May 2011 Election

[xbl]

What you are clearly missing here is the distinction between parents setting their child up on a date with a nice sort of person and waiting to see what happens and them taking a clear defining role in deciding who can and cannot be introduced as a prospective partner.

I hardly think that you can use a Wikipedia page on a largely social issue, which is descriptive rather than analytical of the processes and premises behind what constitutes an "arranged marriage" as a conclusive and inarguable definition of globally writ opinion.

Fair enough. I had no idea that the phrase "arranged marriage" was used in any other context other than, well, arranging a marriage.

To me, that phrasing (as prevalent as it is) is still wrong though. If parents are introducing their offspring to each other, in this "introduction only" type thing, then that shouldn't be classed as any means as an "arranged marriage".

To me the phrasing seems totally contradictory. If it's used in that context then fair enough, but I disagree that it's the correct one. To me the whole concept of an "introduction-only arranged marriage" is absolutely ludicrous. It's either an arranged marriage, or it's not. That's the way I call it.

That was originally my opinion too. As I said earlier in the thread, I had this discussion myself, and I thought much like you guys did. What I was told by people that I know was that my view of arranged marriage (which as I said, matched yours) was wrong. It appears that wiki backs them up too, and given that they're the ones who will actually be experiencing this "arranged marriage", then I can hardly tell them that their entire culture is using the wrong definition. It may well be a bit contradictory, but thats the way things are!

So I do think that its important to consider that when someone says "arranged marriage", then they may be talking about arranged marriage in a different way to how we grew up perceiving it.

Of course it's different from forced marriage. Not even you could defend that. However, all the methods you quote above effectively mean that a prescribed list of people considered suitable by parents are presented as the options. It's completely alien to me. It's like feminism never happened, to men or women. Should it be banned? No, only forced marriage should be criminal. Is it morally wrong? In my eyes, yes.

And as I've said many times, I agree with that. I'm not disagreeing at all, as I also dislike the idea. All I do (as I've also said multiple times) is provide a bit of balance and accuracy to the discussion, such as showing that "arranged marriage" can be (and often is) used in a different way to how it has been presented on here.

[H_B]

Yeah, the issue is really how far the parents take it and how much choice the kids get in it. I'd imagine both vary greatly.

If they suggest a match, the kid(s) say "nah, not for me" and they say "fair enough, nothing ventured nothing gained" that's one thing, but it depends how much pressure the children are put under to accept the next match, or the match after that.

It's pretty disgraceful that in the modern era people won't marry outwith their social class. The girl in the arranged marriage I attended was quite open about the fact that she would never consider marrying someone of a lower caste than herself - in fact she found the very idea ludicrous.

Very sad.

[ICTChris]

My parents tried to set me up in an arranged marriage. I was sent to the Fubar to find a fair maiden but was sickened to discover they were all cock-teasing bitches.

[H_B]

However, all the methods you quote above effectively mean that a prescribed list of people considered suitable by parents are presented as the options.

Indeed. I asked Arsha, the person being married, what would have happened if she had met someone in Edinburgh she fell for before she was married off?

She said it would depend if they were an Indian of an appropriate caste socially suitable to her parents (I don't think white Scottish people were ever considered!)

If not, she would be disowned by her family for choosing to marry this person. It really was that simple.

[Ad Lib]

That was originally my opinion too. As I said earlier in the thread, I had this discussion myself, and I thought much like you guys did. What I was told by people that I know was that my view of arranged marriage (which as I said, matched yours) was wrong.

What, you mean like using compound definitions involving the meaning of what words actually mean?

It appears that wiki backs them up too, and given that they're the ones who will actually be experiencing this "arranged marriage"

Wikipedia is stretching the meaning so far as to subvert it. There's a Russian political party that styles itself as Liberal. It's one of the most authoritarian in the Duma.

then I can hardly tell them that their entire culture is using the wrong definition.

Are you suggesting Galileo could hardly tell the religious leaders of his age that they were wrong to say the Sun orbited the Earth?

It may well be a bit contradictory, but thats the way things are!

The contradiction makes it wrong.

So I do think that its important to consider that when someone says "arranged marriage", then they may be talking about arranged marriage in a different way to how we grew up perceiving it.

i.e. a situation that isn't an arranged marriage.

And as I've said many times, I agree with that. I'm not disagreeing at all, as I also dislike the idea. All I do (as I've also said multiple times) is provide a bit of balance and accuracy to the discussion, such as showing that "arranged marriage" can be (and often is) used in a different way to how it has been presented on here.

Incorrectly.

[xbl]

What, you mean like using compound definitions involving the meaning of what words actually mean?

Wikipedia is stretching the meaning so far as to subvert it. There's a Russian political party that styles itself as Liberal. It's one of the most authoritarian in the Duma.

Are you suggesting Galileo could hardly tell the religious leaders of his age that they were wrong to say the Sun orbited the Earth?

The contradiction makes it wrong.

i.e. a situation that isn't an arranged marriage.

Incorrectly.

But as I'm pointing out, THAT IS HOW PEOPLE USE IT. Its like our discussion over the use of the word "ignorant", also starring you and Pink Freud. It may, in its purest form, not be a pejorative term, but its modern usage is without a doubt pejorative. You might find that wrong, but you were arguing against the world. Just like you are here. All I'm doing is reporting the way things are. Stamping your feet and having a wee p&b tantrum won't change the world.

[Pink Freud]

Utter bollocks Xbass. Everything you described is just what I knew arranged marriage to be. Some are less dictatorial than others, all are equally abhorrent if you believe that the rights of an individual to self determination is paramount. If some people choose to waive that right, he'll mend them, but I'll be fucked if some mealy mouthed cultural defence in Wiki, clarifying that forced and arranged don't mean the same thing makes arranged marriage one iota more acceptable. It is all about race, class and sexism, and it is revolting. No ifs, no buts, regardless of how nice the people involved are.

[Ad Lib]

But as I'm pointing out, THAT IS HOW PEOPLE USE IT.

Incorrectly and invalidly.

Its like our discussion over the use of the word "ignorant", also starring you and Pink Freud. It may, in its purest form, not be a pejorative term, but its modern usage is without a doubt pejorative. You might find that wrong, but you were arguing against the world.

That example is distinguishable in that the use of ignorant can VALIDLY be used pejoratively or non-pejoratively. The use of the term "arranged marriage" cannot be used VALIDLY in the context of an invitational meet and greet with no strings attached and leave them to get on with it scenario.

Just like you are here. All I'm doing is reporting the way things are.

All you're doing is parroting an invalid use of the term then jumping back in a hands off way saying "but but but lots of people use it that way, I'm just putting it out there don't shoot the messenger". Surely you're cognitively capable of analysing the use of the phrase and rejecting the erroneously attributed scenarios as wrong on the simple point of fact.

Stamping your feet and having a wee p&b tantrum won't change the world.

No one said it would. The world has a prerogative to be wrong, but it must not, under any circumstances, subvert my right to be right.

[Hedgecutter]

Gee Whizz – So far the P&B vote goes with 58% SNP & 14% to Labour. So much for this '10 point lead' that Labour has over the SNP just now or is the average Scottish football fan just an endangered sub-species of the Scottish population???

(More of the latter I'd imagine)

[xbl]

Utter bollocks Xbass. Everything you described is just what I knew arranged marriage to be. Some are less dictatorial than others, all are equally abhorrent if you believe that the rights of an individual to self determination is paramount. If some people choose to waive that right, he'll mend them, but I'll be fucked if some mealy mouthed cultural defence in Wiki, clarifying that forced and arranged don't mean the same thing makes arranged marriage one iota more acceptable. It is all about race, class and sexism, and it is revolting. No ifs, no buts, regardless of how nice the people involved are.

And I don't disagree. I personally don't like it, how many times must I repeat this? I seem to have put it in every single post. Are you doing a HB and losing the ability to read?

Incorrectly and invalidly.

That example is distinguishable in that the use of ignorant can VALIDLY be used pejoratively or non-pejoratively. The use of the term "arranged marriage" cannot be used VALIDLY in the context of an invitational meet and greet with no strings attached and leave them to get on with it scenario.

All you're doing is parroting an invalid use of the term then jumping back in a hands off way saying "but but but lots of people use it that way, I'm just putting it out there don't shoot the messenger". Surely you're cognitively capable of analysing the use of the phrase and rejecting the erroneously attributed scenarios as wrong on the simple point of fact.

No one said it would. The world has a prerogative to be wrong, but it must not, under any circumstances, subvert my right to be right.

And they do. It appears that my definition is the common one. As backed up by Pink Freud (apparently), HB, my personal experience (which I might add is what HB started this attempt to character assassinate me with, I'll add it to the big list of things HB got wrong about me), and wikipedia. All of which are wrong, because Exuberant is right.

[H_B]

All I'm doing is reporting the way things are.

Well, not really though. You chose to take the mildest form of arranged marriage and present it as "this is how it works".

It's not all sweetness and light, especially for those women and men who are told "this is your new husband/wife - say hello and get ready for the wedding".

It's like saying a woman having her clitoris pierced is an example of female genital mutilation. Which is, theoretically, true, but there are many more barbaric, invasive and forced forms of genital mutilation.

[H_B]

And they do. It appears that my definition is the common one. As backed up by Pink Freud (apparently), HB, my personal experience (which I might add is what HB started this attempt to character assassinate me with, I'll add it to the big list of things HB got wrong about me), and wikipedia. All of which are wrong, because Exuberant is right.

Why haven't you retracted your utterly erroneous assertion that I want the state to prescribe items of clothing and indeed arranged marriages?

[Pink Freud]

No. You aren't getting out of it that easily. You've been utterly mendacious with this. You've used this as a stick to beat those pesky unionists with, and when your position becomes untenable, you fall back on your posts on this thread. What you have said is that you don't like the idea of it, but hey, all those cultures can't really be wrong. What ad lib, hb and I are saying is that yes, they are wrong, and pretty repugnant into the bargain. And in case you think this down to unionism, I'll repeat: unless you think it is right that class, race and gender should play a greater part in determining who an individual spends their life with than their own choice, it is morally indefensible.

[renton]

Gee Whizz – So far the P&B vote goes with 58% SNP & 14% to Labour. So much for this '10 point lead' that Labour has over the SNP just now or is the average Scottish football fan just an endangered sub-species of the Scottish population???

(More of the latter I'd imagine)

Well, we're hardly a detailed cross section of scottish society, were only one relatively small demographic, or parts of two or three slightly wider demographics.

[xbl]

Well, not really though. You chose to take the mildest form of arranged marriage and present it as "this is how it works".

It's not all sweetness and light, especially for those women and men who are told "this is your new husband/wife - say hello and get ready for the wedding".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage

"...It should not be confused with the practice of forced marriage..""

Would you like me to use bigger letters, since you're obviously struggling. You chose to (wrongly) attempt to smear me by posting a link to a thread you seem curiously reticent to bump, which I was then able to back up with your example, as well as my anecdotal evidence (which you seem quite happy to use yourself), and wikipedia. Not only that, but you actually agree with my opinion! All I'm doing is providing more information to offset some of the less informed opinion that can be prevalent.

Do you have another "favourite" from your "library"? Maybe you would have more luck with that?

[Ad Lib]

And they do. It appears that my definition is the common one. As backed up by Pink Freud (apparently), HB, my personal experience (which I might add is what HB started this attempt to character assassinate me with, I'll add it to the big list of things HB got wrong about me), and wikipedia. All of which are wrong, because Exuberant is right.

Pink Freud doesn't appear to agree that a simple meet and greet with no apparent strings attached amounts to arranged marriage, nor indeed does Gaz. As it happens, the Wikipedia article appears to me to be at best ambiguous, and there is the inference at all times that the parents restrict the class of eligible persons by any supposedly 'relevant' criteria that they introduce.

For the umpteenth time, it's not the same thing for parents to say "Oh we've met this nice girl, would you like to meet her?" as "We've gone through a rigorous internal vetting procedure and have found someone we think is acceptable as a prospective long-term partner. We have arranged a date for you and you can decide whether or not to take things further".

Ad Lib IS right because he's fucking awesome and uses words to mean what they actually mean instead of what lots of people (wrongly) think they mean. H_B is right (as he has subsequently qualified the woman's parents would have disowned her if she went off and chose another man who wasn't in their category of "suitable" meet and greet candidates. Pink Freud is right in that the degree of coercion can vary hugely, and that whilst not all arranged marriages are forced, they are by no means remotely liberal or in any way anything other than repulsive in their social outlook.

[H_B]

I can't make this any clearer - the concept of parents being involved in the selection of a mate for their children is abhorrent, for the reasons Pink Freud outlines.

And to avoid doubt, here was your original statement on the subject :-

"My friends generally think of arranged marriages as a good thing. In fact, one girl I know wants one for herself! Its not nearly like how it is often presented. Women are not simply bartered about with no say."

Perhaps you can add to the debate by telling us your "friends" reasons for believing arranged marriages are "a good thing"?

Of course, you disagree with them and are against the practice

[xbl]

Why haven't you retracted your utterly erroneous assertion that I want the state to prescribe items of clothing and indeed arranged marriages?

I dealt with that the same way you dealt with one of your slurs against me. Did you miss that too?

No. You aren't getting out of it that easily. You've been utterly mendacious with this. You've used this as a stick to beat those rely unionists with, and when your isospin becomes untenable, you fall back on your posts on this thread. What you have said is that you don't like the idea of it, but hey, all those cultures can't really be wrong. What ad lib, hb and I are saying is that yes, they are wrong, and pretty repugnant into the bargain. And in case you think this down to unionism, I'll repeat: unless you think it is right that class, race and gender should play a greater part in determining who an individual spends their life with than their own choice, it is morally indefensible.

No, I said that I don't like the idea of it. And I've said that all along. I don't know where "all those cultures can't really be wrong" comes from, I think you just invented that. All I've done, and I've done it in this thread, and I would imagine, in the other one which HB started, is point out that common perception is not always accurate.

And yes, its funny how those that attacked me the most are three of the biggest unionists on the site. As I've said before, its almost like responding to the poster rather than the post, especially when you consider that I hold the same view as you.

[Ad Lib]

And yes, its funny how those that attacked me the most are three of the biggest unionists on the site. As I've said before, its almost like responding to the poster rather than the post, especially when you consider that I hold the same view as you.

Factual inaccuracy alert. I am not a Unionist because I hold nation-statehood to be illegitimate in all forms, hence am against both the UK nation-state and any hypothetical Scottish nation-state.

[xbl]

Pink Freud doesn't appear to agree that a simple meet and greet with no apparent strings attached amounts to arranged marriage, nor indeed does Gaz. As it happens, the Wikipedia article appears to me to be at best ambiguous, and there is the inference at all times that the parents restrict the class of eligible persons by any supposedly 'relevant' criteria that they introduce.

For the umpteenth time, it's not the same thing for parents to say "Oh we've met this nice girl, would you like to meet her?" as "We've gone through a rigorous internal vetting procedure and have found someone we think is acceptable as a prospective long-term partner. We have arranged a date for you and you can decide whether or not to take things further".

Ad Lib IS right because he's fucking awesome and uses words to mean what they actually mean instead of what lots of people (wrongly) think they mean. H_B is right (as he has subsequently qualified the woman's parents would have disowned her if she went off and chose another man who wasn't in their category of "suitable" meet and greet candidates. Pink Freud is right in that the degree of coercion can vary hugely, and that whilst not all arranged marriages are forced, they are by no means remotely liberal or in any way anything other than repulsive in their social outlook.

But the problem with using an expression in a different way to the majority, is that you are then talking about something different to the majority, which leads to confusion. As I said, its like the use of the word "ignorant". Oh, and the interchangeable nature of "English" and "British". You are in the minority in all three cases. Coincidence?

Factual inaccuracy alert. I am not a Unionist because I hold nation-statehood to be illegitimate in all forms, hence am against both the UK nation-state and any hypothetical Scottish nation-state.

If we've learnt one thing in the last few days, its that you're as big a Unionist as ever.