No, I’m just kidding. There is not a new Law & Order show in the works. Unbeknownst to me, the U.K. actually has an entire unit of people, the Forced Marriage Unit, which reviews cases of human rights violations as pertaining to forced marriages:
The Forced Marriage Unit sees around 250 cases a year. “There used to be confusion between forced and arranged marriages,” explains a member of unit staff. “They were seen as being part of a certain culture. But that’s changing now. Forced marriage is not a religious or cultural issue – it is a global human rights abuse”. Forced marriage means just that – where a victim (one was 13 years old) is told they have to get married and they don’t want to.Cases can be difficult, as the young person doesn’t usually want to see their parents get into trouble. “As well as providing guidance, if we know in advance that someone is about to be forced into marriage, we can work with partners organisations to find an appropriate way to support the victim. If the victim goes overseas, our consular staff will work with the local police to do what they properly can to help the victim. In extreme cases this can mean helping to bring them back to the UK if this is what the victim wants.”
<
p>The BBC is reporting that the FMU is unveiling a new campaign, complete with awareness posters like the one seen to the right:
The campaign by the government’s Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) is backed by actor and writer Meera Syal and former EastEnders star Ameet Chana.
More than 250 cases are reported to the FMU each year, most of which involve links to south Asian countries.
A decision by the government is also expected soon on whether to outlaw forced marriages.
The new drive will include poster and television campaigns and radio and press adverts…It will highlight the difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage, which is one conducted without the full consent of both parties and under duress. [Link]
We’d be forever grateful to our U.K. readers if they give us the heads up on any television or radio ads they’ve seen that get posted to the internet. I wasn’t able to find other versions of the posters but I am sure they will pop up soon. Not to make light of this very serious and worthwhile effort but the funny thing is that the poster to the right is vague enough that it may send casual passerbys (who are also committment-phobes) into an anxiety attack about an impending non-forced marriage. I’m just saying.
interesting how the hands in the poster most likely belong to brown people 🙂 even though this is a british campaign to address a specific human rights violation. granted this may occur mostly in south asian countries, but still, way to reinforce the cultural misunderstandings about “arranged” and “forced” marriages by having brown hands in the ad.
Fact is, “forced marriage” is a phenomenon pretty much in the brown community in England (primarily South Asian, and possibly some middle-eastern). So well, I don’t really see the need for excessive political correctness here by showing white hands or whatever. It’s a problem our community has to address, and we better begin by accepting that the problem exists within our community.
Technophob – I don’t disagree with anything you have said. However, reinforcing cultural stereotypes on a macro scale is not the most effective way to foster inter-cultural dialogue in avowedly multicultural societies.
At first glance those hands don’t even look that brown to me though. When I was reading that I was thinking that unless desis (and desi women in particular) felt that this was an organization that was open to (and maybe geared towards?) desis they might not feel that this would be a government organization that was actually looking after their interests. I used to be a DV counselor and on top of unique ethnic community pressures etc that would present barriers to women seeking help many minorities didn’t feel these social organizations/shelters were “meant for them.”
(And I’m so glad you all are up late with me! Do you all have deadlines too? Maybe we’re all just on different parts of the planet. God I love the Internet.)
interesting experience rupa…also its called Pacific Standard Time 🙂
on a similar note, the UN just approved the Human Rights Council with the US being one of the lone dissenters…but still, good news in all.
Well, you know us midwesterners. In bed by 9, up with the sun 😉
And…on to the more serious discussions. Carry on.
it is something that takes place everywhere. india, pakistan, america, uk. every place where there are desis. it takes place in some form or manner where women are given little choice and eventually submit. it is very sad. i know of some women in nyc who lived here their whole lives and gave in to pressure and such sick tactics.
I am glad that the British government is taking this so seriously. It’s not the time to worry about stereotyping, it is the time to clean up the mess in the backyard of SOME desi homes.
I saw a documentary last year about a lady from Manchester who escaped a forced marriage and now works for the FMU. Those desis who worry about the stigmatisation and essentialising that will happen will just have to live with it – brushing this under the carpet is not an option anymore. Those concerns are secondary. It’s not nice, but then it is sad that this practice persists. Kill it and the stereotype won’t be accurate anymore.
There was also a few articles in the UK news several months ago about a small movement to forbid cousin-marriages, which is mostly a Pakistani problem. The people behind it say it’s a public health issue, because their rate of birth defects is so outrageously high. I asked a Brit Pakistani about it (who’s married to his cousin from Pakistan, and whose wife’s brother just got sent back to Pakistan to marry a cousin) and he claimed it was the gov’t trying to destroy cultural traditions and break up communities. Whatever.
Imagine external intervention to prevent intra-parsi marriages 🙂 the rate of birth defects within the parsi community where cousin-marrying is encouraged in order to preserve their endangered numbers, is extraordinarily high…
“Whatever”, indeed. That’s unfortunately an example of the victim-mentality paranoia that’s prevalent in some (by no means all) quarters of that particular community here in the UK.
There is a parallel discussion on this same topic currently underway on the (British) Pickled Politics blog, so I am going to paste the message I just submitted there:
=>”an anti-forced marriage law could be combined with a sex-trafficking law, to make an equivalence between the actions.”
This has occurred to me too. Let’s be completely honest here: If a woman is forced into marriage with a man she doesn’t want to be with, then — apart from the obvious psychological impact & trauma of having to spend the rest of her life with the guy — the fact that she will be expected to have sex with the man on her wedding night is almost like a form of emotionally-blackmailed consent to rape (even if the woman grudgingly submits to sleeping with the guy due to the various dynamics & pressures involved).
The reality of this entire scenario becomes worse and worse the more you consider the actual details, both emotional and physical.
Rilly? Your facts pls. Kissin’ cousins, day-see style ain’t so risky.
The straight dope says:
By comparison:
Another source:
Set my Parsi brothers and sisters free!
Though I am not in favor of cousin marriages personally there was a study published a few years ago that there was no greater risk of birth defects because of marrying one’s cousin. The following link has some information about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm
Huh? Even my pasty-white Ashkenazi hand looks darker than the hands in that poster. How light does skin have to be before looking “brown”?
I’m all for the law coming down hard on those “parents” who conduct shotgun weddings, kidnap and forcibly lock their children, conduct forced abortions etc.
However, it is very dangerous and actually illegal for the law to go after those parents who put emotional pressure on children. Under free-speech laws, a person has a legal right to say to his/her offspring: “If you don’t marry that doctor and have a child within a year of marriage, then I will never speak to you again.” The law cannot prohibit this kind of speech. If there are people cheering this law, it will come to haunt them very soon.
As for the ban on cousin marriages, it is un-constitutional. Who’s the government to tell you whom you can or cannot marry? The only reason why people don’t bother challenging these laws is that very few actually marry cousins in the west.
And as for the government’s “concern” about birth defects – I can only laugh. Are they trying to create a pure and healthy race of people? What will they do if first cousins have sex and she gets pregnant? Force an abortion on her? Arrest them? Ban sex between first cousins? How about a Ministry to Check Fetus Health? Pass a law that all fetuses have to undertake a defect test? And if there are defects (like the wrong color of skin or wrong color of eyes), then abort it? These are shades of Nazism that have to be uprooted.
M. Nam
Without wishing to divert this into an off-topic flame war, I should probably mention that the South Asian population here in the UK is disproportionately Pakistani and north Indian; so within that context, the colour of the hands on that poster is actually pretty common amongst desis in this country.
Moor Nam
It is not an issue of banning cousin-marriage. It is just an issue that cousin-marriage is widely practised in some sections of the British Pakistani community and calls have been made for the issue of health concerns to paid attention to when making these matches. The link that midwestern eastender gives is quite specific on this. It is a call for greater public awareness and discussion amongst the Pakistani community of the possible health risks involved.
Stereotyping is wrong, no matter what the cause. I agree that forced marriages are a major issue but stereotyping is no way to solve it. Just a hypothetical question, would you feel the same way if you were stereotyped as a terrorist just because SOME desi people are? Oh wait, that kind of stereotyping already exists in the US and UK. Never mind.
The brown or not brown verdict: I have a beautiful new mac that’s has a freshly calibrated monitor. The hands are indeed brown…. not to make light of the matter. END.
Anyways, I’m fine with them being brown – sometimes you risk stigmatization in trying to reach your target audience. So be it. We’ve seen ads with cliches and gross stereotypes thanks to Manish, but this is not one of them. Truth be told, I’ve never heard of this as a mass problem in Canada (I have heard of guilt-emotional marriages, not forced marriages per say – fine line here), but many Brits have commented that this explicitly forced marriage is a problem in the UK.
Mouspad Marauder
Stereotyping stinks. This is not the norm. But it is a problem. Bringing greater awareness of the problem is something that needs to be done. We cannot brush it under the carpet for fear of how white people will stereotype us. That stuff makes me mad. But we have to clean up the mess in SOME desi homes. Then we can be pro-active and deal with it and still address the issue of essentialising when it crops up. But we can’t ignore this problem any more because we don’t want to be stereotyped.
Trust me, I hate the ignorance and sterotypes that exists, but we have to tackle them at the same time as tackling some other things simultaneously now.
Anand, Point taken. Educating the community and facilitating the law to deal with these situations is one thing, gross stereotyping is another. I hope the end result is the former.
Anand writes: >>Bringing greater awareness of the problem is something that needs to be done MM writes: >>Educating the community…
Since when did this become the Government’s job? When the State takes over Society’s responsibilities, what you end up eventually is Fascism.
How about this: Spending beyond one’s means is a big problem in the West. If there is a Ministry to “Bring greater awareness” and “Educate people” about the virtues of thriftiness, I would like to moonlight and head the department. Hey, a bit of money on the side doesn’t hurt, does it?
I give a call for greater public awareness and discussion amongst the White community of the possible health risks involved with extra-marital sex. Person A screws B and B gets pregnant. B want to go the Murphy Brown way and wants to have the baby AB. Person A moves on to person C and C gets pregnant and AC is born. 25 years later, AB and AC look at each other across the bar and hit it off. There’s a good chance that their offspring will have birth defects. I demand a Ministry to monitor such cases and educate people, with me and my cronies running it.
Cousin marriages are common in South India as well. However, they practice the “Gotra” system to make sure that birth defects are minimised. Now if only we could get the Pakistanis to follow the Gotra system….
M. Nam
for me, this discussion is part of the larger discussion surrounding dave’s post on BBCD’s blog post and arranged marriages. Granted, very different practices, but it comes down to one idea:
women are treated as chattel.
That is something that we as a society have to address and deal with. I don’t think, as several of the thread commentators have already addressed, that the government should get involved. it doesn’t work with in a structure set up in these different countries. i do think that there needs to be more advocacy on the grounds because you have to remember that once the government gets involved in these situations, there is more silence, more pressure for government’s to define things in a narrow context, and all programs are some how tied to money, which either way doesn’t get to the root of these cultural problems.
Yep! and there is also a dumbass clause. If some one is a dumbass the law can not do much for you. A dumbass will be treated like shit, that is pretty much it. A non related example are the people here in credit card debt uptoo their wazoo, well what part of credit didnt they understand!, and now the state attorney general is forced to look into these things.The damage is already done, there is only so much the law can do.
The same is for people who dont think for themselves. I am not in favor or against arranged marriage but people who dont think for themselves will allways find themselves in a mess.
OHHHH where was the FMU .. when my parents married me off at when I was 5 years.. to a old cat.. the cat is dead now.. atleast i can file my taxes as a widower..
re: cousin marriage…please read papers carefully people.
1) the risk of a particular disease ensuing from a first cousin marriage might be trivial in comparison to the non-cousin marriage on an individual level, but on a social level recessive diseases will increase greatly and impose a public health buden. this prediction equation is relevant:
K = c(1 + 15q)/(c + 16q – cq)
the proportion of first cousin matings being c within the population, and q being the frequency of the recessive allele in question, and K being the proportion of individuals with disease x who are first cousins. the short of it is that as the frequency of a recessive allele drops the % of people who have the disease who are the offspring of first cousins increases greatly…and many of these low frequency diseases can be rather debilitating.
2) the problem with many communities isn’t just that you have 1st cousin marriage, it is that “clans” are marrying each other generation after generation. this increases the coefficient of relation greatly, defined by:
FI = sum over all common ancestors[(1/2)i * (1 + FA)]2
(inbreeding coefficient)
for most first cousins in the USA the # of common ancestors up 3-8 generations might be minimal aside from their incestuous lineage. but in many nations “clans” are basically inbred across many lineages and the family tree is basically a big knot that is looping in on itself.
more details here.
Guru Gulab Khatri:
“Yep! and there is also a dumbass clause. If some one is a dumbass the law can not do much for you. A dumbass will be treated like shit, that is pretty much it. A non related example are the people here in credit card debt uptoo their wazoo, well what part of credit didnt they understand!, and now the state attorney general is forced to look into these things.The damage is already done, there is only so much the law can do.
The same is for people who dont think for themselves. I am not in favor or against arranged marriage but people who dont think for themselves will allways find themselves in a mess.”
hear! hear!
However, reinforcing cultural stereotypes on a macro scale is not the most effective way to foster inter-cultural dialogue in avowedly multicultural societies.
screw “culture,” go individuals!
Whatever you say!
White or brown, the woman is wearing a wedding ring on her left hand. Isn’t this still fairly unusual in the Hindu community? Is it different amoung Pakistanis–i.e., does the ‘impure’ left-hand belief/practice not apply?
I have seen the same sequence of events develop on a number of South Asian discussion forums addressing this issue. A number of commenters (usually male) object to the idea of external facilities and legal recourses being made available to the people concerned (usually female), and in some cases they even try to shift part of the blame to the women concerned for not being able to “rescue themselves” from their situation.
These facilities have been set up in order to assist people who, for one reason or another, require external assistance and have not been able to solve the problem via their own efforts. It’s not a question of the government observing this phenomenon from afar and then deciding to “meddle”; what has happened is specifically a result of large numbers of (mostly) South Asians in the UK having had to resort to contacting the police and the relevant legal authorities in order to request assistance.
In an ideal world, “society” should be able to solve the problem of forced marriages so that governmental intervention is not required. However, when “society” has failed in these matters, it is an unfortunate yet inevitable consequence that external authorities will subsequently get involved, especially in Western countries where the rule of law is paramount and there is an emphasis on the protection of the weak and vulnerable.
“Nazism” is not when the government gets involved in such matters, it is when the overriding emphasis is on the concept of “might is right” and the human rights of the minority/weak/vulnerable are subjugated to the wishes of those in a position of power who wish to exploit or control them.
Areem,
I can’t speak for Muslims, but wearing a wedding-ring on one’s left hand is very common amongst Hindus and Sikhs here in the UK, even amongst the older generation. My parents both wear wedding rings on their left hands.
Jai re #31:
In case of illegal activities (shotgun weddings, kidnapped weddings), there is certainly no debate. I don’t there there is anybody on any forum who does not want the Government to get involved. That’s what we pay taxes for.
However, in case of legal (but questionably immoral) activities, like emotional blackmail, cousin marriages etc, the Government should get out of the way. External NGO’s with private funding are welcome, as long as they don’t intrude on privacy. Feel free to conduct workshops in temples/gurudwaras etc to discourage such behaviour.
M. Nam
I’ve been thinking that since the BBCD thread as well. Gracias for putting that so articulately Jai. It’s like asking someone with an absolute lack of resources and familial support why they can’t just move out of the projects and get a GED.
As far as I can tell, this is an awareness campain, to let people (not just women are forced into marriage, though they do seem to bear the brunt of burden in most cases) know that they have choices and help is available to them. Also it seems that this unit arose because there was an already expressed need for such services.
As for the law against forced marriages, the law has plenty of say as to how marriages are conducted, they ban (or allow) poligamy, determine what constitutes a common-law marriage, have laws for ending a marriage, etc so I see this as no different. I think forced marriages should be illegal everywhere.
Let take one of the most famous cases of emotional blackmail leading to a “forced” marriage. Kiranjit Ahluwalia was bullied into a marriage by her brothers who constantly called her a burden and useless. She caved in and married a man she had met once. When he turned abusive, she saught help within her family. They would keep sending her back. 10 years into her marriage she killed her husband, was convicted and sent to jail. She got out on appeal and her case (along with a few others) was the turning point to British law recognizing battered woman syndrome.
Now if only she had known she had a choice.
And I’d like to know why you don’t object to workshops conducted by external NGOs?
For all of you who think this is a matter of a weak will, I urge you to ask around you friends, neighbours, families. You’ll realize how common emotional blackmail is and just how hard it is to walk away.
Rupa,
It’s a consistent pattern of behaviour in this issue (amongst several others) that I’ve noticed amongst those on this blog who have either spent most of their lives in the subcontinent and are relatively recent migrants to the West, or who still spend a significant proportion of their time back there. There are a number of notable exceptions to this, of course, but there does appear to be a commonality between the individuals demonstrating the negative behaviour concerned. The attitude of patriarchy and lack of sufficient empathy with the victims seems to be fairly entrenched. It’s interesting what prolonged cultural conditioning and extensive exposure to widespread social sanction in such matters can do to an individual’s attitude and reactions.
In any case, while emotional blackmail is a less forceful tactic to deploy compared to kidnappings etc, it’s still a very insidious way to manipulate someone in a position of weakness, and it certainly should be illegal. Passive-aggressive coercion is still a pretty nasty way to behave.
as previous posters have pointed out, at home, there are few resources for primarily women in situations of forced (i.e. where physical harm may be applied or lives threatened) marriages. even in instances where they have sought help from law enforcement, they may end up worse off.
in the west, people have, for the most part, the option of if nowhere else, simply showing up to the police station and asking for help, though many instances there are social welfare and private organisations they can turn to. kidnappings and physical threat or harm is illegal, and laws already exist to deal with those.
as far as i know, emotional coercion and blackmail isnt against the law or immoral (very harsh word there). parents use both techniques throughout a childs life from trying to get them to stop acting up/crying and getting them to eat as children to getting them to study the “right” studies at uni. as young adults and everything in between.
no ones is saying its easy, but thats what being an adult is, making tough choices and living with the consequences if one wants to live ones own life in ones own way.
I recall reading a report in the British press that up to 15% of those forced or coerced into marriage were men. Given the stigma, I’m guessing this is probably underreported.
I think “emotional blackmail” is very rampant in our society, and causes much strife. There needs to be a little more compassion from our parents (and from bloggers) about the difficulties of balancing two very different cultures.
A happy marriage is not written in the stars, and I don’t think it can even be learned (i.e. “you will learn to love each other”) when Indian and western cultures are so far apart. Just some thoughts…
Dudette,
While your other examples are valid, I don’t agree with this assertion in the case of marriage. Forcing someone — even using emotional/psychological coercion rather than more physical methods — into marriage with a person they otherwise wouldn’t want to be with certainly is extremely immoral. If individual A really wants to be with individual B then, assuming they have the relevant level of intelligence and maturity to be able to make the right decision for themselves in these situations (and if they don’t, then as far as I’m concerned they shouldn’t be getting married to anyone in the first place), they will not need any external “nudging”. I cannot possibly understand the morality of coercing someone to spend the rest of their lives with (physically, mentally, emotionally, and sexually) another person they never really wanted to be with. This is a no-brainer.
“Mummy’ll be very upset if you don’t eat your peas” is quite different from “Mummy will kill herself if you don’t marry X” or “We’ll disown you if you don’t become a Doctor”
I think the last 2 are ridiculous and immoral.
and how many women have access to these services? how many asian women feel that they will be heard out? How many asian women feel as though these services will even have people who speak their language.
I worked for a family law practice in London. We mostly saw asian (south asian to the Amrikans 🙂 clients, and most of these women came to us after YEARS of abuse, neglect etc. And for every woman who got help they had 5 friends who didn’t think they had the option of seeking help.
When you hear stories where women in your community are KILLED by their own fathers,brothers, mothers, uncles for rebelling against a particular marriage, or having the audacity to leave it after it turns abusive, when you really believe you could not leave and live, would you leave?
jai, i am not disagreeing with you, i am just saying that calling it immoral is a bit high-handed. if, let us say, people are living here (the west), whether brought up here or not being irrelevant, i am simply saying that there are resources available that are not so at home.
i know of several instances of arranged/forced marriages of people who are educated, live by themselves, earn their own keep, yet, somehow, bewildering to me as it may seem, feel they were forced to go into a marriage. i mean, these people would be called free in most regards. i understand if you live in a tight knit community where elders still dont speak the local language and all signs are in your mother tongue, where sometimes even law enforcement wont venture forth, but in instances where you have the resource and opportunity to seek aid, i dont see why these marriages can be called forced.
we all make choices, and sometimes wanting to do our own thing is at odds with our own culture and our parents wishes and our community’s demands. but if being urself and wanting to live ur life as u wish is that important, then u make the sarcifices u must. or if u want to do ur own thing but want everyone else to go along, and if not, then call it forced, then i dont see how one can ask for help even when it is available.
btw, this coercion exists among westerners as well. we dont have a monopoly on emotional blackmail.
sorry, just my yens worth.
Regarding arranged marriages. Does it really operate in the “Bend it Like Beckham” way here in the US? Most parents I know set up their kids and allow them to go out on a couple of dates. They even offer to pay, drinks included 🙂 This system seems fairly benign to me. Could there be a class issue as well? If you’re parents are straight from the village, it is likely those values will take time to recede, but if your parents are from a middle-class background, perhaps the benign arranged system (where the kids have agency) and the acceptance of love marriage would be more the norm?
I know you did not mean this as a compliment, but thanks.
Yes. We have different attitudes to government interference than 2nd Gen desis, because we have seen first handed what damage Government can do. We’ve stood in long lines in Govt. “Ration” shops to buy sugar, rice etc. We’ve been to Govt hospitals where you’ll catch more diseases than from a fish market. We’ve seen Govt getting itself into hotels, airlines, condoms, abortions etc etc, and we’ve seen the enormous damage it has done. And we are seeing the same tendencies in the West for the last 10-15 years. We want to put a stop to it.
When nothing else works, throw hot-button words? I thought you were against emotional blackmail!!
Dudette:
Wrong choice of words. Emotional coercion is very immoral, because you are not using logic to gain an outcome in your favor. However, being illogical should not be illegal. We all fail to use logic sometime or the other – the whole mankind will be in jail.
Kenyan Desi:
Because NGO’s that run on private funds do a very good job in social issues. Witness the excellent work being done by the Gates Foundation on AIDS in India. If the same money had come from the Government, 95% would have been siphoned off on frivolous stuff.
M. Nam
Dudette,
I don’t believe it can be defined as “high-handed” — it’s simply stating a fact. Ethically, it’s not even a “grey area” — it’s wrong and a complete abuse of power. With regards to your second point, an analogy would be those women who are hesitant to prosecute their husbands/boyfriends if they are on the receiving end of domestic violence or rape. Feelings of loyalty, deep emotional ties etc can be major psychological drivers. Going against one’s parents isn’t an easy thing to do, especially when you factor guilt, obligation etc into the equation.
Your third paragraph is fine in theory, but unfortunately its implementation in real life is a much more difficult and emotionally-loaded issue. These things are much easier said than done.
Razib:
The figures that you cited only apply to first cousin marriage, right? I thought the risks (both individual and societal) for second cousin marriage were the same as the general population.
Kenyandesi, do they have access, a heck of a lot more than women in rural south asia, where ven law enforcement may aid parents or community to get individuals to comply.
again, let me say it as clear as i can, i am not saying i disagree, rather, i am saying it is wrong, and i whole heartedly agree with you, but, i dont think it is immoral, suspect yes, unethical definitely, go the whole yard, immoral, no. granted, i am not intimately familiar with all religions, but the ones i know of do not say Thou shalt not coerce, or get ur offspring to do thy will, or threaten to have a heartattack if they dont.
an di am not making light of it. i am saying, people have choices in the west, they dont always in south asia.
MoorNam,
I actually wasn’t referring just to you 😉
With regards to excessive governmental interference: Yes I know about the potential dangers involved, especially in the context of the Indian examples you’ve given. However, I think that external official intervention is appropriate and necessary in certain questions, as long as it isn’t taken to fascistic, insane extremes, and does not violate anyone’s fundamental human rights. This doesn’t apply in the scenario we’ve all been discussing (and before anyone jumps in: no, parents do not have the “human right” to emotionally blackmail their children into marriage).
My use of the terms you’ve underlined, while (again) not directed solely at yourself, were intended as a general statement and not as a form of “emotional blackmail” or verbal abuse. I’m just making what I perceive to be a factual statement, based on the evidence at hand.
jai, 3rd para, wouldnt have said it, if i hadnt done it, or would advise anyone close to do the same. there are many needy people in the world, who actually need someone, many ones to fight their battles, because the opposition they face are guns and tanks and bombers and jail or death. people who wont fight for themselves when the opposition is guilt or coercion or loyalty, i am sorry, i dont agree.
i think to an extent Eddie may be right, it may have to do with socio-economics. during my time in london, cases of extreme coercion, i.e. imprisonment in their own homes, physical threats or bodily injury or death, primarily were with not so well off or affluent or educated populations. but i have also seen extremely rich and well connected and well educated families in south aisa uses these as well as other methods to have children comply.
my experience is limited to th elife i have lived in the places i have been and the people i know of or seen. i dont pretend to know everything, or assume i am always correct. i would not go around telling other people what is or isnt moral, i know for myself, in this limited instance, i dont think it is immoral.
maybe we should get the insights of a few parents here to get a 360.
Since we can’t outlaw pressure, and we can’t detect coercion easily, why not simply make divorce easier? That way people would be less likely to remain trapped in marriages they don’t want …
Yes, i am all for making marriages difficult and divorce easier in every society.