And if I were to arrange a wedding, would it be me showing up at the altar one day with bouquets of flowers springing fully formed from the officiant’s head.
Or could I meet with my fiancée a few times over the course of several months discussing the napkin color selection, picking out invitations, selecting the venue and arguing over whether Aunt Edna will sit next to Cousin Eddie. Would THAT be arranging a wedding?
I want to personally thank you for showing up on this thread with an example of an arranged and not-forced marriage. Unfortunately, it appears that the flow of the thread will not take particular notice of such examples, but in my view, you have resolved the issue.
That said, keep an eye on your friend in case Dio redefines her out of existence.
It’s actually the last of the marrying daughters, who marries a Christian, that is the better example of this. Tzeitel, the oldest, asks for his permission to marry the poor tailor instead of the rich butcher. Hodel, the next younger, asks for his blessing but declares she doesn’t need his permission to marry Perchik the revolutionary. Backed into that corner, he gives his blessing and his permission.
It’s young Chava’s love for Fyedka, the Orthodox Christian peasant, that breaks Teyve; he cannot reconcile Chava’s marrying outside her faith and declares that she is dead to him.
Oh, I see. So what you were really saying was –
“In reality, both arranged marriage cultures and cultures that don’t practice arranged marriages are coercive.”
Is that right?
In that case, I have to ask what the significance of this statement is to the topic at hand.
Why not? Christians put their palms together to pray, so whenever anyone puts their palms together to pray, they must be practicing Christianity.
The reason this is ridiculous, is, of course, that people might choose to pray in that manner while intended to, for example, practice Hinduism.
In the same way, when a large number of people use the term “arranged marriage” with the intent to include situations in which there is no coercion, it is ridiculous to insist that they mean only to refer to situations in which there is coercion.
Exactly. “Arranged marriage” thus includes situations in which parents introduce their children to (set up dates with) prospective mates with the hope that they might freely choose to marry someone so introduced. With no coercion necessary.
No. The phrase “coercive culture” doesn’t mean anything. Saying a particular practice is coercive is not the same as saying the entire culture is coercive. That would be gibberish.
I only object when they use it to refer to situations where there is no arranging of marriage.
No it doesn’t. That’s just setting up dates. Dates are not marriages.
I’m trying, here, Dio. Please tell me what this sentence means –
Because this is how I parse it:
Subject: cultures
Verb: are
Predicate adjective: coercive
[Some defined set of] cultures are coercive.
Thus, [this defined set of] cultures are coercive cultures.
Implying, that some set of cultures outside this set are “not coercive cultures.”
What am I missing here?
If some tens of millions of people think of setting up dates as arranging a marriage, and use the term “arranged marriage” with respect to setting up dates, then setting up dates, in some circumstances, constitutes arranging of a marriage.
It means they are coercive with regards specifially to marriage. That should have been pretty obvious, even if it could have been more precisely phrased.
Were this the beginning of the conversation, with no other experiences having been shared, I might rightfully conclude you’re simply ignorant. As it is, in light of the information provided in the previous pages, the only possible conclusion is that you’re dishonest and lazy. It’s a shame. You are a really smart guy with a great deal of knowledge, but you’re behavior in threads like these simply deprives you of any credibility.
To break it down, you’ve conceded that an arranged marriage, by definition, need not be arrived at through force or coercion, yet you insist that this does not occur, citing “reality,” despite testimony to the contrary - and I’m not referring to the blind-dates, I’m specifically referring to posts like Aspidistra’s.
This whole thread is not an example of two sides choosing to disagree on the sort of thing folks can disagree about. This is a situation of someone (you) being incorrect about the recognized usage of a term.
An arranged marriage might be forced, in which case the more specific term “forced marriage” is preferred since an arranged marriage, by your own concession, might also not be forced. Just fucking use the word forced marriage for your hissy fit and let’s move on.
I’m reminded of that thread where the lady kept insisting, even after she was conclusively proven wrong, that the proper word was “creamed cheese.”
Credibility gap.
If someone came to me, and said, “Lemur, I want to get married. Find me someone to marry.” (Alternatively, I say to the person, “Person, you should get married. Let me find someone for you.” And they agree.)
And I went out and found a second person, who was in the same sort of position as my client–that is, the second person also wanted to be married. And I say to my client, “Here’s a likely candidate. They profess to have compatible goals regarding children, living arrangements, and money. You will meet them on Thursday, and if you both agree the wedding will be on Saturday.”
All over the subcontinent of India, this situation would be called “Arranged Marriage”. If you deny that such a situation should be called “arranged marriage”, that’s your option, just like you can deny that the white oval-shaped object that comes out of a chicken’s cloaca should be called an “egg”. But you’re not going to find many people who agree with you.
Arranged marriage doesn’t mean the participants have no choice. It means that third parties match participants. It means someone arranges a match between two people who are ready to marry.
If instead someone finds someone they wish to marry, and introduce this person to their parents, and the parents agree that the two should be married, this is called a “Love Marriage”. Or alternatively, the parents might not agree, and then the two have to decide whether to get married anyway, and face whatever consequences the parents might or might not impose, which could include disowning.
Of course an arranged marriage could be coercive. It could mean that the young woman is essentially sold to the husband.
Look, I work at a large software company headquartered in Redmond WA. Turns out we have plenty of South Asian guys who work here. And plenty of them have arranged marriages. If they had arranged their own marriages their parents wouldn’t have flipped out (except if they would have).
So yeah setting someone up on a date can be arranging a marriage, if you know both people you set up want to get married as soon as possible, and are willing to marry the other person provided the date goes well, and both know that the purpose of the date is to find someone to marry.
Far too much logic and reason in this post. I doubt it will end well.
Oh so you work for All Bases Covered then.
My friend’s cousin’s roomate worked for them and my friend’s cousin says that he lives in Redmond and so therefore I can conclude that all software engineers work for All Bases Covered.
That’s the best definition of arranged marriage that I’ve seen in this thread, and does an excellent job of clarifying the differences between arranged marriages and love marriages. Dio, this is why “setting someone up on a date” can be part of preparing an arranged marriage.
There might be a little too much projection, here. It is without expception that every woman I “dated,” I dated with an eye toward marriage at a very early stage. If it became apparent that marriage wouldn’t be the end result (religious/philosophical differences, goals/priorities, relation to and compatibility with family) the relationship ended. Now, this is not to say that I limited my sexual encounters to women I dated. I did not. But I never just “dated” for the hell of it.
Perhaps, but I feel like if you bring up something like “So, when are you thinking of getting married and what do you think about kids” within the first few months of a relationship, people are going to freak out. You might be thinking about it, but it takes a while to get down to brass tacks. Wedding boards are full of “waiting for the proposal” forums. That idea is absurd in an arranged marriage…either you are getting married or you are not.
I’m sorry to nitpick, but this glaring error bothers me… that is yarn.
Maybe it’s yarn to a peon like you. It is technically yarned thread. Carry on.
It’s time you peons called it a draw and moved on.
Don’t know how I missed that assumeness the first time around, but know that I’ve read it, *I *would have argued for cheesed cream.
There was certainly some cheesed cream in that exchange.
