Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, I'm not saying arranged marriages are the answer, but given the divorce rate in the US (whatever that real number may be...we all agree it is high) choosing one's own mate is not a guarantee of happiness. I'm sure EVERY happily married couple can remember a time when their marriage was miserable. Working through these things takes a lot of time and commitment. I'm not going to start trying to create imaginary scenarios where divorce would have been the wrong answer, but we all know a) divorce rate is too high, b) we have major entitlement issues in the us c) our culture is one of instant gratification. These things together tell me that it's likely that many divorces could be avoided and that would be a good thing, at least for the children involved.
Nothing is a "guarantee of happiness".
Yes, working through issues takes time and commitment. That's what marriage is.
You say you aren't saying arranged marriages are the answer, ".....but...."
But what? How would arranged marriages change any of those things?
As for the rest of the post (feeling of entitlement, instant gratification and divorce not being good for children....).......ok...not sure how to respond since it's not clear what those have to do with arranged marriage either. If parents pick their children's mates, the feeling of entitlement and culture of instant gratification will diminish and the divorce rate will go down? Please clarify.
Again, I'm not saying arranged marriages are the answer, but given the divorce rate in the US (whatever that real number may be...we all agree it is high) choosing one's own mate is not a guarantee of happiness. I'm sure EVERY happily married couple can remember a time when their marriage was miserable. Working through these things takes a lot of time and commitment. I'm not going to start trying to create imaginary scenarios where divorce would have been the wrong answer, but we all know a) divorce rate is too high, b) we have major entitlement issues in the us c) our culture is one of instant gratification. These things together tell me that it's likely that many divorces could be avoided and that would be a good thing, at least for the children involved.
Whether to have arranged marriages is a philosophical issue. It all boils down to whether you think you should have control over your adult life or your parents should have control.
I can honestly say that in 25 years I have never been miserable with my husband. I have been irritated with him but that is different.
It's a pretty big extrapolation to assume that because women in the US are the primary instigators in divorce that they are divorcing simply because they can. The implication with this idea is that women are necessarily more discontent and less loyal than men are. There is certainly a good reason that more women file for divorce. But it isn't because we are less able to handle commitment or that we value relationships less.
I personally believe that it's because we have been fed a lie. We are told that we can have it all, when in fact we can't. We can't be the perfect mother, the perfect boss or employee, the perfect housewife. We CANNOT do it all. And we are the ones who bear the brunt of the stress created by trying to be everything to everyone. The men can compartmentalize. The men don't feel as guilty. Women don't divorce because we don't like marriage, but because we can't live up to the standards that society has set for us. So we fail at something. Sometimes it's our job, sometimes our kids but usually it's our marriage.
...
Intuitively this makes sense. But I wish to venture with a different question: why do modern Americans expect so much out of marriage? Why is it considered to be harrowingly stupid, crude and benighted to regard marriage as basically a stable living arrangement sanctioned by the state - at its core, a sort of business relationship?
It's true that women (and men!) have been held to unrealistic standards. However, why ought the husbands bear the brunt of the blame for this? If statistics quoted in this thread are to be believed, 75% of divorces are initiated by the wives. It is therefore the husbands who suffer the consequences of their wives' self-perceived failure with respect to society's ridiculous standards.
For all of the faults of arranged marriages, they have this enormous advantage: the partners enter the marriage without rosy expectations. They don't begin their marriage with feeling of entitlement to bliss. Expecting less, they're more resilient to emotional setbacks. Whether we embrace or loathe arranged marriages, we'd all benefit from a more sober and more operationalized approach to human intimate partnerships.
I understand the reasoning behind arranged marriages and it is basically sound. However it depends on a premise that is usually not the case. For it to work, the parents must have only the best interest of their child in mind. Instead choices are made for financial or social reasons. Mom wants her son to marry her besties daughter because that woudl be so cool. That kind of thing.
IF parents actually had their child's best interest in mind, it could work out well. The wisdom that comes form experience can be extremely beneficial and youngsters have none. They may or may not have common sense, but they do not have experience and cannot have the wisdom that can be accumulated only with experience. (of course some parents will never accumulate wisdom from their experiences, usually because they are stupid and/or have no common sense, but most people actually learn from their experiences).
young men choose a spouse primarily on looks/sexual attraction. Many couples get married during and because of the infatuation/lust phase of a relationship. Parents who have been down the road, realize looks, sexual attraction, lust, will only keep things going and keep their kids happy for a few years. Then what? Is the spouse tolerant, patient, likely to accept the flaws of your son/daughter? Do they exhibit characteristics that will keep them together and happy in the long term? Will they make a good team? Older people who really know the kids are more likely to be able to see those kind of long term issues. Younger people cannot think long term because they have no long term experience. They have not seen dozens or hundreds of marriages and seen what causes them to succeed or fail over time.
Thus, conceptually, parental input or simply arranged marriages could be a better method for selecting a spouse than out current system (Random lust or impulses). I would not want a doctor with no experience choosing my treatment. I would not want a lawyer with no experience defending my case. Why would it be a good idea for a kid with no experience to choose a spouse?
Unfortunately, the reality is not consistent with the concept. As mentioned, the parents usually will not have only their kids best interest in making a choice. In the end, the only person who is gong to act 100% in your best interest, is you. thus, we are stuck with this absurd system of choosing a spouse where a person with no experience at all in selecting a spouse, or seeing what types of parings work or do not work over time has to make this perhaps most important choice of their lifetime. I agree with the OP the system is absurd. However I do not agree that the arranged marriage is a better or more workable system. A blended system might be better. Maybe the parents "arrange" 20 compatible matches and then the kids dates some and choose from the options. Kind of like the Bachelor game show on tv, only not so rushed and stupid.
I can say I certainly can look at our kids date choices and tell from a 20,000 feet perspective "That is not going to work" or "that may eventaully work" even though they cannot see it for themselves.
My conceptualization of arranged-marriages is somewhat idealized, though rooted in accounts by my former colleagues in grad school in the US (in a major engineering school). Parents and other relatives of the older generation serve as a dating agency. They construct a list of possible matches, which are met essentially in dates (not chaperoned)… think dinner at a restaurant. The potential partners then pronounce an assessment. If the date goes well, they go for Round #2. If not, the name is crossed off of the list. This goes on for several first dates (maybe 10 or more!) until finally a “match” is found. As the guy is a student in the US and the girl back in the home-country, typically after a brief fling the guy returns to the US. The relationship is long-distance for several months, maybe a year. On his next trip back, he might propose. And then on a third trip they have the actual wedding. This has to be a marriage and not a casual arrangement, because otherwise the woman can’t join her mate in the US, who is on an F-1 or H1-B visa (or something similar). So they actually need to marry, and not merely cohabitate, not because of religious or cultural taboos, but
Of course, this isn’t typical amongst peasants. The persons involved are definitely 1%-ers, and more likely 0.01%... private boarding school, Ecole Polytechnique or Cambridge for college, then MIT/Stanford/Caltech in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
