The reason these terms seem to be at odds is based on what is written in the feminist echo chamber. If you go down the blogroll for Broadsheet, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single post that was pro-heterosexual marrige. Contrast that with the numerous posts and snark that's written that is anti-heterosexual marriage. This is one of the reasons why feminism today looks, to me at least, to be anti-male, anti-family, and anti-marriage.

If you're judging the question by what you see on blogs, then you're making the same mistake that so many people on the internet make. The web attracts people who want to speak their opinions in an anonymous forum, where they can say what they want without the consequences of face-to-face encounters. (Certainly that's one of the purposes it serves for me.) But that means that you're also going to see a lot of opinions that are marginal, or extreme, or colored by that anonymity, i.e., venting, ranting, and the kind of all-around bitching that society frowns upon in face-to-face situations. The upshot is that you're forming a view of an entire sector based on reading a small segment of opinions. Not a realistic analysis, that.

The proportion of "man-hating" or bitter or unhappy feminists online is naturally going to be much higher than in the actual real world, because that's one of the things the internet is for, at least as it is used today. The feminists who are pretty happy with their lives, don't have the kind of bitter attitudes the trolls here are so fond of crowing about, or are actively engaged in real feminist work (as opposed to just typing about feminism in the internet echo chamber) generally don't spend their time bitching online about how awful the world is. If you want to see the real face of feminism, shut off the computer and go talk to some real women. Your view of the category will change; that is, if your expectations haven't been colored by what you've seen online, which is certainly a possibility.

Well, OK: She wanted something, she tried to get it one way but that didn't work, so she tried another way.

I don't know how one gets a whole book out of that (I mean, a whole book that will be interesting to read) but in any case, so what? She's one person with one experience. It's quite possible that nothing about her experience will be of any use to anyone else.

I know couples who started out as drunken one-night stands, as extra-marital affairs, as high school sweethearts (i.e. the first person to come along), as rebounding craiglist hookups, you name it. That doesn't mean anyone should follow their example. It's just... what happened.

I agree that the North American system of dating/courtship is totally screwed up. I'm not so sure about the alternative she chose though.

I think what frustrated me most while reading this was the complete dismissal of online dating.

This has actually become increasingly common and it is not, despite what the author thinks, evidence of one's being a loser. I know many, many people who met their spouses via an online dating site (or something similar); in fact, among almost everyone I know who met and married their spouse after the age of 35, I would say the majority met their spouse in this fashion or something very similar. Given this shift in how post-college adults date, I think the writer has simplified and misunderstood western dating.

It is true, however, that people fear the stigma associated with on-line dating (I think the fear of this is greater than the reality---I think few people actually stigmatize those who met their spouses etc. in this fashion). I am guessing that many of the happily married/happily dating people whom the writer knows actually met their partners in this fashion (people fear the stigma and routinely lie about this; I know three couples who presented a different story of how they met because they feared this stigma; only after I had known them for a long time did they admit the truth).

I find myself puzzled as to how and why the author believes that an arranged marriage differs from on-line dating. I actually think that these are very similar processes---and I would love to see an article discussing this.

I agree with other letter posters: don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Dating in my 30s was lackluster at best until I got online. But then, I approached it a little differently. I asked men upfront if they were interested in marriage and children. I asked them about their views on religion, politics, alcohol, and drugs. I asked them about previous relationships. I asked how far they'd gotten in school, and if they'd ever spent time incarcerated. I asked them about their views on homosexuals and did they have any gay friends?

I asked these questions because I was looking for someone who wanted marriage and children, who had a college degree or advanced training in their profession, who didn't partake of illegal substances, and who was open-minded about people different from himself.

A few were put off by being "interviewed." Most were very frank. And I answered any questions they asked of me.

I'm no beauty, but I dated a lot. And if someone said he would call and didn't, I didn't get all worked up about it. My attitude was that he obviously wasn't right for me. So what? There were always more men.

I didn't go out with someone based on their picture -- that just helped me find them in the bar or restaurant or wherever we were meeting. I avoided the ones who were obviously looking for a casual hookup. And I found the right one. Eight years and two kids later, we're good.

Looking for an arranged marriage is desirable to someone who trusts her parents to have higher standards for her than she has for herself. Ms. Jain writes that Western dating leaves a lot to chance. That can be true, but only if one is not upfront about what she expects from a relationship -- and follows through on it.

That's true whether you meet someone online, in a bar, or in your parent's living room.