arranged marriage
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Culture & Community
Forum Name: Groups : Women (Sisters)
Forum Description: Groups : Women (Sisters)
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12710
Printed Date: 08 July 2024 at 12:08pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: arranged marriage
Posted By: layalee
Subject: arranged marriage
Date Posted: 27 June 2008 at 11:06am
|
As'Salaamu Alakum
Thanks for reading my post.
While it would be nice and ideal if muslim marriages were filled with sweet love and romance from the start, and that both partners had a full choice in the decision of marriage of course that's not always the case. As a converted muslimah living on the west, I'm not quite sure how common arranged marriages are in the east, or what can be done to bring ease to the one's that are about to be in such a marriage.
Arranged marriage takes place mainly because it's for what's best, so that this worldly life can be of a better benefit for the the man, the woman, and the family they may make.
But what about matters of the heart...
If a woman participate in one, how can see fully come to terms that the man may not love her in a romantic sense?
Romance is a nature feeling...while a man can have another wife if the first wife agree to it, that allows the man to even entertain the thought of another woman. But as a woman, I would imagine its wrong to even think of another man...daydreaming of a marriage filled with romance.
When a muslim marriage take place, are we suppose to have in our hearts that it's forever?
Are there any hadiths or supporting ayats that discuss marriages such as these.
Even hadiths and stories that gives a woman strength to deal with difficult marriages.
Even a historical view point would help me come to term to things....
Was marriages in the begining of time RARE to be done for romantic reasons? What was the ultimate goal for marrages, when Islam and other monothesit religions were in there developing stages?
Do any woman have any personal stories they like to share?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 27 June 2008 at 12:18pm
| Sorry no hadiths here. I just find most arranged marriages to be illogical. Sometimes our parents don't know what's best for us. But traditionally a lot of arranged marriages stem from tribal customs, as this has been done for centuries. If you love someone I don't think you can arrange it. |
Posted By: Jihad1
Date Posted: 02 July 2008 at 7:40am
|
As'Salamu Alaikum,
In an arrange marriage the women does have a choice to say yes or no and if she does not like him does have a right to say NO. If there is an attraction to the person that is to be arranged to marry and you like his personality, they both usually end up caring a lot for each other and then loving each other.
I did not know my husband and married him within a few days. And yes I do love him.
Jihad
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 03 July 2008 at 8:56am
|
I think many young people whether arranged or not.. want their marriage to "romantic and loving" Actually both men and women. They want love from their partner. Yes some people are incapable of it and thus the marriage can be devoid of that level.
the reality that happens is that marriage is hard work. Maintaining the feeling can be tough. Living with someone, adjusting etc can be hard.
The most difficult thing for myself to adjust is that I want to be able to be friends with the person I marry. The thing that is hardest for me to cnceptualize about Muslim life is that the men are with the men and women with the women... I see reasons why.. just hard to adjust to actually.
I have no problem with no sleeping with each other before marriage, but how do you tell you actually get along as just two people. Secual atraction is one thing, but I'd not want to be bored everyday cause we have nothing to talk about..  ------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 July 2008 at 2:16pm
|
My own humble opinion.
And no, I'm not an old crone, but I really honestly question "Love Marriages". . . unless you have known a person for some time. . . how do you know its "love"? And not just a crush or attraction?
"Love" is when you like a person unconditionally. . . and that too when you the other person well enough to accept the good and the bad. No matter how well you knw the prospective spouse (in a love marriage) , I dont think one knows the other well enough to knw the bad points. . . and thus the love isnt unconditional.
I think Love develops (or not) later in life. . . once you really get to know the spouse. Also, when 2 ppl are in "love" they are keeping up appearances to please the other, but all that starts to fade when ur married, living together. . .naturally no one can pretend/hide faults later in life. . .
And no, I'm not against Love Marriages! I just dont believe in them, and dont think there is such a thing! Sure the love may develop later, but I dont think the 2 are in love on the wedding day. . . they just like each other, or are attracted to each other . . . or excited even. . . just not in love!
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 06 July 2008 at 2:42pm
|
I think there are different levels of love. I loved my husband before I met him, but the longer we are married the more that love developes into a more mature kind of love. We have differences we are overcoming and realizing despite those differences we still want to be together and work them out. The kind of love you have before marriage is a type of infatuation and liking for what you see initially in the other person.
As is proof of the divorce rate in the United States, love is not enough to keep a marriage going. There has to be commitment and understanding as well. Both kinds of marriages can be made to work if both partners are willing to put the effort.
|
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 July 2008 at 2:58pm
One can tell by your user-name that you love your husband very much! Mashallah.
------------- "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." |
Salams_wife wrote:Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 06 July 2008 at 3:18pm
|
Thankyou and yes I do
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 07 July 2008 at 1:24pm
If women in these cultures had a choice, then that would nullify the concept of arrange marriages altogether. Women may have limited choices in saying yes or no, however, the amount of choices is contingent upon that culture. For example, if a woman from a Bedouin tribe wants to marry a Sudanese man she must seek approval from her family accoprding to some of these cultures for it to be culturally acceptable. If the family refuses, then realistically she could still be married but there would be repricussions for this union. Most cultures of arrange marriages emphasize on endogamous unions, that is, they emphasize on marrying within one's own culture. There is no such thing as "freedom of chocie" in these cultures especially if you are choosing outside your family's liking thus whatever choices that are made are limited.
I also agree that there are different levels of love but this is done so by the relationships we establish from birth parents (family etc) to extended friendships and intimate partners. We all love them differently. I don't believe you can love someone after being arrange to them the second day because, love encompasses knowledge of the person as well. I don't think love without knowing the person is rational and realistic. I've spoken to individuals who have been married for over +20 years and the common thing among these idverse groups is that they established some sort of friendship. I don't mean to downplay anyon'e experience but its difficult to establish love after a few days of being married to the person. If anything it's more infatuation of the person.
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 07 July 2008 at 2:18pm
|
the choices are limited for both men and women. Even for men, you think to marry without family approval, normally does not happen. Really what is love? And yes most marriages that last it becomes friendship. Whether arranged or not. If they maintain their relationship.
And really about matters of the heart... i think it goes back to, some people are cabalbe of love, some are not. Some people mistaken the"romantic and sexual" for love. In arranged marriages the purpose is to gettow people who are compatiable to live together and raise a family. And frianly there are alot of people who have so many issues that deeper love as we know it may not be possible.
And friendship, who can beat a great friend to be married to. The person who will stick with you through thick and thin.
And no matter the culture. that romantic fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale. ------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Salams_wife
Date Posted: 07 July 2008 at 7:11pm
| You know what makes me happy is seeing an older married couple who still have that love in their eyes. It is rare to see, but it happens. Ma'sha Allah I saw it in my husband's parents eyes. How much they still love each other after so many years. Thank God for that because they have really suffered and endured a lot. It gives me hope that it really can happen. His parents had not been able to get to know each other before marriage. It was more of a love from afar so they had to get to know each other more after the marriage. Yet it seemed to work and they really are happy after all this time. Ma'sha Allah love can really be an amazing thing if there is commitment and respect between the husband and wife. |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 July 2008 at 1:59am
Hmm. I'm not sure if I can agree with that entirely. More women are proponents of Arranged Marriages, than men. And arranged marriages are also beneficial to the less priveleged, unattractive segment of the society. Its a fact that majority of the society favours an attractive spouse.
Especially for women, there are benefits in arranged marriages. ------------- "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." |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 July 2008 at 2:03am
Exactly.
Also, I think "Love" though not extinct, is rare to find. Often (not always), when spouses who have been married for a decade say they "love" each other. . . I think they think they do, but in actuality they are just used to each other, and are dependent on the other for companion-ship. I think there is a tendency to get used to the spouse, like any other person/object, and often that is mistaken for love.
I'm sure there are ppl out there in "Love" with each other . . .but I would say its not very common. ------------- "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." |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 08 July 2008 at 11:14am
|
Hmm. I'm not sure if I can agree with that entirely. More women are proponents of Arranged Marriages, than men. And arranged marriages are also beneficial to the less priveleged, unattractive segment of the society. Its a fact that majority of the society favours an attractive spouse.
Especially for women, there are benefits in arranged marriages.
I'm speaking from experience perhaps. But regardless whether man or woman makes a choice it is still limited within the confines of their culture. You simply cannot marry outside the culture less you be exiled from it. That is not freedom. The only benefit is whether or not the chosen partner has something to offer to the woman (or man).
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 08 July 2008 at 2:46pm
|
And arranged marriages are also beneficial to the less priveleged, unattractive segment of the society. Its a fact that majority of the society favours an attractive spouse.
This was an excellent point. Let's sat that people can be "blinded" by the view so to speak. And thus don't look for better, more redeeming qualities. The many stories of someone, liking the "beautiful" one who turns out to have not so lovely qualities is quite abound. That if families do a bulk of the work then this may be one factor, but only one. ------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 08 July 2008 at 3:24pm
I'm sorry Hayfa but that was not a good point. That is a superiority complex. Beauty is superficial and subjective. There is no "class of attractive and unattractive people" if there are, then we as a society establish them but these are arbitritious categories. I don't think it's a fact that physical attractiveness is the sole quality we all look for. Yes it is natural to want someone who is physically appealing, but i wouldn't go far saying it is general among everyone. To say people who are unattractive are less priviledged is also wrong. How in what way are they less priviledged? For example donald trump to some is very unattractive but is a billionare. How is he underpriviledged? I find that statement not excellent but horrible. attractiveness and unattractiveness are not classes.
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 09 July 2008 at 3:37am
|
I am not talking about classes of people persay. But let's face it. Yes all people can have some attraction, but if you look like Angelina Jolie you'd get 1000 more marriage propsals then we average folk.
You bring up Donald Trump. Of course that is about money an fame.. other allures. Have you ever watched Reality TV? They have shows abot finding a mate. You meet 25 people and you meet them and decide. MOST of the time they'll take the less attractive in terms responsiblity, marriage, but is good looking. They even did one show, woman gets these 25 averge Joes. (Boy is she shocked). Has to pick. Starts to get to know them.. and then these really god looking guys come in. And the average person just in not in same running. People are visual. Yes beauty is in eye of beholder. But there certainly are tendancies. Money and beauty are allures. And that is why we are told to mary for piety first. Thse others can be factors. But it is absolutely mentioned. ------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 09 July 2008 at 9:23am
I wouldnt say that is a superiority complex. . .even ppl who consider themselves average/not good-looking will say that. It is only a superiority complex if someone who who prides themselves on beauty say it. Especially not on an online forum.
As for the statement that there is no "class" of attractive/unattractive ppl, you and I can say that, and insist upon it. But this is an unfortunate reality that human biengs have a tendency to classify others as attractive/unattractive.
Physical appearance is not the sole quality we/ppl look for, but its a fact that looks matter quite a lot. And people who disregard looks when it comes to marriage, are not in the majority. Which is why arranged marriage kind of gives everyone a fair chance. However, generally spking, ppl do place a whole lot of importance on image, looks, physical package. Infact, now with the media and evrything. . . this trend has risen as compared to the past. Increase in eating disorders, plastic surgery, etc all support that fact.
Israfil . . .I was referring to underpriveleged and attractive ppl seperatley. I did not say attractive ppl = underpriveleged ! ! ! ! ! ! By underpriveleged I was referring to worldly goods, wealth, education, health etc etc etc ! And by "unattractive" I was referring to all those who do not meet society's standards of beauty, which though is subjective like you say, but is still defined atleast within cultures, and the standard is seperate everywhere. I personally find a wheatish/tanned complexion attractive on both genders, but there are societies which give preference to very fair complexions. . . . ! And so, I never inferred that unattractive ppl are underpriveleged.
Men & Women, who do not conform with society's standards of success are left behind when it comes to choosing mates. Whether it be due to health, wealth, education, looks etc. Thats simply natural. . . and it may sound horrible. . . but it happens. The best chance these people have is thier family members finding them a match, and helping. I'm not saying all arranged marriages are like that, etc. Its just a benefit to ppl.
Arranged marriages can also be extremely bad, it all depends.
Perhaps my use of the term "class" for attractive/unattractive ppl was wrong, and I could have used another word. . . but apart from that Israfil, thats a fact of life.
I also did not pass any judgements on any kinds of physical features/appearances, and was simply making an observation. ------------- "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." |
Posted By: Jihad1
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 8:25am
|
As'salamu alaikum,
This have been reading about this topic alot lately and found this article.
The customs of a society do not always reflect the religion within the society. In fact many times the customs conflict tremendously with the religion. Certain customs remain within Muslim societies because they are deep rooted within the culture and society. Countless cultural practices have been firmly established within the various Muslim lands, yet they have no foundation in the religion, nor any origin from Islam. These customs thrive within the society, being actively lived and taught from generation to generation, ever passing down forth from the forefathers of old. The masses within the society choose not to abandon these customs because these customs have become an intricate and important part of their society, a symbolic identity, a reason for unity, and a way of life. The people who hold on to such customs may not be aware that such practices go against Islam or they may be arrogant and love their customs over their religion, a religion they profess to love and follow. In this section, we will be looking at different customs and cultures from various societies throughout the Muslim lands, and clarifying whether or not they have any basis in the teachings of Islam.
Scores of women are coming forth from many Muslim societies revealing their stories of how their families have forced them into marrying men unpleasing to them, or visa versa. Reasons for forced marriages include the desire of the parents and close relatives to keep their children within the close family circle. Thus it comes to no surprise that many of these forced marriages are between cousins. In addition, marriages within tribal or class based societies may observe strict laws ensuring couples remain within their tribe or class. Such forced marriages pay no heed to the emotional feel and warmth of marital union, dismissing such desires and feelings as nonsense, even if there is minimal or no attraction on the behalf of a spouse. And should the woman try to resist and stand up for her self, the blood relations will unleash forth their blackmailing techniques in order to keep the women silenced, physically restrained, emotionally worn out, and mentally defeated. Although scores of women are coming forth with their experiences, countless women remain hidden and silenced as those who reside within these various lands bear witness.
Is this practice of forced marriages from Islam? Absolutely not, Islam is free and far removed from such a cruel and barbaric practice. This custom is a practice from the many practices of Jaahileyyah, a practice which is prevailing even today.
For the record, forced marriages against the will of the woman render the marriage null and void. The marriage is invalid unless the woman chooses to keep the marriage, but if she chooses not to remain in the relationship she may ask for an annulment.
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, �No previously-married woman should be married off without being consulted, and no virgin should be married off without asking her permission.� (saheh of bukhaari; saheeh of muslim)
Khansa bint Khizaam narrated hat her father married her off when she had been previously married and she did not like that. She went to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and he annulled the marriage. (saheeh of bukhaari)
Ibn �Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that a virgin girl came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and told him that her father had married her off against her will. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave her the choice. (sunan of abu dawood/ declared saheeh by Albaani)
The above ahaadeeth serve as sufficient evidences to establish the prohibition of forced marriages. Furthermore the marriage is invalid unless the woman herself decides to continue with it. This is the view of the majority of scholars who have derived this ruling from the above ahaadeeth and others like them.
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, �No previously-married woman should be married off without being consulted, and no virgin should be married off without asking her permission.� They asked, �O Messenger of Allah, what is her permission?� He said, �If she remains silent.� (saheh of bukhaari; saheeh of muslim)
The above hadeeth in its completeness continues with our Prophet describing silence as acceptance on the part of a virgin bride. This does not mean silence during the marriage ceremony for the bride may be silenced due to duress. Rather what is intended is the act of being silent in front of the guardian for the guardian is the one who needs to seek her permission as the previous ahaadeeth mention. So there should be no confusion in this matter.
(the author is kamillah khan)
.
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 2:56pm
|
Saw a piece on documentary.. about girl with Aids in India..and how when the grandmother men this girl's family.. why they married her into the family was her beauty..
If anyone thinks beauty is not often a large factor is foolin themselves. ------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 21 July 2008 at 5:44pm
|
First, there is a difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage.
Women are often proponents of arranged marriages because they trust the judgement of their parents. Often in the Middle East, the mother will speak to other mothers and exchange photos. The prospective spouses look at the photos, here is the attraction part of it, and then will tell the mothers who they like. The parents then arrange a meeting, if all goes well, the parents discuss the terms and an engagement is announced. This is a classic example of an arranged marriage.
A forced marriage is where either the man or the woman or both have no choice in the matter.
Second, if attractiveness were of no importance, women wouldn't be wearing hijab and dressing modestly. Perhaps not all people adhere to one standard of beauty, but all people do look for something that attracts them to their mate. Even in the animal kingdom the peacock with the brightest feathers and the youngest strongest lion get the girls.
Donald Trump may not be attractive to Israfil, but some may find him attractive and I'm sure most would find his bank account attractive. While he is perhaps not the most beautiful man, look at the women he chooses.
I am sure that even the most ardent of detractors here would choose Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, or Halle Berry over a 450 pound woman with a unibrow, no teeth and acne, no matter how kind-hearted and good.
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 24 July 2008 at 9:56pm
|
From a scientific standpoint, attraction is a neurological reation of several regions of the brain starting with the retinal area (occipital) region of the brain where collective satisfying points (eyes, nose, teeth) reach a point where there is a totality of satifying features. The brain thus translates these specific attributes as satisying and pleasant thus coming to the opinion of so and so being attractive. This is a natural effect to most species of both mammalian and marine. of course certain features are not looked at simply for the pleasant look but also for the survival of one's genes which is simple darwinism<<<< I just re-read this and I apologize if some are confused on what I was saying above. I wrote this after a meeting with others on neurodegenerative diseases and I think I parroted what was discussed afterwards. So again my apologies (Edited 7/25/08) As for Donald Trump, I wasn't making him being attractive and unattractive an issue I was saying how he is typically considered unattractive, but yes you have a minority that believes he is "God's gift to women" but I am of the opinion that because of our colonial and capitalist society many women-including intelligent women have been conditioned and conditioned themselves to look at him only because of his money not his character.
"I am sure that even the most ardent of detractors here would choose Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, or Halle Berry over a 450 pound woman with a unibrow, no teeth and acne, no matter how kind-hearted and good."
I've seen many Arab men with unibrows and who have a very strong odor who are married to beautiful women, but of course I come to the conclusion that perhaps love is not rational nor an external to internal thing, but a series of complex reactions in the brain and body. I believe people are conditioned by money. Money can make people beautiful just look at the Saudi family. |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 26 July 2008 at 1:44am
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.
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 26 July 2008 at 1:51am
I think its a natural inclination - akin to 'survival of the fittest', like you mentioned. When there was no concept of 'money' as such, husbands were chosen on the basis of thier hunting prowess, or land, or size of cattle-herd. . . But as hunting/agriculture started diminishing as a common source of income, naturally the other criteria became money. . . which is on the same wieghing scale today as land/herd were in the olden days. Money translates as the Man's ability to take care of/maintain the woman and her offspring - which is a natural drive. True, society does stress on materialism, 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.
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Israfil
Date 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?" |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date 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.
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Israfil
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date 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 |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date 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.
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Israfil
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Hayfa
Date 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 |
Posted By: Israfil
Date 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?
|
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 04 August 2008 at 5:14pm
|
"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."
Israfil, you have stated many times here that you would not marry a woman who did not have a good job and who was not willing to work. Doesn't that put you in the same category as women who look for a mate in a good financial situation?
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 August 2008 at 7:33pm
|
Israfil, you have stated many times here that you would not marry a woman who did not have a good job and who was not willing to work. Doesn't that put you in the same category as women who look for a mate in a good financial situation?
No. the difference is I am a professional who works part-time in law enforcement, and part-time as a practicing Neuropsychologist. So my time is divided in these two fields. For a materialistic gold-digging woman, most likely she is not a professional, does not work and if she does its not in an academic or professional field. when I said I want a woman to work means that I would like a contributing partner who shares in the financial load. Because i live in California and the housing prices are high nowadays it would be important to have a partner who shares in the financial obligations. This is not the same as a woman who marries simply for money. There is a HUGE difference.
|
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 04 August 2008 at 8:48pm
|
[QUOTE=Israfil]
Israfil, you have stated many times here that you would not marry a woman who did not have a good job and who was not willing to work. Doesn't that put you in the same category as women who look for a mate in a good financial situation?
No. the difference is I am a professional who works part-time in law enforcement, and part-time as a practicing Neuropsychologist. So my time is divided in these two fields. For a materialistic gold-digging woman, most likely she is not a professional, does not work and if she does its not in an academic or professional field. when I said I want a woman to work means that I would like a contributing partner who shares in the financial load. Because i live in California and the housing prices are high nowadays it would be important to have a partner who shares in the financial obligations. This is not the same as a woman who marries simply for money. There is a HUGE difference.
You have previously stated that you would not even consider marrying a woman unless she has a good career and will work. In fact, I think you even stated that she had to be financially responsible for half of the income.
I don't really see a huge difference between you not even considering marriage to a woman who is not making enough money to meet your requirements and a woman who won't consider marrying a man who is not making enough money to meet her requirements. In fact, I would say it is exactly the same. The fact that you are working does not change the fact that you are basing your marriage choice on fianancial requirements.
The area I have highlighted in bold is of particular interest. It shows a certain bias, even prejudice on your part. Apparently if a woman is a professional or has a degree it is permissable for her to marry for money, such as the way you view yourself. However, if she is not a professional or degreed and she chooses to marry for money she is a gold digger. Is this what you meant? If the woman has a degree then she cannot possibly be a gold digger but if she doesn't then marrying someone financially more stable makes her a gold digger?
Also, you mention high prices as part of reason for marrying only a financially solvent woman, yet I gather it is somehow different if a woman, without a degree, looks at the same factors when choosing a husband?
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 August 2008 at 11:09pm
|
"You have previously stated that you would not even consider marrying a woman unless she has a good career and will work."
Can you please find where I said she needs to have a "good" career?
"In fact, I think you even stated that she had to be financially responsible for half of the income."
I just mentioned that in my previous post. However I'll clarify that that rule of mine is nullified when she becomes pregnant. Obviously, I'll want her to rest and focus on child bearing rather financial expenses anyway. But yes I do want a woman to at least pull her own weight. It not only shows ecnomical independence, I at least know that she doesn't need me to support her. Rather, in marriage there is a mutual co-dependency of each other. This is the essential element of a partnership in marriage in my opinion.
"I don't really see a huge difference between you not even considering marriage to a woman who is not making enough money to meet your requirements and a woman who won't consider marrying a man who is not making enough money to meet her requirements. "
first off, don't manipulate my words if you have to say "I think you said" please accurately define what I said. Either copy and paste or cite previous words I've used in this thread. When you have to say "I think you said this and that" you lose credibility because there is a possibility that you may have either (1) forgotten what I said, or (2) you "think" I said that when (in reality) I didn't.
Like I said it is a huge difference. Let me clarify that there is no economical standard I live by except she is at least pulling her own weight prior to our engagement. Of course, as a professional it would be nice to meet another professional either in my field, similar or whatever. If she is a pre-school teacher or buses tables it doesn't matter. At least it shows some independence on her part. However in my view love transcends beyond the material as well as the physical. I can fall in love with a simple woman if the chemistry is there. However in these trying times it is important that two contributing partners work its a way of life here in California. You don't necessarily have to want to live in a rich neighborhood, but just struggling financially effects a lot of people. Am I basing some of my requirements on what a person ought to have? Yes. But only partly. She could be a single mom working from a 9-5 if she at least is showing effort then that is fine with me. Gold-digger look for someone to take care of them. This is not the case with me since i'm already established already thus me saying there is a HUGE difference.
"Apparently if a woman is a professional or has a degree it is permissable for her to marry for money, such as the way you view yourself."
Sigh* I was highlighting the fatc that most materialistic woman who want someone to take car eof them don't have careers nor are independent, if they do why else are they looking for someone to spend money on them? Just because someone is professional does not give them the right to gold-dig and yes there are professional women who do but we are talking about the likeliness of a person. For one, I do know myself and what I want so the latter portion of your comment is thus nullified and irrelevant in my book.
If the woman has a degree then she cannot possibly be a gold digger but if she doesn't then marrying someone financially more stable makes her a gold digger?
Read my comments again.....
Also, you mention high prices as part of reason for marrying only a financially solvent woman, yet I gather it is somehow different if a woman, without a degree, looks at the same factors when choosing a husband?
If you have voluptuous women hanging around entertainers and sports atheletes and personnel or women who marry 80-year old tycoons what do you think? This is a no brainer. Yes they sure do go after these individuals and sometimes trap them in a biological bind when they become pregnant and have their babies then all of a sudden the man is paying out of pocket in alimony and child support. S.A. no matter how you put it there is no excuse for these types of women professional or not.
|
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 04 August 2008 at 11:50pm
|
Israfil, I don't have to "think" you said you would not marry a woman who wasn't working and paying half the bills. You have stated this on numerous occasions. I am not trying to manipulate your words, I am just reminding you of what you have stated. I am sure you know that you have stated this on numerous occasions, on one occasion you even stated that Allah knows your reasons for not following Islam in this matter.
I still do not see a difference between you refusing to marry a woman who is financially independent, financially stable, and willing to work and any woman anywhere refusing to marry a man who is financially independent, financially stable, and willing to work.
Other than gender, what exactly is the difference?
"The criteria of a person marrying someone else fort their finances is not an altruistic trait its about selfishness."
These are your words, yet you yourself base your choice of mate on their finances. You will not marry a woman who does not work or take financial responsibility for her share of the bills. 50-50 as you stated in one post.
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 8:05am
Yes there are Gold-Diggers out there. . . but they are not a majority, nor are they restricted to a specific gender i.e. females. For every Anna Nicole out there, there is a K-Fed.
Also, just because one of the criteria is financial stability, does not make a woman an 'immoral gold-digger'. I think (yes, I'm gonna use 'I think', cz I do not remember which post it was, nor do I remember the exact words)
you're going to agree that 'morality' is a relative term. And just because you have had some bad experiences or feel strongly about an issue, does not mean something becomes immoral. Only if a woman is a Serial-Wife, and purposely seeks out men for thier money, then abandons them to start a new life is she immoral.
Also, ever since the Neanderthals (or as far back as we can think of) Women have been choosing mates on the basis of thier 'provider status'. This doesnt neccassarily translate as so-so bank-balance, but a certain provision ability. Which can be anything. . . Infact, if some women choose intelligent men over rich men, perhaps they interpret the 'provider' aspect differently. They think that an intelligent man will be capable of pulling through any circumstance and take care of/maintain/provide for his mate and family versus a rich man who may be useless once the finances go down the drain.
So if you Inshalah find a woman who wishes to marry you for your intelligence, rest assured - at the end of the day, the primitive reason is still your provider/maintainer ability. Its just a different 'provider' ability.
Although I'm sure you did encounter gold-diggers. . . but questions like that are essential when thinking/talking about Marriage! You expect a woman to marry you, just after an engaging, intellectually stimulating conversation - without knowing personal details about you such as your job, qualification, etc etc? How is that bieng materialistic? Nobody wants to risk marrying a loser (both men & women) . Unless ppl ask Q's like that how do they know whether thier prospective spouse is a lazy bum/ jobless etc. And before you berate me on using the term 'loser' . . . any man/woman who can afford to, or doesnt have a valid reason, yet still does not gain an education/qualification and is wasting time is a loser/lazy bum etc. Infact such questions are not only restricted to women but Men also wish to know all the above details about a prospective wife. Ofcourse if the conversation is about where we live, what car we drive, how much we earn, etc - then one can say theres something fishy about the person's intentions. ------------- "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." |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 8:32am
Although I have no problem with each individual having thier own personal preferences when choosing a spouse, I disagree with ppl/men who think it is a woman/wife's obligation to earn, contribute financially. Its ok if due to personal circumstances or preferences, an individual desires a financially stable wife. . . but they shouldnt defend it as a norm, or the way to go. Infact, if thier wives work, they should take it as extra help or good-will on thier part. . . not as thier right.
Women have to go through a whole lot more emotional/physical trauma compared to men . . . and no! Even if they wanted to, they possibly cannot share the natural burdens of bieng a female. Its only fair that they should be given other burdens by nature (or women), and be asked to relieve women of atleast thier financial/emotional burdens. If an individual women feels that she is capable of/wishes to do more. . . then subhanallah. . . but it should not be expected of her. Nor should it be treated as a requirement or responsibility.
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 8:38am
The 'woman can be . . .men are' thingy was just a joke. . .
I'm aware of the role hormones play in the life of both genders. . . .especially females.------------- "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." |
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 10:17am
|
As stated, rarely is money the sole criteria for marriage. But a person's abiliy to support themselves or contribute is some way is a factor.
Tsrafil, you have stated you would prefer a wife who can / wants to contribulte financially. That is ONE of your criteria. Maybe you are the selfish one for pursuing the career(s) you've chosen and the location thus forcing your partner to have to work.
Is it unreasonable for a person or her family to want someone who works and can provide? Yes omney is not the be all and end all of life but having a few dollars sure makes life a little easier.
I would think that it is good that women are not only thinking of themselves but the offspring they will produce. Love is grand until you cannot eat. There is enough choice among people that peopel can choose what level. In fact, a "gold-digger" would not be looking after their offspring or te future. For being able to provide is but one of the criteria for a ptential mate and father to the children.
I also think that some people who cannot find mates, often have TOO MANY criteria. And no one can fit the bill completely.
And you are right, you wnt a woman to pick up the tab so to speak. Well that is not part of the basics of Islam. Many women do work, but if that is a main critera. .well.. harder to find someone. She must then work to accomodate your career choices and interests.
------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 12:06pm
| Likely much of the 'I want this or that' in a relationship is youthful idealism which falls by the wayside once the heart is struck. Seeing that I'm in Los Angele, hopefully Israfil will invite me to his wedding. |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 10:52pm
S.A.,
For the purpose of accuracy you ought to specify what I said so that you don't assume what you think I said. I did not say I need a woman to make a certain amount of money. That is false. I never said or will say she needs to be financially wealthy. That is false. What I did say is she need sto come into the situation already pulling her own weight and does not need me to oull her own weight. Essentially this is not an Islamic marriage in the economical sense but I wouldn't be the first one. There are millions of working professional Muslim couples both contributing to household finances. Many couples with successful families who are working and also contributing to the welfare of family. when I speak on matters like this I'm only taking into the consideration that when I provide for my family that, it is important that my partner helps with additional expenses. This is a 50% deal here just as with taking care of the family. When referring to women who are materialistic in nature and who only go after men with money these are the women who are not thinking about securing the offspring but getting what they can get. Most of these women don't even have children with their mates (some do however). Like I said previously these two circumstances are different. We all live by certain standards and I wouldn't consider my standards selfish since essentially if I'm talking about being a contributor to the household/family as well. For the record and I say again it is not about how much she makes but the fact that she is already independent and pulling her own weight. There are many scenarios I could give as to why this is a logical foundation I live by.
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:01pm
Let us be clear. Any woman (or amn) who gets involved with an individual NOT for LOVE or COMPANIONSHIP, or FRIENDSHIP but simply because of someone's financial status is in my book an immoral, selfish choice. This doesn not have to relate to me this can go for anyone and you know it. I've met Muslimah's newly converted to Islam (mostly, and unfortunately Anglo-american women who marry Arab/Middle Eastern men) and when they marry these men and get them visas to come to the States they are taken advantaged of. Not only for their visas but some of these women are already established here and are taken advantaged of financially. It happens and it continues to happen.
To me this is an immoral behavior because you eventually and in subtle fashion, are taking advantage of an individual who may sincerely believe you either a) love them b) have their best interest as a friend. This is what I'm saying and what I was telling S.A. how this is essentially different from my own standards. Now if you guys don't ge tthis by now them its impossible to break this down to even simpler terms without treating you like you have a mental defect.
I will say any woman who is only interested in how much I make and continues to beg the question on what kinds of vehicles I may drive automatically gets the "boot." If the conversation is not about who I am as a person and what I stand for and what my goals as a contributing human being then obviously she is not interested in me. I'd rather have a down to earth woman who values me as a person than someone who is wealthy and materialistic. Don't get me wrong a woman asking me about what I do is fine, but if she is asking me how much I make then I wouldn't offer that iformation especially if I just met the person. Any professional will tell you that they do not offer that kind of information to a perfect stranger. But if she inquires about my background such as academic career, my job etc then that is fine and indeed important because it goes along with getting to know who I am. Besides being with someone who is financially well of (I'm talking top 5% wealthy of U.S.) I wouldn't want to deal with that kind of pressure.
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:14pm
Chrysalis fine you disagree but these are my preferences. Don't worry you don't have to marry me, but respect the fact that these are my personal standards. Yes these are unIslamic so-to-speak but God knows my intentions on why I have these beliefs. My job is here and I work here so these are the standards I live by. I will agree that historically, socially, relgiiously and all other categories of life women do encounter a lot more adversity than men I will give you that and many times I tip my hat to the brave women who endure this but don't give me this whinning explanation that because of this this is only right women are relieved of the financial burden. That is a poor excuse and defense to what you are saying.
Hell, my ancestors tioled the American earth for centuries without a thank you. Women raped and men were lynched. Did I, a descendant from these hardworking people receive anything or benfited from this? Nothing except civil rights brought about by the brave men and women of this country who fought for the freedom of their fellow human being. What I'm saying here is just because a woman goes through adversity in life or has to work hard does not make her priviledged in life to be less responsible in other venues in life if anything that is an offensive remark to the many women who bust their bottoms everyday. If anything a woman should be relieved of financial burden when she is carrying the child during those 9 months. I'm sure there are hardowrking women who would love to not have to worry about their own bills anf finances but I'm sure they also appreciate working hard having to provide not only for themselves but for their lovedones be it single moms or whole families. Like I said these are criterias I have for myself. Trust me a male female ratio of 10 to 1 I'm sur eI'd have no problem eventually finding the one I want who understands where I'm coming from.
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:24pm
Hayfa in your post you said:
Maybe you are the selfish one for pursuing the career(s) you've chosen and the location thus forcing your partner to have to work.
First, how am I selfish for working hard with NO HELP from anyone only to establish myself professionally and financially? These are careers that I had chosen because those are the areas I wanted to do and felt how I can best help society. I don't see how this is selfish in nature. Also, what I believe is how I was raised and have lived through social interactions in my life and thus have come to the conclusion that because of the current circumstances based on my geographical location is what I want. Because I'm still getting to where I want to be I'm saying I cannot afford to NOT have a contributing partner even though I'm established financially (established meaning stable but sometimes this stability may only refer to me as a single man being stable). Also let us discuss where I live. If you live in Los Angeles or Californina you'd understand that regardless where you live housing prices are high. Even in 'bad' neighborhoods houses can cost anywhere from $400-800k. Nowadays the market is going down somewhat but the prices on houses are still considerably high. This has nothing to do with where I live but the current econimical climate I live in. I'm sure you would suggest that I move but that isn't possible for me at this moment since I'm already established here with my profession. As far as wanting a woman to accomodate my career is bad wording. I don't need a woman to accomodate me or complete me. I can function without a woman, but before I even go further of course I'd like to know what the woman currently does as an occupation and of course I'd ask what he standards are for marriage. If she disagrees with those standards then no hard feelings but before I take it to the next step of course I'll lay it out what I'm looking for. there is someone for everyone, but it doesn't make me a bad guy simply because I say that these are my preferences. I don't need a woman to accomodate me, but I'd like a woman of similar interest and qualities.
|
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:26pm
Ha, after reading this not likely... I don't find it 'youthful idealism' if I have personal preferences. We as human beings have wants and desires and of course certain wants and desires are unrealistic, but mines aren't unrealistic, but rather logical. Being a fellow Angeleno I'd expect you to understand but I guess not.
|
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 06 August 2008 at 7:08am
I never said that you said a woman had to make a certain amount of money.
What I said was that throughout this thread you have stated that any woman who marries a man based on his finances is materialistic and a "gold digger".
You have repeatedly, through numerous threads, posted that you yourself would not marry a woman who wasn't working, would not continue working, and had to pay half of the bills: "pulling her own weight".
This is marrying a woman based on her finances whether you want to admit it or not. If you will not marry someone unless she meets a certain financial requirement then you are marrying based on finances. The exact same thing.
Whether it is to give future generations the best chance at survival or it is because you want to have a certain life style in S. California is beside the point. It is still choosing a mate based on finances.
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 August 2008 at 10:48am
What a childish thing to say! I thought this was a mature discussion!
I think Israfil, that I already stated in my previous post, that I'm ok with ppl's personal preferences with regards to choosing a spouse - whatever they may be, as long as they are reasonable. Why you think that I'm disrespecting you is beyond me. Infact, I took care to not even adderess you directly - when giving my opinions. Which is why I have not been commenting on your personal preferences, but the general notions of some men. Hence I never gave a personal comment on you or how your preferences are 'unislamic' etc etc. I thought we were having a rational, general discussion here.
Also, just wanted to point out, that wanting a wife who is financially independent is not exactly 'unislamic'. True, Islam lays the brunt of Financial Responsibilities (pulling her wieght as well as his own) on the Man, but that doesnt mean that if a couple are sharing expenses, it is unislamic! As long as both the spouses mutually decide to do whatever with regards to finances . . . nothing Islamically wrong with it. It only becomes unislamic if a husband forces, expects, pressurizes his wife into sharing HIS responsibilities. . . and shirks his own. Even if the woman is a breadwinner - due to her own free will, NOTHING wrong with it Islamically.
Whos whining about financial responsibilities here? Not the women. If there is a tad bit of whining here, its in your posts of 'why should I have to be the breadwinner' . . . and yes, I think thats about the only part where I pointed at you personally.
Also, dont be contradictory. . .you salute women for encountering more adversity than men, yet STILL expect them to 'prove themselves' by bieng financially independent. 'Braves' get priveleges. . . and since they have to encounter adversities in some areas, they deserve to sit back in other areas.
Also, dont you think its unfair that Men get to shift thier share of the work (earning) onto the women, but even if the women wanted to, they cannot shift thier burdens (childbearing/nursing) on the man?
If we were to draw a table of the burdens males have to bear versus females (humans) . . . we would see that females have to go thru more. Hence Allah put the 'finances' part in the coloumn of the Man, to even things out - Equity.
This is the way I look at it . . .
Your ancestors toiled the American earth . . . not you. So why do you expect to benefit from what your ancestors did? To every man the fruit of his own action.
You cannot apply this analogy to women, and say that they should not expect priveleges for what they go through. If I were to say that my ancestors went through childbirth, nursing, menstruation etc, and we modern women dont . . .you could use this e.g. But since each and every woman goes through all the above (and more), she can expect priveleges, since she herself went through all this - and not just her ancestors. Hope u get my point.
How gracious you sound!
FYI womanhood and its accompanying package does not last a mere 9 months.
So who's disrespecting those women? Are you saying that just because some women have to work/worry about thier finances - all women should also be doing the same - just out of 'respect' ?
I could use the same e.g and say that men who are not sole-breadwinners are a disrespect to those who, like u say 'bust thier bottoms' for thier families and are sole earners?
Inshalah Brother . . . however, like I said before - your personal preferences have nothing to do with this. 'Just arguing with your general view that 'in order to prove thier worth, women should be helping with finances, and only then are they respect-worthy'. If this was just something that you restricted to you and your spouse, I wouldnt have an issue.
------------- "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." |
Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 06 August 2008 at 9:54pm
|
S.A. you say marrying a woman working is essentially the same thing as a woman who is with a guy for his money. You say these two are the same I say these are different I thought I explained myself on why I consider these two different you don't accept that explanation so we can leave it right there. What a childish thing to say! I thought this was a mature discussion!
LOL. It was a subtle joke. I apologize for not putting emoticons there. |