H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 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. Indeed. And that is the nub of the issue. If my parents said to me "My friend has a daughter who is of a social class I've deemed acceptable for you to marry into - perhaps you can take her for an ice cream soda and a walk in the park" I'd be appalled. A follow up "Oh don't worry if you don't like her - there are a number of other options in the same social class that I've tracked down for you as a reserve list" wouldn't really be too comforting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 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. Among the ignorant majority. 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? It's no coincidence that I know how to use words properly because I am educated and intelligent. If we've learnt one thing in the last few days, its that you're as big a Unionist as ever. With absolutely no evidence to support this assertion at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Indeed. And that is the nub of the issue. If my parents said to me "My friend has a daughter who is of a social class I've deemed acceptable for you to marry into - perhaps you can take her for an ice cream soda and a walk in the park" I'd be appalled. A follow up "Oh don't worry if you don't like her - there are a number of other options in the same social class that I've tracked down for you as a reserve list" wouldn't really be too comforting. How can that be the "nub" of the issue when every single person on here seems to hold exactly the same view? Surely, if that was the "nub", then the discussion would have been over a long time ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Indeed. And that is the nub of the issue. If my parents said to me "My friend has a daughter who is of a social class I've deemed acceptable for you to marry into - perhaps you can take her for an ice cream soda and a walk in the park" I'd be appalled. A follow up "Oh don't worry if you don't like her - there are a number of other options in the same social class that I've tracked down for you as a reserve list" wouldn't really be too comforting. It would be an absolute result if she turned out to be an utter scorcher of a burd though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 How can that be the "nub" of the issue when every single person on here seems to hold exactly the same view? Surely, if that was the "nub", then the discussion would have been over a long time ago? So, have your friends discussed with you why they believe arranged marriages are a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 So, have your friends discussed with you why they believe arranged marriages are a good thing? Yep. Doesn't mean I agree with their reasoning though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 My mum's started showing phone pictures of my single brothers to a few of the young girls she meets at her work, basically pimping them out if you ask me - could this be treated as an arranged relationship??? I think she does it jokingly... I think!!! Nice or creepy? - you decide, but I'm going to stick with creepy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It would be an absolute result if she turned out to be an utter scorcher of a burd though. See, that's always a tricky one though - you'd wonder why she wasn't married off to some other socially acceptable chappie. It's like when that boy from Casualty dumped Rachel Stevens. The alarm bells have to be ringing in the "she must be an incredible pain in the arse for him to give that up" stakes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yep. Doesn't mean I agree with their reasoning though. What was their reasoning for not wanting to choose their own partner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Indeed. And that is the nub of the issue. If my parents said to me "My friend has a daughter who is of a social class I've deemed acceptable for you to marry into - perhaps you can take her for an ice cream soda and a walk in the park" I'd be appalled. A follow up "Oh don't worry if you don't like her - there are a number of other options in the same social class that I've tracked down for you as a reserve list" wouldn't really be too comforting. And, although I suspect you may disagree, the above scenario isn't remotely the same as the "Oh I know a nice girl would you like to meet her?" "Nah, I'd rather find someone off my own back if it's all the same to you" "Fine no problem, just an idea" Arranged marriage entails a degree of calculation and premeditation and restricts relationships to socially predetermined acceptable groups. Mere chance introduction that happens to blossom into a beautiful relationship is a completely different kettle of fish. Incidentally... where does "kettle of fish" come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Indeed. And that is the nub of the issue. If my parents said to me "My friend has a daughter who is of a social class I've deemed acceptable for you to marry into - perhaps you can take her for an ice cream soda and a walk in the park" I'd be appalled. A follow up "Oh don't worry if you don't like her - there are a number of other options in the same social class that I've tracked down for you as a reserve list" wouldn't really be too comforting. And, although I suspect you may disagree, the above scenario isn't remotely the same as the "Oh I know a nice girl would you like to meet her?" "Nah, I'd rather find someone off my own back if it's all the same to you" "Fine no problem, just an idea" Arranged marriage entails a degree of calculation and premeditation and restricts relationships to socially predetermined acceptable groups. Mere chance introduction that happens to blossom into a beautiful relationship is a completely different kettle of fish. Incidentally... where does "kettle of fish" come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 What was their reasoning for not wanting to choose their own partner? Actually, I know in the case of one, they have chosen their own partner, and are just planning on making it a formal thing by getting the other person's parents to send a formal proposal. But thats just one case. Also, see all the stuff you mentioned about social class and finding the right type of wealthy, influential match, in a community etc. etc. That too. Also, laziness, and making their parents happy. Basically, all the things that have been discussed already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 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. It's like the word "ignorant". You are in the minority in all three cases. OK. you win. A dictionary is useless, and the majority dictates. Other than in British politics obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 OK. you win. A dictionary is useless, and the majority dictates. Other than in British politics obviously. I dunno, I heard Labour described as Socialists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I dunno, I heard Labour described as Socialists... Fair point, well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Actually, I know in the case of one, they have chosen their own partner, and are just planning on making it a formal thing by getting the other person's parents to send a formal proposal. But thats just one case. Also, see all the stuff you mentioned about social class and finding the right type of wealthy, influential match, in a community etc. etc. That too. Also, laziness, and making their parents happy. Basically, all the things that have been discussed already. Sending a 'formal proposal' is just traditionalistic patter. That cannot possibly be regarded an 'arranged marriage' any more than any other marriage in which a wedding is physically 'arranged', flowers, food, celebrant the lot. The idea of marrying someone because of their social class, material wealth or community stature seems profoundly shallow. Even then, why could they not find someone of that ilk off their own back instead of getting their parents to oversee it? The idea of marrying a particular person to make your parents happy sounds profoundly depressing and completely undermines the symbolic value of marriage. OK. you win. A dictionary is useless, and the majority dictates. Other than in British politics obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Arranged marriage entails a degree of calculation and premeditation and restricts relationships to socially predetermined acceptable groups. Indeed, it is an abhorrent practice. It's quite disgraceful that any parents would restrict their children's potential matches along purely class or caste lines. An important part of being a parent is utterly disapproving of your child's choice of partner I'd be extremely concerned if my mum liked any of my girlfriends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I dunno, I heard Labour described as Socialists... very good. They are though. Even David Cameron's a fucking champagne socialist. Tax and spend day in day out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Sending a 'formal proposal' is just traditionalistic patter. That cannot possibly be regarded an 'arranged marriage' any more than any other marriage in which a wedding is physically 'arranged', flowers, food, celebrant the lot. The idea of marrying someone because of their social class, material wealth or community stature seems profoundly shallow. Even then, why could they not find someone of that ilk off their own back instead of getting their parents to oversee it? The idea of marrying a particular person to make your parents happy sounds profoundly depressing and completely undermines the symbolic value of marriage. See the bit where I said: Yep. Doesn't mean I agree with their reasoning though. Really, I agree with you regarding most of your opinions, thats why I said what I said above. However, like it or not, that is the way that the term "arranged marriage" is used these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The idea of marrying a particular person to make your parents happy sounds profoundly depressing and completely undermines the symbolic value of marriage. What a depressing view :- "Many Indians look at marrying a person they don't know, gives one "a lifetime to learn to love them", as opposed to the American ideal of learning a person inside and out before entering into marriage. It can be said that an arranged marriage in India is not based on feelings, but rather on commitment." "Here, we get married without having feelings for the person" http://www.indiamark...es-in-India/961 Yes, let's turn marriage into a chore. What could be better than being shacked up with someone you don't know, don't love and have no feelings for at all. Sounds terrific!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.