Comment on Why do arranged marriages persist in many cultures?

• trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  That is only slavery if the involved parties didn’t willingly commit to it. And it’s not as if divorce is non-existent.

  source

  • j4k3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    [deleted]

    source

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      How does gay marriage fit into your claims of misogyny? I have at least 3 sets of gay friends who, after decades of waiting were delighted to make formal public promises to each other.

      source

      • j4k3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        My argument has nothing to do with the sexes like this. Western cultural misogyny is a subtle blind spot overall. I’m willing to bet in many cases both parties are at risk of mistreatment. My point is about autonomy, so there is no difference in that vain, your still signing over autonomy to an arbitrator as a superior controlling entity.

        source
• HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  A relationship is work.

  Absolutely. And it’s an oath is just a commitment to work at it, and not just throw up hands at the earliest opportunity

  There is no right to the rest of someone’s life on either side should they change their mind or evolve in different directions;

  It’s not a “a right to another’s life” it’s a commitment to a shared life. And yes, that commitment can not work out, which is why divorce is now thankfully pretty easy.

  that is slavery

  Not using any common definition of the word, no.

  I have no right to stop them. This is true equality and freedom. It is a fundamental human right.

  See, divorce - above. Some marriages don’t work out, or are abusive. That doesn’t mean there’s no value in marriage.

  source
• HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  im lost as to how you consider it slavery when it’s supposed to be a consensual and mutual legal agreement of partnership. keep in mind that in most cases, either party can exit the legal partnership whenever they want through the process of divorce.

  if either side does not want the marriage, then sure. but having a dedication to a loved one hardly constitutes “slavery”.

  source

  • j4k3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    [deleted]

    source

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      So, your actual problem is the legal expense and legal hassles involved in divorce?

      Many/most of these are to do with the painful untangling of shared resources and responsibilities that come from sharing a life and resources. Marriage simplifies many things for two people - ‘we own this thing together’ becomes much simpler with marriage. The legal process of negotiating whether 20 or 40 or 50% of the house belongs to partner A is what tends to cause the pain.

      source

      • j4k3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        No my actual problem, as described, is autonomy. I’ve yet to see anyone that seems to fully grasp the point I am making. It is a subtle difference.

        In writing science fiction for a hobby, I have explored a lot of this recently. I can’t say that I have it all figured out or am some kind of expert. I’ve explored the idea of systems where there are the resources and systems in place to arbitrate without the need for any absolute laws, a place where the guidelines are communicated clearly and a reasonable and just outcome is possible without an arbitrary binary law. With a lot of idealized assumptions glossed over for the sake of conversation, any system that addresses the needs of more people amicably is a better system.

        The way marriage is set up presently, it is made for the needs of a majority, but there are many outliers. If you consider this system in abstract, there are 3 people in the marriage; person A, person B and the superior member of the arbitrator as a governing stakeholder. The role of the stakeholder is to uphold a set of complicated laws that may or may not fit the situation of the individuals. In essence, the stakeholder takes away the autonomy of the individual, more or less equally. To our culture, we ignore this loss of autonomy and the neglected outliers. If these types of oversimplified laws were superseded by a system where it is unacceptable to have minority outliers, and the law can flex to the situation in a deterministic, unbiased, and just way, it changes everything about the system and institution of marriage. This is hard to think about in a modern context without a detailed story to explain it by example. The entire system in the present is based on a loss of autonomy. I consider every loss of autonomy to be a form of slavery. That is not to say it is some binary good or bad. It is hyperbole intended to stress a weak spot in present culture. We largely fail to culturally understand how important autonomy is and all the places where we have given it away to others.

        I grew up in places where no one had the money to get a divorce, and where it was used as a form of control and abuse. I’ve seen it making people miserable because of stupid choices they made long before their prefrontal cortex was developed. It mostly harms the people at the bottom.

        If you trace back in time, marriage has always had an element of misogyny and loss of autonomy. It was far worse in the past. I think that line of evolving change will continue and people of the future will look at the present much as we do the past. Asking myself how that will play out in the distant future, I believe the answer is a much better social awareness of autonomy. This is the trend line that we are on, and improvements have been made, but those will continue into the future. The present is not some benchmark of perfection.

        source

        • -> View More Comments