| Username |
Post |
| voivoid |
Posted
on 10-Feb-02 10:59 PM
And it should be made illegal,if not discouraged. Here are my reasons: assuming that ,it's your 'bau aama' or some other elder person who undertakes the task of finding the 'right' partner for you, since this is usually the case.
Lets look at the criteria you parents have for choosing the right spouse for you. First of all comes the prospective partners caste. Naturally your parents are not going to choose someone from a "lower" or "higher" caste than you. I believe that arranged marriages perpetuate the abhorable belief on caste.
Nobody would argue with me that the cast system which advocates one race as being superior to another- is not only dehumanising but also violates fundamental human rights laws. When your parents choose the bride/husband for you based on caste, they are essentially practicing what Hitler preached, that one race is superior from other and should be kept pure by not allowing interaction with the lesser, more inferior race. I could go to lengths about the similarities. It disturbingly resembles Nazism, yet generations of Nepali men/women have been accepting this as a part of culture.
The second criterion your elders have for your spouse is wealth. In all the cases of arranged marriages, the wealth of both families involved are comparable. In other words, rich marry rich, poor marry poor. In our society, where considerable part of your wealth is inherited, it means that marriages act to accentuate the inequality of wealth. Thus caste and class are making increasingly dividing the society. This has led to a host of problems (yes, its a staple for maobadis class war)
There are other problems engendered by this act which no doubt you would want to think about. But before you go tying the knot, think for a moment how ethically/morally sound your reasons are for accepting the person "arranged" for you. You might find yourself guilty.
|
| Distressed |
Posted
on 10-Feb-02 11:27 PM
Marrying from the SAME caste does not necessarily mean one caste is superior than the other. Its the tradtion and culture that gets jeopordized by it. If a Newar gal gets married with a Brahmin guy, then there would be problems in the rituals and traditions that are followed in the Brahmin's family and similarly if a Newar marries a Brahmin gal, the same case is true. My point is not about being POLITICALLY CORRECT but the realities of life.
Cross cultural marriages do renew our culture and take us to a different path, but its always difficult to break that code.
Arranged marriage is a perfect means for a society like ours, where the women and men have limited opportunities to interact. All of you know how its looked.
Personal Case:
I am for Arranged Marriage coz I haven't found the girl and I am getting old. I don't want to be searching and never finding so its better for me to accept the one presented by my parents.
What I Believe:
Arranged marriage or "love marriage" is a personal choice and should be left at that. We all have preference, and marrying a same caste and or different caste should be left for the personal choice as well. Demeaning or being racist becasue of someone's caste is a different thing.
|
| _BP |
Posted
on 11-Feb-02 12:22 AM
Is it better to marry the one you love, or to love the one you marry?
Is there a difference?
I believe it to be most important to love the one you marry, whether you loved her/him when you met or not.
And how is "arranged marriage" defined? As long as you are not betrothed to someone else, what is wrong with arranging a potential partner? An arrangement may not be very different from "setting up" by our friends, which we don't seem to have a big problem with.
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 11-Feb-02 08:26 PM
>Is it better to marry the one you love, or
>to love the one you marry?
>
>Is there a difference?
>
>I believe it to be most important to love
>the one you marry, whether you loved her/him
>when you met or not.
>
>And how is "arranged marriage" defined? As
>long as you are not betrothed to someone
>else, what is wrong with arranging a
>potential partner? An arrangement may not be
>very different from "setting up" by our
>friends, which we don't seem to have a big
>problem with.
Pundit ji,
Its always good to love everyone but the issue we are discussing the repercussions arranged marriages have and the cultural values it enforces.
No, arranged marriage is not similar to "setting up" done by friends because it it not set up by your friends. Its set up by your parents. And parents have an entirely different agenda, as explained above. By accepting arranged marriages you are bestowing the legal and moral rights to chose your partner on your parents. There is no denying that this usually leads to forceful engagements, usually the cultural force, the morals set by our society for us, and a lot of times, even physical coercion.
Some people, presumably like you, accept it and learn to love your arranged one. Others do not want it forced on them and revolt against it. And revolts are unpleasant affairs, the carnage created by Dipendra should convince you, if my arguments are not enough. He didn't want it arranged and he was right in not wanting it to be arranged.
Sad thing is , there was no public outcry/debate after the apparent cause of massacre came out.
|
| _BP |
Posted
on 11-Feb-02 08:58 PM
You need to focus on the topic. This is your definition of "arranged" marriage. A lot of young people immediately negatively identify any setting up by parents, like they were betrothed to the propsective girl/boy. If your parents have not already married you off by age 4, if they are interested in giving you "exposure" to their friends children, then it may not be such a bad idea. In fact most people meet someone by being set up by friends or family. How many people end up marrying someone they "picked-up" in a bar or party?
|
| krishna |
Posted
on 12-Feb-02 09:42 AM
Yes, mebbe. But is arranged marriage an AXIS of evil, or simply a limited partnership of evil?
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 12-Feb-02 12:00 PM
Voivoid wrote-
>Some people, presumably like you, accept it
>and learn to love your arranged one. Others
>do not want it forced on them and revolt against
>it. And revolts are unpleasant affairs, the carnage
>created by Dipendra should convince you,
>if my arguments are not enough. He didn't
>want it arranged and he was right in not
>wanting it to be arranged.
>Sad thing is , there was no public outcry/debate
>after the apparent cause of massacre came out.
Thanks Voivoid for bringing up this grave subject. This apparently got buried under the feet of conspiracy theorists and drowned by the rumorists with vested political interest. I have no doubt in the sarakari account of the carnage. And I am not giving invitation to conspiracy theorists to come here and debate. Because the subject is not about who did it (sorry Maoists !), but about what we learned from this (assuming Dipendra did it and that it is associated with his marriage).
I will share my view sometime later.
Just my passing comment on other’s view,
" marrying the one you love vs. loving the one you marry"
This is a misleading dichotomy. It should be better..
" Marrying the one you love and keep loving vs. marrying any one and struggling to love him/her after "
If love matters to you, my best advice is- don’t leave it at mercy of your struggle. If love does not matter, you need nobody’s advice. Get hell out of here !
Nepe
|
| Durcheruwa |
Posted
on 12-Feb-02 01:49 PM
kya kura gareko???? Please people at least before I got married don't even talk of banning arranged marriage. Arranged marriage is good for guy like me who doesn't have girl friend and still intend to get married in future. Criminalizing and baning arranged marriage in our country won't solve any problems. Aja ma vanchu, banning this time honored tradition will compound more problem. Given our tradition of close society, we boys and girls hardly mingle. You guys won't believe it but to tell you truth my face used to reden when I talked with girl because when I was in school I never talked with any unknown girl not even to my classmates. It was not just me. All of us were like that.
I do agree there are so many ill things associated with arraged marriage. BP Koirala (in Atma Katha) said arrage marriage is like jumping in dark well..sone land up in nice place some don't. So is any other form of marriage.
Forceful marriage under duress is wrong. Dawry is wrong. Dehumanizing is wrong. Cast system is wrong. Racism is wrong. Bribery is wrong. Poverty is wrong so are thievery , dishonesty and many more illness we have and certainly banning arraged marriage is not panacea.
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 13-Feb-02 02:15 AM
> Forceful marriage under duress is wrong.
>Dawry is wrong. Dehumanizing is wrong. Cast
>system is wrong. Racism is wrong. Bribery is
>wrong. Poverty is wrong so are thievery ,
>dishonesty and many more illness we have and
>certainly banning arraged marriage is not
>panacea.
You said it. Arranged marriage as it is endorses racism, subordination, belief in caste system and numerous other unpleasant behaviors. Isn't it time to put an end to it?
You might think that YOUR arranged marriage is ok since it will be carried out only with mutual consent between you and your partner. You might even think that your parents (or the matchmaker) will not consider the caste or the wealth when selecting your spouse. Even if these were true, you'll still be guilty of upholding an institution that breeds every social evil in Nepal that one can think of. Don't you see that this institution (of arranged marriage) acknowledges racism, caste system, forceful marriages, dowry etc. which you say you despise?
Contrary to what most sociologists think, all cultures are not worth preserving. Certain aspects of ours aren't remotely Justifiable.
------------------------
p.s. Othe issues with arranged marriages
i. it is unfair to women. ii. obstructs sexual liberation of women/men ( since the socially favorable way is to wait for your arranged one).
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 13-Feb-02 05:36 PM
Vioviod wrote
>Contrary to what most sociologists think, all cultures are not worth preserving.
True. And the best way to preserve a culture is to allow it to evolve. Learn from Life.
Nepe
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 13-Feb-02 06:10 PM
>And revolts are unpleasant affairs, the carnage created by Dipendra should >convince you, if my arguments are not enough. He didn't want it arranged
>and he was right in not wanting it to be arranged.
Sure, Dipendra might have been right about not wanting his marriage to be arranged. But it is extremely rare for even those who don't like arranged marriage to go kill their parents, siblings and relatives over the issue.
Cases like Dipendra's are outliers, and NOT the norm. If I wanted to persuade people against the so-called evil of arranged marriage, I'd use mainstream examples, and NOT far-out, outlier ones. Using extreme examples only
makes this sort of argument unconvincing.
That said, I maintain that how people marry is their PRIVATE business. In the US, Koreans marry Koreans and Jewish singles look for other Jewish singles, Indian-Americans look for other Indian-Americans and so on -- WITHOUT inviting charges of racism.
Likewise, what's wrong with a Nepali Newar or a Bahun or a Gurung marrying another Nepali Newar or a Bahun or a Gurung respectively? Nothing. If one is comfortable marrying within one's own caste/tribe/ethnic group, well, that's perfectly fine. By the same token, if one is comfortable marrying outside of one's caste/tribe/ethnic group/nationality that's fine too.
At any rate, the institution of arranged marriage is NOT as rigid and fossilized and inflexible as people seem to think. There is, for instance, a practice gaining popularity called "arranged love marriage" -- which is, pretty much self-explanatory. Revolts are NOT unique to arranged marriage. They occur in
cases of love marriages too, perhaps most of the time.
If I were you, I'd advocate BETTER, open and more honest and emotionally intelligent ad tolerant and mutuall supportive parents-children relationships in Nepal when it comes to the issue of marriage, whether love- or arranged or
for anything else. Issues come to head when inter-generational relations
within a family unit are khattam, to begin with.
Anecdotally, I have seen that love marriages have gone bust in dysfunctional families, while arranged marriages have thriven in happy, stable ones, and vice versa. The role and the function of one's family (and increasingly friends ko) networks seem VITAL for any marriage.
oohi
happy valentine's day
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 13-Feb-02 11:43 PM
>>And revolts are unpleasant affairs, the
>carnage created by Dipendra should >convince
>you, if my arguments are not enough. He didn'
>t want it arranged
>>and he was right in not wanting it to be
>arranged.
>
>Sure, Dipendra might have been right about
>not wanting his marriage to be arranged. But
>it is extremely rare for even those who don'
>t like arranged marriage to go kill their
>parents, siblings and relatives over the
>issue.
>
>Cases like Dipendra's are outliers, and NOT
>the norm. If I wanted to persuade people
>against the so-called evil of arranged
>marriage, I'd use mainstream examples, and
>NOT far-out, outlier ones. Using extreme
>examples only
>makes this sort of argument unconvincing.
Of course Dipendra was an exception, we don't have family massacres everyday. The point of using Dipendra's example was to make it clear just how catastrophic the consequences CAN be. Majority of Nepali women and men sit back and take it, or learn to hide the displeasure out of respect. The fact that it does not surface visibly in most cases does not mean that all is well is arranged marriages.
>That said, I maintain that how people marry
>is their PRIVATE business. In the US,
>Koreans marry Koreans and Jewish singles
>look for other Jewish singles, Indian-
>Americans look for other Indian-Americans
>and so on -- WITHOUT inviting charges of
>racism.
Pleased to hear that you think marriage is a Private affair. However, marriage in Nepal is not private affair. Its a Social affair. Whom you marry depends on whom your parents/family/society think you ought to marry and if you dare step outside the circle by marrying say someone from different caste, you are ostracised. do you still think that marriage in Nepal is a private business?
The reasons Koreans in states seek koreans are different than the reason a Bahun in Nepal seeks a Bahun. If they do it for the same, then both are racist. Just because it takes place in States does not mean that its justified.
>Likewise, what's wrong with a Nepali Newar
>or a Bahun or a Gurung marrying another
>Nepali Newar or a Bahun or a Gurung
>respectively?
No? not even if they must? maybe you as an educated youth have a choice/courage to chose your partner without being racist, but does the rest of the populace, bound by traditions, have the same choice?
|
| GP |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 12:07 AM
If the inter-culture, inter-race, inter-national, inter-color
marriage continue with current pace, Time (or Newsweek)
reported sometime back that in next 300years, BLonde haired
peoples will cease / vanish from earth. Its because, Time
further refers to the researchers and cites that the blonde
haired peoples have weaker DNA compared to dark haired
peoples and in cross-race marriages, the blonde haired DNA
loses tis control over new baby. Thus, finally, there will be
no distinct blonde haired peoples around the world. In this
regard the Black peoples from Africa have strong DNA
to dominate all genes. In this context, how are you going to
change your topic and contents of discussions?
GP
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 01:57 AM
Herr GP,
please take offence, I heard the exact same argument from Aryan League. You know, the Nazis who are worried to their truly white bones about the blonde race vanishing? Trust me, you don't want to shake their hands.
Herr GP,
Are you a proponent of eugenics? Do you believe we should stop inter-caste marriage so we can keep races pure? does your defence of arranged marriage lie in preserving certain traits belonging to certain race ? Whose is it? bahuns', chhetris', baisyas' or sudras' ? Or is it the blonde gene?
Subha ratri!
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 04:16 AM
>Pleased to hear that you think marriage is a Private affair. However, marriage
>in Nepal is not private affair. Its a Social affair.
Well, depends on where in Nepal you are talking about.
Kathmandu is NOT all of Nepal.
After all, the age-old chalan of "keti bha.gau.nay" is alive and well in
many parts of Nepal. Just listen to our lively lok-geets.
If you spend an extended time in NON-Kathmandu-Brahmin, -Chettri and -Newar societies, you will see that the ways people fall in love and get married to people of variously different castes and all that seem endless and, I might add, fascinating.
So, yes, marriages in Nepal (and I mean NOT only Kathmandu but all of Nepal)
can and are private affairs too. I just gave you good enough evidence of that.
>Whom you marry depends
>on whom your parents/family/society think you ought to marry and if you
>dare step outside the circle by marrying say someone from different caste,
>you are ostracised.
In certain sections of urban Nepal, there is more of this function of class, and
less of caste per se.
A rich, high-class Newar father in Kathmandu, for instance, would probably NOT happy to see his daughter marrying a poor, low-class Newar boy without much prospects from Okhal Dhunga, but is likely to be more lenient if she marries a high-class Thakuri boy (drawn from a real example!) with connections to Kathmnandu's other elite. He'd be delighted, of course, if she marries a high-class Newar boy.
I see NOTHING wrong in his being delighted.
I would NOT consider him a racist.
>The reasons Koreans in states seek koreans are different than the reason a >Bahun in Nepal seeks a Bahun. If they do it for the same, then both are racist. >Just because it takes place in States does not mean that its justified.
Look, the word "racist" is a high-voltage word, and you are using it rather loosely as though it were a loaded gun.
Simply put, you marry who you prefer to get married to, even if (?!) that person is of your own caste.
So, if a Bahun prefers another Bahun or if a Newar prefers to marry another Newar, well, that's perfectly fine. Who are you to say that they are being
racists? Are they being racists? I don't think so.
Sure, given your line of argument, you might be happy if Bahuns married Newars or Newars married Bahuns and so on and on, but, come on, who gets married to make YOU happy? :-)
More to the point, if parents frown upon children's choices, well, some young people -- assuming they have good relations with their parents, to begin with -- get around that by expending a lot of energy trying to win (back) their parents' approval. Nepali parents are NOT some morons who are FOREVER stuck in some hatred-zone as far as their 'disobedient' children are concerned.
>No? not even if they must? maybe you as an educated youth have a >choice/courage to chose your partner without being racist, but does the
>rest of the populace, bound by traditions, have the same choice?
Who's the rest of the population that you talking about?
Just because -- presumably -- some high-class, high-caste Kathmandu family ko son or daughter has a hard time marrying someone of another caste s/he loves
does NOT mean that there are only two kinds of marriages in Nepal or that the institution of arranged marriage is -- by definition -- evil. To say so is to make a huge, sweeping, unsupported generalization.
I mean, many of our parents' marriages were arranged. Now, are all of their marriages evil? I don't think so.
Marriage -- whether love or arranged -- is what you make of it, I suppose. Anecdotally, I see that there are happy people and unhappy people in
BOTH kinds of marriages.
There is NO your kind of one-size or one-approach-misfits-all sort of thing
here.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| sally |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 09:38 AM
I used to oppose arranged marriages quite strongly. But over the years, through observation, I've changed my mind. Here are my thoughts:
Nepal is full of human beings. So, naturally, it also has its share of dysfunctional families. The US does, too, but in the US, family dysfunction manifests in different ways (such as poor relationship patterns that lead to divorce).
A dysfunctional family is more likely to produce both an unpleasant family environment and poor marriages–whether arranged or not.
But the fact that Nepali parents who are status-obsessed control freaks will, almost invariably, arrange their child’s marriage–and often do it poorly--doesn’t mean that ALL Nepali parents who arrange marriages are prejudiced, insensitive control freaks.
Parents who respect their children as individuals and understand their personalities can, and do, arrange matches that work out quite well. Arranged marriage may not be everyone's personal choice, and it certainly can have a lot of pitfalls. But that doesn’t make it evil.
What is "evil" is parents who aren't sensitive to their children as individuals--whether looking for the right marriage partner for that unique child, or accepting (or not accepting) a particular girlfriend or boyfriend, or listening to a child's heartfelt desire about what subject to study, and so on.
It all comes down to sensitivity and respect. That, in my view, is what makes a healthy family, and that is also what makes a good marriage--arranged or not.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 01:30 PM
I am disappointed to read Ashu’s reluctance to recognize evils of ‘arranged marriage’. He appears to be dismissing it by saying ‘well, I can give you examples of some arranged marriage that are just fine’. I was expecting a better argument from a Vidwan like him.
Ashu wrote-
>Marriage -- whether love or arranged -- is what you
>make of it, I suppose. Anecdotally, I see that there
>are happy people and unhappy people in BOTH
>kinds of marriages.
Who does not know that ? But we are talking about those unhappy people from ‘arranged marriage’ category. What do we say about them ? Ashu’s notes do not offer any answer. He also failed to recognize how the institution of ‘arranged marriage’ play roles to promote other sicknesses of our sick society.
In a separate thread, Ashu was furious with an interesting institution called CWC and he was strongly arguing for its eradication. The main argument, that I understood, was that CWCs are interfering in the government. Although these are two different areas, I can see a (at least significant) parallel between CWC and PAM (Parent arranged marriage !). CWC interferes in the government. PAM interferes in the life of marrying boys/girls. It is POSSIBLE that CWC sometimes may do a good judgment, pass good resolutions, give good guidance etc to the government. So do the parents. But what is actually happening ?
CWC is the parent/relatives of the government. Therefore, PAM is the CWC of the institution called marriage. It needs to be challenged if not abolished altogether.
Now about happy/unhappy arguments, I think, an unhappy ‘arranged marriage’ calls for a ‘love marriage’, but an unhappy ‘love marriage’ does not call for an ‘arranged marriage’. That will be a bigger mistake.
I agree on only one thing- that the present circumstances of our society offers very low chances of ‘love marriage’. Therefore you might need to surrender to the ‘arranged marriage’ if you are disparate to marry. That’s your choice. But I think that’s all the more reason why we should speak for more openness and progressiveness of our society for marriage to be truly a marriage between a man and a woman and nobody else.
Miscellaneous,
‘Arranged love marriage’ is not a true hybrid (50/50) of a ‘arranged marriage’ and a ‘love marriage’. It is a 99% ‘arranged marriage’. In such cases, the decision is mostly and mainly determined by the psychological pressure of being arranged.
In marriage love should come first and also last.
Nepe
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 01:43 PM
>Well, depends on where in Nepal you are
>talking about.
>Kathmandu is NOT all of Nepal.
>
Mr. Aashu,
You seems to attribute imaginary arguments to my posting. In fact, it was YOU who claimed that arranged marriage in Nepal is not "fossilized" in your earlier posting. Thus effectively basing your opinion on the 'hune khane' in the metropolis. Obviously it is you who needs to take a trek outside the valley because in my observation, arranged marriage in rural IS fossilized. As fossilzed as it can get. People get murdered for marrying someone from 'lower' caste.
>After all, the age-old chalan of "keti bha.
>gau.nay" is alive and well in
>many parts of Nepal. Just listen to our
>lively lok-geets.
You are looking at wrong places. Lok-geets are hardly good examples of social criticisms. Remember the true 'gaune' can't afford to piss-off the upper class provider. Of course he'd want to sing what the hune-khane bahun chetris want to hear. Not his fault, mind you.
>If you spend an extended time in NON-
>Kathmandu-Brahmin, -Chettri and -Newar
>societies, you will see that the ways people
>fall in love and get married to people of
>variously different castes and all that
>seem endless and, I might add, fascinating.
>
Aashu ji, do your research. What propotion of do these 'fascinating' affairs constitute out of the total marriages that take place.
>So, yes, marriages in Nepal (and I mean NOT
>only Kathmandu but all of Nepal)
>can and are private affairs too. I just gave
>you good enough evidence of that.
If you read the posting carefully, I never base my arguments on Kathmandu. I do not come from ktm, neither have I stayed in ktm for a long time. I'm as gaunle nepai as one can get.
have to rush, more later.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 08:46 PM
Well, vivivoid, your conclusion is a declaration: Arranged marriage is evil.
The only thing BP (in a short form) and I (in a longer form) asked was: Is it
really evil? And we, in our own ways, gave you counter-examples.
You said, look at Dipendra.
Wasn't his killing an evidence against AM?
I said, well, that's an extreme, extreme example.
You can't reach GENERAL conclusions by using EXTREME examples.
You said, but the institution is racist anyway because bahuns marry bahuns and newars marry newars.
I said: "racist" is a loaded word to begin with, and even if bahuns do marry bahuns and newars do marry newars, they are simply stating their private preferences and are NOT being racists. And I gave you Jewish and Korean examples.
I mean, look, getting married to someone is a matter of PRIVATE preference and
is NOT like, as you sem to be saying, applying to some equal-opportunity job in PUBLIC.
Sure, agreed, an AM situation in which educated children have absolutely no
say over who they are going to marry is bad -- and that's bad because the
degrees of freedom to make your own choices are so limited, and this is why I advocated that we look at how to better parents-children relations.
That said, there ARE also plenty of cases of AM situations in which progressive parents HAVE given MORE degrees of freedom to their children to make their own decisions. Given this, a strategic approach a smart, family-minded Newar woman, for example, would probably use is look for ways to find a Newar guy, fall in love with him, knowing fully well that her parents would approve of him.
Plenty of young educated Nepalis of ALL castes have been doing this.
Also, inter-caste marriages too are getting quite popular in Nepal (In Kathmandu).
This week-end alone, to give you an anecdotal evidence, I am going to two such marriage parties. Such a thing would have practically unheard-of even 10 years ago. So, our urban and rural societies ARE changing -- are in a flux, and there is
no one-theory-fits-all sort of thing.
Where we disagree is this:
You seem to be saying that AM is a rigid, ossified institution and just plain evil.
I am saying that the whole thing is a flexible, variable, in-a-flux institution and certainly not evil.
After all, just as some bad Nepalis in jail in Malaysia does NOT make all Nepalis abroad criminals, some bad examples of AM does NOT make ALL cases of AM
evil or potentially evil.
Thank you.
It's been fun thinking about this.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 14-Feb-02 09:35 PM
WIFE IS LIKE THAT (its my original stuff, nor I take any responsibility
for the contents). Hahoo! is Khaja @ Sajha.com, share the
following Khaja!
With due acknowledgement to TND:
************************************************************** Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:16:09 +0700 To: Nepal Digest From: Suman Kumar Manandhar Subject: Wedded Bliss
Here is a compilation sent to me by Pradip Baniya in Nebraska. I thought we could all share it.
-----------------------------------------------------
WIFE IS LIKE THAT
-----------------------------------------------------
Many a man owes his success to his first wife and his second wife to his
success. - Jim Backus
I recently read that love is entirely a matter of chemistry. That must be
why my wife treats me like toxic waste. - David Bissonette
I've sometimes thought of marrying, and then I've thought again. - Noel
Coward, 1956
A man is incomplete until he is married. After that, he is
finished. - Zsa Zsa Gabor
I'm an excellent housekeeper. Every time I get a divorce, I keep the house.
- Zsa Zsa Gabor
When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let him keep
her. - Sacha Guitry
Marriage is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important. -
Lisa Hoffman
She's a lovely person. She deserves a good husband. Marry her before
she finds one. - Oscar Levant to Harpo Marx upon meeting Harpo's fiancee
We in the industry know that behind every successful screenwriter stands a
woman. And behind her stands his wife. - Groucho Marx
Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe.
- Jackie Mason
Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and
those inside desperate to get out. - Montaigne
By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a
bad one, you'll become a philosopher...and that is a good thing for any man.
- Socrates
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A
successful woman is one who can find such a man. - Lana Turner
Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.
- Mae West
Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and
suffering.
Marriage is bliss. Ignorance is bliss. Therefore ...
Marriage is not a word; it is a sentence.
Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage i s
the triumph of hope over experience.
Marriage is when a man and woman become as one; the trouble starts when they
try to decide which one.
Marriages are made in heaven. But so again, are thunder and lightning.
Before marriage, a man yearns for the woman he loves. After marriage, the
'Y' becomes silent.
Do not marry a person that you know that you can live with; only marry
someone that you cannot live without.
I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me.
If you want your spouse to listen and pay strict attention to every word you
say, talk in your sleep.
Pradip, thank you!
Suman Kumar Manandhar, a94314@cs.ait.ac.th, http://www.cs.ait.ac.th/~a94314/
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 15-Feb-02 02:08 AM
Aashu,
I was taken aback by your consitent denial of the racial and class elements of Arranged marriages. I simply can not accept your defence of the role of caste in arranged marriages as "personal preferences". To me it definately contains overt racism. Maybe the majority of population labelled racist doesn't seem appropriate to you (thus the accusation of using race loosely) and therefore you are trying to put forward an alternative explanation. Denial, however, doesn't mean that the problem is gone. Whether it be racism, or a very predefined "personal preference" , the criterias used to arrange marriages are questionable.
The discussion was not meant to be on whether arranged couples are happier than the rest but on whether arranged marriages foster racism, classism and sexism (nobody actually touched on this) among other things. These two obviously are different.
You give a lot of examples of 'progressive' parents who have 'allowed' their sons and daughters plenty of freedom when choosing partners. There are probably some parents in Nepal like that, I'll take your word for it. However, these examples come from your life ( how were the parties?). For the vast majority of nepali's, arranged marriage is as rigid as ever.
You however, put forward a solution for what you think to be exceptions and what I think to be the general. Your solution is to bettter parent-children relationships. Just how you aim to do that I do not know, but it seems that even if you were to introduce ways to better these relationship ( a laughable proposition in my opinion, given that state the nation is at), they will take a long time to produce an observable change and we have better places to spend our resources, don't you think?
na yehi na oohi,
-voivoid
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 15-Feb-02 03:09 AM
BTW,
VoiVoid, what is that "Herr" in your postings. I could not understand
why you use "Aashu", when Ashu is shorter than "Ashu".
Are you e-Bhakbhake? I am afraid I might turn out to be
BhakBhake if you start writing the same words here. Its my
problem, don't worry.
HahooGuru
Get Hahoo! Khaja @Sajha.com
|
| HahooGuru |
Posted
on 15-Feb-02 03:10 AM
BTW,
VoiVoid, what is that "Herr" in your postings. I could not understand
why you use "Aashu", when Ashu is shorter than "Aashu".
Are you e-Bhakbhake? I am afraid I might turn out to be
BhakBhake if you start writing the same words here. Its my
problem, don't worry.
HahooGuru
Get Hahoo! Khaja @Sajha.com
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 15-Feb-02 03:31 AM
>I was taken aback by your consitent denial of the racial and class
>elements of Arranged marriages.
No.
1) I admitted quite clearly (see above) that marriages in urban Kathmandu, if anything, are becoming more a function of class.
2) I also admitted, indirectly, that there are indeed racial/ethnic elements involved. After all, how else would a bahun man marry a bahun woman, if
there were no considerations about race or ethnicity?
Up to this point, conceptually, we are doing fine and cool.
But then you change gears, and go on an untenably high-voltage path.
You say that even to do (2) above is racism.
Well, here we disagree.
I would argue that for racism to happen IN ANY CONTEXT, you have to demonstrate that someone actually IS harmed in the process in some way
because of his or her race.
This concept of "harm" (both physical and emotional) gives us some a clear picture of what racism is. Otherwise, I fear that you would be using this loaded word in a very casual manner -- doing your own arguments a big disservice. You can do that, of course, but you will have a hard time defending your own stated positions.
So, when a Newar man marries a Newar woman through the institution of AM,
who is harmed? Certainly not some Sherpa man or the bahun community out there or even other Newar/Chettri/Thakuri clans.
So, in the absence of harm, did racism really occur?
If no, then are the marrying couple racists as you seem to imply?
No.
A marriage, as I wrote before, is NOT
an equal-opportunity job.
Morevover, let's be realistic: we do NOT live in some la-la, color-blind land. People ARE going to make marital preferences based on racial types and ethnic types in addition to a variety of other factors. As long as they make those preferences WITHOUT harming anyone else on the basis if race, they are NOT racists.
So your logical chain:
a) arranged marriages are evil because they allow racism
b) racism is evil
c) therefore, arranged marriages are evil
FAILS to take into account just what racism is in the first place, and this is where I have my greatest conceptual objection to your "AM = evil" argument.
Of course, if you continue insist that even to consider racial/ethncity in one's marriage is EQUAL/tantamount to being a racist, then, we clearly are river ko dui kee.naara on this matter.
You wrote:
*********
it seems that even if you were to introduce ways to better these [parents-children] relationship ( a laughable proposition in my opinion, given that state the nation is at), they will take a long time to produce an observable change and we have better places to spend our resources, don't you think?
************
Yes.
There are good parents and there are bad parents in Nepal. There are parents who trust their children, there are parents who do not trust their children, and so on.
And so, bringing about meaningful social changes IS a difficult, slow and time-consuming process. Things do not change overnight. I happen to be a great believer of incremental change, of one step at a time.
And so, just because it takes a long time "produce an observable change" does NOT mean that we should not try to change our societies in ways we think are meaningful. And to do that, we might as well start with a stronger conceptual
framework than a weaker, untenable one.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
it seems that even if you were to introduce ways to better these relationship ( a laughable proposition in my opinion, given that state the nation is at), they will take a long time to produce an observable change and we have better places to spend our resources, don't you think?
na yehi na oohi,
-voivoid
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 17-Feb-02 01:09 AM
RACISM IS, AMONG OTHER THINGS PREFERENCE BASED ON RACE.
now lets look at convoluted logic on what constitures as racism.
>2) I also admitted, indirectly, that there
>are indeed racial/ethnic elements involved.
you agree that race is a factor determining peoples' "personal preference"
>I would argue that for racism to happen IN
>ANY CONTEXT, you have to demonstrate that
>someone actually IS harmed in the process in
>some way
>because of his or her race.
Lets say I agree ( its actually fallacious because just THINKING to yourself that Dalits are untouchables is racist- although you are not harming anyone).
>So, when a Newar man marries a Newar woman
>through the institution of AM,
>who is harmed? Certainly not some Sherpa man
>or the bahun community out there or even
>other Newar/Chettri/Thakuri clans.
Look deeper and you'll see who is harmed. AM as it exists, promotes a social rule that says you shall not marry anyone from outside your caste ( aren't all arranged marriages, apart from a few exceptions, within the same cast?). People who break the rule (i.e. marry outside their caste) not only risk loosing family ties, but often are completely ostracised If you did your research you'd find that this is putting it mildly. Do you still claim that AM is harmless?
(Incidently, breeding within the "clan" (thakuri marrying thakuri?) has been proved to be an evolutionary disadvantage. I'd say its a harm. )
>Morevover, let's be realistic: we do NOT
>live in some la-la, color-blind land. People
>ARE going to make marital preferences based
>on racial types and ethnic types in addition
>to a variety of other factors.
The fact that people ARE going to make personal preferences based on race (what you said) does not imply that it is not racist. It only makes it a long-running problem. A moments thought would make it clear. I would give an example but I feel that you focus on nitty-gritty details of examples so I'll pass this opportunity.
>they make those preferences WITHOUT harming
>anyone else on the basis if race, they are
>NOT racists.
If you make your preferences based on race, there is no way you can avoid harming someone from a different race.
>Of course, if you continue insist that even
>to consider racial/ethncity in one's
>marriage is EQUAL/tantamount to being a
>racist, then, we clearly are river ko dui
>kee.naara on this matter.
yes, but which keenaraa are you on?
|
| Digital Maniac |
Posted
on 17-Feb-02 01:51 AM
so Mr. Voidvoid, what do you suggest. Forcefully marry a Brahmin to a Newar? Huh! Its a goddamn personal choice. AM works for those who can't choose for themselves.
If you marry outside of you caste deliberately aren't you being RACIST again because you are not considering your own caste. We all have prejudice amongst different things, its the way we are built. So its perfectly OK to have an arranged marriage. LM is as RACIST as AM.
|
| Nexus |
Posted
on 17-Feb-02 09:48 AM
voivoid -
So much bitterness in your voice and resentment towards parents in general. Sounds like you just came out of an unsuccessful inter-caste relationship - as if the woman you loved was married off by her parents to someone of her own caste.
Do you realize that most Nepalis would just have a good laugh at the thought of making arranged marriages illegal or even discouraging it? In the context of Nepali society and culture, imagine Nepali parents telling their children, "it is illegal for us to find someone for you, so go out and find your own life partner." Sure would be a lot of lonely hearts in Nepal.
|
| voivoid |
Posted
on 17-Feb-02 11:37 AM
>So much bitterness in your voice and
>resentment towards parents in general.
My resentment is towards people who deny the evils of my society and find excuses in examples. I resent even more those who see the mistakes in their belief but resist change. I resent people who base their ideals on reality which lead to messy ideals on a messier society.
>Sounds like you just came out of an
>unsuccessful inter-caste relationship - as
>if the woman you loved was married off by
>her parents to someone of her own caste.
yes, there are millions of us in medieval Nepal and India.
> In the context of Nepali
>society and culture, imagine Nepali parents
>telling their children, "it is illegal for
>us to find someone for you, so go out and
>find your own life partner." Sure would be
>a lot of lonely hearts in Nepal.
Will there?
|
| Bostonian |
Posted
on 18-Feb-02 11:47 AM
I don't like words like evil, because it is subjective and cannot be measured. But I am curious as to why everyone is ignoring Voivoid point about sexism in arranged marriages. While there is not much choice in some cases for both the men and the women, these young women (whom are certainly not as free to experiment as men are) are sent off by their parents to live in some cases with a strange man and family, have her first sexual experience with a practical stranger, and then serve a family of strangers. When she does provide a son or daughter (preferably a son), she is then sent back to her parents house, as it appears to me inappropriate for the husband or his family to help her during the first month or so.
Ashu is right, this doesn't happen everywhere. But if it happens at all, I say that we have a serious women's rights issue here
|
| bhasu |
Posted
on 18-Feb-02 01:17 PM
Well Ashu and the rest of you... you are all intelligent ... I have been following ASHU's stuff since the days of "TND" and "SOC Culture Nepal" during those ancient days. He writes incredibly well ... although I don't always agree with his slant on things.
In five year time we don't have to worry about arranged marriage in Nepal ... because there will be no NEPAL! The people within will destry it! We will lose our homeland.... so the issue of arrange marriage is irrelivent ...
In a country that doesn't have any rights be it for MEN or WOMEN ... there is no point in talking about "WOMEN's" rights! The politicians and smart cadres of current Nepal will destroy the country and never mind Women's rights ... we will be left with nothing!!
|
| rajesh |
Posted
on 18-Feb-02 03:18 PM
I agree with Vivoid. His point of view is radical and true. Ashu's point of view is diplomatic and good if you want to be a politician in the future. In an ideal world, all humans would judge each other based on only one criteria: character. As it stands, human opinions, beliefs, and actions are originated from ideas that stem from the fact that basically all humans grew up in separate groups, cultures, races, and ethnicities. Until we realize that cultures, groups, races and ethnicities are just illusions, the world will not be a true place. My suggestion to all: marry the first person that you feel has the highest character. Don't look for anything else. However, realize that you are fighting an uphill battle that you are very likely to lose. Racist, ethnicist, culturist ideas will always prevail, unfortunately. And thus, class warfare, racial divisions will always exist. Nothing will change. There will be more wars. The rich will get richer. The rich will marry the rich. The poor will marry the poor. Character will be dead, survival and/or wealth will continue. Try to remember: we humans are stupid and therefore what exists is stupid. Don't be afraid to be part of the change. (However, if you want to be a successful politician, hold on to group, cultural, racial, and ethnical ideas. It ensures survival. Ashu, the truth is radical, not political. We humans have a need to feel like we are part of a close knit community and our parents fear that if we marry from another group our community will lose its strength. As long as groups try to get stronger, other groups will compete against each other. This is the way the world is and it cannot be changed. However, some of us can choose not to be a part of this world. Leave it all together, realize what the ideal is, and wait for God to reward us when we die.
|
