Girl calls wedding off when groom gets maths wrong

[Keith&Co.]

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

As a couple of people have pointed out, the marriage was hers to call off. What else would it be?

 

[ronburgundy]

Arranged marriages are common over there and generally acceptable to the participants.

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

Agreed. It is an amusing story, but it doesn't seem this issue is really tied to gender so much as the sad fact that both males in females in that society have little liberty and are strongly coerced into spending their life with someone they have barely met, based upon the plotting interests of others. If she had to ask him math questions to find out he wasn't they guy, then she clearly had spent virtually no time with the guy she thought she was marrying. The real guy could easily be an abusive prick, and she'd have no idea, and what recourse would she have?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

Agreed. It is an amusing story, but it doesn't seem this issue is really tied to gender so much as the sad fact that both males in females in that society have little liberty and are strongly coerced into spending their life with someone they have barely met, based upon the plotting interests of others.

Where's the sign of coersion?

I realize, in movies it's always nonconsensual, and usually the woman is beoing coerced (except for Herbert in Holy Grail). But in all the movies, they know nothing about the intended match until they lift the veil.

She at least knew what she was supposed to be getting, possibly because she was involved in the negotiations. And her family didn't force her to go through with the agreement when fraud was uncovered, thus the gang war when they defended her decision.

 

[ronburgundy]

Agreed. It is an amusing story, but it doesn't seem this issue is really tied to gender so much as the sad fact that both males in females in that society have little liberty and are strongly coerced into spending their life with someone they have barely met, based upon the plotting interests of others.

Where's the sign of coersion?

I realize, in movies it's always nonconsensual, and usually the woman is beoing coerced (except for Herbert in Holy Grail). But in all the movies, they know nothing about the intended match until they lift the veil.

She at least knew what she was supposed to be getting, possibly because she was involved in the negotiations.
.

She clearly had virtually zero interactions with the man or even seen him beyond a bad photo or she would have known without having to quiz his match understanding. Sounds like she was going to marrying someone knowing next to nothing but only a list of selling points she was told about by others. What person choosing a life mate for themselves would agree to such a thing without severe social coercion where there were no viable choices?
The reason such traditions (which were far more widespread in the past) have died out is because they are only maintained via very coercive social practices that cannot survive in a modern society where high value is placed upon personal choice. Denying the coercion is such systems is essentially a form of victim blaming on grounds that "well, they could choose to refuse and lose everything and be disowned". In this case, it is highly likely that her parents let her out of it because he wasn't educated and upper class, not because she wanted out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where's the sign of coersion?

I realize, in movies it's always nonconsensual, and usually the woman is beoing coerced (except for Herbert in Holy Grail). But in all the movies, they know nothing about the intended match until they lift the veil.

She at least knew what she was supposed to be getting, possibly because she was involved in the negotiations.
.

She clearly had virtually zero interactions with the man or even seen him beyond a bad photo or she would have known without having to quiz his match understanding. Sounds like she was going to marrying someone knowing next to nothing but only a list of selling points she was told about by others. What person choosing a life mate for themselves would agree to such a thing without severe social coercion where there were no viable choices?
The reason such traditions (which were far more widespread in the past) have died out is because they are only maintained via very coercive social practices that cannot survive in a modern society where high value is placed upon personal choice. Denying the coercion is such systems is essentially a form of victim blaming on grounds that "well, they could choose to refuse and lose everything and be disowned". In this case, it is highly likely that her parents let her out of it because he wasn't educated and upper class, not because she wanted out.

This is a good point. It was the parents who were getting screwed in the transaction and not the bride. She was just one of the commodities being traded and the other family was trying to buy her for less than her worth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

She clearly had virtually zero interactions with the man or even seen him beyond a bad photo or she would have known without having to quiz his match understanding. Sounds like she was going to marrying someone knowing next to nothing but only a list of selling points she was told about by others. What person choosing a life mate for themselves would agree to such a thing without severe social coercion where there were no viable choices?

Ah. So the answer to the question, where is there sign she's coerced is that you're projecting it since you're judging her by your cultural standards. Okay.

The reason such traditions (which were far more widespread in the past) have died out is because they are only maintained via very coercive social practices that cannot survive in a modern society where high value is placed upon personal choice.

Not all socieities place the same values on the same things. It's possible that the change taking place isn't the loss of arranged marriages, but the loss of the coercive nature, isn't it? You have some reason to think that they can't have included her in the decision?

Even if it was coercive in the past, that's not much of an indicator for how much she was involved with the selection of her groom.

Denying the coercion is such systems is essentially a form of victim blaming

Sure it is. Because you just KNOW it's coersive, therefore any other intrepretation, or request for evidence, is wrong.

In this case, it is highly likely that her parents let her out of it because he wasn't educated and upper class, not because she wanted out.

Right. because that's what the story says, she asked her parents to walk out...

 

[ronburgundy]

Ah. So the answer to the question, where is there sign she's coerced is that you're projecting it since you're judging her by your cultural standards. Okay.

No, I am rationally examining the very strong positive relationship across time periods and sub-populations between these practices and general coercive authoritarianism where personal choice is valued little. It strongly suggests that anti-liberty coercion and general authoritarian values are central to and neccessary for the practice of arranged marriages.
In addition, I am factoring in non-cultural features of human (and really just animal) nature, such as that organisms like to optimize the things that make them feel good and reduce those that making them feel bad. Also, all humans in every culture have these emotional goals impacted greatly by the particulars of the specific persons they are around on a daily basis. A person cannot possibly know whether another person is going to saticifice these innate goals, without some minimal personal interaction them, which this woman clearly lacked or she would not have required a math quiz to know it wasn't the right man.
Thus,it is psychologically implausible that a person would commit to the interpersonal, happiness determining commitment that such marriages entail without engaging in the interactions required to uncover that information, unless their were coercive pressure that undercuts these natural human interactions.
Non-coerced romantic courtships that are the standard in the modern West, are not cultural creations but the inherent byproduct of universal features of psychology and goal-pursuit in the absence of coercive external prohibitions against them.
Modern romantic courtship is to arranged marriages what modern gender-equal marriage/divorce laws to gender inequality in marriage laws where men decide if and when marriages and divorces happen. In both cases, the later is incompatible with free society because they only exist via authoritarian coercion that prohibits what people would naturally negotiate and desire for themselves in terms of power in the process that determines their well being.

The reason such traditions (which were far more widespread in the past) have died out is because they are only maintained via very coercive social practices that cannot survive in a modern society where high value is placed upon personal choice.

Not all socieities place the same values on the same things.

It's possible that the change taking place isn't the loss of arranged marriages, but the loss of the coercive nature, isn't it? You have some reason to think that they can't have included her in the decision?

The more input the person has, the less "arranged" the marriage is, by any reasonable definition of the term. Anything like arranged marriages is mostly dead in modern society and where it exists is a shell of itself and not as "arranged" for the same reason, namely that arranged marriages are inherently coercive and require severe punishments to prevent individuals from doing what they would naturally do if allowed to act in their own interests.

Even if it was coercive in the past, that's not much of an indicator for how much she was involved with the selection of her groom.

No, it is her near total ignorance of the man that demonstrates her lack of real input. It is the fact that she couldn't tell it wasn't him by looking at him, hearing him, or any quality that a person with any real contact with that person would notice, and she had to rely upon a trait she knew from his "vitae", namely his reported math skill. It might be the case that she was given superficial "right of refusal" over the applications and chose not to actually get to know anything about him as a person. But for reasons I outlined above, virtually no human would agree to that process without highly coercive social rules that compelled her to make the "right" choice in the eyes of others. Thus, her role is largely window dressing to put a more modern face on an ugly authoritarian practice that devalues the self-determinations that determines personal well being, something which humans throughout history have demanded the moment the boot was off their neck long enough to voice their desires.

Denying the coercion is such systems is essentially a form of victim blaming

Sure it is. Because you just KNOW it's coersive, therefore any other intrepretation, or request for evidence, is wrong.

The argument that it is coercive is the same as the one that getting beaten to death and stoned as a women for not wearing the right clothes is coercive, even when the women in that culture claim they prefer it that way. Your argument is the same as those who claim that such comments by these women show it isn't coercive and so there is nothing wrong or inhumane about it and we shouldn't pay any attention.

In this case, it is highly likely that her parents let her out of it because he wasn't educated and upper class, not because she wanted out.

Right. because that's what the story says, she asked her parents to walk out...

No, because even basic knowledge of such marriages and customs tells all rational people that education and the potential/actual income it denotes are driving factors behind who the parents select, which is precisely why the couple's don't actually spend any time together before the marriage, because that can't yield any information relevant to income and social class that a piece of paper doesn't already tell. She may well not want to marry below her station. I didn't say she didn't want to call it off. I am saying, if it was anything qualifying as an actual arranged marriage, then her wishes were granted far more easily by the fact that he failed to have the primary factor that drives parents in their choice. The issue is that without massive coercion, few women in any culture would choose a process where their parents choose then they get some input, but never actually get to know the person.
IF her parents did nothing but facilitate who she wanted to marry, without social coercion to pick certain guys, then that is no more an arranged marriage than using E-Harmony.

 

[Toni]

Where's the sign of coersion?

I realize, in movies it's always nonconsensual, and usually the woman is beoing coerced (except for Herbert in Holy Grail). But in all the movies, they know nothing about the intended match until they lift the veil.

She at least knew what she was supposed to be getting, possibly because she was involved in the negotiations.
.

She clearly had virtually zero interactions with the man or even seen him beyond a bad photo or she would have known without having to quiz his match understanding. Sounds like she was going to marrying someone knowing next to nothing but only a list of selling points she was told about by others. What person choosing a life mate for themselves would agree to such a thing without severe social coercion where there were no viable choices?
The reason such traditions (which were far more widespread in the past) have died out is because they are only maintained via very coercive social practices that cannot survive in a modern society where high value is placed upon personal choice. Denying the coercion is such systems is essentially a form of victim blaming on grounds that "well, they could choose to refuse and lose everything and be disowned". In this case, it is highly likely that her parents let her out of it because he wasn't educated and upper class, not because she wanted out.

I've known a few people who were in arranged marriages, including at least one that ultimately did not last.

In each case, the woman (I was friends with the woman and did not know the man or only slightly) did have a choice about whether or not to accept the marriage. The mind set of the few women I knew was that they wanted to please their family, remain loyal to their culture and the traditions of their culture and also that older people were in a better position to make a good choice, that the choice would be made with their love for their daughter and their desire to see her happily settled in a stable and advantageous marriage first and foremost. In the view of those women, the alternative, 'love matches,' were inherently unreliable, prone to divorce because the people in the marriage did not truly know what they wanted but their minds and eyes were clouded by trivial things. Love would come and would grow, along with respect, over the years. They saw it as sensible and rational. And really, how can we 'modern' people criticize when we are happy to let some computer algorithm select potential mates for us?

Yes, there would have been a high social cost in refusing to follow their parents' wishes but at least one woman did turn down someone that she thought would not be compatible and because she felt he was 'too old.'

I also knew someone who told me his cousin's bride was switched on the day of the wedding. When he lifted the veil, it was her sister, not the woman he wanted to marry. At that point he had no choice (or felt he had no choice). My friend's story was that the marriage lasted only a very short time but there was much shame associated with the man who did not want to marry the substitute bride.

Of course at one time, marriages were much more political and financial alliances and were often carried out to join property together and to serve the needs of the fathers rather than with any particular eye towards the happiness or well-being of either daughter or son. Certainly it still happens like that. In some places, daughters, even very young daughters, are given 'in marriage' to men in order to settle debts. It amounts to very little other than slavery for the poor girl.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The issue is that without massive coercion, few women in any culture would choose a process where their parents choose then they get some input, but never actually get to know the person.

I'm curious. If the bride not meeting the groom beforehand is evidence of a lack of liberty for women in the society, what is the groom not meeting the bride beforehand evidence of?

 

[fromderinside]

The issue is that without massive coercion, few women in any culture would choose a process where their parents choose then they get some input, but never actually get to know the person.

I'm curious. If the bride not meeting the groom beforehand is evidence of a lack of liberty for women in the society, what is the groom not meeting the bride beforehand evidence of?

Male superiority?

 

[Nexus]

The issue is that without massive coercion, few women in any culture would choose a process where their parents choose then they get some input, but never actually get to know the person.

I'm curious. If the bride not meeting the groom beforehand is evidence of a lack of liberty for women in the society, what is the groom not meeting the bride beforehand evidence of?

Its evidence of an authoritarian society oppressing both sexes.

 

[dismal]

The issue is that without massive coercion, few women in any culture would choose a process where their parents choose then they get some input, but never actually get to know the person.

I'm curious. If the bride not meeting the groom beforehand is evidence of a lack of liberty for women in the society, what is the groom not meeting the bride beforehand evidence of?

A stupid groom.

Unless there are at least 5 goats in the dowry. For enough goats you can put up with anything.

 

[gmbteach]

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

As a couple of people have pointed out, the marriage was hers to call off. What else would it be?

Exactly.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm curious. If the bride not meeting the groom beforehand is evidence of a lack of liberty for women in the society, what is the groom not meeting the bride beforehand evidence of?

Its evidence of an authoritarian society oppressing both sexes.

Exactly. Contrary to many people's rhetoric, most forms oppression in the world are not between races or between genders, but rather just of society oppressing individual rights and liberties. Sadly, far fewer can see or come to care about oppression, unless the oppressors and oppressed fit into neat little groups.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Arranged marriages are common over there and generally acceptable to the participants.

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

The "You Go Girl!" bit is for her standing up to the attempted switcheroo.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

Agreed. It is an amusing story, but it doesn't seem this issue is really tied to gender so much as the sad fact that both males in females in that society have little liberty and are strongly coerced into spending their life with someone they have barely met, based upon the plotting interests of others. If she had to ask him math questions to find out he wasn't they guy, then she clearly had spent virtually no time with the guy she thought she was marrying. The real guy could easily be an abusive prick, and she'd have no idea, and what recourse would she have?

In such situations the parents normally have done quite a bit of checking into the prospective spouse.

 

[credoconsolans]

I'm curious. If the bride not meeting the groom beforehand is evidence of a lack of liberty for women in the society, what is the groom not meeting the bride beforehand evidence of?

Its evidence of an authoritarian society oppressing both sexes.

Both sexes, true, but of course the guy is given more leeway to get a bit on the side if his wife doesn't do it for him.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, I can't tell whether you meant this as support or contradiction to my point, but its very much supports it.

She clearly had virtually zero interactions with the man or even seen him beyond a bad photo or she would have known without having to quiz his match understanding. Sounds like she was going to marrying someone knowing next to nothing but only a list of selling points she was told about by others. What person choosing a life mate for themselves would agree to such a thing without severe social coercion where there were no viable choices?
The reason such traditions (which were far more widespread in the past) have died out is because they are only maintained via very coercive social practices that cannot survive in a modern society where high value is placed upon personal choice. Denying the coercion is such systems is essentially a form of victim blaming on grounds that "well, they could choose to refuse and lose everything and be disowned". In this case, it is highly likely that her parents let her out of it because he wasn't educated and upper class, not because she wanted out.

I've known a few people who were in arranged marriages, including at least one that ultimately did not last.

In each case, the woman (I was friends with the woman and did not know the man or only slightly) did have a choice about whether or not to accept the marriage. The mind set of the few women I knew was that they wanted to please their family, remain loyal to their culture and the traditions of their culture

IOW, social coercion in generally authoritarian systems where not being free to pick your own mate on your own criteria is just "tradition" with harsh penalties for going against it. "Loyalty to culture" and "tradition" are reasons for doing something when the person wouldn't do it if there were not coercive social sanctions against not doing it. These are all the reasons why homosexuals marry an opposite sex person, and they too delude themselves that it is all for the best. Oppressive systems typically come with rhetoric that people are trained to parrot and often internalize to rationalize their situation as preferable.

the choice would be made with their love for their daughter and their desire to see her happily settled in a stable and advantageous marriage first and foremost.

Except that is not possible if the choice is made without personal detailed knowledge of and interaction with the prospects and with several prospects to choose the optimal one. These parents were at the wedding and made no objection until the daughter showed he couldn't have been as educated as claimed, meaning like her, the parents also had not really met him, couldn't recognize him, and therefore were marrying their daughter to a near total stranger based upon his credentials.

In the view of those women, the alternative, 'love matches,' were inherently unreliable, prone to divorce because the people in the marriage did not truly know what they wanted but their minds and eyes were clouded by trivial things. Love would come and would grow, along with respect, over the years. They saw it as sensible and rational. And really, how can we 'modern' people criticize when we are happy to let some computer algorithm select potential mates for us?

Yeah, most people in oppressive societies say they prefer it that way and disparage more freedom based alternatives. The same is true of women in societies with laws that allow women to be beaten and raped for dress code violations or suspected out of marriage sex or robbed of basic rights "as part of tradition". They also claim they see it as "preferable" and use reasons like "tradition" or because "men know better" or "God knows better". Their viewpoints are themselves the product of coercion. Yet what reasonable person free to openly question and challenge such systems without repercussion doesn't recognize this as anti-liberty and coercive? The fact that such systems have all but disappeared in societies that protect person rights and all people exposure to alternatives shows that they are incompatible with natural human desires and are kept in place by authoritarian culture that goes against such desires.
What % men and women in families and within the cultures that still practice actual arranged marriages refuse any opposite sex partner and agree only to marry a same sex person? The % of actual homosexuals is likely the same as in the most liberal modern society, yet I bet the % of openly gay people within traditions of arranged marriages is extremely low. This is only because of oppression and the same oppression that props up that tradition. Who the bride and groom can refuse is limited and on what basis is highly limited. They are given a handful of choices that all share certain criteria (including all opposite sex) and must choose one of them or else refuse the whole "tradition" and take on the social sanctions that comes with. Sexual liberty and marital liberty go hand-in-hand (figuratively and literally).

Yes, there would have been a high social cost in refusing to follow their parents' wishes but at least one woman did turn down someone that she thought would not be compatible and because she felt he was 'too old.'

I also knew someone who told me his cousin's bride was switched on the day of the wedding. When he lifted the veil, it was her sister, not the woman he wanted to marry. At that point he had no choice (or felt he had no choice). My friend's story was that the marriage lasted only a very short time but there was much shame associated with the man who did not want to marry the substitute bride.

Exactly, authoritarian coercion against personal desires and choice. Basically, social sanctions against homosexuality and gay unions are nothing more than the mildest form of "arranged" relationships where there is really only 1 required quality restricting choice of mate. If such homophobic "traditions" are coercive and anti-liberty, then any system that qualifies as "arranged marriage" is tenfold moreso. It is boggling how people cannot see oppression unless there is a clear minority group defined by some particular feature that is being singled out for oppression.

 

[hinduwoman]

Arranged marriages are common over there and generally acceptable to the participants.

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

Different cultures.
Even many educated working women feel that their parents and elders will be better able to make sensible choices based on compatibility rather than relying on hormones when in love --- and if the marriage breaks down people who arranged it gets most of the blame as well!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Um, OK, but it's still a bit strange to treat this as a "You Go Girl!" moment of female liberation.

Different cultures.
Even many educated working women feel that their parents and elders will be better able to make sensible choices based on compatibility rather than relying on hormones when in love --- and if the marriage breaks down people who arranged it gets most of the blame as well!

I think it's the "not meeting until the wedding" part which rubs most Westerners the wrong way. There's not much issue with the parents doing the legwork for finding a compatible match, but the kids not being able to vett the prospect personally and make sure that they agree the compatibility is there seems a little off.

 

[Rhea]

Different cultures.
Even many educated working women feel that their parents and elders will be better able to make sensible choices based on compatibility rather than relying on hormones when in love --- and if the marriage breaks down people who arranged it gets most of the blame as well!

I think it's the "not meeting until the wedding" part which rubs most Westerners the wrong way. There's not much issue with the parents doing the legwork for finding a compatible match, but the kids not being able to vett the prospect personally and make sure that they agree the compatibility is there seems a little off.

Yes exactly. Failsafe feature.