From: [email-masked] (Subbarao Kambhampati)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 12:59:42 PDT

Path: leland.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!surge
>From: [email-masked] (PhD-in-Training)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: sexism vs. arranged marriages
Keywords: arranged marriage
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 91 18:57:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 96

I have read a lot of the arranged marriage threads from last
year, but the arguments are not convincing.  The main "reasoning"
for many people is anyone who is in favor of an arranged marriage
and brings the wife to the US automatically thinks of the wife as
being less than him, and plans to treat her according to this
belief.

In all the debates about the pros and cons of arrange marriages,
I think people were confusing the highly sexist society present
in India (and also to a lesser extent here) with the "arranged"
part of the marriage.

I agree that if the man goes to India and uses his wealth or
"male" position to exploit the family of the woman, that is terrible.
This is not part of the definition of "arranged" marriage.  The
reason this happens is because the man himself and the society
around him is already firmly entrenched is sexist practices.  It
is not the result of the "arranged"-ness of the marriage.  The
man can just as easily try to use his wealth or "male" position to
dominate his mate during and after a western style courtship and
marriage.  Accusing me of highly sexist practices because I am in
favor of arranged marriages is like accusing a white who lives
in the South for being in favor of racism and slavery.

People seem to be forgetting that arranged marriages are an
arrangement between TWO groups.  The woman and her family also
decides.  If people think that the woman cannot reject a candidate,
then they are mistaken in many cases (in my family and several
others I have seen in India, the woman certainly has a veto
power).  I agree however that parents sometimes encourage a marriage
when the woman is not sure.  I am not interested in trying to
"convert" any woman to the system of arranged marriage so I can take
advantage of her.

Besides, according to the prevailing line of reasoning on the
net, a love marriage nearly ensures that both members of the
couple are equals.  Well, let's examine the social conditions here
in America where arranged marriages are almost non-existant.  Are
both partners equal?  If you look in the previous generations you
will see the answer is NO (even though the love marriage system
was used).  If you look today at the fundamentalist Christian
community, you will see male-domination and love marriages at the
same time.

So in summary, my point is this.  Sexism comes from the attitudes
of individuals and society.  It is not perpetuated by arranged
marrriages, matchmakers, or love marriages.  The reason that
there is less sexism in America today than before is because
of shift in people's thinking.  The reason there is so much
sexism in India today is because the old notions are still held,
not because people are matched together to be married.

I can see people having an objection to my bringing a woman to
this country away from her family.  Let me say, I will make sure
that she genuinely wants to come here.  In fact, I will be sure
to get all "core" issues settled.  Is so hard to believe that someone
would actually want to come here?  Many people assumed that I
would be dragging some poor woman against her will to this
country.  Look at yourselves.  You all were dying to come here
for an education and *most* of you have a great desire to stay
here and work.  If and when my arranged wife comes here, she will
have the freedom to have a career and probably be more independent 
here than she could be in India's stifiling social structure.
She will share my financial as well as emotional support (and I
hers).  I think this can hardly be equated to "importing a piece
of baggage."

I think too many of you have encapsulated the neutral system of
arranged marriages into the big ball of Indian tradition sexist
values.  People in favor of arranged marriages become an easy
visible target for those of you in the struggle of equal rights.
What you *should* be targeting is some people's sexist ideas of a
marriage itself (wife should serve husband, etc), not the manner
in which they meet.

Let me end by saying that those of you who think an arranged
marriage consists of having a line of woman parade in front of
the man and him saying "Yes, I'll take that one.  Wrap her up,
please", you are wrong.  Keep in mind, that *I* will know as little
about her personally as she knows about me.  I have just as much
at stake.  I will be under the eyes of scrunity as much as her.
My only "advantage" is that she is would be settling in this country.

As far as the "wife market" concept goes, is the dating pool any
different?  If you are seriously dating, aren't you evaluating
different people to see if they fit your criteria for a wife?
Any system of marriage offers the sexist the opportunity to abuse
and take advantage of his partner.

I am very sorry if I don't fit into the nice little mold some of
you had created for me.

On the other, thank you to those that have supported me.

--Surajit Mukherjee