having read both this and the piece in NY Magazine, that Anita Jain may have an easier time arranging a match than making a marriage work once she has it.

She seems to lack the hardheaded pragmatism about marriage that women of my parents generation had that made arranged marriages work.

My mom had a love match (in the 60s when that was a shocking thing to do!) but I heard a lot about it from aunties. Marriage isn't about romantic happiness, but about having a partner and raising a family. Women of her generation were not looking for Fabio. It's not just that "love comes later" but that romantic love is not the point. Indian marriage is a communitarian institution.

From the anecdote with her friend in the park, Jain describes a highly romantic idea of what her own marriage might look like. She is enormously choosy for some superficial reasons - something she defends because men are similarly superficial. She rejects one perfectly nice man who is into her because he is overweight (losing weight on Atkins, but still!) ... and I'm sure that will work out for her as well as it does anyone else.

That doesn't sound like she's looking for my auntie's arranged marriage. It doesn't even sound like my mom's love match.

The irony is that many Desi women of my acquaintance (first and second generation) put off marriage ... and we battle the very same social pressures Jain is giving in to for our cherished independence!

"the refuge of the desperate and socially isolated"... hardly! Check your facts, sweetheart. More and more people are finding (real) love through dating sites. Yeah, there are toads, but you don't have to kiss them, and if you're smart you know how to spot a gem. I did, and we're going on year 8 of our relationship, most of it married. Don't knock it 'til you've really tried it, as opposed to bashing that which you haven't really given a chance.

MOst women in America are not marriage material.

It's either "Girls Gone Wild" or angry, chip-on-the-shoulder feminist.

Perhaps that's why Russian and Japanese dating services cater almost exclusively to American men, and why women's groups put so many legal barriers up to prevent them from operating successfully.

Back at ya, bitch.

My (India-born, but US-educated) friend tried an arranged marriage, and it was a disaster.

Although she is pretty and educated and vivacious, and had lots of dates and "interest", a marriage proposal did not materialize.

Since she was not happy with being single after she hit 30, she allowed her parents to try to set up an arranged marriage.

They found a suitable young man for her, who also lived in the US, and when they met they liked each other quite a lot.

So even though she had met him only once, she moved to his city, they saw each other slightly more often, and the wedding planning began. The next year they were married and she moved in with him and his sister's family.

Sadly, both her husband and his sister's family abused her both physically and verbally. After several months of this, she moved out to save her life. While both her parents and his parents back in India were appalled, and they tried, and she moved back in once, he and his family did not change their behavior, and she said that she did not feel "safe" living with them.

She's now divorced, less than 2 years after her marriage. Of course, she is considered a pariah as far as another arranged marriage is concerned. The families in India are both ashamed, although they both support her still (to their credit). But she feels like she will never marry or have a family now.

Traditional arranged marriage is not always the sunshine & flowers as described in the article!

Let's see. You begin your post quoting me to the effect that one's personal experience doesn't represent that of society at large and therefor cannot be extrapolated from. You proceed to describe the experience of one individual of your acquaintance and then draw conclusions based solely on that.

C'mon, you can do better than that, can't you?

Worse, the conclusions you draw strongly suggest a real passivity on your part. "It's all random. There's nothing anyone can do. Etc." That's just a self-fulfilling prophesy.

"LilyRose - Isn't that a recipe for racial balkanisation? Keeping it all within the community? What ever happened with engaging with the wider community, even for marriages? (I find mixed-race people to be absolutely beautiful, so perhaps I'm a tad biased here.)

I think all people are beautiful :-) .

People are not marrying within their caste, religion, tribe, or community to preserve marriage. Marriage is under attack in the West, but in most of the world it is still a thriving institution. And I think it is one of the most beautiful institutions we have.

About the issue of balkanization: Marriage is not a politically correct act. It is a communal act, and cultures create conditions that allow it to flourish.

I'm not comfortable with this notion that one should resist entire sections of humanity to preserve a, frankly, silly conception of marriage and community. Why is it silly, you ask? Because it places one's value on that relationship, and anything short of marriage is a failure. What nonsense!"

If you find marriage and community to be silly institutions, then yes, you won't find this practice to be worthwhile.

Marriage is HARD WORK so it needs support from all and everybody. I don't think there is anything wrong with a Jewish person choosing to only marry someone of his/her faith or for a Muslim to only marry within her community. It increases the chances of the marriage working. Also, community and culture are beautiful things. If you go to India or to Malaysia, you will see the fruits of the preservation of culture. You can go from one neighborhood to another and experience completely different worlds and traditions--some 1000s years old--and it is beautiful. These cultures have not survived because of chance; people work hard to preserve them.

Anyway, even my second or third generation Muslim friends in the US--doctors, engineers, teachers--have all married within their faith. I don't see anything wrong with that. We all had and still have friends from all over the world and from all faiths, but when it came to dating, we chose to date people of our own faith. Why? Because marriage is a serious and divine union. We should befriend and love and take care of anyone, regardless of race or religion, but that can be done even while keeping marriage within a community.

Well, If Anita wants an "Eastern" culture marriage, then she cannot flirt with it Madonna-style. She needs to acquaint herself with the people who will help her find a suitable groom. Because similar communities do no exist in white or black American cultures, Anita will increase her chances by committing to dating only men who come from the world she wants to marry into.

Also, most American men (I am not familiar with Europeans, so I cannot speak for them) I have met are just not marriage-quality, in my opinion. I am genuinely NOT trying to insult anyone, really. When there is a culture where 70% of its women are single mothers (the African American community), I think it is safe to assume that something in the culture is failing to teach the men to be fathers and husbands.

In my experience--and from friends' and family's--American men of a certain age have serious intimacy issues, have a hard time submitting to the selfless life of fatherhood and marriage, and seem to be obsessed with self-fulfillment at the expense of his family. Also, they seem to have too much of an "I'm out of here" attitude when things get rough. Marriage is all about the rough times! So I think it is perfectly legitimate to not date such men.

I have no problem with intermarriages. I wouldn't recommend them, but once the marriage happens, we should all rally behind it and make sure that it does not end up in divorce. And of course, children, whether biracial or not, need everyone's support and love.

Also, being single is wonderful as well.

Oh, and I am anticipating a backlash, so, yes, there are jackass Eastern men and wonderful Western fathers. Yes, there are exceptions, I know. And no, women in arranged marriages are not oppressed, unenlightened doormats. And no, arranged marriages is not the same as forced marriages.

Finally, I think there has been a great conversation so far. Most of the English blogosphere is dominated by white or black American women, and there is zero understanding of the many Muslim, Indian, Sikh, Arab, Persian, etc., communities in America; these minorities are highly endogamous and do not speak out much. Also, "traditional" values are viciously attacked by often white "feminists" (or, as I called them: femperialists), so women from these minority communities generally stay among their own. So this discussion is much appreciated.