They Don't Think Like Us

[queequeger]

I guess more what I was asking is how it relates to the topic. I'm all for changing the topic (as is evident with Ending God's Tax Exempt status ) but I'm just making sure I'm not overlooking a point of contention.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I quoted, and was responding to, Dana's post.

[DanaC]

Yes, but my post wasn't saying all abusive marriages are that way. I was suggesting that to look at arranged marriages as a system and conclude that they are abusive in nature, is as unreasonable as looking at the love match system of marriage and concluding the same. Much of what we see about arranged marriages in the media is actually stuff about forced marriage, but the two have become almost interchangeable in the western mind.

If someone from a culture who doesn't pracrtice love match marriages looks at our culture and how marriage appears to work, they could easily look at very real and very large problem of abusive marriages and arrive at a similar misunderstanding/stereotype of our way of doing things, as we have of theirs. The image I portrayed was that misconception/stereotype.

Of course not all abusive marriages follow that patern. But enough do that such a conclusion could be reached by someone taking an outsider's look at us.

When we think of arranged marriages, our western mindset sees something of a trap. It seems almost unnatural to have someone pick out your 'love' for you. Yet, even though we have had the concept of romantic love firmly embedded in our culture hundreds of years, in reality marriages were mostly 'arranged' by parents up until fairly recently, say the last hundred years. For most of my own culture's history marriage was something that involved parents of both parties even in the early part of the last century. The whole idea of 'asking for her hand in marriage' was a survival of that earlier approach.

In the upper classes marriages were routinely arranged by the elders ofthe community ( the 'right people' would be brought together in a dance or ball (think about the purpose of the 'coming out ball' where the debutantes were launched onto the scene in front of all the respectable young men). Aunts and mothers and fathers all conspired to bring about the 'right match' usually between two families who wished to link.

In the lower classes the parents had just as much sway over things. At festivals and so forth, elders may conspire to get the right young people together and even the many who simply met someone and fell in love would not have been able to wed unless parental approval was given.

To a culture that has arranged marriages as the norm, this will seem eminently sensible. How can someone so young meet someone and know that they will always be in love? How can they be sure this person is good for them? Big decisions to be taken by a callow youth. Far better maybe, to marry someone who has been properly vetted and chosen by people who know both parties well enough and are experienced in life enough, to make a proper judgement of suitability.

Not the way I would have it...but I can see the logic. When they look at our society and see the levels of divorce and, yes, the well publicised problem with domesic violence they probably see a system which to them looks very very flawed.

[Trilby]

i didn't even read this thread and I'm still freakin'; sure that somebody is throwing "linguistic" around in an unsafe manner.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yes, but my post wasn't saying all abusive marriages are that way. I was suggesting that to look at arranged marriages as a system and conclude that they are abusive in nature, is as unreasonable as looking at the love match system of marriage and concluding the same. Much of what we see about arranged marriages in the media is actually stuff about forced marriage, but the two have become almost interchangeable in the western mind.

I agree, we have been presented with a skewed picture of arranged marriages. Probably the most troubling thing for Westerners is the 'honor killing' of girls/women who run from arranged marriages that they don't want. In the western history of arranged marriage, if a girl didn't want the match her family had made for her the family would be angry, but the 'honor code' didn't require killing her.


In the upper classes marriages were routinely arranged by the elders ofthe community ( the 'right people' would be brought together in a dance or ball (think about the purpose of the 'coming out ball' where the debutantes were launched onto the scene in front of all the respectable young men). Aunts and mothers and fathers all conspired to bring about the 'right match' usually between two families who wished to link.

In the lower classes the parents had just as much sway over things. At festivals and so forth, elders may conspire to get the right young people together and even the many who simply met someone and fell in love would not have been able to wed unless parental approval was given.

Yep. Arranged marriages have gone on in western culture for centuries. Parents wanted suitable matches for their children, wanted their children to prosper and to have a life partner with similar background, culture, manners, beliefs, and expectations. Marriage was also a means of securing the orderly devolution of property. Under this heading there was the potential for abuse, and it did happen.

To a culture that has arranged marriages as the norm, this will seem eminently sensible. How can someone so young meet someone and know that they will always be in love? How can they be sure this person is good for them? Big decisions to be taken by a callow youth. Far better maybe, to marry someone who has been properly vetted and chosen by people who know both parties well enough and are experienced in life enough, to make a proper judgement of suitability.

Arranged marriages sort out the 'big questions' re compatibility and likely future prosperity. They leave the interpersonal questions in last place. But we, who put the interpersonal above everything else, don't seem to do a very good job with our system.

Not the way I would have it...but I can see the logic. When they look at our society and see the levels of divorce and, yes, the well publicised problem with domesic violence they probably see a system which to them looks very very flawed.

I think they have a legitimate point with respect to the divorce rate. However, domestic violence exists within arranged marriages as well, and there is far more cultural pressure to remain in the marriage. The positive aspects of family and cultural support can become just as negative if/when it means pressure to accept an abusive situation.

Aggh! I can't get the multi-quote function to work!

[DanaC]

I think the main point is that we have a skewed view of their system and value our own system more highly....and they have a skewed view of our system and value their own system more highly.

[Clodfobble]

Dana, I hadn't realized there was a substantial difference between "arranged" marriages and "forced" marriages. You said that in an arranged marriage, both parties have the option to say no. Have they usually met each other before, and had a chance to get to know the suitor, or would they be saying yes/no based only on a profile, including social status, family, etc? The only arranged marriage I have personal knowledge of was an Indian girl I went to high school with, who told me that her parents had already chosen her husband back in India and he would be coming to America for the wedding--she had never met him. I didn't ask her whether she could have officially said no or not, though I don't see how that choice is really useful if you can't meet what you're saying no to.

[DanaC]

In my own experience of friends from that kind of culture, they tend to have more choice than people think. For example, a friend of mine (Imran) who's from Pakistan wanted to get married. He thought it was about time and he asked his parents to see what they could sort out. He ended up with a bunch of photos and letters from Girls and their families from the part of Pakistan his family are from. He chose a couple that seemed interesting and arrangements were made for some contact. Now, in normal circumstances where all live in the same area, this would be done via chaperoned visits, but because he's in England they ended up talking via webcam, telephone and email. He got along well with one girl and arrangements were well under way for the engagement. She came over to England for a visit, they ended up not getting on so well in person and she decided she didn't want to go ahead. The engagement was cancelled and there was a lot of upset, but nobody was forced and I believe she has now selected another potential suitor. Imran meanwhile is in contact with a third cousin from Lahore who may well end up as his wife.


That said, we have a serious problem in some parts of the Asian community with forced marriages. Young women who get taken on holiday to the old country only to find they've been set up with a husband. There are also other factors such as family pressure, where although the girl could say no, she is made to feel as if she really shouldnt and goes along with it. But really there are as many ways of conducting an arranged marriage as there are ways of meeting a love match. Sometimes the system is oppressive and forces people into a marriage they don't want. But sometimes the system is better than ours. For example: the horrible feeling of having been left on the shelf, or just not being able to find/attract a partner which many people o through in Western cultures is often mitigated by arranged marriages. Instead of choosing a partner based on the chance meeting of a likeminded soul, or the instant attraction of physical beauty which can leave a lot of people out in the cold, under many arranged marriage systems, the 'match making' is done by a third party and those people who may get left out of the marriage game in our society are more likely to find a partner and be able to have a family.

There are pros and cons to both systems, but it rests on how you view marriage: it's purpose and its role in the community. It also hinges on how you view your elders.

[Cicero]

I know older Japanese/Americans that believe it's still ok for their husbands to take their hands off. They believe it's ok whether they've ever actually been abused by their husbands or not.

I don't think it's o.k. at all. So much for having the same ideals and values in the same country. "They" are pretty different from "me". And there are ways in which we are alike. I'm just not going to waste my days counting differences, and preaching who's a threat and who's not.

By those terms I could say that all Jap/American women are threatening my way of life and my liberty to not be dismembered by my husband. Now how stupid does that sound?


Do you know what? Nevermind. I still don't get who "us" is and who "they" is so I just need to avoid answering to the thread.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I know older Japanese/Americans that believe it's still ok for their husbands to take their hands off.

??? I haven't heard of this before . ... Can you fill us in on the cultural context/rationale??

[Cicero]

I was involved with a Japanese Buddhist sect and a friend explained some of the social differences. She had married into a Japanese family and was noteably different from her mother-in-law for those reasons amongst others. The community of women had very strong voices and had earned the right to push people around (like me) physically. It's actually kind of funny when they push you out of their way at the "temple" with a cane or something. But those very same women are still traditionalists who still believe that women are not human and not only that....do not have a chance of being enlightened because of that. Therefore, second class, and some have submitted to this idea entirely throughout their long years. They have learned that there is great honor in taking their punishment from their husband- whatever it may be. I don't see things that way. Which is probably why I don't study buddhism with other buddhists. It's actually right inside the books that they teach and learn from. The duties of women have been taught to generations of them and they are not changing anytime soon. And I'm not going to ask them to.

I don't think I can explain it in terms of "rationale" sorry. I think it's anything but.

I was having a great time chanting and meditating when stupid me, I started to read the literature that told me I had no chance at obtaining enlightenment because of an innate evil nature that I possess as a woman. Started to sound just like christianity....but the traditions and culture had changed even less. Too severe for me.

Well- I guess it's just another thing where people trusted me to follow their traditions and be respectful of all of it and they were trying to honor me by inviting me in. It just didn't take. Still being defined as a woman by your amount of servitude, submission, and a graceful sub-sub human I just can't do. I suppose they are hoping that they can come back as a man next time. Might have a chance at enlightenment. Seeing being born a woman as Karmic retribution (like being born a goat with 3 hooves) and chanting your ass off is not the way I think I want to conduct myself.

Sometimes other cultures think that being born a woman is a divine punishment when they are sure that women are less than human. But those traditionalists are getting older and for the most part, from what I've seen just inside that group, the younger ones are not adopting those ideas. Now the younger ones will have to figure out how they are even a service there without complete submission.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Cicero

The community of women had very strong voices and had earned the right to push people around (like me) physically.

Is that a cultural phenomenon or was it just in the temple? I'm thinking of an experience one of my sons had (as an adult-sized teen). He was in a museum and was physically pushed aside by the leader of a Japanese group that came into the room. There was plenty of space in the room; the leader just wanted to be where he was. He didn't know what to make of it. Is it a hierarchical thing? I suspect non-Japanese would be at the bottom of that hierarchy.

Originally Posted by Cicero

I don't think I can explain it in terms of "rationale" sorry. I think it's anything but.

Sorry. Bad choice of words. I can't imagine a rationale either, I just wondered how it was viewed or explained.

Originally Posted by Cicero

I was having a great time chanting and meditating when stupid me, I started to read the literature that told me I had no chance at obtaining enlightenment because of an innate evil nature that I possess as a woman. Started to sound just like christianity....but the traditions and culture had changed even less. Too severe for me.

I'm sorry you've encountered that in Christianity. I'm aware of RC writers who have advanced those ideas, but that isn't universal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sometimes the system is oppressive and forces people into a marriage they don't want. But sometimes the system is better than ours.

Maybe for the cosmopolitans, but not the girl that never has, and probably never will, travel outside her parents village. When she can be stoned to death for talking to a non-relative male, the "no" option probably doesn't exist.

[Rexmons]

Bruce are you Jewish?

[DanaC]

Maybe for the cosmopolitans, but not the girl that never has, and probably never will, travel outside her parents village. When she can be stoned to death for talking to a non-relative male, the "no" option probably doesn't exist.

True enough, those scenarios exist. But...they are not necessairly characteristic of the system as a whole. The Moslem world is a pretty big one. There are as many variations of culture within that frame as within ours.