You’re the one who said:
It seems to me this statement implies the existence of, and preference for, cultures that are not coercive.
So, it’s up to you to define what “coercive” and “non-coercive” mean in this context.
I know only one person in an arranged marriage. The only way in which the process of her getting married differs from sven’s description above is the “parents freaking out” bit - she decided after ten years or so of just seeing people and dating in a normal Western way that it wasn’t getting her anywhere and asked her parents to arrange a marriage for her.
Anything less like “forced” would be hard to imagine.
Now it’s more than likely that the way more rural conservative Indians (and other cultures) do arranged marriage is quite different from the way professional city-dwelling educated Indians (and other cultures) do arranged marriage. But even one instance of a non-forced arranged marrage is enough to prove that such a thing exists and she has never seemed to regard her family’s way of going about it is unusual.
Reality.
I’m not the one trying to change the definitions. Do you believe that setting somebody up on a date is arranging a marriage?
I didn’t say anything about coercive or non-coercive cultures as a whole. I have no idea what you mean by that. I was making reference to a specific cultural practice. All cultures contain some coercive elements.
Yes, in some circumstances it is considered arranging a marriage.
Do you believe that putting your palms together and praying is practicing Christianity?
Only when it’s intended to arrange a marriage.
No.
Punk, I didn’t say you were changing definitions, I said you were making up your own. You really are a disgrace to the Straight Dope, you have no interest in fighting ignorance, only in winning arguments, by whatever rhetoric and fallacy necessary.
I didn’t make up any definitions, I just didn’t allow them to be changed. That would be allowing ignorance and fallacy to win.
For those losing track: this started, because, in another thread, even sven said:
Then, in the very next thread, Dio said:
Making everyone believe Diogenes is saying that no arranged marriage is ever freely entered, but that, presumably, non-arranged marriages can be freely entered (thus eliminating arguments about how no one ever has free will and what not…)
In this thread, we’ve seen posts offer countless anecdotes of friends and relatives who asked for their parents to arrange marriage for them, and freely entered into those marriages, and Dio has responded by arguing… well, I can’t really tell, actually.
Does that about sum it up?
Setting up a date is not arranging a marriage.
I believe it is(*), not that you asked.
(*) sometimes
I believe it is not. This is America. We are permitted to disagree.
This is actually SDMB. We may both be in America, but that is immaterial.
Seriously, however, is it your contention that the standard anecdote given in this thread - ie, that of a person, perhaps South Asian, who asks his or her parents to find him/her a wife/husband, goes on a date or two with this person, and decides, in a matter of a week or two, “Hey, good enough!”, and gets married to that person - that this scenario does not constitute arranged marriage?
It does not constitiute arranged marriage, no.
Well, I guess you’re entitled to use a term differently from all other English speakers if you want…
Hey, just for fun, want to provide a definition of arranged marriage for us? I mean something beyond, “a marriage that is arranged”? Maybe with an example and everything?
And home plate isn’t actually a home. Not every word is an actual, literal interpretation of it’s parts.
The big difference between an arranged marriage and online dating is:
[ol]
[li]With an arranged marriage, the goal is marriage. There is no option for a short or long term relationship that is not leading towards marriage. With dating there are options like cohabitation, etc. that don’t exist when arranging a marriage. [/li][li]The expected meet-to-marriage timespan is usually months, as opposed to the often several years long timespan of traditional dating. [/li][li]Love or immediate sexual passion does not take the front seat. Instead, issues like child-bearing, finances, division of housework, etc. are of primary importance. [/li][li]Furthermore, these things will be discussed up front, perhaps even before meeting, to assure you are compatible. In traditional dating these things often come up only after things have become very serious and a lot of time and emotion has been invested. [/li][li]Finally, in an arranged marriage there is usually a view as to how that person will fit into the family as a whole. It’s about more than whoever happens to float your boat at the moment.[/li][/ol]
The “arranged” part comes from the idea that you are actively looking for a partner based on rather specific marriage-based criteria and thinking immediately about how that partner would work in a marriage. This is in sharp contrast to dating, where you don’t start thinking about marriage until later in the game, and are just sort of willy-nilly dating until you find something that looks like it is headed towards marriage and then you start thinking about how that marriage will work.
The “marriage” part come from the fact that both parties are stating ahead of time that their goal is marriage within a pre-defined timespan. There is none of this “well, let’s see where this goes.”
I think you could probably argue that online dating is “arranged” dating.
A marriage that is arranged is a perfectly serviceable definition. A date is not a marriage.
And FWIW, I do have experience with forced marriages.
North Cameroonians will be shockingly frank about “les mariages forcés” and it’s not unusual to hear stuff like “It was a great wedding. We danced allllll night. The poor bride though- she cried the whole time! She’s have a tough time married to that old man, hah ha ha.” Girls were often married off quite young so that the family would have one less mouth to feed and wouldn’t have to worry about the girl getting knocked up by the local sweet-talker. Quite often the girls were less than enthused (especially since the men were often older), would rather be continuing their education, and knew that getting married meant they were pretty much stuck in their village forever.
People generally took a “it sucks, but what can you do?” attitude towards forced marriage. People faced a lot of hardships in life, and didn’t really rate a less-than-ideal marriage as that tragic. In any case, if the fund were not there to send a girl to school, having an older girl idle around the house was not an option, so marriage it was.
This is totally, entirely, completely different than the largely South-Asian institution of modern arranged marriage.
Yeah - I specifically mentioned Mormons as a group where there was pressure to marry within the group and which did not have arranged marriages. I assume Dio agrees with this.
Some Jews have arranged marriages. Some just have mothers who say “she’s very nice. Is she Jewish?” (Mine did not.)
The Fiddler on the Roof was clearly closer to the “coercion” end of the spectrum, since in the play at least, Tevye had to be (reluctantly) convinced to allow free choice, and if not convinced the daughter in question had to defy him.
Here’s my question: if all arranged marriages involve coercion, having an actual free choice between an arranged marriage and a non-arranged marriage would be, in effect, impossible by definition.
In short, a woman could not say “mom, I’m sick of being unmarried, and the dating scene isn’t working for me. Please arrange a marriage for me, thanks”. She would be using the wrong choice of words.