Yes, I would say it draws the same conclusion. It is a link back to the concept of a girl as here father’s possession. Sure, it is simply ceremonial, but it still has the same meaning.
Oh, and I know my statement about trepanning has nothing to do with acsenray’s comment. That is why it is posted beneath a quote by the OP, not the quote by acsenray.
It’s called a “bride price”. A bunch of cultures have, or have had it. You used to be able to find it among some Chinese, Indians, Jews, and Africans.
:dubious:
And what about those parents who use other criteria to choose their children’s marital partners, including, but not limited to the happiness and well-being of their children? And what about the fact that the whole thing is voluntary on the part of the bride and groom?
Oh, really? Do you happen to actually know anyone whose marriage was arranged? There are quite a few arranged marriages in my family and none of them involved dowries, exchanges of properties, etc. I’ll have to let them know that they missed the heart of it.
And inheritance rights are implicated in any marriage, no matter the method the marital partners were chosen.
Yes, they have. In India, it’s not as common,b ut it has been done. Whether it’s the bride that carries economic value or the groom is principally a factor of economic and environmental circumstances. In any case, this has nothing to do with “arranged marriages.” Dowries and bride prices exist in marriages that are not arranged as well.
What I’m suggesting is that the term “arranged marrieage” encompasses only the method by which a marital partner is located. It does not require “forcing” anyone into a marital or sexual or any other kind of relationship. Modern arranged marriages take place with the explicit consent of both the bride and the groom.
Actually, arranged marriage didn’t necessarly include the agreement of parents, like in the case of widows, for instance. They would be arrangd by specialized intermediaries.
I’m not sure whether the poster who first refered to arranged marriages was atually thinking about coming back to the “arranged” part or to the concept of marriage as an essentially social and economical agreement where love is for the most part irrelevant.
And I would also note that the gay marriage question (actually all marriages, for that matter) is still essentially all about economical and social issues. Lack of an officially sanctionned marriage doesn’t prevent life-long loving commitment. The only other issue involved in marriage is the religious one (having your mariage sanctified by god) which is a purely internal issue only relevant for churches.
That might be related to them having less time on their hand to find an eligible partner ad also about them being more picky. For instance, it seems to me that even highly educated and sucessful women have a much stronger tendancy to search for a mate of equal social status than men, thus reducing the poll of potential partners.
Yikes, the NoMarriage.com site is… interesting.
On one hand, it really peps you up (if you’re a man), but then again it also completely idealizes this notion that you’ll look overseas and find the “woman that truly knows how to be a wife.”
Isn’t it true that divorce rates overseas, while not 50-60% like in the US, are still pretty friggin’ high?
And I know people, in their 60’s, that were married to “foreign” women, even went overseas to live and be with them, and learned their language. What’s the current status? Well, let’s just say he’s back in California. Yeah, guess the “foreign” thing really makes a big difference.
When I read literature that takes place in different countries, even the mystified “Asia” (every western man’s dream apparently), it’s all the same old story. Either the man is a complete arrogant fool… or the woman is a domineering, hard to handle, selfish monster. Or they both just refuse to make peace on anything with each other, spend twenty pages of dialogue rationalizing why, then go their separate ways.
The story is the same all across the world. 
But why should it be the state’s business to help “maintening stability” in couples?
Not everywhere and in particular not over here, where, if you have children you can dispose freely of only a limited part of your property by will (and the more children you have, the smallest the part you can freely dispose of).
I think by the way it was originally precisely a reaction to the former system where the eldest son would inherit of most of his parent’s belongings, and was intended to prevent it.
I’m surprised that those who have an axe to grind about marriage seem to forget that marriage is not mandetory. If you don’t think you can get into a lifelong partnership then don’t get married.
Marriage shouldn’t have to change for those who don’t believe in it. (SSM is fine as long as both partners plan to enter it with the same amount of commitment demanded of heterosexual couples)
If You feel women/ or men want to ruin you through the "trap of marriage"or that your relationship can’t last because you are afraid you’ll get bored of your partner or that you have to go and bang whatever moves and are afraid that marriage goes aginst your nature then DON’T GET MARRIED.
You want a short term relationship, have one, don’t get married.
If you don’t want to belong to a certain institution you don’t tell it to change its rules to fit you, you just don’t join.
Sheesh.
I will concede that my thoughts on arranged marriages are colored by the historical abuses of it, usually to the detriment of the women involved (mostly the marriages of minors). And yes, I am familiar with it as a practice, as roughly half of my family (East Indian) still practices arranged marriages. I will agree that in the modern world, there is far less of the old women=property mentality than older generations.
However, modern arranged marriages as a viable method to find a mate also presuppose something else- much stronger family ties between parents and children, and a continuity of ideas and values. I for one would not trust my parents to choose my mate, and that’s with a better than average relationship.
clairobscur- the state has a vested interest in stability of all sorts- ultimately, stable families make the rest of a civilized society possible. Now, we can argue as to whether certain structures and mixes make for a stable family, but I don’t know that anyone can seriously argue that unstable family units are better than stable ones, all things being equal. And I don’t know that the proposal to shorten the lifespan or lessen the emotional impact of marriages makes anyone happier.
I also agree totally with kingpengvin’s post. I, for one, really enjoy being married…but I’m not about to force it on any of you.
OK, I was incorrect in calling the site “excellent.” It is not full of excellent writing, excellent graphics, etc. It merely expresses its point of view clearly (and humorously), and I think that POV has quite a bit of merit.
BTW, most of the writing on the site is stuff he’s collected from message boards, etc. Agree with it or not, it expresses the POV of many males without BS or PC.
Doctor Shaft has some good points about foreign brides. Japanese women are extremely pampered, for instance, and have a sense of entitlement probably even greater than that of American women. But they are also more feminine and willing to play the role of the traditional housewife, so I would say that, overall, they are a better buy than American women.
Mysoginistic? Sure, in our current PC world if you make any negative generalization about women or a subclass of women, no matter how slight or based in reality, that’s “mysoginistic” (but you can always say whatever you want about those pesky, oppressive men, 'natch!). So, perhaps the site is so, yet perhaps that term no longer has much meaning.
I don’t think the site is saying that women looking for a “career” or “self-fulfillment” are therefore bad; it is saying, rather, that such self-descriptors are highly correllated with neediness and self-centeredness. And I would certainly agree.
If feminism means treating women with equality and respect, then I’m all for it. Unfortunately it has been a bill of goods that women have bought on credit and never paid for. Simply put, women have continued to want men to be the breadwinners, pay for dates, open doors, etc.; yet for the sake of “equality” men now have to support their women’s careers, do an equal amount of chores, etc. Yet women have not accepted commensurate duties.
What good is it for a man to marry if he doesn’t want kids? The only benefit is a reduction of negativity (i.e., social opprobrium, family disapproval) where such conditions still rarely pertain, and we all know that such tends to be a very poor motivator of positive action.
My best friend has been living with a woman for four years. The reasons he has not married match those given by others on the site very well. If you don’t think this is a trend, it’s time to wise up.
Describe the function of the Commit-O-Meter that will allow us to judge potential couples as to this important requirement.
Cite, please.
Howsabout “prejudiced,” then? “Biased?” “Bigoted?” Making negative generalizations about women does not constitute misongyny, I admit. But it sure fits them other things.
[quote\ (but you can always say whatever you want about those pesky, oppressive men, 'natch!).[/quote]
Ah, I begin to see. Feeling oppressed, are we?
No, it pretty mich does.
Putting them ona par with men, then?
Cite, please.
Cite, please.
Yikes.
Garcon! More coffee over here!
While Aeschines points are intriguing and I will sign up for his newsletter, I still don’t understand why we need a new paradigm. Humans seem to have a tendancy to pair-bond, and have made pair-bonding part of their social and legal structure. I doubt this is going away soon, though I agree that longer lives, delayed adulthood and such have made marriage a much different beast than it was in the past.
Marriage provides a useful structure for child rearing, and, frankly, it’s probably a lot less exhausting for many people to be married than to be constantly seeking out new partners. I don’t see any of the proposed reforms here actually making people happier.
Oh, except for reforming marriage laws so that Gay couples can take advantage of them, but that didn’t seem germaine to the OP’s point.
Oh, except for reforming marriage laws so that Gay couples can take advantage of them, but that didn’t seem germaine to the OP’s point.
Hah hah, you want cites, huh? What kind of cites would you like? Social science? Surveys?
What don’t we just call such evil thoughts non-PC, heterodox–so much simpler!
Not I. I reject oppression for myself.
I disagree.
[/quote]
Cite, please.
Cite, please.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s your cite: Falling birth rates around the world–below replacement level in nearly every industrial nation. High divorce rates/cohabitation rates/out-of-wedlock birth rates everywhere. The wedding game is OVER, man. The nomarriage site is just one small piece of the puzzle. I’m trying to connect the dots and you’re just saying, Nya nya, no biggie.
And yet, all you have is your own opinion. Sorry, ain’t buying it.