Hey now, nothing wrong with arranged marriages. Just forced marriages. Father's need to start doing their job in finding suitors who are qualified and capable of wooing their daughters. I'm sure this young lady would love to get married if she were in love. Naturally the young lady ought to have complete veto power.

Infidelity isn't a big deal to swingers, but I doubt swingers would agree sex is "no big deal" as they define themselves by it.

This guy think he's cutting edge--labeling morality as "absolutist"--when it's all been tried and done before. Arranged marriage actually has a better track record than the newer kind.

Where society is failing is rewarding irresponsible behavior.

>> ^notarobot:
The important thing is that in all the hullabaloo about the IPO people have largely ignored how awful Zuckerburg's wedding photos turned out.
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/05/23/the-zuckerberg-wedding-a-tale-of-two-photographers/


They look absolutely ecstatic! The happiest day of their lives!

Sad truth is that their expressions remind me of a couple I know who were forced into an arranged marriage.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.

You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.

Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)

In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?

In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

^I agree. You can either see this clip as a young, independent girl trying to escape an arranged marriage with a group of potential suitors she does not have any great affection for.... or you can see this clip as a young smart assed girl going against her traditional gender role and beating men in physical competition. I guess it all depends on which characters you empathize with most.

>> ^Yogi:

"...was handed a note on Valentine's Day by a random young male..."
In other news I was dumped by an Indian girl last week who I was going to marry. Instead her parents leaned on her and because of her upbringing in a sexist and oppressive culture she went back to her arranged marriage instead breaking my heart. I am now particularly sensitive to cultures who treat women like second class citizens and I say that BYU either addresses this or looses it's accreditation.

Ouch. Don't have any words.


I knew a Sri Lankan girl who kept her boyfriend secret from her family for 4yrs. I don't know what happened to them in the end, but i was under the impression that if they found out it would be him or them. Sucked for her, sucks for you. I'm sorry to hear that.

"...was handed a note on Valentine's Day by a random young male..."

In other news I was dumped by an Indian girl last week who I was going to marry. Instead her parents leaned on her and because of her upbringing in a sexist and oppressive culture she went back to her arranged marriage instead breaking my heart. I am now particularly sensitive to cultures who treat women like second class citizens and I say that BYU either addresses this or looses it's accreditation.

The stupidity and inadequateness of Peters last argument is laughable. Aside from the already mentioned immorality of being moral only because of god/supervision, the whole "North pole" metaphor is pathetic.

Lets say then, that there is such a thing as a "north pole of morality" well.. how do we get access to it? I'm sure Peter feels guided by jesus or something, I, for my part, just try my best to be guided by reason and evidence, and then there are these guys, who beat a woman to death because her daughter refused forced marriage. Which of us is closer to the "pole"? Any answer you give to this question is where I rest my case.

My answer would be that we'll just have to make the best of what we've got: to use our reason, logic, evidence and stand on the shoulders of those who have used the same things before, and just simply strive to find the pole as best we can.

If the answer lies in scripture, you still owe me the answer to which scripture, and an explanation of why I should believe any of it, how we know which parts to ignore, and so on, basically, were back to the basic problem with all religion: Theres no evidence that any of it is true.

>> ^dag:
I've often thought that the custom of men letting a woman go first was just a chance to look at her ass.


I actually heard a great theory on why you open the door and let women go first through them:

It goes back to medieval or even pre-medieval eras when women were worth less than men and more expendable as you could go and get another one (marriage is a new thing and so is marriage for love, arranged marriages were the norm). The way it works is that you let the female exit first and if someone is waiting outside of the house for the master of the house they would instead kill the female and the male can get his weapons and get revenge. Houses, and people, were smaller back then so it would not be uncommon for people to stand on the roof over the door and simply stab the first person going out and then the male in the house could stab them back through the roof... Revenge has been served.

Another fine, alleged, custom in the old norse countries were to block the doors, at night, of the house with the people you want to kill/get revenge on and simply set the house on fire and if the residents could not get out and fight you, i.e. die in battle as you have armour and weapons and they don't, they were refused entrance to Valhalla... smoke poisoning and third degree burns make you a much better fighter... ahh, the good old chivalrous days

Also think about booby traps... they trigger them... you have a greater chance of survival... eeeexcellent as Mr.Burns would say

I think both sides in this argument have fair points. Yes, all movies are derivative at some level. But not to this degree.

Also, I don't think Star Wars and the Matrix are that comparable. Sure, you could say Tatooine is like the real world, and space is like the Matrix. But that's kind of tenuous. It's not like outer space was a secret to Luke. They both fight a controlling, evil empire, but that plot point exists in half of action / epic movies. As a plot device, attacking evil empires works much better than attacking orphanages.

Also, if you look at the list of "7 types of plots", Matrix is man versus machine while Star wars is man versus man. Luke's life is heavily influenced by a mysterious father figure whose path he seeks to follow and whose (supposed) death he seeks to revenge. Neo's father plays no roll. Neo is saved by Trinity's love, Luke has no romantic interest. Who is the Han Solo figure in the Matrix?

Yes, they're similar at the one sentence level -- young warrior joins band of freedom fighters to destroy evil empire. That level of similarity can be found for any movie. For Avatar, you can instead write eight sentences, like in this trailer.

Young warrior leaves home for an alien, barely colonized new world inhabited by strange natives with a tenuous peace. The new world holds great spoils sought by the colonists. Meanwhile, the daughter of the native chief has an arranged marriage with a serious, stoic, well respected warrior of the tribe but she is not enthusiastic about this marriage. The young warrior and the native daughter meet and the warrior comes to appreciate the native point of view and way of life. The young warrior and the heroine consult with a sentient tree spirit. The young warrior and the chief's daughters form a close relationship that makes the betrothed mate jealous. The young warrior falls out of favor with the natives and barely escapes execution because of an attack from the colonists. Ultimately, there is a show down between the colonists and the natives, and the young warrior decides to aid the natives.

There are, of course, differences, especially with the ultimate resolution. In Pocahontas
1) There is less of a blood bath in the end.
2) The warrior leaves back to his old world at the end
3) The riches of the new world did not actually exist.
4) There is no "Avatar" element -- John doesn't pretend to be a native.
5) John wasn't specifically tasked to infiltrate the native community.

edit: I suppose this infamous image highlights the similarities better than I did:
http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/Pocahontas-to-Avatar.jpg

Unfortunately this is not confined to Muslim communities. Honor killings are also committed in the Sikh and Hindu cultures, in some Latin communities in fact in any culture that has a tradition of arranged marriage.

>> ^Payback:
FAKE. The "wife" even waits to make sure the camera is on.
Also, unless the people behind the camera are holding AK's on the couple, why would they stand there?


petrified with shame

and perhaps they hadn't finished when they were interrupted and were waiting for the family to leave to get back at it. it was probably an arranged marriage anyways.. most of those are doomed to fail.

I love when people associate gay marriage, a union joined by two consenting adults to things like bestiality and pedophilia. Both of those acts occur between a party that is incapable of making a consented decision. That is a huge freaking difference.

Also, in fairness, I think polygamy should be legal. There's no reason more than 2 adults can't consent to a union. However polygamy has a long history of arranged marriages and child brides, which is just a nice way of saying pedophilia. So on those grounds, I understand why polygamy is illegal.