Poll: What are your thoughts on 'forced' marriages?

[NeutralDrow]

We're talking about forced marriage, not arranged marriage.

Hindu's have it i think. I know it's termed arranged marriage but since only the man can refuse for the girl it is forced marriage.

It's only forced marriage if the girl actually opposes the marriage. Just because the decision is (usually) for the most part out of her hands doesn't mean she's not allowed to trust the judgment of her parents or approve of the suitor anyway.

 

[Daye.04]

Because she doesn't.

In an arranged marriage, the prospective married couple still have input. The amount of social pressure to conform to the decisions of one's parents or matchmakers varies according to area, of course (but then, so does acceptance of the tradition), but under Islamic law, the full consent of both bride and groom are needed for the marriage to be considered valid.

In a forced marriage, there's f***-all input from one or both marriage candidates. Given that coercion, according to Islamic law, automatically renders marriage void, I'll ask again: which Muslims are doing this in England?

What? England? Whoah, I must've taken a left turn too much somewhere. I thought we were talking about in general. Very well, never mind me then. I'll just hide in this corner

 

[NeutralDrow]

Because she doesn't.

In an arranged marriage, the prospective married couple still have input. The amount of social pressure to conform to the decisions of one's parents or matchmakers varies according to area, of course (but then, so does acceptance of the tradition), but under Islamic law, the full consent of both bride and groom are needed for the marriage to be considered valid.

In a forced marriage, there's f***-all input from one or both marriage candidates. Given that coercion, according to Islamic law, automatically renders marriage void, I'll ask again: which Muslims are doing this in England?

What? England? Whoah, I must've taken a left turn too much somewhere. I thought we were talking about in general. Very well, never mind me then. I'll just hide in this corner

Ahh...my apologies. I was still talking about the article in the OP, which gives an impressively small amount of data.

Yeah, overall the issue is stickier, and I know it happens a lot. Especially in areas where not only national legal jurisdiction, but religious law as well, can be ignored in the face of cultural habits. I was simply confused that this was happening in England (a place where national law and both liberal and traditionalist Islamic law hold sway over Muslim communities) often enough that they have a high-profile law about it.

 

[lostclause]

We're talking about forced marriage, not arranged marriage.

Hindu's have it i think. I know it's termed arranged marriage but since only the man can refuse for the girl it is forced marriage.

It's only forced marriage if the girl actually opposes the marriage. Just because the decision is (usually) for the most part out of her hands doesn't mean she's not allowed to trust the judgment of her parents or approve of the suitor anyway.

Whoa, what? Very few of these arranged marriages have the girl's input. It's not forced, it's you have no other choice if you want to get married and for the majority of hindus (thinking India here) the girl needs the financial security. It's not parents approval on the girl's choice, it's parents choose when the girls are sometimes not even in their teens. Then you have the whole dowry thing and widows cremating themselves to screw it up more.

 

[NeutralDrow]

We're talking about forced marriage, not arranged marriage.

Hindu's have it i think. I know it's termed arranged marriage but since only the man can refuse for the girl it is forced marriage.

It's only forced marriage if the girl actually opposes the marriage. Just because the decision is (usually) for the most part out of her hands doesn't mean she's not allowed to trust the judgment of her parents or approve of the suitor anyway.

Whoa, what? Very few of these arranged marriages have the girl's input. It's not forced, it's you have no other choice if you want to get married and for the majority of hindus (thinking India here) the girl needs the financial security. It's not parents approval on the girl's choice, it's parents choose when the girls are sometimes not even in their teens. Then you have the whole dowry thing and widows cremating themselves to screw it up more.

I know very few have her input, but it's not necessarily a "forced" deal (in the sense of the word's negative connotations). Arranged marriage is steeped in cultural tradition, and it's still widely used over love marriage, even among Indians who emigrate out of the country. I'm taking issue with calling all arranged marriages "forced" on account of the strong likelihood of the prospective bride not having any problem at all with the system, whether by agreeing that her parents/matchmaker/whoever have sound judgment, or even because she likes her prospective husband. It's often a hard distinction for one raised in a firmly individualistic culture to understand.

When you get into child brides or bride selling or the like, the distinction falls apart. Those are certainly forced, and certainly screwed up.

And I'm not talking about dowry or bride burning. The first thing is a strange issue that varies in seriousness (with regard to women's rights) depending on which part of the country you're talking about, and the second is downright horrible.

 

[lostclause]

I know very few have her input, but it's not necessarily a "forced" deal (in the sense of the word's negative connotations). Arranged marriage is steeped in cultural tradition, and it's still widely used over love marriage, even among Indians who emigrate out of the country. I'm taking issue with calling all arranged marriages "forced" on account of the strong likelihood of the prospective bride not having any problem at all with the system, whether by agreeing that her parents/matchmaker/whoever have sound judgment, or even because she likes her prospective husband. It's often a hard distinction for one raised in a firmly individualistic culture to understand.

When you get into child brides or bride selling or the like, the distinction falls apart. Those are certainly forced, and certainly screwed up.

And I'm not talking about dowry or bride burning. The first thing is a strange issue that varies in seriousness (with regard to women's rights) depending on which part of the country you're talking about, and the second is downright horrible.

But the second is entirely voluntery in the same way that an arranged marriage is not necessarily forced. No-one forces here to throw herself on the pyre but the alternative is just as bad (basically sent to homes and are treated very poorly). It's similar in arranged marriages. You can tell them you want out but the loss in social status as well as possibly being disowned by your family is too much for most girls. So they go along with it, hoping for the best. Also in a predominately arranged marriage country the sad truth is that usually there is nowhere for these reluctant brides even if they do get out of it, there's not usually a woman's refuge like we have.
Again, same with the dowry. Not forced, but if you don't pay the daughter is treated very poorly and seen as inferior (unless it's a love marriage)

 

[Maze1125]

Well my argument will remain what it always is on these traditional issues. I do not pick apart your traditions and you don't pick apart mine.
It is very easy for us to go off and judge their shit as stupid and backwards but how would we like it if they did it to us?

It is traditional in my culture to pick apart other people's traditions.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I know very few have her input, but it's not necessarily a "forced" deal (in the sense of the word's negative connotations). Arranged marriage is steeped in cultural tradition, and it's still widely used over love marriage, even among Indians who emigrate out of the country. I'm taking issue with calling all arranged marriages "forced" on account of the strong likelihood of the prospective bride not having any problem at all with the system, whether by agreeing that her parents/matchmaker/whoever have sound judgment, or even because she likes her prospective husband. It's often a hard distinction for one raised in a firmly individualistic culture to understand.

When you get into child brides or bride selling or the like, the distinction falls apart. Those are certainly forced, and certainly screwed up.

And I'm not talking about dowry or bride burning. The first thing is a strange issue that varies in seriousness (with regard to women's rights) depending on which part of the country you're talking about, and the second is downright horrible.

But the second is entirely voluntery in the same way that an arranged marriage is not necessarily forced. No-one forces here to throw herself on the pyre but the alternative is just as bad (basically sent to homes and are treated very poorly). It's similar in arranged marriages. You can tell them you want out but the loss in social status as well as possibly being disowned by your family is too much for most girls. So they go along with it, hoping for the best. Also in a predominately arranged marriage country the sad truth is that usually there is nowhere for these reluctant brides even if they do get out of it, there's not usually a woman's refuge like we have.

I don't dispute that. I'm saying it's far from a given that a girl will want out. If she's truly not okay with the decision of the arrangers (and if she doesn't have any influence over them) or if the marriage turns out badly, it's a tragedy, but given the system's prevalence even outside India, there's no reason to suspect that cases like that are the majority.

Bride burning is different. Whatever the motivation, it still results in one or two deaths, and so it's a phenomenon worth fighting against.

Again, same with the dowry. Not forced, but if you don't pay the daughter is treated very poorly and seen as inferior (unless it's a love marriage)

Which is probably why dowry is technically illegal in India these days (not that it really stops people). Again, the problem is primarily regional. Places in India where women's work is still valued (mostly the south, I believe), dowry still functions as intended: the bride's inheritance, as she's leaving to join another family. Of course the system is open to abuse, but it's the abuse that is the tragedy; the system itself isn't inherently sexist.

 

[lostclause]

I don't dispute that. I'm saying it's far from a given that a girl will want out. If she's truly not okay with the decision of the arrangers (and if she doesn't have any influence over them) or if the marriage turns out badly, it's a tragedy, but given the system's prevalence even outside India, there's no reason to suspect that cases like that are the majority.

Bride burning is different. Whatever the motivation, it still results in one or two deaths, and so it's a phenomenon worth fighting against.

Again, same with the dowry. Not forced, but if you don't pay the daughter is treated very poorly and seen as inferior (unless it's a love marriage)

Which is probably why dowry is technically illegal in India these days (not that it really stops people). Again, the problem is primarily regional. Places in India where women's work is still valued (mostly the south, I believe), dowry still functions as intended: the bride's inheritance, as she's leaving to join another family. Of course the system is open to abuse, but it's the abuse that is the tragedy; the system itself isn't inherently sexist.

How can it not be inherently sexist when the men can choose if they're in or out but the women can't?
No, the majority of cases aren't a tragedy but are they happy? Even knowing you've made a choice makes you happier and the guarantee that if things get too bad you can leave is a welcome one. But the majority not being a tragedy doesn't legitimise the tragedies. The majority of people are not mass murderers but does that make them acceptable?

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

I don't really like the idea of it, and I think it's very unfair.

The trouble is, it's a person's culture, and in trying to ban it you are technically banning their heritage and beliefs, which is treading on some very very edgy grounds towards despotism.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I think it's wrong. Give love a chance to interfere. Love should be the only reason to get married, unless it's a matter of life and death, and enormous amounts of money. In my opinion, other's can think whatever they want. However, I am 100% freedom of choice as long as it doesn't break the law. And I don't think that marriage of consent is against the law.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I don't dispute that. I'm saying it's far from a given that a girl will want out. If she's truly not okay with the decision of the arrangers (and if she doesn't have any influence over them) or if the marriage turns out badly, it's a tragedy, but given the system's prevalence even outside India, there's no reason to suspect that cases like that are the majority.

Bride burning is different. Whatever the motivation, it still results in one or two deaths, and so it's a phenomenon worth fighting against.

Again, same with the dowry. Not forced, but if you don't pay the daughter is treated very poorly and seen as inferior (unless it's a love marriage)

Which is probably why dowry is technically illegal in India these days (not that it really stops people). Again, the problem is primarily regional. Places in India where women's work is still valued (mostly the south, I believe), dowry still functions as intended: the bride's inheritance, as she's leaving to join another family. Of course the system is open to abuse, but it's the abuse that is the tragedy; the system itself isn't inherently sexist.

How can it not be inherently sexist when the men can choose if they're in or out but the women can't?
No, the majority of cases aren't a tragedy but are they happy? Even knowing you've made a choice makes you happier and the guarantee that if things get too bad you can leave is a welcome one. But the majority not being a tragedy doesn't legitimise the tragedies. The majority of people are not mass murderers but does that make them acceptable?

Of course not, but that doesn't mean you punish people who aren't mass murderers, just because some of them are. The minority of tragic cases where an arranged marriage doesn't work out don't illegitimize the majority of cases where it works, and the marriage is either happy or stable.

You could just as easily point out that love marriages are an unstable system because they rely far more on limited romantic emotion rather than any objective standards of compatibility, and in many cases the married couple winds up screwing themselves over. Regret things you did, regret things you didn't do...it's all the same regret in the end, with one just aphoristically "better" than the other.

Incidentally, you're also simultaneously understating the influence of the girl in an arranged marriage and overstating the influence of the boy. Both of them have input in the process, but neither really have ultimate choice. Even in divorce, the act is stigmatizing to both parties. Women (of middle castes, that is) have a rougher time with it, of course, because in addition to the social stigma, they still have limited economic independence.

 

[lostclause]

Of course not, but that doesn't mean you punish people who aren't mass murderers, just because some of them are. The minority of tragic cases where an arranged marriage doesn't work out don't illegitimize the majority of cases where it works, and the marriage is either happy or stable.

You could just as easily point out that love marriages are an unstable system because they rely far more on limited romantic emotion rather than any objective standards of compatibility, and in many cases the married couple winds up screwing themselves over. Regret things you did, regret things you didn't do...it's all the same regret in the end, with one just aphoristically "better" than the other.

Incidentally, you're also simultaneously understating the influence of the girl in an arranged marriage and overstating the influence of the boy. Both of them have input in the process, but neither really have ultimate choice. Even in divorce, the act is stigmatizing to both parties. Women (of middle castes, that is) have a rougher time with it, of course, because in addition to the social stigma, they still have limited economic independence.

I'm not suggesting punishment but an abolishment of a system. This is very different. It's more like gun control to prevent mass murdering.
Yes but in a love marriage, or what used to be a love marriage, it is also much easier for a partner to get out if they're unhappy. Even if they're catholic and can't get a divorce it's still easy for the spouse to move away. Not so much in arranged marriages, they often just send them right back. Even if a whim love marriage ends in disaster it's possible for the couple to split and get on with their lives. Not so easy if one of the couple wants out in arranged marriages.
If the ultimate decision for such a life-changing event doesn't lie with you then there's not much point in input is there? Sometimes families marry off children for economic rewards (usually due to poverty) or social status. In such cases the family are to have their minds set despite any input. Surely it should be the other way round? Parents have input but the ultimate decision lies with the children i.e. the ones who are actually getting married!
I notice that you didn't answer the question of how the system can't be inherently sexist. Remember that the boy still has a right of veto that the girl does not.
If you're still unconvinced then: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7867006.stm
This shows how thinly drawn the line between arranged and forced is.
If this is capable of happening in a society which doesn't legally or socially condone this sort of thing then it makes you wonder what they get away with in a society that does.

 

[ad5x5]

Shotgun weddings? (It's just a figure of speech, don't worry... ok I lied.)

Yeah, I hate em. I think they're pretty.. inhumane. I believe you cannot force love.

who's talking about love? this is about marriage...

-A

 

[lupe]

I would have to say that forced marriages are generally a bad idea, invented by control-freak parents who needed some other person's control-freak parents to rub eachother's bellies and feel better about themselves.

But there is some grim consolation for the unfortunate people who have to go through a pre-arranged marriage. You have someone to blame for your misery, unlike the case of a normal marriage, where you can only blame yourself for being stupid in the first place.

 

[doctorjackal777]

Be understanding of other people's beliefs and tradtions in your replies.

No.

It's basically rape.
Tradition can go fuck itself.

Exactly. Forced genital mutliation is a cultural-religous tradition in some African countries. And "honor killings" of women who were raped are a cultural-religious tradition in many middle eastern countries. I'm not about to respect either of these just because they're long held beliefs and traditions. Why should I make an exception for a tradition that forces people into relationships that they don't get to choose for themselves?

Especially when they're breaking the law. If they want to be mysogenists, they can go find somewhere where it is, sadly, still legal. Expecting a country to let people break the law for the sake of "tradition" (and not actually their religion, mind you) is their being demanding and insensitive...

Excuse my ignorance but what's a mysongenist, and why is it bad some it's still legal in some places?

 

[yeah_so_no]

Arranged marriage is one thing, forced is another. Arranged marriage, hey, whatev, if everyone's in for it why not, but forced marriage is just a big, fat NO. No one should be forced into something like that against their will, especially since it ties you to someone for quite possibly the rest of your life.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Most of my points have pobably already been made, but time's too short to read the whole thread.

Firstly I'd like to mention that there is a difference between aranged and forced marriges.

Secondly, forced marriges technically go against the teachings many of the cultures that stereotypically practice them. Old religious laws often do point out that a forced marrige is not a true marrige in the eyes of "insert name of deity here".

Third, traditions should be scapped as soon as they cause more harm than good. Being a tradition does not justify some of the behaviour that has at some stage been traditional.

Fourth, there nothing that can be done about this, but I believe that a big problem is the concept of family honour. Every individual has there own honour in my books.