July 26, 2006
Stand by your (arranged) manIssues
Globalization has made many things possible including the efficient exchange of all sorts of goods and services. Among these are ideas; scientists think nothing of collaborating across borders, and musicians can lay down tracks in one city and have them a genius producer someplace far away rearrange them overnight.
Some ideas don’t travel as well, however. What makes sense according to laws and customs in one place might be absurd or abhorrent somewhere else. Advice columnists — or as the British beautifully call them, agony aunts — have yet to globalize their business. But what if there’s demand? Today in Salon (thanks, Scott!), an Indian-in-India sista seeks to outsource her relationship counseling to Cary Tennis, the online mag’s advice-giver. And Tennis… almost punts, but not quite. Check it out. Here’s the woman’s situation:
… Arranged marriages have seen a resurgence in India and I suspect it is propelled by young people’s desire to shield themselves from heartbreak. I was one of those and I agreed to marry a doctor I met just once after I returned home from the States. I thought I was taking a very sane and levelheaded decision. He came from a good family and was well liked and respected in his hospital (all this info gathered through the extended family network that goes into operation for marital missions). He had no known addictions, was reasonably good-looking according to Indian standards (not my standards, I must point out, because I like muscular, clean-shaven men and he is neither). We came from similar backgrounds and our life goals seemed to match — raise kids, earn a lot of money and make our parents proud of us.
Three months into our marriage we had our first fight. It was nasty. We are still living apart.
Now I am not sure marrying him was such a great idea. He seems immature and his anger was shocking. Staying on in a marriage just because he is a doctor seems wrong now. I thought my decision would be right because it was dispassionate. But now I think the lack of passion should have been a warning sign. The fact that I wasn’t physically attracted to him should have been enough to decide against marrying him.
How do I know if I made a huge mistake? Divorce is a big deal here, especially in my religion. But I figure the sooner we break up the easier it will be. Then again, who am I kidding? I probably won’t muster up the courage to break up the marriage until he does something really horrible…
And here are excerpts from Tennis’s reply:
I do not know what it is like to be from India but I know what it is like to live with the choices I have made. … I do not know what it is like to be in an arranged marriage but I know that all marriages are in a sense arranged — by relatives, by the rain, by smiles and secret dances; by children whose arrival can no longer be postponed, by the intersection of ripening desires, by thirsty hope meeting cool water.
So you ask an American what to do. To do what an American would do would be disastrous, I fear. …
I would try to live within what you have already done. I would attempt to carry out the plans you had when you decided to marry: Have lots of children and make a lot of money. Absent one of the limited general grounds for divorce available to you under Indian divorce law … I would try to see this thing through. …
Most men are flawed; they have an ugly side. You probably do too. Within limits, this is intimacy.
Not all mistakes can be undone. Some mistakes are to be lived with. The undoing can be messier than the mistake.
Beyond that, I cannot say much. I do not know what it is like to be from India. I do not know what it is like to be in an arranged marriage. I only know what it is like to live with the choices I have made.
OK, so with that last paragraph Tennis basically pleads ignorance, which I suppose is fair enough. But then, why have spent the rest of the lengthy reply basically talking her out of challenging or ending her marriage? Why not have simply refused to take up the question, to pull this question from the pile?
Or perhaps Tennis is right, and “suck it up, kiddo” is the best advice for this woman’s situation?
I can’t help but feel that Tennis is treading too cautiously here, haunted by the idea that India is so much more conservative a society that “what an American would do” is not simply irrelevant, but actually the opposite of what an Indian should do.
I wonder (not a rhetorical question — I sincerely wonder) what Dan Savage would say if confronted with the same question. Would he tell her to DTMFA?
siddhartha on July 26, 2006 10:56 AM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I think Tennis is assuming India is come backwards place where women are forced to wear burkhas and have to do whatever their husbands say, no matter how evil they are.
I don't know...I've been reading him forever and Cary is usually rather sensitive, so I wouldn't dismiss him just yet. The only bit of his advice to this particular LW that inspired an eyebrow-raise was the "have kids" part, but I have my own take on this entire saga that I was going to post, so I'll save it for later (Don't run away and let me down).
Tennis' ass must hurt from sitting on that fence. Though I suppose after the Jenny Jones' show killing, several years ago, all of these advice givers/meddlers/schadenfreude emcees are just trying to cover themselves and not actually give off solid opinions.
I think Tennis is assuming India is come backwards place where women are forced to wear burkhas
How do you know that the woman is not being forced to wear a Burqa? Have you been to Old Delhi? I have seen more Burkhas there than anywhere else.
How do you know that the woman is not being forced to wear a Burqa? Have you been to Old Delhi? I have seen more Burkhas there than anywhere else.
Sure, I've been. good point. but what I meant to say that Tennis sounded like "I dont know how to deal with these $avages b@ckwards traditions". probably a bad example...
if she wasn't attracted to him still...they shouldn't be together. but perhaps some people define 'marriage' differently, i don't know.
Yes, I read Cary Tennis regularly too. This is not his usual excellent stuff. He's going to hear from me. How's this image going to change if we don't tell people like him what it's really like. This woman did grad school in the US, for God's sake! "Have children" is the only option ?!
It's sad that this kind of misplaced 'cultural understanding' comes much more from the left than the right.
Al MFD,
Seeing a lot of Burkhas != those women being forced to wear them. In some countries, this is forced by law - something I'm sure we all know.
The young lady is an idiot. Arranged marriage is fine, but she went in with the completely wrong idea of what marriage is about. She's still got the wrong idea. "Staying on in the marriage because he's a doctor seems wrong now." Seems, lady?
But that doesn't excuse Cary Tennis's atrocious advice. For all the pleading, the thing stinks of woman-hatery to me. "Suck it up, all men have an ugly side." Wha?? Excuse me, I thought this was 2006.
From the little they've revealed of the situation, it looks like two people got together for all the wrong reasons, and the thing exploded on take-off. It's sad but it happens. Tennis is telling her to be stoic until she has an "encounter" with a kitchen stove? The sister better bail ASAP, else she's in for a lifetime of pain...
Damn Mr. Kobayashi, on point. Could you be the great brown Dan Savage? DTMFA (goes for both of them)!
I have often admired Tennis's advice and I far prefer his approach to that of most every other advice guru (say Dr. Phil, or the Dear Abby / Ann Landers types). He's a pretty astute, self aware dude. He's also a recovering alcoholic, and thus perhaps more aware of the inherent vulnerability and complexity of being human. Tennis is definitely not an ign'ant Amerikun, so Puliogre, check out his archives before you kick him to the curb, ya heard? ;)
And for what it's worth, living in India has made it clear to me that whether or not burka's are involved, there's a hell of a lot of Indian women who DO have to do whatever their husbands (or in laws, or parents) say, no matter how evil they are...
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Cary Tennis, there's Amy Sedaris's column in The Believer. Astoundingly hilarious and worth checking out!
My two paisa,
~K
I'll be whomever you want me to be, sister. Respect.
In some countries, this is forced by law
Which countries would that be?
kavita says
thanks for that detail kavita. I wasnt aware of that but it makes sense to me, because I totally felt tennis displayed tremendous sensitivity and maturity in his response. that only comes from someone who's been beaten down a couple of times and knows not to see things as black and white.
it is nice to see opinion pieces that arent a wire brush on a second degree burn.
Have you been to Old Delhi? I have seen more Burkhas there than anywhere else.
ALM,
What percentage?
Old Delhi is probably the most densely populated place on earth. You are going to see hell of a lot of everything there - be it burkhas, salwar kameez, sarees, low rise jeans. I can understand the percentage will increase in the area around Chandini Chowk.
I think the woman in the post above is knocking the wrong door for advise (if she is serious about it). Why not some Indian Aunt Agony from Femina or real professional based there. She is India, has spent 90% of life in India, her marital discord is in India - she seeks from an American. It does not make sense.
Aha, but it does make sense if she specifically wanted to get an answer telling her it's ok to divorce him. My sense is that she was trying to stack the deck, and Tennis was refusing to play along.
(I do think they should divorce, though.)
just to be clear on the above, i wasnt advocating the couple sustain an abusive relationship - but i dont think there was enough data on that - i felt tennis pleaded ignorance because he felt he didnt know all the facts and based on common knowledge of indian relationships (less inclined to drive thru commitments) I take it that he was prudent in framing a response - rather than advocate a "bail out now, now!!" response and risk hurting a lot of people if the woman went thru.
Marrying someone without the physical attraction will always lead to nasty problems. The initial physical attraction overcomes the inevitable negative things that everybody doesn't show before marriage. By the time they come out of the physical attraction, it is kids time. Then they don't even have time to think about divorce :).
Think of the doctor guy, he thought he was marrying is girl who likes and is attracted to him but what he got was a passionless (atleast for him) woman. How much do you think would have contributed that to the situation that they have right now? We don't know what the fight was and may be the girl isn't blameless either.
All the judging of the poor guy on this thread and giving a free pass to the girl is simply sad. Tennis's advise is sound for what facts he knows. Here the vitim seems to be guy (for what facts we know) because unknowingly he entered into a passionless marriage atleast from the other side.
Tennis was refusing to play along.
Yes, I read his reply. He gave a very good reply.
I agree she wanted to stack the deck, and seeking an American is out of place in this context.
Grrr.
It's even more irritating on a second reading.
This is bollocks!!
hmm... and why not, given thatnot enough is known about the situation. it isnt just an east-west thing. on the radio the other day was a discussion on a therapist lamenting the abdication of responsibility by family in maintaining relationships. her feel was that there are folks who come out of the woodworks to pick sides and support a person in court through divorce proceedings - "i am here for you" - but are out of the equation through all the tribulations leading up to the breakdown.
it is scary though that someone would approach an internet columnist for marital advice rather than go to a counsellor.
They should divorce quickly. He can tell the world the she turned out to be a lesbian; and she can tell the world that he was impotent. In India, the good doctor will have little difficulty taking another wife. The arranged market is effectively closed to her, but she may use her wiles to capture another man, more sexy to her - and mature.
I do agree with Prasad that sexual attraction will forgive many things in the early stages of marriages, and when that wears off that you look to money and children and what have you.
My aunts (Indians), when they lived in Saudi Arabia were terrified to go out because the police could catch them for minor violations such as showing a wrist or an ankle. One of them was warned by the cop that if this ever happened again, her feet would be cut off.
Think also of Afghanistan under the Taliban (or today in some sections where Karzai's rule does not not apply). Some of the oppression women face there, is, in effect 'law' because there is court of law to protect them if they choose not wear the chador.
Women in India are not forced to wear the burka.
Sorry, I meant "terrified to go out without being correctly dressed". They did go out.
"Absent one of the limited general grounds for divorce available to you under Indian divorce law I would try to see this thing through."
Is he assuming that this woman doesn't really have legal options, that it might get too messy? I disagree. Two of my cousins got divorces after realizing that their suitable arranged boys were really schmucks, I don't think there were huge legal problems.
I'm with "divorce him now" because it's clearly not just early hiccups in the marriage if they are living apart and she can only come up with "he's a doctor" as a reason to stay with him. If you're thinking about divorce in spite of the social and self-imposed desi pressures to "make things work," things must be pretty bad. I don't agree that the arranged marriage route is now closed to her, especially if she doesn't go and get pregnant, people are more open to second marriages these days, though she's likely to find a man with a kid himself who wants a mother for the child.
Hmmm
A. It really bothers me that there are two cultural values at play here. I don't like it. I think you have to be on the inside to understand it sometimes though all it does is make you more fucked up.
B. I wish Tennis would quit scampering all over the fence and just state his mind. I wish he'd simply have said "either live with the consequences since you ain't gonna do shit about it according to your own admission" or "move and and find something more suitable for your emotional well being."
I also wish he'd tell her that most marriages have a tough time in the first year and one big fight is not a big freaking deal and to work on the communication. What made her deem he's immature? Are they not having sex? Is she just hung up on the physical thing? I'm not getting enough information.
I think it was stupid of him to pick this letter because it's lame, has holes and really doesn't give substantial information on what exactly the fight was about and what is deemed immature for her to doubt her marriage. She married him for his money, at that point he must have looked attractive to her. I have scores of cousins who's sole reason for marrying their husbands were "He was cute and mom and dad liked him."
Hate to burst your bubble but there are 1000s of such marriages that take place in India every single day. Let get real and stop trying to be so western in approaching this. Just because you don't understand it, don't knock it. Traditional marriage in India has never been about physical attraction or love it was always a calculated risk.
These seem like major red flags to me:
- "But now I think the lack of passion should have been a warning sign. The fact that I wasnt physically attracted to him should have been enough to decide against marrying him."
- "Staying on in a marriage just because he is a doctor seems wrong now."
Seems to me like she may have married the guy because he's a doc, and their first major fight made her realize there was probably never a solid foundation there in the first place. The way she mentions money, doctor-status, and lack of physical attraction all point to someone who's just coming to terms with her own bad choices.
I think this is larger than the obvious. While no one may hold a gun to wear a burkha in a family; the mental and emotional pressure to do so is so intense that a woman may be left with no option than to conform. There are conservative families that won't allow their new DILs to wear anything other than a sari. Yeah she can refuse but in a traditonal setting does she really have the option to do so?
We are aruging on semantics but just wanted to point out the flaw in thinking a woman always has the choice to do something just because the law doesn't stop her from having a choice.
interesting that opinion here so far are all over the place. i like that. by the way, i only posted excerpts; they capture the situation fairly but the one graf i omitted completely was her opening statement, in which she says that she had two prior serious relationships, both prior to her two years in the u.s., that crashed and burned for various reasons. read for yourself. i don't know if that changes anything.
Yo, my bubble? What have you said that I disagree with?
Besides, this line you draw between "western" and "traditional marriage" does not exist. Many people, perhaps even most people, our poor fool included, are in a hybrid state, driven on by mixed notions.
When I suggest that she's gone into the marriage with the wrong idea, do you think I'm saying she should, instead, "marry for love," or that she should find a man with a cute behind? Or am I saying she should find a better arranged marriage? Or that she should divorce and give up the idea of marrying for a while? Or find herself a girlfriend? Or a sugardaddy?
Hmm.
You see, there are all sorts of reason for marrying. This lady's, as far as I can see, were distinctly underheated. It's obvious that she's seriously immature, a quality which serves her ill in a "western" marriage or a "traditional" one.
I understand at times you can't find your picture perfect person, but being attracted to the other person is critical. Arranged or not.
When meeting someone, understandably it is hard to gage things such as anger. But maturing can be ascertained to a certain degree by asking the right questions and feeling out the responses. A doctor, lawyer, engineer, or a farmer has no bearing on maturity. Maybe education, but not emotional strength and maturity.
Above all, a dispassionate decision is NOT good period. You have to feel it's 'right' in your gut and emotions. Walking down the assembly line expecting things will just fall in place if your heart really isn't in it won't work. There is a difference between cold feet and fear of commitment vs. a dispassionate decision.
Maybe this lady is the one who was immature with all the wrong expections and entered a situation where she hadn't got her own bearings straight. Know thy self first and be honest with what yourself before deluding yourself. It happens to us all, but this is not a problem with arranged marriages, but one where you're simply making a decision by lying to yourself. People make similar decisions in all relationships, not just arranged marriages.
Wrong idea. What is worse? Living a half fulfilling depressed life because society thinks divorce is worse than continuing on with an undesriable marriage, or simply moving on with life by getting divorced. In either case, one has to take control and accept the responsibility/consequences of the decision. If you choose to stay in the marriage then do everything you can by employing the right strategies to make it work. If you don't want the marriage, yet stay in it because the world will give you shit, well you've made your own bed of misery then. Make a commitment - try making it work or get out. Don't half ass it.
Damnit now you tell us!!! Grrrr
how does it change your view, JOAT?
Interesting that people are discussing "western" vs. "traditional" marriage expectations, because in the last several years I've observed a sort of fusion of the two among many women I know back home (and some desis who are now in the States). The new ideal seems to be that mommy and daddy will introduce you to the Suitable Banker Boy from the Good Family who works for a MNC and makes lots of $, who will also be your Mills and Boon hero, a romantic, Shahrukh-Khan-in-all-those-films-starting with-a-K sort of chap, "modern"-yet-sweet-and-respectful-to elders.
I respectfully submit that this sets people up to not be as pragmatic and willing to suck up unexpected stuff as they used to in the Real Arranged Marriage days, and also stops people from going out there and dating and taking risks to find the person they really want to be with (including the risk that they won't find someone at all).
GujuDude makes some excellent points in post #30 and I agree with him completely.
The bottom line here is whether staying in the marriage will have a more corrosive effect on the woman's life -- at least internally, with regards to the long-term impact on her psyche, her personality in general, and her psychological/emotional wellbeing -- than the feared ramifications if she leaves (social/familial fallout etc).
Only she can really make this decision. She'll have to be an adult and figure this out herself, and take responsibility for the consequences, for better or for worse.
It would make me weight the blame more on the woman who seems to have entered the marriage with more superficial reaasons having experienced a relationship(s) with someone of her choice.
It would make me blame someone less if she were to have entered this marriage having zero experience with relationships and being raised in an environment that has always taught her to do things this way.
I don't want to even accidentally veer into the precedent set by the "on-line evisceration of Toral Mehta/Kaavya*", so I'll say this hesitantly and briefly:
Basing a decision to spend the rest of your life with a person on one single meeting does not sound even remotely like a "sane and level headed decision" in my opinion.
Marrying him in the first place just because he was a doctor was a huge mistake. It's also interesting that, in her paragraph explaining her original reasons for deciding to marry him, she doesn't mention mutual chemistry, what she likes about his personality, their shared interests (apart from wanting to make money etc), the nice way he treats her etc. All huge warning signs. Unfortunately, also common things which are not given great weight in the "traditional" Indian viewpoint on such matters, especially with regards to the arranged marriage route.
Also good point by JoaT in #35 -- I was thinking exactly the same thing.
*I'm not saying by any means that this is what other commenters are doing here; I just wantd to pre-empt any misunderstanding of my own views.
JaneOfAllTrades,
I do appreciate the nature of societal and family pressure. It can be tremendous. However, I was seconding what Puliogre said and clarified later. I felt that Al Mujahid was nitpicking Puliogre's comment since the point was "what attitude is Cary taking here?". I too felt that undertone in Cary Tennis's statements.
This is a case of each of us taking the most extreme view of what everyone else is saying. So, unless you are saying that despite the law in India not forcing anyone to wear a Burqa, the situation is identical to Saudi anyway (and I'm sure you're not saying that), I think we all understand each other quite well.
Calculated with an abacus, maybe.
This woman seems rather confused to me. If she wasn't attracted to the guy, and didn't think that was important, then why on earth is she bemoaning the lack of passion, deep respect and understanding at the end of her letter?
Did she think relationships are crafted out of thin air? One fight, in which he seems immature and his anger seems shocking, and she is looking for a divorce? And nowhere does she mention what she brought to the marriage.
I find myself feeling sorry for her husband. I bet he didn't know that he was marrying a woman with so little respect for the institution of marriage [not just her lack of interest in saving this one, but also her lack of regret at trying to break someone else's marriage a few years ago].
As for the advice given, I fail to see why that is worthy of criticism. He doesn't tell her to suck up physical or emotional abuse, and says she should try to see if she can make it work. What is so wrong with that?
And I also agree with the commentors who think that she was trying to find someone who'd tell her to go for a divorce - why can't she make up her own mind, for god's sake? Or talk to a family member? Or a therapist? Or a marriage counsellor? The woman in question sounds like someone who doesn't want to take *any* responsibility - she went along with the marriage because she wanted to save herself heartache and didn't see anything terribly wrong with the guy. But then she can't be arsed to try and make it work, and can't even summon up the guts to say so, or act on it.
People seem rather upset by the fact that he says that all men have an ugly side. Why? That's true for *all* humans, men and women. And as for his advice to have kids, isn't he just telling her to do what she said she planned to do? What is wrong with his advice if nothing was wrong with her plans?
I don't know if this is something I'm just imagining. But it seems implied often that the pressure of arrange marriage is something that is applied on women in India. But from what I know, parents pressure their sons just as much for arranged marriage.
Lack of sexual freedom and judgement of non-marital sex is, of course, worse for women than men (as it is to varying degrees in most parts of the world. For example, "stud" vs. "slut").
I'm with you.
.It possibly stems from general belief that women are the ones that carry the societal mores and culture and hence carry more weight in ethical issues.
I don't know this woman or her husband, and I'm not trying to be judgemental-- hey, I'm trying-- especially not knowing anything of what their fight was actually about. But it seems to me if one fight is all it takes for either party to question the foundation of their marriage, they didn't do enough communicating in the first place. Where are the coping skills if they separated after one argument? Unless he gored her cat with a vacuum attachment, I don't know what would be so severe that moving out was necessary...
Oh my god he yelled and disagreed with me!
it's not the end of the world. Marriage definitely isn't defined by how easy you have it-- it's defined by the adversity that you survive, together. Even if it's at each other's hand, sometimes ;)
It's all very dependent on how old she is as well, if she's young, and felt as if she compromised in going with him in the first place, all it might take is a single fight to spark the separation. Also, I'd say, if she's on the younger side (when I mean young, I don't mean necessarily 21 or 22), perhaps she feels there's still time to venture and meet that perfect muscular, clean shaven guy.
Marriage definitely isn't defined by how easy you have it-- it's defined by the adversity that you survive, together. Even if it's at each other's hand, sometimes ;)
Very good point, desidancer. marriage - even for the most self-assured, mature and compatible couple - can be difficult. And once you understand and accept that, things become much, much easier.
The guy's letter which never got printed:
Dear Tennis,
I need some advice as to whether I should stick it out with a woman I married. Normally I wouldn't write to you since I am in India and you're not, but this chick I am with lived over there for a while and I thought you could help.
I had an arranged marriage with this Indian girl who just returned from spending a few months in the US. When I met her, she was in shape and pretty. She wanted to keep working and was highly motivated. I married her too quickly. A few months into it, I realized that she wasn't quite the person I thought she was. She started talking about quiting her job and saying that since I was a doctor, I made enough money for both of us and that she didn't need to work anymore. Of course, she wanted me to work more. Also, she started buying lots of stuff. I mean lots. She stopped working out and ate all the time; the physical attraction that I first had was going down the drain. Then one night she told me that while in the US she blew two white guys. I realize that isn't a big deal for you in the US, but my family "sold" me on her saying that she was a good girl from a respectable family. To top that, she then told me that she likes muscular guys with European-like clean shaven faces. She also said the only reason she married me was because I was a doctor, that her family pushed her into it, that I was too skinny for her, and that she didn't like any of my personal qualities. It was late at night and I was exhausted when I heard all of this, and to make a long story short, I lost my cool. I told her to get a f**ing job, start working out, go to medical school herself if she liked doctors so much, and that she was hardly the person my family pumped her up to be. She then stormed out and went to live with her parents.
Should I cut my losses and start over?
-Dude
sa, u da man!
different values are one thing, asking someone else to basically determine them for you is another. i think that's the problem. you can't tell someone whether looks or money should matter or not at the end of the day, that's their deal. you can advise in the framework of the premises they give. being an adult is establishing your own personal premises.
being an adult is establishing your own personal premises
check that. i forget that most people are religious. asking other people to dictate values and decisions probably is pretty normal for this woman.
Tennis does mention it.
I think his reply is quite .. er.. comprehensive. He does straddle the fence a bit, but it seems more a diplomatic choice. She reall doesn't give much information at all, what she does say is very damning. He doesn't tell her to suck it up.
As for whether he should have replied to this letter, maybe he's trying to explore new markets! ;)
I don't think this was one of Cary's better responses. But I don't really see any reason to get on a high horse either. If the letter writer had been mexican for instance do you think we would be this worried? Speaking for myself I would be concerned as a human being but perhaps not agitated to this extent. Some version of this discussion would happen on mexicanmutiny perhaps. So we aren't purely altruistic. I am not saying anybody is but lets admit we're not.
Also the how-dare-americans-wash-their-hand-off-us attitude wears a little thin because the letter writer cast her problem in an Indian socio-cultural context not Cary. She chooses not to be the free-thinking liberal that most of the comments here assume her to be
it is funny ppl should fault tennis for not having an opinion when this thread---presumably consisting of ppl who are much more capable of understanding the situation---cannot decide one way or the other.
it seems to me that "thinking before talking" has become "straddling the fence". i don't think he could have had an opinion on this one. it is sort of clear that maybe no one is abusing anyone. so by asking her to try and make it work, he is leaving room for the fact that it may be no one's fault really, and for potential immaturity on the plaintiff's side also. or maybe this letter was just written in anger, who knows?
and i strongly disagree with #1, puliyogre,
no way. you should also consider the spot he is in---how do tell newlyweds to divorce when you have no clue what is really happening? and if he really did think india is "some backwards place", he would have asked her to quit, not stay on.
i have never read tennis, but contrary to what many of you say, i think i respect him for this response. it is well thought out.
I also had an arranged marriage but I grew up mostly in America unlike the girl who wrote the letter. But it doesn't matter where you grow up. Its your attitude that matters. I feel sorry for both of the couple because nobody seems to have told them the rules.
I got some great advice from my husbands best friend D. She had gone thru tramatic first years in an arranged marriage and turned it into the greatest love affair I've heard of! I seriously think she should write a book about it. The following is relatively serious honest advice from me and D, for people who want an arranged marriage. It helped our marriage, though only four years old.
Rules for arranged marriages:
Before marriage...
1. You must be virgins with clean past. (if you're not and not planning to confess, then take Shaggys advice: it wasn't me. And DONT ever bring up/meet past lovers after marriage.)
2. You must be at least somewhat attracted to the guy/girls' looks and personality. If not you are a gold digger.
3. Know each others true value. (people always estimate themselves higher and expect too much from the other.)
After marriage...
1. First year IS GOING TO BE ROCKY!!!! You will have fights. If you don't have major fights, then you are a wierd, space alien/robot with no personality or opinion.
2. You ARE going to look at your husband/wife on some days and think 'Who is this FREAK I married'??? You will be in the middle of a blow out fight and think 'Is he/she psycho/bipolar/posessed?'
3. Try not to go to bed angry. Resolve your disagreement even if you have to dig deep.
4. Don't complain to your parents/siblings/friends about little fights; deal with them yourself. Your relatives/friends will magnify everything due to their loyalty to you and your loyalty to your spouse will be diluted.
7. Dont barter affection/sex.
8. Dont be negative and critical. Marriage should be a safe haven for couples. Dont' be afraid to point out bad behavior but avoid nitpicking on little things. This is important especially with Indians who can be sensitive about cultural/language differences. My husband goes nuts if I critisize India or his mommy. ;) Everyone is nutty about something.
9. Ego kills marriages! Always think where you went wrong and apologize for it!
10. Tell each other encouraging positive words other than just 'I love you'. Self-esteem helps build a strong marriage.
Ultimately, marriage make us better people. It works when both follow the rules. Most of us who have arranged marriages don't have abusive relationships and I'm not advising anyone to stay in emotionally/physically abusive relationships. If your husband/wife throws beer bottles at you, start running.
D told us that the turning point in her marriage came when her husband held her hand and promised her "We can have the biggest fights, but I'll never leave you. You don't need to have a job, children, money. I'll never leave you. no matter what anybody says or even if you tell me to go I'll never leave you." D and I had tears in our eyes. We'll take our arranged marriages and our husbands, warts and all.
rasudha, nice list. Rankings are certainly debatable but each point is valuable in its own right. The only thing I would disagree with is this:
I think it should read, "You must be honest." It doesn't mean open the floodgates and spill every thought that may have once travelled through your neurons but be honest about yourself and forthright with your spouse. Sure, tactics have a role (ie. "it wasn't me") but for must first generation desi's in the west the bifurcation of social norms (family vis-a-vis society) makes pre-marital sexual relationships very hard to hide or use the "it wasn't me" approach. Given the seemingly conflicting social norms and attitudes, once the clothes come off, a desi is often drastically affected by a sexual relationship, perhaps both negatively and positively, especially if it occurs in the porous yet formative years of 16-25. Interpreting my claim might lead one back to supporting your claim that virginity is vital but I still disagree and I will explain why.
Virginity is intricately but not uniquely related to point #9 for most men (Ego kills marriages!). Perhaps the ego/virginity relationship is more complicated today because virginity isn't embedded in socio-economic institutions as it used to be- ie. "In these traditionally patriarchal societies, wealth is inherited from a man to his eldest son. Therefore, it is/was particularly important for a man to know his wife was a virgin so that disputes to estates could not arise; similarly, today the heir to a throne must marry a virgin for a similar reason" (wiki). While I think that explanation has some merit, I think virginity in our modern desi society is about expectations, subtle linkages to past partners, and anxiety as to what the loss of virginity means in a psycho-social sense- ie. is this person promiscuous? untrustworthy? too liberal? too susceptible? overly affectionate? For males, its usually about domain or essentially power and authority. For the dual-cultural desi male, it's a tough thing to wrestle with- how much ego do you acquiesce for the good of the relationship, assuming it is a good relationship? Again, as you say, "ego kills marriages" but ego is also very important for us so it can't be completely suppressed. Humans are a semi-pack animal afterall. Social networks are vital and the upkeep requires ego.
It's important issue in my opinion because while many will say that the costs of sex have decreased rapidly within the last 50 years, the true costs, in my opinion, have an upward tilt because premarital sex creeps up more often in marital relationships.
Anyhow, my rant has ended.
Not necessarily. However, most people, especially in desi society, place excessive emphasis on what "society" expects/dictates and on following second-hand so-called "received wisdom" (rather than figuring things out for themselves or basing their judgements/decisions on direct personal experience); to some extent there is also excessive deference towards the opinion of "elders", who are unfortunately often wildly misguided and misinformed about some matters.
JoaT made a good point on another thread recently about how many desi parents just blindly follow the example of their own parents, rather than attempting any independent thinking in terms of how they bring up their children. The same concept applies to many aspects of the desi approach to life in general (broadly-speaking, although some people who decide to be "unconventional" sometimes go too far to the opposite extreme).
I think that living out here in the West gives the rest of us the opportunity to think more "freely" and really critically -- and honestly -- evaluate matters, especially issues pertaining to desi culture and attitudes. To some extent, many people back in India seem to lack common sense about some areas (and there is a lot of superficially-rational-sounding but highly linear/narrow thinking), but I guess their environment and upbringing do not allow them to really be aware of this because they're immersed in an atmosphere where everyone else they interact with is similarly misguided. In time, these attitudes/behaviours/customs become "tradition", and the cycle continues.
(No offence to any recent arrivals in the West here on SM -- Technophobicgeek etc -- I'm sure you would agree that sometimes one needs to remove oneself from a certain environment in order to be able to really think clearly and objectively about it).
Just like nation states, the institution of marriage too, shall wither away...
There are several complicated factors and differences. The average young person embarking on a search for a partner in India has for the most part always lived at home and a younger than his/her American desi counterpart. So s/he is greener in terms of experience with the world, people, independence of mindset and choices. Even something as simple as having lived on your own and paid rent and balanced a checkbook can bring incredible perspective to a relationship.
So many women I know in my own family have for the most part despite being very educated have been academics, never really had any major job they could call careers, if they did they knew that a husband would put an end to it, never had to worry about paying rent, never thought twice about blowing their own paycheck or the responsibility of the family and have breezed thru childhood into young adulthood.
To me it sounds utterly scary that someone like that would enter marriage with someone else who is in the same boat. And we are talking about your average middle class from Mumbai so I can't speak for other people elsewhere in the country. You mix that culture with this culture, it's bound to cause friction. I've lost count of how many people I went to high school with who went to India to get married and have gotten divorced in a few years. There are so many things people simply fail to consider.
I really hope not UMM because the institution is bound to tradition and culture and respect in a relationship and community/society, not to mention legality and rights which are unsexy but necessary.
Ya think??? You mean the three emails exchanged before the engagement party won't be enough?
This is utterly dangerous thinking. Going into any relationship with the thinking "I'll never leave no matter what" is probably single most cruel act a married couple can do, assuming they have children. A child growing up under "the biggest fights" grows up self-loathing, period. Continuous negative energy propogates more negative energy, nothing positive can come out of it. This is why the arranged marriage system should be crushed, like a beer can on some jock's head.
I understand the logic of "We grew up in a bullshit system, and we had no choice but to make the best of it," that's a product of circumstance, but to likewise defend the practice and do nothing to stamp it out is socially irresponsible.
And these little "hybrid" forms of arranged-love marriage are useless as well. To really understand it, you have to delve deep into the scriptural and social history of what marriage signifies in the collective Indian mind, and it's very different from other cultures. Don't let anyone fool you otherwise, our culture (I mean the hindu-muslim mish mosh social practices) has a very unique take on the institution, why it should be entered, the conduct one should display during it, and how it should be [not] terminated.
And these little "hybrid" forms of arranged-love marriage are useless as well. To really understand it, you have to delve deep into the scriptural and social history of what marriage signifies in the collective Indian mind, and it's very different from other cultures.
Sweeping statements. And yet arranged marriages of whatever variety so know signs of seriously abating in India, even among the middle class. In fact, technology is now being used to facilitate arranged marriages. I find that many people who post on marriage threads either have been in a bad marriage and need to therapeutically vent, or are in the midst of what is to them an epochal fight between themselves and their parents about a boyfriend or a girlfriend deemed "unsuitable." While love marriages are wonderful, the majority of people have an "ego ideal" that, if they are honest with themselves, is simply not attainable. And while love can be real, it doesn't neccesarily come to everyone. And therein lies its fragility.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic...
You say....
.Yet you make...
With all due respect I find the above generalization terribly offensive. We all don't have to be in a fire to know that it burns. Jeez.
Tennis isn't sitting on the fence. She didn't even give him a fence to sit on. What he did was to outline how to approach making her decision. I think he did well.
Also, reading the expanded version of her letter, I can feel sympathetic about how she entered this marriage. From her previous experiences she had no faith in her judgment and decided to go about getting married the standard way - except her version of what is standard was too extreme. Immature, yes, but she was in her 20's.
Wrong on both counts, when you hear from one of your elders that "every marriage" in their parents generation, their parents parents generation, etc.. was unhappy, it suggests a deeper analysis than the one you've given. Chopping people's heads off also show no signs of abating in certain parts of the world, it doesn't mean its a sound practice.
Here's the intrisnic paradox: What's the main reason for arranging a marriage? Because the "arranged parties" won't come together at the "right" time by their volition. And "right" is strictly used in a biological sense, especially for the woman, it's the "right" time for child-bearing. Right time in the sense, the woman is most "fertile", and both the woman and male are young/energetic enough to care for the child, etc.. etc..
So theoretically it's all for the child, correct? But how does a child benefit from being raised in an environment where the parents have decided to stay together "no matter how many fights they have." Or a better question to ask, what kind of environment exists when the two parents haven't had adequate time to work out deap seated incompatibilities? Wouldn't it be more socially responsible to admit a mistake was made and quit while you're ahead? The very child who's supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary of the system, actually suffers the most. Nice, huh?
No von Mises,
Your rant makes a lot of sense. I knew this was not going to be popular rule. Many people date before marriage and then when they fail to marry that way, they go marry an Indian(from this country or that) in an arranged marriage. I'm not saying its bad. It's ok if you are HONEST about it, like you said, before marriage. (ie, I dated this person/these people and we were lovers...but it didnt work out.) But many are not honest before marrying. And they want to talk all about it afterwards. The problem arises if your partner had other expectations from you.
Totally true. There's going to be a lot of emotional baggage from previous relationships. If your experience was negative, then its going to affect your marriage. How to avoid it?
I'm not saying people with past relationships should avoid arranged marriages. What I'm saying is make sure the person you marry is ok about it. Try to find someone who doesn't have vastly different experience from you. If you blundered into a marriage without disclosing all, then keep it quiet. Never bring it up during fights. This is not PC, just practical.
>>Wrong on both counts, when you hear from one of your elders that "every marriage" in their parents generation, their parents parents generation, etc.. was unhappy, it suggests a deeper analysis than the one you've given.
Many in my parents generation make the claim that their marriages are fulfilling and satisfying; that doesn't mean that all of them are. But since this is a central plank of your argument, I would be interested in seeing what data you have to support it?
Chopping people's heads off also show no signs of abating in certain parts of the world, it doesn't mean its a sound practice.
The point I make is that very many people who may volitionally choose otherwise opt for arranged marriages still, so much so that arranged marriages show no real signs of abating. I know plenty of people whose parents would not have objected in the least if they brought someone home opting instead for an arranged marriage. People may not want to be "reformed" in the way you hope.
>>Here's the intrisnic paradox: What's the main reason for arranging a marriage? Because the "arranged parties" won't come together at the "right" time by their volition. And "right" is strictly used in a biological sense, especially for the woman, it's the "right" time for child-bearing. Right time in the sense, the woman is most "fertile", and both the woman and male are young/energetic enough to care for the child, etc.. etc..
So theoretically it's all for the child, correct?
Not really. There is also companionship to combat the lonliness that sinks in when we don't have the readily available peer groups we had as children; financial stability; affection and shared values and interests ... In fact, some desi parents view marriage as a cure-all for social maladjustment...that is certainly dangerous. But children is not a terrible reason.
>>But how does a child benefit from being raised in an environment where the parents have decided to stay together "no matter how many fights they have." Or a better question to ask, what kind of environment exists when the two parents haven't had adequate time to work out deap seated incompatibilities? Wouldn't it be more socially responsible to admit a mistake was made and quit while you're ahead? The very child who's supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary of the system, actually suffers the most. Nice, huh?
Again, this is based on your belief that most marriages are terribly unhappy. Here's what I think: The people hurt most by unhappy marriages are the one's who shout loudest. There is nothing wrong with that - it is what it is, but it tends to skew the discussion.
And is there not an American study that shows that the children of married households fare better than the children raised in single-parent environments? Do you find desi children, who are the victims of such marriages, to be socially inept or maladjusted? More so than average? Also, I did recommend divorce in this case. Its absolutely the right thing in many cases.
Janeofalltrades: I said "many", not "all" or "most". But nevertheless if you were offended I apologize.
Hey wait a second, some people in their 20s have very good judgement ;)
HMF:
I know children growing up in a bad marriage get a bad deal. But Ds story not that at all.
She had an arranged marriage and had to move to another country. She suffered from lack of confidence, a miscarriage and was unable to work due to depression. She had lot of emotional problems and gave her husband a very tough time fighting with him all the time in the first year of her marriage. His relatives gave up on her. Her husband realized where a lot of anger came from and stood by her. She told me that him standing up for her at her lowest really helped her get well. She told me that she respected him and hearing him say that he wouldn't leave her really helped her see things differently. That he was not the enemy to fight. Now they are amazing together. She is a great mother too. I met her after all this happened and was shocked to hear that this great couple went thru so much.
Nobody looks at arranged marriages from scriptural point of view. Or Social history. It doesn't matter. What we want is a nice guy/girl with similar background with whom we can talk the same language, share our culture/religion/values and merge tribes. Helps if they are hot. I think you are being too prejudiced. You should refrain from advising people on arranged marriages in the future.
No fair man, admins can't be trolls ;) You know what I mean, if she had been in her 30's and done the same thing it would not be very easy to sympathize with her. Speaking sloppily, a certain amount of life experience is expected by the time you're in your 30's whereas people in their 20's may or may not have such experience/perspective.
I am sure that you do, though :)
HMF:
I disagree here. Historically, marriages were for the most part arranged inorder to fuse as much of the socioeconomic, religious, political, and cultural variance as possible. Social hierarchies were more rigid and failure to mesh the above factors could lead to destabilizing tension for the group/village/family. The arranged system arose because the costs of failure were too high- life expectancies were too low (in 1820 Britain, life expectancy for males was 27!) and children were essentially an investment model for cohesion and survival of the unit.
Was it a perfect system? Absolutely not, the quality of the relationship between man and wife was not very important. Nonetheless, it was a decent arrangement for an entirely different way of life.
Even today I think the desire to correlate as much of the socioeconomic, religious, political, and cultural variance as possible is a greater motivation for arranged marriages than the notion of not coming together on ones own volition.
People often "choose" to have arranged marriages because they lack the interpersonal skills needed to be able to find a suitable partner themselves and sustain the relationship. Occasionally (not always, by any means) they may not be sufficiently physically attractive to be able to, well, attract a suitably foxy partner of their own accord, either through no fault of their own or because they may not be doing themselves justice in some way.
Other people just go for this route because, for one reason or another, they just didn't manage to find the right person via their own efforts.
And others will have been given no choice in the matter. It's not unknown for Indian parents to deliberately reject girlfriends/boyfriends purely as a point of principle -- to enforce their authority over their (adult) children and/or to reinforce their objection to the whole "love marriage" concept -- even if there is actually nothing objectionable about the proposed son/daughter-in-law at all. It's just an exercise in power.
In addition to the above, there is a lot of misinformation within "traditional" Indian culture regarding what constitutes a "good" potential spouse -- exacerbated by naive/inexperienced parents who may be in dysfunctional marriages and/or had little pre-marital relationship experience themselves. The woman in the main article is a example of someone who took this path, if you read the reasons she initially thought her husband was good marriage-material and her extremely limited pre-marital contact with him. Sometimes it takes a degree of trial-and-error personal life experience to really be able to know what "really" matters in one's choice of partner, along with how to make a relationship work -- although you also need to have the self-awareness and presence of mind to learn the "right" lessons (apart from, again, the woman in the main article, there are plenty of younger desis around who have had a huge amount of relationship experience -- some more dubious than others -- but are still fairly incompetent in their ability to maintain a healthy relationship and misguided in terms of what they want in a partner).
A handful of meetings with a person who does X for a living and comes from a "good" family is not sufficient basis to be able to make an informed decision about this. It takes time, chemistry, and a number of other factors regarding mutual compatibility to build up a relationship enough to be able to really know that you want to spend the rest of your life with them. The level of guesswork and assumption (along with quite superficial "criteria" regarding potential spouses) that goes on within Indian culture in this regard is sometimes quite staggering.
The data I have is empirical, from personal observation. To be honest, I'm not sure of any studies out there, and I'd be skeptical of them if they do exist. Because I believe people who might be unhappy, would be likely to report they are happy and fulfilled. All I can say is, I know many a couple that have stayed together because they were worried others would think about them.
It's the frog in the well syndrome. When all you know is one way, one method, one system, then of course your proclivity will be towards it. But as far as I'm concerned, it's cyclic.
Bad Marriage --> Fucked up kid --> enters bad marriage --> fucks up their kid --> etc..
These are all subordinate to children. Just ask any desi married couple who've been married, for uhh, 3 femtoseconds, what their parents want them to do next.
I agree with all of your post up until here. Yes, in pre 20th century, marriages were arranged for business purposes, and adhere to social heirarchies, or political alliances. But the key is the timing. And thats the crux of the entire problem. If marriages were arranged, but the timing was left to the individual, I'd say 90% of the problems wouldn't occur. It's that the married parties are forced, intimidated, guilted into it before they are ready, and don't have enough time to emotionally mature, pursue their own ambitions, fully investigate their partners character, etc.. etc.. And the primary reason, as far as I know, for the timing is continuation of the kula (lineage)
But this is a really important point that I think few understand. Our (Hindu) scriptures are the only one in the history of mankind to actually prescribe marriage. According to Taitriya Bramhana, ch11,: it says, "anyone who does not enter marriage is an incomplete person" Neither the Bible, Torah, or Koran prescribe marriage (The Koran suggests it, 24:32, and the talmud as well) Does this mean every Hindu reads it and says "Oh wait we need to get married now, it says it right here!" No!
However, it's a foundation for the prevalent belief system now. And you say "Nobody looks at it...." Congratulations, you just defined what a foundation is: You stand on it, are supported by it, without ever knowing it's there and thinking about it.
Belief systems are systemic and change very very very slowly. Just look how long the it took the American whiteman to realize it was wrong to enslave another man based on the color of his skin.
"In addition to the above, there is a lot of misinformation within "traditional" Indian culture regarding what constitutes a "good" potential spouse -- exacerbated by naive/inexperienced parents who may be in dysfunctional marriages and/or had little pre-marital relationship experience themselves."
Jai fantastic point!
Frankly I don't think our generation can ever define 'good' by the parameters of our parents. I wish I could. But I want love and deep understanding in a marriage. Many of our parents never had this. A few of them did. We can better that average. Too often the spectre of loneliness and relentless harping lead to marriages that should not be...
If marriages were arranged, but the timing was left to the individual, I'd say 90% of the problems wouldn't occur. It's that the married parties are forced, intimidated, guilted into it before they are ready, and don't have enough time to emotionally mature, pursue their own ambitions, fully investigate their partners character, etc.. etc.. And the primary reason, as far as I know, for the timing is continuation of the kula (lineage)
Not necessarily true. There are no set and fast rules for the timing of a marriage that I'm aware of. I know ppl who got married at 20, and others at 32. And things change with the age, eg., not long ago, child marriages were prevalent among upper castes, but now the great majority of middle class people would not dream of going this route. The marriageable age has been pushed back with each successive generation to the point where 30 is considered an acceptable age for a guy. Yes, fertility is a constraint, but where isn't it?
But this is a really important point that I think few understand. Our (Hindu) scriptures are the only one in the history of mankind to actually prescribe marriage. According to Taitriya Bramhana, ch11,: it says, "anyone who does not enter marriage is an incomplete person" Neither the Bible, Torah, or Koran prescribe marriage (The Koran suggests it, 24:32, and the talmud as well) Does this mean every Hindu reads it and says "Oh wait we need to get married now, it says it right here!" No!
But traditionally, one could become a sanyasin whenever one pleased, so in theory, the existential chain could always be shattered. Also its misinformed to read the Vedas and make generalized statements about India, b/c 1) not everyone followed them; 2) traditions were determined more by local "achara" (custom) than by textual sources. Also, the dharmashastras allow for several types of marriages, including love marriage (gandharva) and a marriage where a man took a wife after raping her! (pisacha). Even if the commentators valued these marriages less than arranged marriages, it still demonstrates that societal practices were not monolithic.
Well said Jai (post #69)
I'm not sure which country you're talking about, because from personal experience, any male who has waited past age 26 or female past 24 has continually been reminded they are not married yet, and that it's a problem. In your statement, you gloss over the fact that those males that do wait until 30 are usually guilted, intimidated, etc etc into it. Fertility isn't as much of a constraint in cultures that don't hold natural continuation of the kula as highly as we do.
This is a small minority as I'm sure you're well aware. You cannot use the exception to prove the rule.
I quoted the Upanishads, not the Vedas. The Upanishads were sort of summaries that applied to more "practical" affairs. And it seems my point wasn't understood fully, I'm arguing the "acharam" is rooted in an understanding and adherence to scripture - but in an implicit manner, rather than a direct "following."
I assume you're talking about the Manu Smrti, I actually didn't know about the sapta-vivaaha as you call it, but I think it actually supports my claim even further. These people imparted such a basic value to marriage, they actually defined 7 different types!
Oops, sorry thought you said seven types of marriage. Do you have any resources describing these? Im genuinely curious.
I'm not sure which country you're talking about, because from personal experience, any male who has waited past age 26 or female past 24 has continually been reminded they are not married yet, and that it's a problem. In your statement, you gloss over the fact that those males that do wait until 30 are usually guilted, intimidated, etc etc into it. Fertility isn't as much of a constraint in cultures that don't hold natural continuation of the kula as highly as we do.
And in a previous era - as little as two generations ago - it was 12 and 8! My point is that "tradition" is not as fixed as some claim it is. I cannot challenge your experience, perhaps the people I know are entirely unrepresenataive, so I'll leave it at that.
>>This is a small minority as I'm sure you're well aware. You cannot use the exception to prove the rule.
But this was an exalted and highly respected minority, and for the most part, still is. I raise it to show that while marriage is important, it was not everything.
>>I quoted the Upanishads, not the Vedas. The Upanishads were sort of summaries that applied to more "practical" affairs. And it seems my point wasn't understood fully, I'm arguing the "acharam" is rooted in an understanding and adherence to scripture - but in an implicit manner, rather than a direct "following."
Not to be pedantic, but I think you quoted the Brahmanas, which are ritual manuals used by Brahmins in the performance of Vedic yajnas. The Upanishads are generally mystical texts. Both of these, along with the samhita (Vedic hymns) and the aranyakas (text for preliminary renunciates) are categorized as the "Vedas."
>>I assume you're talking about the Manu Smrti, I actually didn't know about the sapta-vivaaha as you call it, but I think it actually supports my claim even further. These people imparted such a basic value to marriage, they actually defined 7 different types!
Not just the manusmriti. There are variations to be found all over the place. Categorization was not limited to marriages. For example, Manu "categorizes" over ttwenty mixed castes that arose out of a combination of the varnas. If you read any of the dharmashastras, you will find mind-numbing categorization of all sorts of things.
Oops, sorry thought you said seven types of marriage. Do you have any resources describing these? Im genuinely curious.
Here you are. This from the previous Shankaracharya of Kanchi's book "Hindu Dharma," - considered highly orthodox.
Look at it positively. Arranged marriages offer an endless source for Indian writers, journalists and filmmakers living in the west (especially the UK) to offer variations on the Romeo and Juliet/bastard Indian parents theme. It's a constant source of cliched pleasure and exagerrated acting and comedy.
Why, only last year there was a movie released in a flea pit in Preston called Chicken Tikka Masalaa (I kid you not) which was about a gay Indian guy who has his marriage arranged for him. It was supposedly a 'comedy' in the 'tradition' of 'gay British Asian' themed 'arranged marriage' 'comedies' but was actually the nadir of British Indian cinematic culture, where no cliche was left alone, and no stereotype was allowed to rest in peace, an affront to brown human dignity in England.
So hail the arranged marriage! Source of eternal confusion and voyeurism of Indian life, and the main reason for a level of artistic laziness and cliched depravity unavailable to any other minority group in the whole of the western world.
(I mean how many 'zany' 'ironic' 'spirited' romantic comedies have you seen set in Manchester's Chinese community, or amongst the Jamaican middle-class of North West London?)
And I have not even mentioned TV soap operas, Saturday evening hospital dramas, or special reports on news programmes, theatre plays for chin scratching white liberals, or the monthly newspaper/magazine reports sneering at the Asians with their funny customs.
Arranged Marriages have kept two generations of useless, second rate British Asian actors in employment and away from starvation. Don't diss them.
But seriously though, I think she should leave the man. I once went through one of those knee jerk phases when every white girl who asked me about arranged marriages would face a wall of indignation from at her cultural chauvinism and hegemony, and I would end a long and passionate lecture with the flourish about how the Royal Family practised arranged marriages of a kind, to which she replied. 'Yeah but look at how fucked up they are, every single one ended in divorce and adultery and tragic death', to which I could not respond, and so sulked.
But if you have a sly mind on you and are single, I once had a white girlfriend who thought it really sexy that I was being hounded by my family to 'accept invitations to meet' - she had watched enough B movies and Saturday night BBC TV dramas to understand that it was only a matter of time until I was to be kidnapped by my family and forced to marry a village idiot or face death at the hands of a halal butcher. This illicit aspect of our relationship was extremely kinky and sexy to her for some reason.
Frisson of the illegal or something like that. So use it to your advantage.
"And in a previous era - as little as two generations ago - it was 12 and 8! My point is that "tradition" is not as fixed as some claim it is. I cannot challenge your experience, perhaps the people I know are entirely unrepresenataive, so I'll leave it at that."
That's outrageous, I know no one who was married two generations ago at age 8. I would say those marriages were more for political or business reasons (Marry my daughter you'll get 3 cows and shit like that) Perhaps it's a community based thing. Im speaking of educated peoples living in cities etc.. , I understand tradition is a function of time. But, unfortunately its a slowly varying function of time.. and it takes discussions like these, and views like mine to change them.
"But this was an exalted and highly respected minority, and for the most part, still is. I raise it to show that while marriage is important, it was not everything."
Yes, and thats why droves of parents are just rushing to the ashramas to sign their kids up? And actually, sannyasis in the Ramanuja order were able to take wives and become renunciate after taking permission from their wives. In fact, it was encouraged. Sankara order sanyasis didn't do it as much, if ever, and I'm not sure about Madhva.
"Not to be pedantic, but I think you quoted the Brahmanas, which are ritual manuals used by Brahmins in the performance of Vedic yajn