Arranged marrage, and Russian mail-order brides

I can’t think of anything worse than spending your life with someone that you didn’t choose to merry. You would be forced to have a relationship with that person, and if you began to have true feelings for some one else, you would have to hide those feelings or your life would be at risk.

When I hear forced marriage, think of old medieval kings and queens and how people married into royalty way back then. Even though I know that it is still going on, I didn’t really think about it until I read this blog assignment.

When it comes down to it, if you life is at risk in this situation, I can see why you would choose arranged marriage. I can’t relate to this type of situation because I grew up in the great U.S of A, wear people have endless opportunities and choices. I also find it ironic that the divorce rate in the U.S. is the highest in the world.

Oh yeah and what about Russian mail-order brides? Do they really need to get out of Russia that bad? I think it’s funny that some of them are educated people that make a living in, but still would marry who ever just to move to the U.S

Non romantic marriages

People in traditional communities in countries where the state is either weak or absent depend on relatives to help meet the basic challenges of survival. Without the state to provide people with fundamental services such as clean water and sanitation facilities. Also, without the state providing certain social securities for the unemployed or disabled, citizens must rely on their social networking in order to survive. Without this intricate set of social networks, people would not have any sort of assistance when they are in desperate need. Therefore, social networks comprised of family and friends provide a very important safety net for billions of people in the developing nations of the world. In such societies, it may be risky for people to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love. Due to the conditions described above, one in economic deprivation must consider the wealth of their future spouse, or the social networks that said spouse would provide for the family. Both economic status and potential social networks must be taken into consideration when one is searching for a marital partner. Choosing a partner based on romantic love alone could have economic repercussions or possible rewards, but the economic capabilities of that partner should be taken into serious consideration before marriage. Other factors that may contribute to the overall economic and social growth of a community include the education of the young citizens, the health care system of this community, and job-training facilities or programs. Both education and job-training programs will provide citizens with the knowledge and skills necessary to become a productive and well-paid member of society. Providing young individuals with nutritious food and health care facilities will ensure that they will be healthy enough to complete their education and/or job training, making the society more economically stable.

Marriage

In the society we live in most couples do not marry if a child is conceived. I dont see this as a problem because women are more than able to support themselves and a child in todays society. If the couple wants to get married because possible emotional damage to the child of not having a mother and a father in the home go ahead. In cultures where male presence is needed for the survival of the family without there being "love" its just survival theres nothing wrong with that. In societies were the marriage is chosen by the elders in the family the couple sometimes grow closer to one another after having children; initially getting married if they weren't in "love." The idea of love and survival are very different among societies. I think that if our society needed to change to a survival view of the way we go about reproducing our society would fall.

"All You Need Is Love" ?

As much as I would like to believe The Beatles that, “all you need is love”, I think it’s very risky to choose a marriage partner exclusively based on romantic love in countries where the state is weak or absent. I know somebody who just found out that they have some serious health problems, but they do not have any health insurance. As a result of this, they are unable to receive the proper medical treatment. That’s an awful situation to be in, and if it came down to it I would think there best bet would be to marry someone with health insurance that they could benefit from. You can’t survive on just love alone. So for people in countries or situations where they could greatly benefit from marrying someone whom they did not love, but could take care of them….then that is what they should do. You have to look out for your physical wellbeing first and foremost. And if you are lucky enough to find someone that you love who can also take care of you, then in the words of Michael Bluth, “Well, yeah you've gotta lock that down.”

Individuals and Western Culture

I find there is a relationship between those two factors. Western culture is a very individual driven culture. We tend to be more independent and not rely on society as much as people in other societies. They depend on other people to provide the essentials for living, such as food and shelter. In our western culture, we rely on our parents for such things when we are younger. However, as we grow our reliance on them becomes less. 

Because of this we can choose to go against the established traditions. Such as, getting married right away, having children. We do not fear shunning of our culture for doing these things. While in other societies you could become an out cast for not subscribing to these traditions and possibly not be able to care for yourself.

"I do"/"I Don't"

In countries such as the United States and Europe it is becoming increasingly common to have children outside of wedlock. It no longer seems necessary to marry if a pregnancy occurs. This stand off approach to marriage could be linked to the increase in divorce rates; people are getting married at an older age than people did only a few generations ago. Typically, when two people were married that is when they would begin to live together and support themselves. In today’s society people live with their significant others without having to get married, and in many cases support each other even if they are not legally together.
Now even if marriage is happening at a later age, childbirth is still likely to take place around the same age due to the “biological clock” or, frankly, from accidents as our society is also increasingly promiscuous. These accidental pregnancies and planned unwed conceptions could lead to marriage for more traditional couples, but it doesn’t seem necessary anymore as women are now in the work force and in many cases support themselves for many years without the help of a husband.
In other cultures however where survival is more difficult than waking up at six am everyday, unmarried child rearing could be most difficult. If the “tribe” does not collectively help to raise children, then women may have a difficult time gathering, or planting enough food for herself and her children. Even in the US such legal arrangements exist like child support, where if the father is not wedded to the mother he is still obligated to help fund the raising of his child. If a man deserts a woman in a culture that cannot bind him to his new “family”, then the abandoned mother and child could suffer from a lack of support that would be offered in traditional marriages.
This being said, I think it is a cultural reflection to forgo marriage in some cases. In such cultures as our own, where women hold their own jobs and households, it may not seem as urgent a situation to marry. While a women being supported by her family in a culture where marriage and childbirth depend of the survival of the people, marriage would be a likely very urgent for the sack of procreation.

I'm Happy I live in the States and don't deal with this shit.

 I think in these situations it would be risky to get married based on romantic love.  Since survival is crucial in these types of countries marriage takes on somewhat of a different role than what we are used to in our society.  I think the people we are discussing would feel that it would be wise to find and marry a partner who could benefit their means of living.  In the text they discuss the notion of bride-price.  This term refers to the groom or groom’s family paying money or valuable goods to the bride’s family when the couple are married.  In this particular case marriage based on value might be more important for someone instead of marriage  based on love.  If a family is in desperate need of survival they may want their daughter to get married to a man coming from a wealthy family.  They would obviously want them to get married so they could receive the money or goods from the groom in order to suppor themselves.

            I cannot really imagine any other factors like this playing a role in my community if survival is at stake.  People dealing with these types of problems do not live in a Western based society such as the one we live in.  To be completely honest I do not think this would ever occur in the United States.  I might be naive but I just do not see it happening.

            I think that society plays a big part in whether or not a couple is married or not when they have children.  Either one’s society is accepting of it or not.  In the United States I think it is more accepting to have children when you are not married.  It may not have been seen like this in the past but it is 2008, things have changed.  I think that as long as the parents are able to give the child what he or she needs in order to prosper marriage should not be an issue.

            In some cultures if the children are born and the parents are not married it can have a serious consequences.  The family and particularly the child might be looked down upon.  This happens in the countries where people use principles such as bride-price, which I mentioned above.  So my question is are the parents wrong for not being married or does the country need to change their ways and get their head out of their ass?  I guess what I am trying to say is that I would not want to live in a country where I had to marry for survival.  Nor would I want to live in a country where I would be looked down upon for having a child and not being married.  

Love vs. Survival

I think by choosing marriage based exclusively on romantic love in such societies where the state is weak or absent is risky for reasons in terms of providing food and shelter for the family. In America, we have the option of choosing a partner, partners (in certain faiths) or remaining single. Choosing marriage based exclusively on love is risky due to our divorce rate. "American's marry quickly and just as quickly get divorced" as stated in chapter 20. Where in other cultures they take marriage seriously to save the reputation of their family. In most cases women are fortunate enough to be able to support a family with the help of other family members to survive if they cannot fully support themselves or their family. Traditionally, women rely on the man(spouse) to support them, where in this day and age, women are free to choose a partner, have children outside of a marriage or remain single and raise a child as a single parent and still make it in the world. I think over time women looking to find a partner based on love versus a support system for the family takes a toll making them less reliable on a man. Women also have an option where resources such as birth control make it easier monetarily, whether its right or wrong.
 

Marriage for love or survival?

In response to the question about childbirth outside of marriage in our society I feel that we are the odd man out in a world full of stronger “people based” communities. Western society no longer has what we view as “traditionally family values”. We fight as individuals instead of as a group. It is not out of the norm to have a child outside of marriage because people can support a child alone as a single parent with our types of lifestyles. In a culture where survival was depending on the members of your family would need to establish that family before reproducing. In the book there are different functions explained for certain family members in other cultures that we do not have in our own. The benefit of me having a husband if I lived in a different place may be for monetary reasons or I could get married for the perk of receiving three gifts a year. This would be in contrast of my American dream of a husband who takes me on long walks on the beach. It made me wonder how much those walks are worth when we don’t really take other supports into consideration. The way some of these arrangements were presented to me seemed sterile and more like a business arrangement than an arranged marriage. It was very un-anthropologist of me to give a chuckle when reading about the different forms of bride-compensation. “I will trade you your worker (daughter and now my wife) for this sum of money or goods and she will now become my worker.” I think that in reality I should be laughing at my own culture when I analyze how lousy our “marry out of emotion” program is working out for us. Look at our divorce rates, as we are doomed to a fifty/fifty chance. I think would be indeed risky to marry for “love” if we lived in a society where marriage helped your survival. As I mentioned before I don’t feel that marriage is necessary for survival in the American culture and until it becomes necessary I assume people will continue to marry thoughtlessly.

Survival vs Choice

1) It would definitely be risky to choose a marriage partner based on romantic love if you are in a situation where you are going to have to rely mainly on that other person/union to survive. Love marriages come about with choice, but in order to have choice or freedom, one’s basic needs need to be met first. Example, people living in Africa dying from starvation are too busy with trying to get their basic needs met, food, shelter etc, that they don’t suffering from all the “illnesses” that Americans do: insomnia, depression, anorexia. Anorexia is a choice (technically it’s a disease, but for arguments sake). One needs to have food in order to turn it down. If food isn’t available then one cannot be anorexic because one does not have the choice of whether to eat the food or not. It is only when resources are available and basic needs are met that freedom of choice becomes an option. Same thing with marriage. If the basic needs of survival have to be met through marriage, then marriage is used to survive. If resource such as food and shelter can be provided or met outside of marriage, then the option of a “love” marriage is now available. In traditional communities, women have to rely on men to support them. It doesn’t matter if they love someone else if that man cannot support them. They will marry someone that can help them survive. In India, parents use arranged marriages to ensure the survival of their daughter by marrying her to whichever man can best support her. In China, the elderly are dependent on their daughter-in-laws to care for them when they get old. Therefore, they are very concerned and involved when their son is picking a bride because she will affect their lives too.
2) Back in the day (America), marriage used to function as a system of survival. A woman needed a man to provide for her. Now a day, a woman can have a career and provide for herself; she can be independent from a man. This is one of the reasons marriages are so easily terminated in America. People can survive without getting or staying married. I think it’s true that there is relationship between the type of society and the traditions of marriage. A woman in an American society is more free to remain unmarried, since she can support herself, than an Indian woman in India where it is less culturally accepted because of career issues and cultural norms.

risky

I think in a lot of societies, marriage based on romantic love would not be greatly appreciated by their extended family. In many cultures (outside the U.S.) marriage is not based on love at all, but instead, based on what would be best for the tribe depending on what the spouse can offer to the family and community. Many times, the elders make the decision of who their child will marry because the child would not be old enough or wise enough to be sure the spouse will be able to support and help their community. A marriage based on romantic love in these cultures could result in great disaster for the married couple, and even possible loss of their family, and their community if the couple can not provide any benefit for their tribe. Usually in these cultures however, it is understood as a child what is culturally accepted and the child is taught how that particular culture works. So yes, I think it would be risky if a couple got married based on romantic love in these countries.

Survival

To answer the first question, if I lived in a state where the head powers governing us were weak or absent, then I would marry for survival if I needed to be married. In that type of society, being with someone that would be able to best provide for you, I believe would be much more essential than marrying for love. If one's able to find someone that they love and would be able to protect them, than this would be ideal, but every situation is different and depends on many things. That was hard to write down for me since I am fortunate enough to live in a society where we don't have to worry about surviving, necessarily, and we can marry for love or not at all if we don't want. I would like to think that everyone has that that chance but unfortunately they don't. Also, back to the survival category, the families are much closer and supportive, so those families love and care for the family as a whole more so than a society like ours, where we are much more individualistic. There, it would be much easier to marry for survival because of the support and love of the entire family than here.

Love and Marriage

It is much less uncommon today for two people to have a child outside of marriage, especially in the United States. In many societies when a child is born outside of wedlock it is considered to be illegitimate, meaning that the child cannot be a rightful heir to their parent's estate. Sometimes illegitimate children are also denied some basic civil rights based upon their status. In the United States, having an illegitimate child can carry a strong social stigma, especially for unwed teenage mothers whose children are often reared by their grandparents as their own child or the sister/brother of the actual mother. In many cultures the father assumes no responsibility due to apathy, attitudes about sex and difficultly determining paternity.
Considering some of the major functions of marriage such as creating a family environment for children to grow in, I think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage. In religious communities as big as the Catholic faith it is against the will of God for two parents to have a children outside of marriage. I'm sure that there are other major religions that hold the same beliefs as well. In many Middle Eastern countries women are forbid from showing their hair and face, I can only imagine the consequences for having a child outside of marriage. In the United States having a child outside of wedlock is becoming increasing common due to the availability of services such as adoption. Yet, the American Dream is still a happily married couple raising their children together in a nice home.
There are many cultural conditions where the choice to remain unmarried may present serious challenges such as in societies with poor economies, or those who rely on men to do the work and women to raise the children. A woman with no husband will have no source of income in these countries and raising the child will be very difficult. Like I said before, there are many societies where a woman having a child outside of wedlock is extremely taboo and could lead to punishment for a woman as well. The cultural conditions vary due to values, religion, money and common beliefs of society.

Marriage

I think it would be risky if the partners in question marry based on romantic love. Reason being in those societies marriage is usually based on what is good for the overall society. For example arranged marriage can lead to a unity of tribes, exchange on livestock or material goods. Marriage under love there could be a chance the greater good wont is satisfied.

I think the choice belongs to the individual, I mean in this day an age marriage is just a pipe dream, a legal document that binds two people. That being said bringing a child into that environment is beneficial because that is the norm, a mom and a dad both there to support its growth and well-being. The stress for the parents is halved since both of them are there to support each other.

Cultural problems arise when a person decides to have a child outside of marriage. People are wired into the norm. If one goes against that the society could consider that decision taboo and frown upon that by calling the decision maker reckless and careless.

Blog Assignment #4

For this week's assignment, then discuss one of the following topics:

1) People in traditional communities in countries where the state is either weak or absent depend on relatives to help meet the basic challenges of survival.

In such societies, would it be risky to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love? Can you imagine other factors playing a role if the long-term survival of your community might be at stake?

2) Many people in North America and Europe choose to have children outside of marriage. Considering some of the major functions of marriage, do you think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage? Under what cultural conditions might the choice to remain unmarried present serious challenges?

To answer these questions, then you will want to take into account the Haviland chapter titled: "Sex, Marriage, and Family."