|
arranged marriage |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456 7> |
| Author | ||||||
Israfil 
Senior Member 
Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 29 July 2008 at 11:23pm |
|||||
|
but I believe that the 'money' ability of the male spouse has more to do with natural inclinations of survival of the fittest rather than social conditioning. The key word here is you believe. You said money is a physical representation of a man's ability to provide. Now who says this? Yes you have it correct society does. We see this in media advertisements. We see this in sports entertainment we see this everywhere. We become continuously bombared with images of "flashy things" which money can buy. I went to my nephew's the other day and he is watching MTV "Cribs" and was like "I want a Cadillac Escalade."
When I was in college Muslim women would not even see me unless I had money. I mean I was in college and most of students are broke.
Although I am sure you and many others might disagree, but in most societies, more males demand a certain standard of pysical attractiveness from thier potential spouses - compared to women. In most cases (not all), women are more prone to ignoring physical features in thier mates compared to men.
Which is why the female body is more objectified then the male's body - even today.
Sorry but this is BS. Women may not heavily look at the physical features but they are still infleunced by the external of a man. Whenever I'm lifting weights with fellow co-workers we get the looks as well as the noises similar to what women get when they past by hormonal men. I do agree that in patriarchal societies women's body are objectified not just because of its intrinsic beauty but because of men's dominance and women objectify themselves because they are conditioned to do so. If this wasn't true why do you see women in Revlon commericals promoting "beauty?" |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Chrysalis
Senior Member
Joined: 25 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2033 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 July 2008 at 4:50am |
|||||
I may or may not believe whether or not money is a man's representation of the provision ability . . . I am stating an opinion that for many women, even those who live in rural areas, with no access to MTV Cribs or Joe Billionare - there is a natural tendency to choose a man with financial ability (or land, or flocks, or whatver is the provider-criteria foe that culture) as opposed to physical features. A large proportion of the society is made up of women, who help form this general trend. Thus to me, the underlying cause is the natural inclination of choosing the 'fittest' mate, rather than 'social conditioning'. This social conditioning itself is a result of this natural inclination.
I'm not arguing whether or not this money criteria is right or wrong, I'm simply stating an observation. Unfortunately, it a reality - good or bad. You experienced it urself, I just think that the underlying cause may not neccessarily be 'materialism', but a natural inclination to choose a 'provider'. Its the same story with men choosing women, just the criteria is different i.e. appearance/feminity.
So you think that saying that the female body is more objectified than the male body is BS?
 Dude, look around you. How many 'Aussie Bum' spreads do you see versus Victoria Secret? How many male models are 'super/top' models versus women? Air-time dedicated to female sexualityversus male ? etc etc etc.
The reason is loud n clear. One gender seems to stress more on the physical aspect than the other!!! Which is why the market caters to that specific gender, because there is a larger demand hence larger market
for it.
Like I said, MOST women tend to ignore the physical aspects of the man when choosing a mate. Passing by you and your friends at the gym does not constitute the 'choosing the mate' aspect. Ofcourse women admire goodlooking men, but that takes a backseat when choosing a mate. Even if they do, majority dont react that strongly to male appearances. If there are 10 women at your Gym, 4 will react the way you said they did. 6 will not react this way. Whereas if it were men passing by a woman, 6 would react, 4 would not.
Female bodies are strongly objectified in EACH and EVERY society. Infact, when I come to think of it, almost all are patriarchal societies. . . I dont think I can pinpoint a matriarchal society. Name one society where female bodies are not objectified . . . in the majority of cases this holds true. As for Revlon commercials, exactly my (previous) point. When they have a Revlon ad for women, Marketers still use the female face to influence the female customer (rather than a muscular hunk) - but when there is an ad for a male product, such as Razor blades, they will use bouncy, skimpy models. . . . because more males tend to focus on the physical aspects of the oppositte gender as compared to females.
Edited by Chrysalis - 30 July 2008 at 7:23am |
||||||
|
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Israfil
Senior Member
Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 July 2008 at 11:29pm |
|||||
|
This social conditioning itself is a result of this natural inclination.
Financial security and security of one's genetics from generation to generation is different. True, one may allude one's bank account to being a secure individual and thus a suitable mate but this does not NECESSARILY mean that this makes them a suitable partner. If you believe most humans aren't that shallow human females if not conditioned, don't have a natural inclination to be with a man for their money. If this were the case how to do you adccount for the impoverished women who marry impoverished men?
Its the same story with men choosing women, just the criteria is different i.e. appearance/feminity.
I disagree. but then again you are making a personal observation.
So you think that saying that the female body is more objectified than the male body is BS?
I thought your analysis of why women arre objectified physically is BS.
If there are 10 women at your Gym, 4 will react the way you said they did. 6 will not react this way. Whereas if it were men passing by a woman, 6 would react, 4 would not.
Women can be hormonal creatures. In my experience those wouldn't be accurate numbers....
 If you can provide an explanation on your theory of natural inclination to financially secured males then I'll rethink my statements. Oh by the way, more impoverished women marry faster than financially well off couples so yeah, I would hope you can explanin that.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Shasta'sAunt
Senior Member
Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 August 2008 at 4:51pm |
|||||
|
"If this were the case how to do you adccount for the impoverished women who marry impoverished men?"
Proximity.
|
||||||
|
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Chrysalis
Senior Member
Joined: 25 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2033 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 August 2008 at 6:02am |
|||||
Ofcourse if person is rich or financially stable does not mean that they are NECESSARILY suitable partners/good husbands . . . Nowhere did I state that. I'm just building on the notion that 'women who wish to marry for money are materialistic.' . . . I think that these women are not neccessarily materialistic, but are trying to secure a stable future for thier future gens by choosing a mate on basis of finances. (I'm also not going to say all women are like there, I'm sure there are a lot of Anna Nicoles out there too - whose basis is not as much a natural drive as it is greed. . .and yes, Im sure there are many materialistic females as well.) Ofcourse there are going to be other criteria as well, such as education, character , physical features etc etc etc. Finances are not the single mate-criteria. . . .just like a female Peahen will not just look at the Peacock's tail . . .but will also consider other aspects as well, such as color, size, dance etc etc.
Just cz a man is rich, does not mean he will be a good husband. . . women know that, you and I know that.
I believe I mentioned in one of my previous posts that in every society/culture, there is a cerain standard of the 'financially suitability' of a husband. So perhaps the man you consider 'impoverished', is actually considered a financially to-do spouse - by the 'impoverished' wife in question. A man owning a goat, or a donkey-cart in rural areas in Pakistan will be considered financially 'suitable' by ppl living in the same area. . . or with similar standards. People also generally tend to marry within thier own standards, morals, circles - even areas. And I am talking globally on an average . . . not just modern-educated ppl of the USA/UK. Hence a so-called impoverished person is more likely to marry another impoverished person, rather than wait for a Prince Charming from the city. Cross-Marriages of such a kind happen, but are few - if not rare.
This is a personal observation that is reflected in other's behaviour, and opinions as well. However, I think that just because you yourself do not judge ppl/women on the basis of appearances, you think that other ppl/men dont either. . . when in actuality they do. (Most, not all)
One doesnt even need a research done to know that. Studying in a co-ed and knowing peer opinions gives insight as well.
 )
I personally think that would make for a very interesting research paper. Something I wouldnt mind elaborating on . . . after a little thought.
I honestly didnt get this part. . .
From what I gather, I think that educational conditioning, culture etc are at play here. Also, since financially well-off women are already taken care of in that department, the 'wieghtage' given to finances in the spouse-selection is relatively lower. Hence they move up the ladder in thier Hierarchy of needs, and give more wieghtage to other factors such as looks, social standing, character, education etc.
Edited by Chrysalis - 02 August 2008 at 6:05am |
||||||
|
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Israfil
Senior Member
Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 August 2008 at 10:52pm |
|||||
|
I think that these women are not neccessarily materialistic, but are trying to secure a stable future for thier future gens by choosing a mate on basis of finances.
This is a biological treatment and excuse for 'golddiggers.' This is also an immoral trait because the drive is about self, not necessarily family. I highly doubt women go around looking for rich men to secure their genetic makeup. Perhaps you maybe explaining how you think versus what other women think. I believe financial security is important, but I don't think you can prove that this is an naturalistic inclination for most women. Also, just to let you know, some women DO NOT know that some rich men are not suitable mates. I believe some women ( a large portion where i live) are quite ignorant of that. Sure a wealthy man may provide lavish gifts and other exchange for whatever, but most of these men have 4-5 women they provide for as well. Yes, I'm hinting at polygamous, non-marital relationships.
I believe I mentioned in one of my previous posts that in every society/culture, there is a cerain standard of the 'financially suitability' of a husband. So perhaps the man you consider 'impoverished', is actually considered a financially to-do spouse - by the 'impoverished' wife in question.
This is illogical. The structure of your statement here assumes that there is no relatistic understanding of the difference between an impoverished person, and financially secure person. I believe most impoverished people know what their economic situation is and know the economic situation of other individuals within their class. As S.A. has stated previously one of the causes for impoverished relationships to occur is proximity. Since, poor people do not have access to financially secure mates their only option is to marry from within their class. The one goat, donkey examples maybe true however this is not true for everyone. In Africa, having one goat is equivalent to being poor. Since you are referring to cultural standards what do you make of people called the 'untouchables' in India? I'm sure they know of their situation and know that members within their own 'class' are impoverished as well.
Very true. However I believe testosterone will beat these 'hormonal' females anyday . . . (couldnt help but add, "women can be hormonal creatures" . . . "men are hormonal creatures."
 )True. But the fact that it is proven that women have a natural chemical imbalance during their menstrual stages tells all! Plus pregnancy. Women are pretty much guided by their hormones. Some men as well, but not on the same basis as women.
I honestly didnt get this part. .
Well that is my fault I probably had multiple thoughts in my mind and blabbered this one out. Just forget what I said there.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Hayfa
Senior Member
Female Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2368 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 August 2008 at 6:34am |
|||||
|
There are many factors that go into finding a mate.. and the criteria have some overlap and some that is more enhanced than others. And as notes, in cultures it is different. In many cultures, women have far less access to education than men. So they are ata disadvantage. So parents will try to find the best economic outlook as possible for their daughters (if they care for them). Thus looks is less of a factor.
I don't think it makes women "gold-diggers" are you say. But the reality is that women have fewer economic opportunites as men al lover the world. Women will be the ones who get pregnant and have the main resonsibility of raising the children. So someone who is not say "rich" but who is a good worker and provider is quite attractive. Economic viabilty is less of a need for men looking for women.
Israfil, if all things were more "equal" this would not be the case I suspect. It is interesting that here in the west.. when "dating" yeah they'll choose the handsome guy. But when it comes to marriage and having a father for thier offspring.. many women are less focused on it. Not that the really large men or odd-ball men don't get married. But average guys do.
|
||||||
|
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Israfil
Senior Member
Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 August 2008 at 2:56pm |
|||||
|
I don't think it makes women "gold-diggers" are you say.
Any woman (I mean any including my own mother who is dead gone) marries a man simply because he is financially wealthy is an immoral gold-digger. I know some muslim women to behave this way call it culture or American (wetsern) influence but that is the reality. The criteria of a person marrying someone else fort their finances is not an altruistic trait its about selfishness. Most of these women in my experience tend to be uneducated, jobless, but have access to lavish things because of their physical appearence.
But the reality is that women have fewer economic opportunites as men al lover the world.
True. But this is not an excuse for any woman or man to be an immoral creature. Moderate altruism is a good virtue to have as a human being and when a woman transgress this by marrying a man because he has 6-7-8 figures means she is not only looking out for herself but also the benefits. I'm merely speaking of western society not tribalistic cultures by the way because the circumstances is quite different.
Women will be the ones who get pregnant and have the main resonsibility of raising the children.
Not always. Depending on the society you live in and the mind-set you have. If a gold digger gets pregnant more than likely she'll do two things:
1) leave the man and claim child support
2) Get married
Economic viabilty is less of a need for men looking for women.
HMMMM. Obviously with this kind of comment you are not of the minority groups in America. Because I am I have less economic opportunities than my white counter-parts but the things that I do have, did so through earning them with hard work. If I stop working hard then i don't eat and don't have a place to stay. Even if I have slightly more opportunities because I am a male it is still not equivalent to white females in the working corporate world.
Not that the really large men or odd-ball men don't get married. But average guys do.
I'll sacrifice myself here. I have a good career. make good money. Unmarried. What is the problem here? I do have an endless supply of women who are interested in me not because of my "intellect" but because of my finances and where I work and what I do so am I wrong to not allow a woman to secure he genetic offspring by not marrying her simply because she is only interested in me for my money?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 7> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
We see this in media advertisements. We see this in sports entertainment we see this everywhere. We become continuously bombared with images of "flashy things" which money can buy. I went to my nephew's the other day and he is watching MTV "Cribs" and was like "I want a Cadillac Escalade."