lostclause said:
NeutralDrow said:
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.
That abolition was exactly what I was referring to by "punishment." And which style of gun control are you talking about? U.S. style gun control involves strict regulation over purchase and ownership of certain types of guns, and outright bans on other types (assault weapons, mostly). I can see that as perfectly analogous to the ideal legal status of arranged marriages.
I'd like to make a "shotgun wedding" pun, but to my shame, I can't make it fit.
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.
Trade off. You're more likely to screw up a love marriage, but it's easier to get out. An arranged marriage is less likely to screw up, but when it does, getting out is more difficult. Cultural judgment as to which is better.
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?
Sorry for breaking the paragraph, but that is like saying you should never advise or help people, because they won't ever change their minds.
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!
You're taking an extreme case and trying to apply it to the whole system. Selling off children for economic rewards is a symptom of crushing poverty, not arranged marriage tradition.
Again, it's a cultural judgment. The argument in favor of arranged marriage is that the parents of both the boy and the girl (or whoever they get to arrange it) have far more life experience (including involvement in a successful marriage) and are far more capable of making objective compatibility judgments in regards to economic and caste status, family ties, and religious considerations. Sure, it's decidedly not romantic compared to what I'm personally used to, but it still works.
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.
I did answer that question. That's what I meant by you overstating the influence of the boy. He doesn't necessarily have any more say in the matter than the girl, let alone veto power.
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.
It's an extremely thick and obvious line, I notice. And yes, they get away with that stuff in India tragically often as well...especially considering it's neither legally nor socially condoned in India, either, their enforcement just sucks.
