For those of us who are so wishing that the public’s fascination with arranged marriages was over, well … it’s not. Back in 2005, there was a lot of buzz [including here] around financial writer Anita Jain’s New York magazine article “Is Arranged Marriage Really Any Worse Than Craigslist?” So much so that she got a book deal out of it.
Next month, her memoir Marrying Anita: A Quest for Love in the New India will be published in the UK, US, and India by Bloomsbury. 
The book is being pitched as a “witty, confessional memoir” that simultaneously records Jain’s romantic quest and the story of “a country modernizing at breakneck speed.” The big question it asks: Is the new urban Indian culture in which she’s searching for a husband really all that different from America? Has globalization changed the face of arranged marriage
I want to groan, but I’m trying to be openminded and wait till I’ve actually read the book. I can’t help it though. The red flags go up in my mind when I hear about another arranged marriage book. And, now, this one combines that with another buzz word “globalization.” Is this the chick lit version of Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat”?
[Below the fold, glimpses of an excerpt which appeared at the Guardian last weekend.] At the Guardian is “The Marrying Kind,” an excerpt from the book. In the following section, Anita decides to move to India to find a husband.
In my three years in New York, I didn’t come close to even one romantic relationship. Dating felt like an absurd cat-and-mouse game, where people were more concerned about what they could get away with than with settling down. Despairing of another summer of Sunday brunches with the stodgy and unresponsive company of the New York Times, I knew I had to leave New York, but where could I go?
That was when I began to think of going to India. There are more men in India than women, around 930 women to every 1,000 men, according to recent census data, the discrepancy a disturbing result of infanticide and sex-segregated abortion. So I figured my options were simply more plentiful in India. In cities such as Delhi and Mumbai, the vast majority of marriages were still arranged, but I’d also heard that a culture of dating and sleeping around was gaining ground. Nonetheless, in India, a desire to be married wasn’t at loggerheads with the advances for which feminists had struggled.
People commonly go to India to find themselves or find God, but I went to find a husband. I would give myself a year, which I figured was ample time in such a marriage-oriented society. I wondered if I’d be able to find someone modern enough in his thinking to be comfortable with a wife making decisions for the household and having a full life outside the marriage – one that included going out with friends, drinking and smoking. A woman who has had sex in the past – and not just with long-term boyfriends.
So, how, the Guardian editors ask in the story’s head, “Would Delhi men cope with a Harvard-educated working woman? And what happened when her father placed an advert seeking a ‘broad-minded groom’?”
Anita’s dad, we discover, apparently has too-high expectations of sealing the deal during his six-week trip to India. His optimistism yields to a trickle of responses which are followed by disappointing in-person meetings. At an encounter with a corporate lawyer, the following ensues:
My father wants to see if there is more to the fellow. He believes only one question is required to take the measure of a man. Leaning in, he carefully chooses his words in Hindi: “If my daughter Anita is sick and cannot cook, who would cook dinner?”
Waving his hand as if shooing away a fly, Vinod answers, “I have a maid.”
Knowing how decisive the question is, Papa gives him another chance. “The maid is sick. Who cooks?”
“I have two maids,” he says, notching up his attitude of arrogant dismissiveness.
“Your other maid is sick, too. Who cooks?” my father says, relentlessly.
“I’d hire a third,” Vinod says, unblinkingly.
Neither is backing down. It is a face-off. “Forget the bloody maids! What do you do?” Papa bellows.
Gulp, at the end of all these examples, wouldn’t the average reader be left with the feeling that there are no broadminded men in India? Or is this just the excerpt that was chosen because it was deemed “juicy” enough to boost sales? (I know many progressive and broadminded desi men, my husband included, so am really hoping that this book is more than your stereotypical arranged marriage kahani. My copy of the book is on the way so stay tuned.)
For those in the NY area, the author will be reading with Sandeep Jauhar at the Asian American Writers Workshop on August 7. Details here.
At the very least, her use of that word clearly tells more traditional men that she isn’t interested, and that’s a good thing
No, it puts a value judgement on them as not being evolved, worldly, and living a myopic or narrow-minded life.
Hash is very common in India. It’s known for it.
Ganja is a universal word now.
And, people into ganja may not be into wine. I know several people who eat or smoke ganja for everything from PMS to depression, but they are dead set against alcohol. Ganja is a healing herb, a medicinal herb. I had a partner into it and it didn’t bother me nearly as much as his beer drinking. Anyway, that’s another story for another time, suffice it to say – it’s over. Precisely because of the culural/value differences, so I get where Jain is coming from.
look at half a million Indian men that are generalized on with out a flutter of an eye.
sorry, meant to say billion
Actually I’d like to meet you in real life and show you some love, which you are obviously very much in need of.
International Enquirer,
Are you for real, can you please stop making up nonsense about India and your partners as I am sure there are others here who are tired of it.
Actually I’d like to meet you in real life and show you some love, which you are obviously very much in need of.
Uhh.. hmm.. I think I was more comfortable with you talking about my family. lets go back to that.
Unlike most people on the net, I AM for real and have not made up a single thing about India or my partners. Which, by the way, I have only had 2 since I began coming to this site. So if I was going to go to the trouble to make things up, I would make up alot more partners than that.
HMF, I think you’ve come under too much influence of fear-based PUAs.
256 · HMF said
HMF, finally a woman that wants to get with you without any idea of how big your bank balance is!
HMF, finally a woman that wants to get with you without any idea of how big your bank balance is!
too bad she’s on a first name basis with the staff at Bellvue.
Both men and women inquire about the financial status of possible spouses.
i think for women its largly a 2 factor model that determines eligablity of men. Height and money.
for guys its a 1 factor model. hotness.
not saying ppl dont look at personality, etc. but largly tall rich guys get alot of attention. hot girls get alot more attention.
You could be right, Puli, especially when dating. Settling down for life is another matter. Then personality, values, etc, comes into play more. I know for myself, I have a tendency to be physically attracted to tall, hot looking men, but after my last experience my first priority is now commonly shared values. Only if the hottie has those, will I shack up.
Now on the otherhand I do know men who share my values who I do not find good-looking. They are my friends.
For anything more than friendship, naturally, physically attraction and sexual chemistry is a must, along with the shared values.
241 · HMF said
MY reasoning is warped? The more you post, the less I can follow. Maybe you should take a good hard look at yourself, considering that many many people on the blog save types like yourself feel that you are living in a bizarre alternate universe? Do you think being ‘alpha’ means being the casual date instead of the long-term partner? Do you really think that’s a bigger compliment to your ego? Oh lord.
And pray tell where does your number of ‘half a million Indian men’ come from and exactly where did I generalise them? You seem to be reading meanings into my post that are explicitly not present. Are you being deliberately obtuse when I tell you that I don’t outright reject desi men, that the critera that apply to them are the same for every kind of guy on this planet?
UGH, completely wonky formatting! Here’s a repost:
Then what data are you requesting?
I said Indian men are generalized on more (whether it be beta or whatever), by Indian women, where as white men are not, and you responded “its because there are more white men and hence harder to generalise” and I said that’s bullshit, because look at half a million Indian men that are generalized on with out a flutter of an eye.
Then you said, “without data the point is meaningless” and I provided you , your own statement of generalization on half a million people.
Are you requesting data that shows Indian women find Indiam men beta? I thought you conceeded that, it’s just in your warped sense of reasoning, you are casting that into the highest complement in the world.
MY reasoning is warped? The more you post, the less I can follow. Maybe you should take a good hard look at yourself, considering that many many people on the blog save types like yourself feel that you are living in a bizarre alternate universe? Do you think being ‘alpha’ means being the casual date instead of the long-term partner? Do you really think that’s a bigger compliment to your ego? Oh lord.
And pray tell where does your number of ‘half a million Indian men’ come from and exactly where did I generalise them? You seem to be reading meanings into my post that are explicitly not present. Are you being deliberately obtuse when I tell you that I don’t outright reject desi men, that the critera that apply to them are the same for every kind of guy on this planet?
Obviously it’s too late for me! sigh…
There is no question that the non-desis in US are more exciting and sexually alluring to the desi’s than the other desi’s. Desi guys and girls are usually formal and consequently quite dull and boring with each other. But with the non-desi’s these same desi’s can become crazy, passionate and alive! It’s great for the sexually active desi girl, and by a similar token also for the desi guy. However once these people enter their 30’s, the desi guys suddenly have more options for settling down(including going to the desh), and most do avail of it. On the other hand, the desi girl’s options start to dwindle. She finds most of her abd peers already taken, her non-desi lovers fickle and unable to commit, and the thought of going to the desh for a mate positively revolting. And then she starts getting angry and bitter with the injustice of it all (like International Enquirer, Meena, Jain Doe, etc). And before she knows it, she is in her 40s and she turns positively pathetic (still single, completely lost her freshness and charms, and not recognizing it). It is not exactly fair, but c’est la vie!
I can assure you that I am far too young to be bitter! I’m also slightly miffed you seem to think that I am in my thirties. But just slightly.
Nice try though.
MY* reasoning is warped? The more you post, the less I can follow.
Then read vikrams link, or this, or this.
And pray tell where does your number of ‘half a million Indian men’ come from and exactly where did I generalise them?
The population of the Indian subcontinent is approximately 1 billion, 50 % of them are male, approximately. (probably more), I corrected myself later when I said Billion instead of million.
You provided a statement, which you later said you stood behind:
“the number one reason why I most likely won’t marry a DBD – the cultural difference is just too big, and I was raised with values that don’t coincide with the values of most men in India.”
which indicates two things:
Now, instead of tippy-toeing on these abstract terms, like “raised with values that don’t coincide” you can come out and just say what you really mean.
All this was in response to your statement that the more numbers there are, the less problematic it is to generalize behavior, what you fail to understand is , you two are falling pry to white privilege, and granting white men their individuality on a person to person basis, while a small sample of Indian men , you’ll easily graft to the larger group without batting an eye.
more numbers there are, the less problematic it i
this should rad
“more numbers there are, the more problematic it is”
you two
FUCK. should read “you too”
268 · HMF said
well, by accusing woc of self-hatred for dating outside their race, but avoiding that label when describing whites who do the same thing, aren’t you pigeonholing woc into a particular culture while allowing whites the individual freedom to appropriate any cultural values without repercussions.
that black/brown power is considered a virtue but white power considered evil, is the ultimate expression of white privilege.
HMF, you apparently don’t have a problem with Opinionated’s assertion that DBD men are overwhelmingly more socially conservative than Western men (including South Asian men raised in the West), so why are you taking Meena to task for her entirely sensible observation that a Western European like herself probably wouldn’t be compatible with your average DBD?
well, by accusing woc of self-hatred for dating outside their race, but avoiding that label when describing whites who do the same thing,
whites don’t grant poc individuality, it’s just not self hatred when they date out of race because poc have more in common with each other rather than simply racial superiority, whites do not. what binds them is that they are historicaly privileged.
so why are you taking Meena to task for her entirely sensible observation that a Western European like herself probably wouldn’t be compatible with your average DBD?
Im not taking her to task, Im saying that generalisations exist irrespective of the number of people you generalize on. but her assertion was less desis in the US than white people, hence generalizing against them is more justified, and Im saying we generalize against them because it’s an artifact of white privilege. Whites are granted individuality (and in many cases, superiority) where as we are not.
that black/brown power is considered a virtue but white power considered evil,
the two go hand in hand, black/brown solidarity is accepted (and was once a necessary virtue) BECAUSE white power was evil, in fact whitness and power (in a racial sense) were synonymous, white power is a meaningless term. white implies power.
Y’all, the thread has gone on for a while and it’s going to sleep for a while. No specific violation of policy, just a general jumpage of the shark.