU .. when my parents married me off at when I was 5 years.. to a old cat.. the cat is dead now.. atleast i can file my taxes as a widower..

re: cousin marriage...please read papers carefully people.

1) the risk of a particular disease ensuing from a first cousin marriage might be trivial in comparison to the non-cousin marriage on an individual level, but on a social level recessive diseases will increase greatly and impose a public health buden. this prediction equation is relevant:

K = c(1 + 15q)/(c + 16q - cq)

the proportion of first cousin matings being c within the population, and q being the frequency of the recessive allele in question, and K being the proportion of individuals with disease x who are first cousins. the short of it is that as the frequency of a recessive allele drops the % of people who have the disease who are the offspring of first cousins increases greatly...and many of these low frequency diseases can be rather debilitating.

2) the problem with many communities isn't just that you have 1st cousin marriage, it is that "clans" are marrying each other generation after generation. this increases the coefficient of relation greatly, defined by:

FI = sum over all common ancestors[(1/2)i * (1 + FA)]2

(inbreeding coefficient)

for most first cousins in the USA the # of common ancestors up 3-8 generations might be minimal aside from their incestuous lineage. but in many nations "clans" are basically inbred across many lineages and the family tree is basically a big knot that is looping in on itself.

more details here.

Guru Gulab Khatri:

"Yep! and there is also a dumbass clause. If some one is a dumbass the law can not do much for you. A dumbass will be treated like shit, that is pretty much it. A non related example are the people here in credit card debt uptoo their wazoo, well what part of credit didnt they understand!, and now the state attorney general is forced to look into these things.The damage is already done, there is only so much the law can do.

The same is for people who dont think for themselves. I am not in favor or against arranged marriage but
people who dont think for themselves will allways find themselves in a mess."

hear! hear!

However, reinforcing cultural stereotypes on a macro scale is not the most effective way to foster inter-cultural dialogue in avowedly multicultural societies.

screw "culture," go individuals!

people who dont think for themselves...

hear! hear!

Whatever you say!

Huh? Even my pasty-white Ashkenazi hand looks darker than the hands in that poster. How light does skin have to be before looking "brown"?

I have seen the same sequence of events develop on a number of South Asian discussion forums addressing this issue. A number of commenters (usually male) object to the idea of external facilities and legal recourses being made available to the people concerned (usually female), and in some cases they even try to shift part of the blame to the women concerned for not being able to "rescue themselves" from their situation.

These facilities have been set up in order to assist people who, for one reason or another, require external assistance and have not been able to solve the problem via their own efforts. It's not a question of the government observing this phenomenon from afar and then deciding to "meddle"; what has happened is specifically a result of large numbers of (mostly) South Asians in the UK having had to resort to contacting the police and the relevant legal authorities in order to request assistance.

In an ideal world, "society" should be able to solve the problem of forced marriages so that governmental intervention is not required. However, when "society" has failed in these matters, it is an unfortunate yet inevitable consequence that external authorities will subsequently get involved, especially in Western countries where the rule of law is paramount and there is an emphasis on the protection of the weak and vulnerable.

"Nazism" is not when the government gets involved in such matters, it is when the overriding emphasis is on the concept of "might is right" and the human rights of the minority/weak/vulnerable are subjugated to the wishes of those in a position of power who wish to exploit or control them.

Areem,

White or brown, the woman is wearing a wedding ring on her left hand. Isn't this still fairly unusual in the Hindu community?

I can't speak for Muslims, but wearing a wedding-ring on one's left hand is very common amongst Hindus and Sikhs here in the UK, even amongst the older generation. My parents both wear wedding rings on their left hands.

Jai re #31:

In case of illegal activities (shotgun weddings, kidnapped weddings), there is certainly no debate. I don't there there is anybody on any forum who does not want the Government to get involved. That's what we pay taxes for.

However, in case of legal (but questionably immoral) activities, like emotional blackmail, cousin marriages etc, the Government should get out of the way. External NGO's with private funding are welcome, as long as they don't intrude on privacy. Feel free to conduct workshops in temples/gurudwaras etc to discourage such behaviour.

M. Nam

A number of commenters (usually male) object to the idea of external facilities and legal recourses being made available to the people concerned (usually female), and in some cases they even try to shift part of the blame to the women concerned for not being able to "rescue themselves" from their situation.

I've been thinking that since the BBCD thread as well. Gracias for putting that so articulately Jai. It's like asking someone with an absolute lack of resources and familial support why they can't just move out of the projects and get a GED.

However, in case of legal (but questionably immoral) activities, like emotional blackmail, cousin marriages etc, the Government should get out of the way. External NGO's with private funding are welcome, as long as they don't intrude on privacy. Feel free to conduct workshops in temples/gurudwaras etc to discourage such behaviour.

As far as I can tell, this is an awareness campain, to let people (not just women are forced into marriage, though they do seem to bear the brunt of burden in most cases) know that they have choices and help is available to them. Also it seems that this unit arose because there was an already expressed need for such services.

As for the law against forced marriages, the law has plenty of say as to how marriages are conducted, they ban (or allow) poligamy, determine what constitutes a common-law marriage, have laws for ending a marriage, etc so I see this as no different. I think forced marriages should be illegal everywhere.

Let take one of the most famous cases of emotional blackmail leading to a "forced" marriage. Kiranjit Ahluwalia was bullied into a marriage by her brothers who constantly called her a burden and useless. She caved in and married a man she had met once. When he turned abusive, she saught help within her family. They would keep sending her back. 10 years into her marriage she killed her husband, was convicted and sent to jail. She got out on appeal and her case (along with a few others) was the turning point to British law recognizing battered woman syndrome.

Now if only she had known she had a choice.

And I'd like to know why you don't object to workshops conducted by external NGOs?
__________
For all of you who think this is a matter of a weak will, I urge you to ask around you friends, neighbours, families. You'll realize how common emotional blackmail is and just how hard it is to walk away.

Rupa,

It's a consistent pattern of behaviour in this issue (amongst several others) that I've noticed amongst those on this blog who have either spent most of their lives in the subcontinent and are relatively recent migrants to the West, or who still spend a significant proportion of their time back there. There are a number of notable exceptions to this, of course, but there does appear to be a commonality between the individuals demonstrating the negative behaviour concerned. The attitude of patriarchy and lack of sufficient empathy with the victims seems to be fairly entrenched. It's interesting what prolonged cultural conditioning and extensive exposure to widespread social sanction in such matters can do to an individual's attitude and reactions.

In any case, while emotional blackmail is a less forceful tactic to deploy compared to kidnappings etc, it's still a very insidious way to manipulate someone in a position of weakness, and it certainly should be illegal. Passive-aggressive coercion is still a pretty nasty way to behave.

as previous posters have pointed out, at home, there are few resources for primarily women in situations of forced (i.e. where physical harm may be applied or lives threatened) marriages. even in instances where they have sought help from law enforcement, they may end up worse off.

in the west, people have, for the most part, the option of if nowhere else, simply showing up to the police station and asking for help, though many instances there are social welfare and private organisations they can turn to. kidnappings and physical threat or harm is illegal, and laws already exist to deal with those.

as far as i know, emotional coercion and blackmail isnt against the law or immoral (very harsh word there). parents use both techniques throughout a childs life from trying to get them to stop acting up/crying and getting them to eat as children to getting them to study the "right" studies at uni. as young adults and everything in between.

no ones is saying its easy, but thats what being an adult is, making tough choices and living with the consequences if one wants to live ones own life in ones own way.

I recall reading a report in the British press that up to 15% of those forced or coerced into marriage were men. Given the stigma, I'm guessing this is probably underreported.

I think "emotional blackmail" is very rampant in our society, and causes much strife. There needs to be a little more compassion from our parents (and from bloggers) about the difficulties of balancing two very different cultures.

A happy marriage is not written in the stars, and I don't think it can even be learned (i.e. "you will learn to love each other") when Indian and western cultures are so far apart. Just some thoughts...

Dudette,

as far as i know, emotional coercion and blackmail isnt against the law or immoral (very harsh word there).

While your other examples are valid, I don't agree with this assertion in the case of marriage. Forcing someone -- even using emotional/psychological coercion rather than more physical methods -- into marriage with a person they otherwise wouldn't want to be with certainly is extremely immoral. If individual A really wants to be with individual B then, assuming they have the relevant level of intelligence and maturity to be able to make the right decision for themselves in these situations (and if they don't, then as far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be getting married to anyone in the first place), they will not need any external "nudging". I cannot possibly understand the morality of coercing someone to spend the rest of their lives with (physically, mentally, emotionally, and sexually) another person they never really wanted to be with. This is a no-brainer.

as far as i know, emotional coercion and blackmail isnt against the law or immoral (very harsh word there). parents use both techniques throughout a childs life from trying to get them to stop acting up/crying and getting them to eat as children to getting them to study the "right" studies at uni. as young adults and everything in between

"Mummy'll be very upset if you don't eat your peas" is quite different from "Mummy will kill herself if you don't marry X" or "We'll disown you if you don't become a Doctor"

I think the last 2 are ridiculous and immoral.

kidnappings and physical threat or harm is illegal, and laws already exist to deal with those.

and how many women have access to these services? how many asian women feel that they will be heard out? How many asian women feel as though these services will even have people who speak their language.

I worked for a family law practice in London. We mostly saw asian (south asian to the Amrikans :) clients, and most of these women came to us after YEARS of abuse, neglect etc. And for every woman who got help they had 5 friends who didn't think they had the option of seeking help.

When you hear stories where women in your community are KILLED by their own fathers,brothers, mothers, uncles for rebelling against a particular marriage, or having the audacity to leave it after it turns abusive, when you really believe you could not leave and live, would you leave?

jai, i am not disagreeing with you, i am just saying that calling it immoral is a bit high-handed. if, let us say, people are living here (the west), whether brought up here or not being irrelevant, i am simply saying that there are resources available that are not so at home.

i know of several instances of arranged/forced marriages of people who are educated, live by themselves, earn their own keep, yet, somehow, bewildering to me as it may seem, feel they were forced to go into a marriage. i mean, these people would be called free in most regards. i understand if you live in a tight knit community where elders still dont speak the local language and all signs are in your mother tongue, where sometimes even law enforcement wont venture forth, but in instances where you have the resource and opportunity to seek aid, i dont see why these marriages can be called forced.

we all make choices, and sometimes wanting to do our own thing is at odds with our own culture and our parents wishes and our community's demands. but if being urself and wanting to live ur life as u wish is that important, then u make the sarcifices u must. or if u want to do ur own thing but want everyone else to go along, and if not, then call it forced, then i dont see how one can ask for help even when it is available.

btw, this coercion exists among westerners as well. we dont have a monopoly on emotional blackmail.

sorry, just my yens worth.

Regarding arranged marriages. Does it really operate in the "Bend it Like Beckham" way here in the US? Most parents I know set up their kids and allow them to go out on a couple of dates. They even offer to pay, drinks included :-) This system seems fairly benign to me. Could there be a class issue as well? If you're parents are straight from the village, it is likely those values will take time to recede, but if your parents are from a middle-class background, perhaps the benign arranged system (where the kids have agency) and the acceptance of love marriage would be more the norm?

>>It's a consistent pattern of behaviour in this issue ...amongst those ...who have either spent most of their lives in the subcontinent and are relatively recent migrants to the West

I know you did not mean this as a compliment, but thanks.

Yes. We have different attitudes to government interference than 2nd Gen desis, because we have seen first handed what damage Government can do. We've stood in long lines in Govt. "Ration" shops to buy sugar, rice etc. We've been to Govt hospitals where you'll catch more diseases than from a fish market. We've seen Govt getting itself into hotels, airlines, condoms, abortions etc etc, and we've seen the enormous damage it has done. And we are seeing the same tendencies in the West for the last 10-15 years. We want to put a stop to it.

>>The attitude of patriarchy and lack of sufficient empathy with the victims seems to be fairly entrenched

When nothing else works, throw hot-button words? I thought you were against emotional blackmail!!

Dudette:

>>as far as i know, emotional coercion and blackmail isnt against the law or immoral (very harsh word there).

Wrong choice of words. Emotional coercion is very immoral, because you are not using logic to gain an outcome in your favor. However, being illogical should not be illegal. We all fail to use logic sometime or the other - the whole mankind will be in jail.

Kenyan Desi:

>>And I'd like to know why you don't object to workshops conducted by external NGOs

Because NGO's that run on private funds do a very good job in social issues. Witness the excellent work being done by the Gates Foundation on AIDS in India. If the same money had come from the Government, 95% would have been siphoned off on frivolous stuff.

M. Nam

Dudette,

i am just saying that calling it immoral is a bit high-handed. if, let us say, people are living here (the west), whether brought up here or not being irrelevant, i am simply saying that there are resources available that are not so at home......, i dont see why these marriages can be called forced.

I don't believe it can be defined as "high-handed" -- it's simply stating a fact. Ethically, it's not even a "grey area" -- it's wrong and a complete abuse of power. With regards to your second point, an analogy would be those women who are hesitant to prosecute their husbands/boyfriends if they are on the receiving end of domestic violence or rape. Feelings of loyalty, deep emotional ties etc can be major psychological drivers. Going against one's parents isn't an easy thing to do, especially when you factor guilt, obligation etc into the equation.

Your third paragraph is fine in theory, but unfortunately its implementation in real life is a much more difficult and emotionally-loaded issue. These things are much easier said than done.

Razib:

The figures that you cited only apply to first cousin marriage, right? I thought the risks (both individual and societal) for second cousin marriage were the same as the general population.

Kenyandesi, do they have access, a heck of a lot more than women in rural south asia, where ven law enforcement may aid parents or community to get individuals to comply.

again, let me say it as clear as i can, i am not saying i disagree, rather, i am saying it is wrong, and i whole heartedly agree with you, but, i dont think it is immoral, suspect yes, unethical definitely, go the whole yard, immoral, no. granted, i am not intimately familiar with all religions, but the ones i know of do not say Thou shalt not coerce, or get ur offspring to do thy will, or threaten to have a heartattack if they dont.

an di am not making light of it. i am saying, people have choices in the west, they dont always in south asia.

MoorNam,

I actually wasn't referring just to you ;)

With regards to excessive governmental interference: Yes I know about the potential dangers involved, especially in the context of the Indian examples you've given. However, I think that external official intervention is appropriate and necessary in certain questions, as long as it isn't taken to fascistic, insane extremes, and does not violate anyone's fundamental human rights. This doesn't apply in the scenario we've all been discussing (and before anyone jumps in: no, parents do not have the "human right" to emotionally blackmail their children into marriage).

My use of the terms you've underlined, while (again) not directed solely at yourself, were intended as a general statement and not as a form of "emotional blackmail" or verbal abuse. I'm just making what I perceive to be a factual statement, based on the evidence at hand.

jai, 3rd para, wouldnt have said it, if i hadnt done it, or would advise anyone close to do the same. there are many needy people in the world, who actually need someone, many ones to fight their battles, because the opposition they face are guns and tanks and bombers and jail or death. people who wont fight for themselves when the opposition is guilt or coercion or loyalty, i am sorry, i dont agree.

i think to an extent Eddie may be right, it may have to do with socio-economics. during my time in london, cases of extreme coercion, i.e. imprisonment in their own homes, physical threats or bodily injury or death, primarily were with not so well off or affluent or educated populations. but i have also seen extremely rich and well connected and well educated families in south aisa uses these as well as other methods to have children comply.

my experience is limited to th elife i have lived in the places i have been and the people i know of or seen. i dont pretend to know everything, or assume i am always correct. i would not go around telling other people what is or isnt moral, i know for myself, in this limited instance, i dont think it is immoral.

maybe we should get the insights of a few parents here to get a 360.

Since we can't outlaw pressure, and we can't detect coercion easily, why not simply make divorce easier? That way people would be less likely to remain trapped in marriages they don't want ...

Since we can't outlaw pressure, and we can't detect coercion easily, why not simply make divorce easier?

sifox -

I totally agree. If not divorce, at least annulment. I personally know of cases where the families rushed into marrying off their son/daughter and the results were disasterous. When the green light is given by both parties, there is often no time or option to back out. The groom/bride comes over to India and, two weeks later, they are going through a ceremony.

Anyways, in these types of cases, I think annulments might carry less of a stigma than divorce.

Anyways, in these types of cases, I think annulments might carry less of a stigma than divorce.

Even better, have an engagement ceremony and then after 6 months (or on next trip to india of the US resident, for example) let the actual wedding take place. I personally know of many cases where couples broke off after engagement and there was no pressure on them as this totally accepted by family as stigma-free. this particular incarnation of the aranged marriage is very flexible.

i understand if you live in a tight knit community where elders still dont speak the local language and all signs are in your mother tongue, where sometimes even law enforcement wont venture forth,

Dudette, when you talk about communities like in Bradford, this is exactly what it is like. Communities are very tight knit, elders do not care to speak english, temples, gurudwaras and mosques have incredible social pull, etc etc. Many women I encountered were not "allowed" to work or study...not what you call free or empowered.

i am saying, people have choices in the west, they dont always in south asia.

That's like putting in one internet wired gujrati keyboarded computer in a chinese school of 10,000 and saying that the school has internet access. The statement is true but....

I agree that women in south asia have LESS access but that's a relative statement and has no real bearing on this situation. Women in the UK may feel as though the services provided are not for them not friendly etc, and therefore don't use them. I think it's rather pompous and frankly imperialistic to say that services are available but are not used. If they are not culturally appropriate then they are useless.

I'll give you another example. If the only doctor in a conservative town is a man, women might not seek the help they need. Does this mean we should say, well they have better access to medical attention than someone in the middle of Somalia, therefore we shouldn't do anything about it. NO you find a way to alert her to services provided by female doctors, or find a way to get a female provider out there.

>>And I'd like to know why you don't object to workshops conducted by external NGOs

Because NGO's that run on private funds do a very good job in social issues. Witness the excellent work being done by the Gates Foundation on AIDS in India. If the same money had come from the Government, 95% would have been siphoned off on frivolous stuff.

M. Nam,
does it ease you mind that the Southhall Black Sisters have been campaining for this for a long time? . Activists in the community have been asking for government for assistance for a long time. They're finally getting the law on their side, and more money to be able to make a real difference.

From their website:

In August 1999, the Home Office established a Working Group to examine and report on the issue of forced marriage. Southall Black Sisters along with a number of other groups and individuals was invited to join the group. To ensure that the voices of women could reach this Working Group, we organised a meeting of survivors of forced marriage and we mobilised 35 predominantly Asian and minority women's groups and refuges in support of our recommendations to the Group.

SBS resigned from the Working Group when the Group insisted on offering mediation and reconciliation as options to women in this situation.

In regards to the last sentence, these new laws seem to have addresses SBS concerns.

Besides which, most women's shelters, DV programs etc are government funded in the US/UK/many other countries I know of, so where would these women be if the government hadn't stepped in?

M Nam #22

Since when did this become the Government's job? When the State takes over Society's responsibilities, what you end up eventually is Fascism.

Everytime the government intervenes on behalf of society to correct a social injustice does not automatically equate to Facism. When society is sitting on its collective kundis doing nothing, the government has to step in from time to time. Point in case, the US government outlawing racial discrimination and segregation. Did that lead to facism in the US? I think not. On the contrary, colored people like you and me are leading decent lives in the US, without having to collect food from the rear entrance of a diner.

surely people are not advocating making divorce as a remedy!!??

?

this is a move forward how?

Southy has a point, maybe have there be a waiting period, like owning guns. in many cities, i.e. nyc, u have to go in person to get a pre-license thing a week before u can go to get an actual one. perhaps a 30-day cooling off period from Intent to Marry and before the legal marriage can take place. heck, if u do 6 months, many people not in arranged or forced marriage situation might bolt. and have it be where only the principles are present. so if need-be, the bride/groom can bolt via side door under protection.

i recall reading somewhere where it was either the british or american system in some state requires the bride/groom to do exactly this, not bolt, but attest that they are doing so under no pressure or duress.

maybe i just imagined it.

I think it's rather pompous and frankly imperialistic to say that services are available but are not used.

That should read: I think it's rather pompous of someone who is empowered to say that services are available but are not used.

sorry

Dudette,

I agree that there are far worse situations people face in life, but it's not appropriate or right to dimish the suffering and trauma a person may be going through within the context of their own lives. It's not right to basically say "We'll ignore or dismiss the problems faced by people in Situation A because people in Situation B have it far worse."

These individuals may not be suffering in terms of physical violence but the psychological impact of such events can be pretty horrendous, especially as they are being manipulated by their family members who know exactly which buttons to push. I know people in real life who have been coerced into marriage, and I know people whose existing relationships with Mr/Miss Right have been deliberately sabotaged for completely unwarranted, selfish, and unjustifiable reasons. In both situations, the people are often condemned to a living hell, a waking nightmare. Being pushed into a dysfunctional marriage is something no-one should have to go through, especially if it's something they are expected to "endure" in the decades ahead, for the rest of their lives. Inflicting this on one's children as some kind of exercise in power is undeniably cruel and certainly a sadistic way to behave for parents who are well aware of the pain it causes their children, regardless of how one may try to justify/rationalise/excuse it to oneself, to one's children, and to everyone else.

granted, i am not intimately familiar with all religions, but the ones i know of do not say Thou shalt not coerce, or get ur offspring to do thy will, or threaten to have a heartattack if they dont.

These things are very much a matter of culture and not religion, even if the latter is often manipulated or ignored by the family members concerned in order to justify their behaviour. Nevertheless, I do know that Sikhism explicitly condemns the strong imposing their will on weaker parties (unless it is to intervene in the defence of one party being unjustifiably attacked or harassed by another), and this also applies to the attitude towards one's (adult) children and in particular with regards to marriage -- in fact, the religion is completely neutral on whether "arranged marriages" or "love marriages" are 'better'; the emphasis is on using one's own judgement and common sense and, most importantly, marrying the right person for the right reasons. I also know that Islam states that Muslim men and women should both freely consent to marriage and, technically, they have the full right to choose their own spouse. With regards to Hinduism, well I'll let one of the Hindus here on SM answer that for themselves.

'Immoral' and 'unethical', by the way, mean exactly the same thing.

btw, jai, that immoral and unethical mean the same thing is news to me. not in everyones vernacular. immoral is a higher offense, if u will, dictated by religion, unethical is dictated by society, as per my understanding, and usage, i understand not all share this view. so thats illegal, unethical, and then there is immoral.

i keep on saying this, and its getting boring to say it again, i dont disagree with what u and others are saying, as a matter of fact, i agree. what i am saying is, as others have also, its not the governments job or responsibility to fight the small mindedness of a set of parents in a given community. my understanding from others of a non-southasian persuasion is that they go thru the exact same things, albeit to a lesser extent. jewish mothers want their children to marry jewish spouses, and polish mothers want the same thing. and if u think emotional pressure or coercion is not applied there, then u havent had a long conversation with a catholic mexican american from texas as to why a swedish atheist is not the choice for their precious child...

it seems to me people are speaking from their personal/individual cases. not all arranged marriages are forced, and not all forced marriages are because individuals are locked up in their rooms till wedding day. i understand that if u are in brick lane, forget law enforcement, even the embassy tries to avoid community entangles there, and u have been brought up to simply obey and not question, brainwashed to believe that u dont/cant think, then there is a case to be made for external intervention. but how would external bodies know about such cases? i recall reading about the high/increasing cases of drug addiction among young women in bricklane and other bangladeshi communities in the UK due to the constant helplessness people feel. i know, and understand and believe in those instantces, external measures are required. but a law that blanket deals with every case without impunity is a slippery slope in my opinion.

as i said earlier, help those that cannot help themselves, not those who can, but wont.

btw, islam, like christianity does not advocate coercion, nor does it implicitly deride it. but what we have here is a subcultural phenomena (not all in any given community act the same way), not a religious one. ergo, my issues with how some think it immoral.

Witness the excellent work being done by the Gates Foundation on AIDS in India. If the same money had come from the Government, 95% would have been siphoned off on frivolous stuff.

Another thing to note is gates foundation did not try to go for medicine but aids awareness.
The reasons is cost benifit analysis led them to the conclusion that prevention is better than cure.
Most people with aids are practicaly doomed. you can only extend a few years
and in india that too will not be achieved as easily as in US.

Because they are not a government agency they can get away with this analysis.
Its raional sadly government programs dont take that into account.

The point simply is that more lives can be saved by spending less money on awareness
rather than expensive and not fully developed or scientificaly understood treatment operation which
would have finished his money faster and would have extended the life of a few by ~5yrs.
Heres gates on the program

btw, islam, like christianity does not advocate coercion,

btw, jai, that immoral and unethical mean the same thing is news to me.

The figures that you cited only apply to first cousin marriage, right? I thought the risks (both individual and societal) for second cousin marriage were the same as the general population.

yeah, i wouldn't worry about second cousin marriage in a non-inbred population. the last is key, stuff like "first cousin" or "second cousin" is more relevant in exogamous populations.

as far as i know, emotional coercion and blackmail isnt against the law or immoral (very harsh word there). parents use both techniques throughout a childs life from trying to get them to stop acting up/crying and getting them to eat as children to getting them to study the "right" studies at uni. as young adults and everything in between.

it is a find line between allowing individual choice, and forcing particular choices.

the reality is that people are social animals, embedded in their environment. we aren't born with exactly the same choices, thank the god i don't believe in that i was born a man, at least judging from the stresses and tensions that seem to be part & parcel of college-educated bangladeshi american girls from the same background as i.

the reality is that i think "dialogue" is part of the problem. we shouldn't shrink from kulturkampf. empirical evidence tells us that patriarchy, more or less, is normative. in some societies patriarchy is mitigated or dampened somewhat, and the west, vis-a-vis south asia, is one of them (one could argue that in some ways west africa is another, though there it takes different forms). institutions and laws matter, but without cultural frameworks they are a dead letter.

word up. with the realization that we have priviledge, we should do what we can to stop the patriarchal things around us. as desi men, the question i think is to stop letting the discrimination slide. its not cool to pretend to ignore it

Praise be to God that he has not created me a gentile; praised be God that created me not a woman; praised be God that he has not created me an ignorant man.... is a form of a jewish prayer. i believe some forms are less explicitly sexist, but the fact that such prayers exist tells us something about humanity. i'm not a big 'feminist' in a post-1970 sense in that i'm rather pessimistic of overthrowing the patriarchy, i think men are born to rule to some extent by the nature of who some of us are...but aspects of nature red in tooth & claw can be mitigated by the Good Society.

The poster looks a lot like the ads for Manjrekar's 2000 Bollywood Film Astitva. Here's an ad here. There were a few different ones with the same idea.

dudette:

its not the governments job or responsibility to fight the small mindedness of a set of parents in a given community.

for most first cousins in the USA the # of common ancestors up 3-8 generations might be minimal aside from their incestuous lineage. but in many nations "clans" are basically inbred across many lineages and the family tree is basically a big knot that is looping in on itself.

more details here.

Do Arab countries have a much higher overall rate of congenital defects than other countries then?

yes. read the new york times.

When the problem is endemic like it is in the UK,

It's not endemic, but it is persistent in a strata of the society.

"i think men are born to rule to some extent by the nature of who some of us are..."

HA HA HA... While your other comments have merit, there's NO WAY that you can prove this one using genetics...although, you'll probably try ;) . In every group/team (school and professional) I've ever been in, all the guys have practically waited for me to take charge and become the leader, which I end up doing somewhat reluctantly (sometimes it's nice to let someone else be responsible). Basically, I think leadership qualities may besomewhat innate, and not gender-biased - which is why everyone bugs the hell out of me expecting me to take charge, delegate, have the final say, etc.. If it ain't obvious, I disagree with your comment. I think the patriarchy will change and evolve over (a very long) time to a more equal ground. It's all about how we're socialized and raised - which IS gender-biased.

In every group/team (school and professional) I've ever been in, all the guys have practically waited for me to take charge and become the leader, which I end up doing somewhat reluctantly (sometimes it's nice to let someone else be responsible).

you might be a good and confident leader, but you don't think in terms of populations. which makes sense, i've heard that good leaders have to be kind of blind and dumb to nuance and have total confidence.

i've heard that good leaders have to be kind of blind and dumb to nuance and have total confidence.

Sounds like a definition of a bad leader as well.

That sounds more like Dubya.

In every group/team (school and professional) I've ever been in, all the guys have practically waited for me to take charge and become the leader, which I end up doing somewhat reluctantly (sometimes it's nice to let someone else be responsible).

you might be a good and confident leader, but you don't think in terms of populations. which makes sense, i've heard that good leaders have to be kind of blind and dumb to nuance and have total confidence

"yow... that was a wicked claw strike razib, um... nathalie."

Y'know - I wasn't oblivious to such nuances - the clawing attempt just didn't bug me that much :)

hmmm....I wonder if Nathalie is "A+"....... ;)

it was a mild claw. i just tire of

a) i am an x
b) i am like z
c) you say x is !z

so, you are wrong, blah, blah....

it is of the same genre as "you deleted my comment, you are a censor, you are against free speech, blah, blah, blah...."

let me clarify. I may have used myself as illustration, but it was by no means meant to beself-indulgent or about me. Perhaps the subtle nuances in my commentary were missed:

i am an x
but i am like what you deem a z, but this is besides the point because....
there are many x's more like z's, whether it is ever a fully realized "potential" or not.
if the potential is not fully realized, there are many societal reasons for this.... this is becoming less and less of a factor as we progress, but is still a challenge, nonethelss.

My point: gender bias and other issues have prevented women from historically taking on leadership roles - it is not an innate personality trait for women to take a backseat or supporting role. Nor is it a personality trait for the male gender to be born leaders. If you can prove that this trait is a male expressed - the same way colour-blindness is expressed, maybe I could buy your theory, but I'm 100% sure that there is no linkage between gender and leadership.

Anyways, you have your opinion and you're entitled to it. Obviously, being female, I have a unique perspective on the matter. I'm sure there are many who can support me and point out the historical factors reasons why women are not often in leadership roles, particularly at those level deemed superior by whoever. I would think that examples would be too obvious at this point.

I do however think good leadership or the ability to lead may be linked to other personality traits. My personal opinion is that type B personality (if you buy that there's only 2 types of personalities!) are better in leadership roles. Brains and charm and a je ne sais quoi factor help, too. I tire of type A's who have to be right and authoritarian and bossy - and everyone else does too!

i simply disagree with that assertion razib. its like saying people with nose hair are born to rule. ok...sure. not that i'm being rude to razib, but the assertion itself, i'm not about to wind around in circles disputing it, just simple and totally disagree. it would be my suggestion metric ang you're just going to go around in circles by trying to disprove his comment. its much more strong to simply disagree with him and be about making our society a more equal place

course by me suggesting what to do, thats probably partiarchal right there

i simply disagree with that assertion razib. its like saying people with nose hair are born to rule.

look, i don't want to get into an "argument." that's dumb, there is a wide literature on various personality differences on average between males and females. there is a wide literature on the relationship between hormonal levels and various personalities. there is a wide literature on the developmental genetic reasons for the differential expressions of these hormones.

the simple explanation is testosterone: women who have higher basal testosterone levels tend to be more aggressive and domineering. men who boost their testosterone tend to be more domineering. sometimes connecting the dots doesn't work in that correlations of correlations, but i'm pretty sure this one will work. men are simply geared toward dominance and risk taking behavior because of higher testosterone levels, and there is probably a genetic rational via the trivers-willard effect, males are the gender with higher potential reproductive outpout (skew).

as for history, there has never been a matriarchy (matrilineal cultures don't count, and iroquois females having veto power over male decisions doesn't count). the employ of female warriors by the king of benin doesn't count. *shrug*

now wave hands and tell me how every society that we know of somehow magically stumbled on the same stable-state of shitting on women.* (i suppose you could posit a marxist explanation)

anyway, i'm not making a deterministic argument, i'm making a probabilistic one. most males are not born with personalities that allow them be leaders, and most do not live in societies that allow them to be leaders. same for women. a particular socioeconomic background helps, for example, but not being a pussy really helps too. if you have two normal distributions and you shift the mean a bit, then the number on the tales will differ a GREAT deal.

consider, assume a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 15. .135% of the probability distribution is more than 3 standard deviations above mean (>145). assume a mean of 105, and .38% of the population is above the 130. you nearly triple the value at the high end of the tail by a small shift in the mean.

if you assume that being at the extreme end of the tail of distribution gives you a leg up or is a necessary precondition, than small mean differences in populations can make a big difference. this doesn't take into account things like gene-environment correlation and gene-environment interaction.

i'm not trying to be a bluffing asshole here...but i am tired of the same-old-same-old platitudes about social and historical factors that totally ignore some populationally powerful biases. sure, behavorial genetics or evolutionary psychology aren't physics, and there is a lot of gray area in there...but, i think it stands up well next to sociology, which is what its detractors appeal to (sociology, at least the type that attempts to be a science, even uses many of the same statistical techniques as behavior genetics).

in my "fantasy" world where i am a single alpha male all women would be potentional cameron diaz's like something about mary (plus, a little more promiscuous too). i don't see that happening.

* there are differences of degree, i would argue that mass scale societies that emerged after the neolithic revolution were bad for the tenuous gender equality that probably existed before. in the nurture assumption judith rich harris points out that male cliques tend to be more stable than female cliques...and i think this is the reason why male social mobilization scales so much better than "sisterhood."

its not platitudes razib, and i also at this point don't want to get into a long-running arguement about this topic. For one thing in order to have an arguement like this there would have to be a committment to deconstruction, as the predominant view is, indeed, patriarchy has been the rule. If we're just going to base a discussion on prevailing lenses, of course, a thousand times, on the face of it, one would concede the point that patriarchy is the rule. I'm not an idiot, generally.

The point I would be making about the non-inherency of patriarchy (which is not probably an exact way of the goal) would entail so much willing deconstruction that it would only be useful if all sides in the conversation were committed to seeing the plausability of an alernate point of view, and working to bring such evidence as would strenthen the point. After that, a committment to being reality-based would neccesitate testing the plausability of any evidence that was found.

I feel that if you personally wanted to disprove that partiarchy is innate, you'd bring a lot of evidence for it. Thats not to blow smoke up your ass. On the face of it I just do not want to sit back and "let" it be true that patriarchy is a default condition, even as I'm not willing to simply delude myself into a more pleasant reality.

btw, readers might find this normal distribution applet of interest. it gives you an intuitive feel if you play around with it numerically.

oh, btw, short men are sexy, only anti-short cultures hold their potential down :)

I feel that if you personally wanted to disprove that partiarchy is innate, you'd bring a lot of evidence for it.

the thing is, the term "innate" implies a lot and leaves out a lot. my position is that with enough social inputs males and females could be equalized in outcome as well as opportunity. granted, we aren't at equality of opportunity yet either. i simply don't think the social inputs are worth it, in fact, i think the Left's recent tendency to reshape society in a very aggressive way via government fiat and program has been counterproductive to the project of individual liberty and potentiality.

if the set of extent societies approaches infinite at some point a large number of matriarchal societies even without inputs, and a far larger number of non-sex-triarchal societies would emerge. as it is, i don't think the set of human societies is large enough to explore all the improbable potentialities out there. the die is loaded, so to speak.

as for deconstruction and what not, well, i think our lingo is going in orthogonal directions :)

oh, btw, what texts would someone rec. to learn this deconstructionist stuff?

i'm assuming we have very different ways of looking at this. i don't think its a good idea to engage each other on it

you might want to check out the situationists. as for texts. i'm self taught and most of what i learned about deconstruction came from feeling that certain shit was just not right. i'm not academic on deconstruction.

completely unrelated to the topic, but in reply -
but if you're lookin for deconstructionsim at work,
you could try J.Butler's Gender Trouble...
she's a bit of a crazy Foucaultian...

yeah
forced marriages are just wrong!