Arranged (movie)

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Arranged/70083538
http://www.amazon.com/Arranged-Zoe-Lister-Jones/dp/B00116VG3M/

The movie "Arranged" shows how marriage works for Orthodox Jews and Muslims.  I think these are better systems than modern dating.

Yes.

This wins as the topic for September.

I just saw this movie for a third time so I can comment on it now, before my trip to Argentina tomorrow.  I love this movie.  This is how women should be.  The movie shows how conservative Jewish and Muslim women behave, and they have a lot in common.  The movie does a great job in contrasting these conservative women to the horrors of the modern world.  I wish I could be part of a conservative culture like these.  But as an atheist, I would not fit in with a conservative religion.  My dream is for CoAlpha to be a nonsectarian group similar to conservative Judaism or Islam.

I am very attached to my wife and daughter, but there is no question that they are not as good women as those portrayed in this film.  This is not their fault.  Women need a culture to give them guidance.  It is up to men to provide this culture.  If CoAlpha is successful, we can create a culture to give our women the guidance that they need.

A key part of these cultures is the matchmaking process.  The matchmaking process allows for strong marriages and protects women from the modern world.  We will need a good matchmaking process, and I believe this will be the most import issue for CoAlpha.  If my family moves to Argentina, I plan to offer a matchmaking service there.  I described it here:

http://www.love-shy.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3817

If successful, this can be the main method of recruiting for CoAlpha and be one of our core practical benefits to members.  I will give precedence to CoAlpha members when offering this service.  My dream here is that this matchmaking service works out and that some other members also find ways of escaping from the femisphere and also can offer a similar service.  This would allow CoAlpha to grow to a meaningful size.

We should study conservative religious groups.  Modern culture is worthless and has nothing to offer us, but conservative religions like Orthodox Judaism and Islam do have a lot to offer.

I hope you will take the 92 minutes to watch this movie and post your opinion of it here.

I saw the movie a few days ago.

To be honest, its a nice movie. With a message. Certainly a better system than average 'modern' culture.

The matchmaking process sounds good, and I suppose its a great thing to try out sans religious norms.

But its just a movie. Stylized, where everything works out for everyone. For instance, both the women ended up with men who were good looking, smart, young and with stellar careers in front of them. Not exactly real world.

Im nominally muslim, and of course, while I suppose, what was portrayed in the film does happen - it would also be common for the girl to end up with someone 20 years older. I have no idea if she would object like the muslim girl in the film did, but just saying.

Thats another thing, the movie was a mix of western and non-western norms - how do we know the muslim girl would be so against her first suitor? Or that her father would be so understanding/give into her disdain? Or for that matter, that the jewish girl would get educated and get a job before being matched off? I would think the more educated and independent the woman would become the less likely she would be to listen to her parents at all.

Can both parties be made equally happy in a union (as implied in the movie, I guess all the other suitors of those women ended up with less pretty/less stimulating counterparts)? Or does one side always take precedence - in traditional cultures, by and large men get first choice, in the west women get first choice.

I agree that it is just a movie.  I don't know to what degree it is accurate because I don't know Islamic or Orthodox Jewish culture well enough.  I did spend some time reading about Hasidic Judaism and I visited a Hasidic Jewish rabbi for dinner.  I was very impressed with the Hasidic Jews that I met at that dinner.  The total lack of sexual tension was so obvious and so different from mainstream society.  But I did not investigate the matchmaking process.  I think we should investigate this ourselves.  If you can investigate Islamic matchmaking, I can investigate Orthodox Jewish matchmaking and we can find the truth.

Still, I find the movie believable.  Both of these women were attractive, so it is reasonable that they would end up with attractive men.  And I don't think one side (men or women) has to take precedence.  As long as both sides have the right to reject the other, the matchmaking process should be fairly balanced.  And yes, this means people are matched with people who are roughly at their level of attractiveness (assuming monogamy) which is fair and lot better than the current system where less attractive people simply lose out.

To be perfectly honest,
When I first read your reply, it made my blood boil.
Of course I realized soon what I heard and what you typed were in different contexts. In the west, to say women make the choices means theres a good chance I (and to dress it up, many others) go without. Thats what I heard, and its hard not to hear that because it is the realistic subtext of most talk, regardless of what is overtly said. I shall have to be on guard against that.

Moving along. Its axiomatic that people will be roughly matched to the same level of attractiveness. The devil is in the details. How is attractiveness measured? A woman is highly physically attractive in youth. But that is limited. Men do not see such a strong drop off. Men who would get the 'best women' according to your general co-Alpha theory are not necessarily the most attractive physically. They would, thus, see a strong probability of not being chosen.

Let me put it another way. Who objects?
According to you, a woman can object and that can stop the process. Of what (I think) you read of my reply - you are thinking that what I think is if women are not granted the right to object, a non-attractive guy gets an attractive girl.

I meant something else entirely. What I meant is a man can take a wife, and its not the objection of the woman that counts so much as it is the objection of other men. If a man (or by loose extension, the family) try to get a woman who is more attractive than what he is worth, it is not the objection of the woman as much as it is the objection of the more attractive man who will be forced to choose a mate of lesser attractiveness that makes it something to be on guard against.

I do find your view a little curious though. After reading some of your old postings, among many others, I remember you writing once civilization is about farming women. Sounds like a clear view of one side being superior to the other. A benevolent form of slavery if you will. And just like many slaveowners treated their slaves very well, people like Nasira's father would exist who would give their daughters more leverage than average. However the key point from a point of view of social norms and/or law will remain -"who has the final say"? -Nasira or her father?

One might say in *most cases* both systems lead to the same outcome, but when there is an imbalance of some sort (postwar maybe?) the differences could be profound.

Perhaps we are on different ends of the bell curve here. Im closer to Ragnars view that civilization is a 'brotherhood of men' while you want more equal say for all.

All being said, I am not wedded to this idea, and thus do not reject yours completely (nor do I like the totalitarian underpinnings of arranged marriage). The subconscious reasoning behind my rejection being my fear that I would 'lose out' under such a system (not necessarily true), and perhaps your subconscious reasoning behind your support being, (I assume), your love for your daughter. But, all in all, this is where I am currently regarding thinking about this whole arranged marriage thing.

This is a good topic to discuss.  But before looking at the theoretical question of whether women should have veto power in mate selection, let's look at the practical side.  As long as the co-alpha brotherhood is small, women will mostly come from outside the group.  These women will obviously have veto power.  Their fathers will not be co-alphas, so the Islamic model can't apply.  Only the matchmaking model where the women can object is practical, and this is similar to the Jewish model.  As I posted on the love-shy forum, I will move to El Paso soon and try to implement this model.

Now the theoretical.  In Islamic and Ancient Athenian culture, women do not have final veto power.  In Early Roman, Jewish, and Christian culture, women do have final veto power.  What is the practical difference between these systems?  There is no difference in terms of men going without.  As long as women are forced to mate with someone, and only have the power to reject some men in the process of making a final selection, all men will be matched to women.  Of course this assumes monogamy, meaning that each man only gets one wife.

What about the quality of women that men like us will get?  I am not sure of the answer.  Women do look for better traits when selecting a husband than when selecting men for casual sex.  The problem with modern culture is that there is no real distinction between these types of selection and so women only pay attention to men who they find attractive for casual sex.  This problem is only solved by eliminating casual sex among women who will become wives.  When women are forced to only consider men as husbands, they will make better choices.  So I don't think that we would get worse wives as a result of women being given veto power.

Another reason I support giving women veto power is that I personally would not want a wife who would have vetoed me if given a choice.  And I find it hard to understand why any man would want such a wife.  Would you?

And I am concerned about women's happiness as well.  Women do not get happiness from complete freedom as is seen by the misery of women in modern culture.  But I think women's happiness would be increased by letting them veto mate choices.

As for my comments about women being domesticated, I stick to that but only with the modification that women can choose their master/farmer/husband.  I see a properly married woman is being domesticated, while a modern slut as being wild.  The point of the analogy is that the domestication of animals provides us with meat without requiring hunting, and similarly the domestication of women through monogamous marriage provides us with women without requiring hunting/seduction.  In both cases, not all men will get the same quality meat/women.  Rich men will get the best quality meat and probably the most attractive women.

Anyway, this is theoretical for now, but is an interesting topic.  So let's see where this discussion goes.

fschmidt wrote

As long as the co-alpha brotherhood is small, women will mostly come from outside the group.  These women will obviously have veto power.  Their fathers will not be co-alphas

Seeing as I just gained access to the private forums after being a long time lurker, I'll be reviewing some of these old discussions with my own comments.

This is a good point. I've thought about the role of asking for a father's blessing. However as fschmidt is quick to point out, most women's fathers won't be CoAlphas, so many father's could care less how their daughters find their mates.

If CoAlpha survives beyond the few men whom start and members gradually have children, then the next generation theoretically won't need to look for mates outside CoAlpha. Instead, all fathers of daughters will be CoAlphas.

For the time being though, all men will need to outsource mates to daughters from men whom aren't CoAlpha.

fschmidt wrote

I wish I could be part of a conservative culture like these.  But as an atheist, I would not fit in with a conservative religion.  My dream is for CoAlpha to be a nonsectarian group similar to conservative Judaism or Islam.

I have very attached my wife and daughter, but there is no question that they are not as good women as those portrayed in this film.  This is not their fault.  Women need a culture to give them guidance.  It is up to men to provide this culture.  If CoAlpha is successful, we can create a culture to give our women the guidance that they need.

This is the crucial question, can an organization survive without religious or racial homogeneity? Both women featured in the film were first and foremost religious. Atheism is pretty weak at fostering a sense of identity. I can't think of too many atheist groups, which rival religious groups in their dedication. Most secular groups seem to be disasters. Just look at the soviet union, china, north korea, ect. All of these places failed to create a rival culture to religion. The only thing holding them together is racial homogeneity. Seeing as CoAlpha will neither be based on race or religion, a new culture will need to be developed that foster some identity, which women find worthwhile to protect.

My point being, women chose to act modestly not because they wanted to be modest, but because they wanted to protect their religion and race. CoAlpha is a great idea, but unlike race it's not an identity based on some intrinsic biological trait. The more an identity is based on some intrinsic trait, the more worthwhile it will be for women to defend.

My brother's a Jehovah's Witness, I'd say this organization meets the CoAlpha model. You're only suppose to date people whom are witnesses and there's no premarital sex. Anyone can become a witness and I was even offered many opportunities to join. I did not join because I, like you fschmidt, am an atheist.

I think religion is critical, especially for women.  So I have been looking for an acceptable religious basis that can work for atheists.  One candidate I have found is the Noahide movement.

There have been successful secular movements.  In the West, liberalism has been successful, even if I don't like it.  In the East, most movements have been secular but tolerate supernatural beliefs.  This includes Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism.

By the way, please read your email which you used to register here (drealm_junk@yahoo.com).