Photo Credit: ianmunroe
Divorce. DIVORCE. It’s one of those things America is known for around the world, along with Hollywood and blue jeans. I’m sure most of you have heard the statistic that “half of all marriages in America end in divorce”. And it’s commonly thought that it’s even worse if you marry outside your race, culture, or religion – if the average American couple has such a difficult time staying married, wouldn’t marriages where the husband and wife seem to have major differences (a built-in area of conflict, if you will) be even more prone to divorce?
With a reputation like that, it’s understandable that a non-American family – one which strongly values familial ties (like many Indian families) – may hear the 50% divorce statistic and be a bit panicked when a son or daughter announces plans to marry an American. The logic, I suspect, goes something like
This American, growing up among divorce – perhaps even having divorced parents or other family members – probably has different expectations about how marriages work and how long marriages last. Thus, if we want our son/daughter to have a good marriage for life, they shouldn’t get married to an American, since that means they’ll have a 50% chance of getting a divorce! Fifty percent!
There’s enough concern about the issue of America’s pesky divorce rate that there’s even a thread in the forum here on family divorces, and how, if, or why they ought or ought not be disclosed to Indian family members.
Truth is, however, the statistics of divorce are rather complicated, and it’s very easy to misinterpret what they mean for individual marriages. And that 50% divorce statistic? Not true . Especially for interracial, intercultural, or international couples, where things get a bit more complicated.
Conditional Probability and What It Means For Real Life
No, don’t panic. I’m not going to start throwing mathematical equations up onto the page. But to understand how to correctly interpret divorce statistics (or any statistics, really), it’s important to understand the concept of conditional probability. In simple terms, conditional probability is about how the likelihood of an event occurring changes depending on what subgroup of the larger population you fall into.
As an example, let’s consider the unemployment rate for people in the US. Perhaps some of you have heard that there’s this recession thing going on? Looking at this nifty graph from the New York Times, we can see that the average unemployment rate for all people in the US from September ’08 to September ’09 was 8.6%. However, this does not mean that everyone has an 8.6 out of 100 chance of being unemployed. Playing with the graph, you can see that for the group of Americans with college degrees, the average unemployment rate was only 4.5%, which is not much higher than you’d expect to see from the usual frictional unemployment that all economies, good and bad, have. If I add in my race, sex, and age into the calculator, I can see that for the group that best fits me the average unemployment rate is a mere 3.6%! And that’s without factoring in the geographical area I live in, which has extremely low unemployment rates generally (ah, the life of a government contractor!).
This is what conditional probability is all about. Yes, the average unemployment rate (for the time period we’re considering) is 8.6%, which is pretty worrying. But, once we take into account my specific characteristics – i.e. calculate the probability of unemployment conditional on the fact that I’m a mid-twenties, college-educated, white woman – we can see that, all other things being equal, it’s not really that likely that I’ll end up unemployed.
Divorce in the US and You
As you can see from the example in the previous section, employing conditional probability to figure out the likelihood of something occurring for people similar to you can really change how bad (or good) a situation looks. This is why I’m typically very skeptical about applying general statistics to myself, or most of the people I know – it’s just unlikely that any individual is “average enough” for a statistic to be very meaningful. (Of course, this also goes for most generalizations – as I wrote in my post on categories, generalizations, and stereotypes, they’re only useful in extremely limited circumstances.)
The situation is no different with divorce in America – the divorce rate for different sorts of people varies dramatically. Luckily for us, a “probability of divorce” calculator for Americans (similar to the New York Times’ unemployment graph) has been developed by a very cool economist. Strangely, it’s called a marriage calculator, but, well, whatever. If you enter in your details (don’t worry, I don’t see them), you can find out the divorce rate statistics for Americans much more similar to you than the “average” American population. Play around with it a bit – the numbers can really vary dramatically depending on what subgroup you target.
Pretty neat, huh?
Interracial Divorce Statistics
Of course, the widget above doesn’t take into account whether you’re in an intercultural or interracial or international marriage – which, theoretically, should matter quite a bit. Unfortunately, the United States hasn’t been keeping great statistics on interracial related things (it was only in the last census that choosing mixed race was even an ethnicity option!). However, there is some data that has become available, and I recently found an article (spurred on by a post over at My Life in Brown (and White)) that discusses divorce probabilities - “But Will It Last?”: Marital Instability Among Interracial and Same-Race Couples (pdf) by Jenifer Bratter and Rosalind King, published in 2008. I highly encourage you to read the article yourself if you’re interested in this topic, but I’ll give you guys a basic summary (with a few simplifications for clarity) of it’s findings:
- Historically, the research regarding interracial divorce rates has been mixed, and has only dealt with all types of interracial marriage (white-black, white-Asian, black-Hispanic, etc, etc). This is problematic because, theoretically, you’d expect different sorts of pairings to have different divorce statistics, just as different sorts of same-race couples (white-white, Asian-Asian, etc) have different rates of divorce. What little data there is suggests that interracial marriages are more likely to end in divorce (13% more likely, according to one study) compared to same-race marriages. However, the interracial factor did not seem to have as much of an effect as things like age when married and education level.
- It does seem like interracial couples, taken as a whole, are more “mixed” in regard to other socio-economic factors, such as class, education level, age, etc, than same-race couples. Since these other factors are also correlated with divorce, there’s a bit of chicken-and-egg problem in the correlation versus causation area: do interracial couples end up divorcing because they’re too different, or are people more prone to divorce to begin with also more likely to marry interracially? Right now we just don’t have the data to tell.
- Overall, interracial marriages account for about5% of marriages in the United States - but this statistic doesn’t include some marriages that most people would think interracial, such as a marriage between a Korean and an Indian (since they’d both fall into the category of Asian) or the marriage of a person identifying as Hispanic white with a person identifying as a European white (since they’d both fall into the category of white). Here’s a breakdown of the percentage of various interracial marriages in the study:
- The study did show elevated levels of divorce among interracial couples (taken as a whole) compared to same-race couples, just as previous studies have reported. The authors only considered marriages as “intact” if the couples made it to 10 years of marriage – this is because, if a marriage ends in divorce in the US, on average it ends by the eighth year. So if a couple makes it to ten years, it’s reasonable to say that they’re unlikely to divorce. If a couple was still married at the time the data was collected (2004), but hadn’t been married for ten years their information “censored” in the study in order to not bias the results (there are statistical techniques available to account for this).
Marriages were also censored if they ended in the death of the partner. - The likelihood of divorce for intermarriages is greatly affected by the type of interracial marriage.
- Marriages that do not cross a race barrier, but do have different ethnicities (i.e. white/Hispanic white) have a rate of divorce just a little higher than white/white marriages.
- Interracial marriages that have one white person and one person of another race mostly only show higher divorce rates when the white spouse is a female (i.e. white guy + other race girl don’t show particularly high divorce rates compared to same-race couples).
- Black husband/white wife marriages are twice as likely to divorce as white/white marriages, and Asian husband/white wife marriages are about 60% more likely to divorce as white/white marriages. Which, I suppose is an unfortunate statistic for Aditya and me (and one I didn’t expect at all)!
- White husband/black wife were nearly 50% less likely to divorce than white/white couples, and white husband/Asian wife couples had pretty much the same divorce rate as white/white couples
- Compared to Hispanic/Hispanic couples, Hispanic white/white couples showed a higher likelihood of divorce (not surprising). Likewise, Asian/white couples were more likely to divorce than Asian/Asian couples. However, black/white couples only show a higher rate of divorce compared to black/black couples if the white person in the relationship is a woman.
- The researchers were unable to evaluate other sorts of interracial marriages, such as black/Asian, because of the low number of such couples in the sample data.
The Bottom Line
So, by looking through these various statistics, you can probably get a better idea of the likelihood of divorce for people more similar to you than the general American population. In the case of my marriage, for example, I get bonus points for the generation I belong to (the Baby Boomers were the big divorcers in America), for being pretty well educated, and for making it (so far) to three years of marriage. On the negative side of the ledger, Aditya and I seem to belong to some riskier groups, since we married relatively young (for Americans) and are an Asian male/white female couple. But how much should we care for these more accurate statistics? The bottom line is that these statistics are meaningful and important, but not the end all & be all.
It’s a very common impulse to dismiss these statistics by saying that your marriage is above-average, and the statistics just don’t hold for your individual case. Frankly, while that may be true, it’s more likely that, like the 93% of American drivers who think they’re above-average drivers, you’re overestimating yourself. These statistics do matter. If you seem to have ended up in a particularly high-risk group, I think it’d be valuable to think about ways you can work to strengthen your relationship. The point here is not to think that you’re doomed to divorce because you fall into a high-risk group – but that you can learn from the (sad) examples of others similar to you, and do your best to avoid their fate.
That being said, do note that there are a lot of factors being left out of these statistics. While the marriage divorce calculator above and the study on interracial couples do hit on many of the key characteristics that have been shown to predict divorce, there are other variables in play. For example, researchers think that interracial couples (as a whole) are more prone to divorce largely because they often lack support from their families, friends, and local community. So if you’ve got a great group of supportive friends, or your families are welcoming of your marriage, or you live in an area where there are lots of interracial marriages, you may be better off than other interracial couples that lack those things. (And if you don’t have those things, well, no one’s stopping you from moving or developing a better support network of friends.)
In the end, I firmly believe that we’re all in control of our own destinies. If you and your spouse are a great fit for one another, then there’s no reason why your marriage can’t last. If you’re looking forward to an interracial marriage, you certainly shouldn’t change your mind because of these statistics. Yes, we shouldn’t leap before looking – but, once you’ve looked and become mindful of the risks, don’t let fear keep you from taking a plunge.
3. December 2009 at 1:31 pm
Before P told his family about our relationship he went home for a visit and an uncle made a joke that “it is always the quiet ones that do what you least expect” in reference to P potentially winding up with an American girl. His mother retorted, “American and Nepali culture is not compatible… all Americans do is eat beef and drink Coca-Cola!” and later added, “Americans are always divorcing! He knows my feelings on this issue.” He bit his tongue at the time, but his family found out about me within the year, wink.
If people bring up the “Americans divorce more… thus you might get divorced” argument I try to fight back. I understand what you are saying about the high-risk groupings, but in my opinion, my parents divorce was so long and drawn out and messy… and more than 10 years later it continues to be a headache and an annoyance, that I think it has served for me as the perfect example of how **not** to act, and to do *everything* we can to strengthen and work on a relationship to avoid a divorce. I am sure there are statistics out there about the children of divorce and their divorce rate, but I feel that living through one was *not* something I particularly enjoyed, and it is *not* something I would want to put my kids through. I feel really strongly about that.
4. December 2009 at 12:37 am
I believe the theory behind children of divorced parents in turn having a higher probability of divorce is not that they’re more okay with divorce, but that they haven’t been able to learn from observing good marital relationships. Basically, if your main memories as a child of how the adults communicate is by yelling, you may (subconsciously) use this as a model for your own relationships as an adult.
Regarding divorce, well, I actually don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that Americans (as a whole) are more okay with divorce than many other cultures, including South Asians. That is, if a marital relationship turns nasty, Americans generally think it’s “okay” to divorce rather than two people staying together and being miserable for the rest of their lives. While in other cultures divorce is so stigmatized that women sometimes do not feel like they have the right to exit out of abusive relationships, for instance. Personally, I’d much rather see a divorce happen in those sort of cases.
22. June 2010 at 1:43 am
The ultra patriarchal societal morays that dominate other cultures is a key factor in why those women grow old and miserable in a marriage outside of the U.S.. Women here have it a whole lot better than their counterparts in other countries due to the fact that the feminist movement in America and Europe was designed and has succeeded in making life for women in the ‘west’ more complete in terms of living a more productive, progressive and fulfilling life…And hell yes, that includes getting out of a negative relationship with some butt wipe! I saw my mother deal with abuse till I was 16 and let me tell you it wasn’t pretty. Particularly when my dad and I almost got into a full on fist fight (which she jumped in the middle of it just in the nick of time). That violent reaction, on my part, was a subconscious response too years of not being able to stand up to a man that I did love and look up to. Enough was enough, at the end of the day. less than a year later my folks separated and never got back together. So this is why its taken me 42 years to actually wind up with a fiance’ and I’m glad it took this long.
3. December 2009 at 1:49 pm
In regards to our own little community here, I would be curious to know how being an natural born American citizen married to an immigrant affects divorce rates. I would think that many of the situations arising between these types of couples which could put a strain on a marriage in different (and dare I see more stressful) ways than an interracial marriage where both supposes were born/raised in the U.S. For example, many of the stresses of South Asian born-American born marriages I have heard of that might not necessarily affect a couple where both spouses were raised here–> financial/time stresses of traveling frequently abroad to visit family, financial/emotional demands of family members overseas, mis-interpretation of cultural cues by both spouses, stresses related to immigration status, language barriers in some cases, etc.
This was a very interesting post, thanks!
4. December 2009 at 12:45 am
There’s marriage data on American citizens marrying immigrants of various races (see this post, but no divorce data, I’m pretty sure. Theoretically, I suppose you could use different data sources and try to cobble together something, but that’d take days of cleaning data and running regressions – which is not the sort of thing I like to spend my weekends and evenings doing! Got plenty of that as a grad student.
I agree that it’d be very interesting to see this sort of information. There might be some qualitative research available. I’ll look around…
3. December 2009 at 3:52 pm
Random query:
It appears that white-Indian couples from the United States finally settle down either in the United States or India, most of the time. And there is one thing interesting: In such marriages, especially when the American is the female, the household is dominated by Indian tradition (even if couple live in the United States). The wife even converts to or practices Hinduism (or the respective Indian religion)…and not vice versa.
I have never even heard of an Indian dude adapting completely to the American way of life after his marriage and eventual settling down in the United States. It always seems to be our Indian tradition which dominates–which can be sometimes annoying.
Do you think that Indian-American marriages are mostly based on how well the American wife identifies with Indian culture?
4. December 2009 at 12:59 am
indiandude, I wouldn’t say that my household is dominated by Indian tradition – actually, a casual outside observer would almost certainly consider it extremely American. One of the problems of this blog & the comments, I think, is that they can (accidentally) present a very one-sided view of what actually occurs in day-to-day life, since we try to stay on topic here (which means intercultural & Indian).
I would not be surprised if many Americans, upon first meeting Aditya, think that he was born & raised in the US. Well, except that every now and then he gets America-centric facts wrong – while discussing a possible business trip with his coworkers today, apparently he expressed the belief that Milwaukee is a state. *shrug* Most Americans probably can’t name any states of India, let alone know whether a name refers to a city or a state.
I do think that it’d be interesting to discuss the topic of how gender interacts with cultural tradition. I think that in many cultures women (traditionally the main caregivers for children & spending more time in the home) have either an implicit or explicit higher responsibility for maintaining and transmitting the culture for future generations.
I don’t think that Indian husband/American wife marriages are mostly based (what do you mean by “base” here, btw?) on how the American wife identifies with Indian culture. I do think, however, that most sensitive spouses will do their best to avoid having their culture subsume their spouses’. Which, when you live in the US, means making an extra effort to incorporate Indian traditions into your life. I know, for instance, that Aditya is very glad I’m learning Hindi finally, since he really misses speaking Hindi at home.
4. December 2009 at 10:21 am
Thanks for your reply. It was definitely not meant to address you indirectly. (I know Indian folks have the tendency to do that.) I apologize for my half-ass comment.
Actually I can see the balanced mix of Indian and American culture in your case. None seem to dominate the other.
PS: When it comes to recognizing states, I am the worst: I can’t even name all the states in both the United States AND INDIA.
4. December 2009 at 12:09 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that you were implying anything with you comment.
Just that, really, all I can report on is my own personal experiences on the topic.
4. December 2009 at 12:01 am
This is for the white girls married to the South Asian guys.
Because each person in the US is so much more empowered than in Asia, and because the US is an individualistic culture, the average american knows himself and is more confident than the average Asian.
Thus, it tends to happen that the american girl tends to “emasculate” the asian guy, in an LTR with him.
Thus, instructions for the Gorigirls;
a. Try not to do that.
For the guys;
b. Keep the power in your relationship.
Have to be a little politically incorrect, but a 50-50 relationship is not as good as a 70-30 in favour of the guy bearing the decision making and relaitonship power.
The 70-30 relationship lasts longer with both partners being happier, however crude, unfeministic, or offensive it sounds (sorry!)
Cheers,
LF.
4. December 2009 at 12:29 am
I disagree completely, LF, to pretty much every point.
I think how “empowered” any individual is depends strongly on how you define empower. What is considered power changes from culture to culture and individual to individual. And, anyways, who is giving individuals this power?
I also don’t think it’s necessarily true that the average American knows himself and is more confident than the average Asian. Again, how you define “know yourself” is pretty personal, and confidence depends on context. Confidence in what aspect, and in what situations?
On the “emasculation” topic, well, frankly, I think that is all bullshit. This post sums up my feelings pretty well – what is considered masculine and feminine varies (again!) from culture to culture and individual to individual. Each person should have the right to decide what sort of gender roles they’d like to follow, and what they don’t.
Finally, I completely disagree that guys should bear the majority of the power or decision-making in a relationship. Women and men are both adults, and should meet as equals. That’s not to say that certain spheres within a relationship can be primarily “owned” by one individual or another – for instance, Aditya makes the decisions regarding what sort of technology we buy (which brand TV, etc), because (A) he knows more and (B) I don’t really care.
I’d love to know what sort of evidence you have regarding 70-30 power ratio making both partners happier. *rolls eyes* I’m sure, in the end, it boils down to “that’s what I believe without any real proof.”
Gah. I feel like I should tell you to go read Mill’s On the Subjection of Women – get a progressive Victorian writer to try to beat out anarchic Victorian thinking.
4. December 2009 at 2:07 am
Ladies,
I do know my earlier comment goes against all sense of fairness, equality, fraternity , fair play.
But, I do have all your intercultural relationships best interest at heart. I know a lot on the subject of male female dynamics, too much to start any discussion here, it’ll be too long.
I just have to say that trust me on this one. As much as the girls all shout for “equality”, in the best interests of a long lasting relationship, when the guy is “more equal”, the relationship lasts longer.
Again, I have more practical than intellectual experience in the matter.
To the guys: Lead , lead, lead please, to maintain attraction.
Cheers,
LF.
4. December 2009 at 10:49 am
LF wrote: “I know a lot on the subject of male female dynamics, too much to start any discussion here, it’ll be too long….I have more practical than intellectual experience in the matter.”
Wow wow wee waa, exactly!
We should trust you simply because you said so.
_________________________________________
I think any notion of patriarchy belongs to the preindustrial world–never in the west. The “70-30″ relationships might have an apparent success rate in India, where divorce could be a suicidal option and culturally looked upon as immoral. I would even conjecture that most arranged marriages in India, where the man dominates, don’t have any romance in them; yet they survive, more than 90% of them. This apparent success rate of patriarchal marriages in India is often compared with the 50% success rate in the United States (west), where women can choose to dissolve a marriage in cases of abuse, infidelity, or just irreconcilable differences.
You should never compare marriages from two different cultures, when you don’t know the underlying variables that affect them.
4. December 2009 at 11:32 am
I don’t even know what you mean by “power” in the relationship. My experience has been that each of us is “in charge of” some aspects of our married lives, and then there are other aspects that we take equal power stakes in (most things, I hope!) Wouldn’t it make you crazy to have to “be the boss” of every aspect of the relationship/joint life? One of the cool things about my marriage is that there were some things that I didn’t like dealing with as a single person, that M takes care of exclusively now, and vice versa. We are lucky that it worked out that way
.
4. December 2009 at 5:11 pm
Wow. Are we feeding trolls here? LF, you cannot be serious. And if you are, you cannot be in a relationship currently.
In my experience, not even Indian-Indian marriages have a 70-30 split favoring the men. If anything, it’s a 70-30 split favoring the women. Or maybe G just has very domineering aunties/female cousins and passive uncles/male cousins; haha!
4. December 2009 at 9:56 am
Hmmm…I don’t know about that. Having been with my husband for 5 years now, I don’t think it’s possible to “emasculate” him. He’s too bull-headed (he’s a Taurus, as a matter of fact)! In fact, if I had to pick one main issue that is a struggle for us, it’s that he’s extremely domineering and I’m more passive and have a hard time standing up for myself. Also, I tend toward traditional gender roles in our relationship anyway and would rather do that than spend my time arguing about who does the laundry or the dishes, etc.
I really don’t think you can make such generalizations about western women being too domineering over their husbands.
4. December 2009 at 1:54 am
LF, I completely disagree with you, and I think that if you think women as happier being dominated that you are deluding yourself.
Anyways, on the topic, I think this was a very interesting post.. and I am happy to know I have something like a 5.5% chance of divorce (according to the marriage-o-meter), hehe.
I should tell that to Vivek’s dad..
4. December 2009 at 2:15 am
linzi,
nice blog.
I think that the guy should lead most of the time. Those relationships seem to last longer and are happier. Again its just my 2 cents.
4. December 2009 at 2:36 am
LF, think what you want to. I am in a very good relationship where we maintain equal balance. We are doing very well and are happy. If my partner thought he should “lead” and I should “follow” I would rather be single. (And I could succeed and make my own decisions too!)
Also your whole idea of the “emasculated Indian male” are a bit silly. Sounds like you are trying to apply the colonial British thoughts on Indian responses to western culture to a relationship. Did you know Gandhi was first, as a young man, opposed to vegetarianism because he believed that, as the British believed at the the time, that itemasculated the Indians and made them weak. (Obviously he changed his mind later, as we all know).
I don’t know how you can put your “2 cents” on something,when you are obviously experiencing relationship dynamics with such a biased opinion. If I was in a relationship with someone who believes like you (“Men should be in charge”) then of course I would have a bad relationship, even it was in “trying to be equal” because of your mindset.
Like Gori Girl said, I think you (first and foremost) are buying into a stereotype of what it means to be a man. Being a man doesn’t mean being dominating and “making the decisions”. I mean, what exactly makes you think women are not equally capable of judgment? And what makes you think I want a man to “dominate me” rather than treat me as an equal, deserving of love, and respect?
Opinions are opinions, but really, do you have ANY points to back up this idea of yours, and are they based on anything beyond your own personal opinion?
4. December 2009 at 2:45 am
btw, my fiance is shorter than me… I suppose that spells disaster in your book eh?
4. December 2009 at 3:46 am
2.81% are already divorced.
5.15% will be divorced in five years.
are my results on the divorce-o-meter
LF I think your idea about control and domination are based on crude stereotypes. I hope u change your mind before you get married.
I heard somewhere that the secret to staying married is not leaving and not dying.
4. December 2009 at 7:29 am
GG, I am hispanic but not exactly white. You know more abt these things so do you think it applies to me? Thanks.
Great post by the way
4. December 2009 at 12:25 pm
As I understand it, the US Census (and most other agencies/researchers who collect data based on race in the US) consider “race” to basically be what you look like – white, black or African-American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian & Pacfic Islander, etc – while “ethnicity” refers to whether you’re Hispanic or not. So you can identify as a Hispanic with a race of white or black or American Indian (to name the races most likely to be associated with Hispanic).
The reasoning behind this structure is based on the specific demographics of the US – since we have a large population of recent immigrants from Latin America in the States who see themselves as a distinct group, it seems important to have a category to refer to them collectively. However, there are also major differences in the appearance (and historical ancestry) of Hispanics within the US, so it’s also important to distinguish in that regard – it’s likely, for instance, that black Hispanics may face more discrimination than fair-skinned Hispanics who can “pass” as just another variation of “white”.
Historically in the US, as we’ve received waves of immigrants from new countries – people who appear white, but have had different cultures than the current white population in the US – the new immigrants have been absorbed into the group of “white” within a couple of generations. Thus, you have groups like Southern Europeans (Italians, Greeks, etc) and Irish who are now considered white, but, at the time of their mass immigrations, were seen as “other” by the white majority in the US. Some demographers today believe that we’ll see a similar occurrence with the white Hispanic population within a generation or two.
4. December 2009 at 1:15 pm
Thanks GG. Well, I am like most of my country folk a “mestiza” with my mother’s side being half French half mixed and my father’s side being native indian. So I really don’t have a unique ancestry and while my mom could be called “white”, I can’t.. Maybe I should be American Indian of some sorts. Here in UK I always tick “other mixed” in ethnicity since there is no allocation for hispanics.
4. December 2009 at 7:40 am
Good Man thinks the Asian category need to be split out further. “A Korean is not an Indian is not a Mongolian.”
Also, I’d be more interested to know where they met, 1st gen, 1.5, etc etc.
4. December 2009 at 12:33 pm
The problem with disaggregating the data down to more specific categories is that your sample size becomes too small.
The authors of this study used the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, which consists is an extensive questionnaire given to a representative sample of American families via an interview with a trained professional every few (four?) years. Obviously, with that amount of detail (I think it takes about two hours to complete), there’s a limit to the number of people you can interview. The authors of the study didn’t even have enough couples of any non-white/non-white mixed pairing to draw meaningful conclusions – there’s no way you could go more detailed on the type of Asian and get reliable data.
4. December 2009 at 8:08 am
interesting article and blog posting. Its a complex subject and deserves more study. From my own experience as an IBD in a 20-year intercultural and interracial marriage, I would say that there is a world of difference between immigrant and US born marriage vs. two US born folks of distinct heritage getting married. I am not suggesting that either form is easier or harder or whatever, just that the dynamics of the two are quite different in my view.
4. December 2009 at 9:40 am
Just my two cents here on what someone earlier said about individualistic culture:
The idea that America is the most individualistic country in the world is based on Geert Hofstede’s research. However, he himself makes it very clear that just because America is the most individualistic country, does not mean that Americans are most individualistic individuals in the world. Taking something that is true at the group (nation) level and applying it at the individual level is an example of what is called the ecological fallacy.
In my experience in the US, I have met many Americans who are more collectivist than anyone I have met from outside the US. Consider religious groups in the US like the Mormons, the Southern Baptists, and the Jehovah’s Witness, some of the most collectively-oriented groups you will find anywhere.
To say that Americans divorce more because America is an individualistic country is, I believe, simply incorrect! There are several other countries, especially in Europe, which consider themselves as very individualist, but where the divorce rate is much lower. The reasons for high divorce rate in America go much beyond the simplistic notion of individualism.
4. December 2009 at 11:04 am
Chanakya wrote:
“In my experience in the US, I have met many Americans who are more collectivist than anyone I have met from outside the US. Consider religious groups in the US like the Mormons, the Southern Baptists, and the Jehovah’s Witness, some of the most collectively-oriented groups you will find anywhere….The reasons for high divorce rate in America go much beyond the simplistic notion of individualism.”
Just to let you know, the collectivist groups you mentioned struggle with the highest divorce rates in the USA. Especially the folks with the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and protestant Christians–and many collectivist groups in the Bible Belt–experience the highest divorce rates.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
4. December 2009 at 9:59 am
Gori Girl, this was a great post! Thanks for the tools and the food for thought.
4. December 2009 at 12:25 pm
Linzi, GG, Djain, Indiandude,
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.
We have to agree to disagree on this one,
Cheers.
LF
4. December 2009 at 1:29 pm
In reference to Chanakya’s comment…I also agree that there are other factors involved besides individualism behind the US divorce rate. The Arabian Peninsular countries have very high divorce rates as well, in some places nearly 50%, but the Gulf Arab culture is not individualistic per say. I think there are a lot of factors at play. Greater empowerment and greater financial independence of females (who don’t have to stick around and face abuse or risk losing food and shelter) I think is a factor in both the Arabian Gulf as well as the US.
4. December 2009 at 2:17 pm
“Greater empowerment and greater financial independence of females [...] I think is a factor in [...] the Arabian Gulf.”
Greater with respect to where?
Saudi Arabia’s human rights record with respect to women is pretty atrocious… adult women need to get the permission of their “guardian” to work – not to mention not being allowed to travel in a car with a man who is not in her family, rape being counted as adultery, etc etc.
4. December 2009 at 1:54 pm
Oh boy. Well, I’m not exactly “white” (I’m Italian/Chinese/Filipino/Spanish), but I am a child of divorce, Catholic, and nearly three years older than my Indian-American boyfriend. Too bad there’s no marriage calculator that takes into account those particular variables.
I have to admit, though, I was surprised when the fact that my parents were divorced came up as an issue. I guessed that they’d mainly be upset with my lack of Indian-ness and my religion, and MAYBE even my slight age gap, but it hadn’t even dawned on me that they’d hold my parents’ actions against me. It felt, and still feels, spectacularly unfair.
I just keep hoping that someday, if they ever meet me, they’ll realize that I am NOT all americans, nor am I even my parents, and I’m not doomed to repeat anyone else’s mistakes.
4. December 2009 at 8:40 pm
GG,
This is interesting. Given the lower divorce rates, I wonder if you can draw any conclusions regarding attitudes of men towards their wives, in White( male)- Asian( female) marriages? While I grew up in India until I came to the US for Grad school, I married a Indian woman who went to Grad school in the US, was a year older than me, working,and did not change her name after our marriage. We also know 2 other couples where the female is the higher income producer, and the husbands are perfectly OK with this.
I think giving each person their space, and over time supporting their dreams, goes a long way, irrespective of the cultures you grow up in. I also agree that inspite of all this, marriages can break up, and in some cases you are better off than living in perpetual conflict.
5. December 2009 at 12:55 am
Aditya: The UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait are also GCC states…Saudi is not the only country here. The laws in all of these countries do indeed favor males in personal/family law, but the women are definately a lot more educated, financially independent and empowered than their illiterate grandmothers. And divorce rates have soared alongside the growth of empowerment of women in several of these countries. In the UAE and Kuwait, rates are somewhere in between 40 and 46%. It is very complex and I wouldn’t chalk that up to the only reason for the high divorce rates, either…there are other social factors at work, also connected to rapid development. My point about the GCC divorce rates is that pinning high American divorce rates solely on individualism is off.
5. December 2009 at 12:55 am
IMO, This is how it works,
Girl meets guy.
Guy is cool, strong, alpha, is socially well proofed, people like him, he is doing well in his career, and has a nice personality because of his myriad interests.
Guy likes girl, girl likes guy.
Slowly they fall for each other;
Girl keeps pushing for commitment. Guy reluctantly gives his freedom up. They are now at a committed stage.
Guy now spends all his free time with girl. His personality starts to suffer because he is not spending time with friends as earlier, and getting the inputs he used to get earlier. He starts depending upon Girl more and more.
Some time passes
Girl looks at guy. “He isnt the same as I remember! He changed, looking at him closely, he isnt half as cool as earlier. He doesnt have his own independent life and doesnt lead me socially..”
Girl loses attraction for the guy. Tests him Constantly, to make sure he is good enough as earlier. The constant testing is painful for the Guy, who wants her to support him and not “shit-test” him. He feels emasculated.
Depending upon how both of them respond to this situation, the relationship takes turns.
Thus, guys: be alpha as hell, even after commitment, marriage etc….to help promote girls attraction.
And thats why I was saying, guys; lead,lead, lead.
My 2 paise, for what its worth.
Lurker, F.
5. December 2009 at 1:20 am
Lurker, F.
I think you have been watching too much Sex in the City.
Life is not a game. Love is not a game to ‘play’.
People who are shallow and want to ‘have fun’ and also think in stereotypes are the ones who have stories like that.
People who truly connect with each other (not stereotypes of each other) have a much different story:
Girl meets guy:
Girl is impressed by guy as a person- the share common interests, ethics, and goals.
Girl and Guy spend time together and decide they enjoy spending time together so they date.
Girl and guy communicate, respect each other, and make sure each person gets what they need– (time together, time with friends, personal time, etc)
Girl and Guy are happy, and keep communicating to keep their relationship strong. Partners express their feelings, and work through problems together.
I think that is a much more healthy scenario, and is based on two PEOPLE connecting and respecting each other, not two people looking for stereotypes (that don’t exist) and playing games rather than actually communicating.
5. December 2009 at 1:25 am
Also, I find your part about “Girl keeps pushing for commitment. Guy reluctantly gives his freedom up. They are now at a committed stage.” really very sad.
I mean, is that how you see it in your mind? Girl pressures guy, guy GIVES up things?
Doesn’t he have anything to gain by being in a relationship? And Doesn’t she also lose her ‘freedom’ as well?
Why see it in such stark terms? How come so many guys are committed if it is so awful, and they only do it under this pressure from the woman?
5. December 2009 at 1:01 pm
Please define “freedom” in the right context. After the guy, purportedly, loses his freedom in a committed relationship, does he work in the fields as a slave?
“Guy now spends all his free time with girl. His personality starts to suffer because he is not spending time with friends as earlier”
Could you please explain how my personality would suffer if I don’t hang out with a bunch of fellow NERDS?
Your messages conspicuously show that you have little to no acquaintance with the American dating scene.
6. December 2009 at 12:09 am
Freedom would be defined as keeping ones own wishes in mind before the significant others. Ability to do as one pleases.
Even nerds have good personalities. The thought processes that go into making and maintaining brains are supported by hanging out with nerds, if one is one.
I just broke up with my 2nd gf. The first one was American, the second Romanian. I agree that I am unfamiliar with the dating scene in America.
Cheers,
LF
6. December 2009 at 12:51 am
your definition of “freedom”, which I would call, being self-centered, or selfish is something that is always lost in a relationship, by both partners. It is also something you need to leave aside (at least part of the time) in friendship and family relations.
Both partners in a relationship have to think about each other– that’s part of being in a relationship. That doesn’t mean that each person needs to ‘give up’ everything they enjoy in the world– if your partner demands you give up your friends, your hobbies, etc– then it is probably not a healthy relationship. If a partner does not want you to spend time with friends or family or to do things you enjoy, controls where you go, etc, this is actually emotional abuse. It is unhealthy and should not exist– whether it is the man doing it to the woman or the woman doing it to the man.
In a healthy relationship, one would assume that if both partners are willing to enter into a relationship with each other, they do know that it means they will not get to be selfish or think only about themselves anymore. If they want to put themselves first, then they really shouldn’t be in a relationship in the first place– they should not be goaded into it ‘reluctantly’ by another person– how well can a relationship work out if one partner isn’t even sure they want to be in it in the first place?
6. December 2009 at 1:29 am
Linzi meri maa,
mujhe maaf kar do!
Issi ko tho kethe hain “emasculation”.
Haay …ab main bacche kaise paida karoonga???!!
6. December 2009 at 1:50 am
LF, maaf kijiye, lekin mein aapki maa nahin huun.
Ab tumhari baat saaf nahin hai, saaf kar dijiye… giving up your self-centeredness is emasculation? So do you mean men are expected to be and remain selfish their whole lives, otherwise they are emasculated?
If you want to have bacche, you will have to give up this self-centeredness anyways… taking care of children is very unselfish work.
7. December 2009 at 2:30 pm
Ahh, but LinZi, I’m sure that LF thinks taking care of children is the woman’s job and therefore he can go on thinking only of himself.
Sadly, I have known many people in this situation (self-centered male, indulgent female) and it always leads to a breakup. Which is even worse when children are involved.
Happy relationships aren’t always 50-50, since a relationship always involves give and take on both partners’ parts, but they should average out that way more often than not.
Ok, off to read the rest of the comments below…
5. December 2009 at 1:03 am
In gulf states, men can get divorce on demand
by saying talak 3 times
and there is no alimony and only return of mehr or dowry
For women in gulf is almost impossible to get divorce,
unless husband gives it to her
And then there is legal polygamy, 4 wives at a time
5. December 2009 at 1:49 am
Keep my posts in mind, for whatever they are worth guys, I really wish all your relationships very well.
And , the can of worms, the awkward truth, the pandora’s box is henceforth resealed on my end.
Cheers,
LF.
5. December 2009 at 1:59 am
LF – while I do not agree with your point-of-view, I do appreciate that you try your best to remain civil and friendly in these conversations. Thanks!
5. December 2009 at 3:41 am
Thanks GG. My replies to this post of yours have been in the form of disclaimers and guidelines.
and so with this last one, I shall take off my “controversial opinion” hat. Its the last, but as the cliche goes, not the least.
So here goes;
=========================================================
I know many Indian guys, who fall truly madly deeply in love with the first woman they have a physical relationship with.
While in India, physical relationships are an absolute no-no, for better or for worse, the standards are a little more liberal in america.
So, while growing up in India, the guy is unable to do much because dating is relatively uncommon. When he comes to America, like a dutiful person, he is busy studying, making a career.
He meets a girl. She is culturally more open to dating and the mating game than the girls he has met earlier. He likes her, hangs out and one thing leads to another and they end up getting to be very intimate.
Because he is not used to this being a normal part of life, he falls head over heels in love with her, the first girl he has an intimate relationship with. Thus he does not chose wisely, because his decision has been influenced by oxytocin coursing through his brain.
The pair bonding hormone works its magic.
Just something I have noticed happening to some South Asian guys.
Take it for what its worth, I do realize it sounds inflammatory, but it is intended for everyone to take note of, that such things do happen.
The conclusion, in my very humble opinion is to either:
a. Lay off the intimate stuff and make relationships only on the basis of how well you get along with each other . Like its done in the good ol’ Des.
The advantage of this method is that it shall keep your blinders on and pair bond you well to one person.
b. OR, have multiple intimate relationships so that you know what its like to have the pair bonding hormones’ glow. And you make your decision to be with the person on the basis of the platonic part of your relationship.
The disadvantage of this method is that practitioners get into the mating game habit, and the itch may return even after marriage. Tiger Woods anyone?
Just my two paise worth of opinions and thoughts. There are of course exceptions and this, that and the other. No rules, just things that do “happen”. Biology works. Sometimes.
Kind regards,
Lurker Frequente
5. December 2009 at 1:23 pm
LK,
nothing in your post was inflammatory: but everything was so obvious.
It is possible for anyone to get emotionally attached to the person he or she is having sexual relationships with. Not just Indian dudes. This is probably why most of the “friends with benefits” folks break up, when they find their initial agreements thwarted by a new surge of emotions.
I disagree with you regarding planning the prospects of a relationship solely on platonic experiences: That would be disastrous if the guy doesn’t find sexual chemistry in the relationship. It’s always a mixture of both–platonic and sexual–which will seal the deal for a happy relationship.
5. December 2009 at 3:57 am
LF,
I agree with you that some Indian guys (emphasis on some) do do that, i.e. think (emphasis on think) they are in love with a girl because they are physical with her (in some way or another.. could just be a kiss).
But we do all have to grow up sometime, and I think that learning the difference between physical attraction and infatuation (‘falling head over heels’ for someone BEFORE you really know them that well as a person) and the combination of physical attraction with mental attraction (something that takes longer to achieve, but sticks with you a lot longer.)
Most Americans have gone through the first stage at some point in their life, and felt the LOVED someone (with whom they experienced some first physical interaction with), until they learned that there is more to it than that, and if that mental connection is not there, the physical attraction quickly fizzles.
Personally (coming from an American perspective) I think finding a life partner is a learning game… in the beginning you are like a baby, naive and overwhelmed by your senses, but through experience (and mistakes!) you learn how to make sense of that thing called love, and distinguish it from lust/infatuation/crush (or any other name).
This doesn’t necessarily mean joining the “mating game” (I am not sure how you meant this term, but to me, this means the kind of lifestyle where you meet many partners, have a few dates, and get physical very quickly). It just means that you are still looking for that special someone out there, but that there will be learning experiences along the way. A serious two year relationship may not turn out in the end, but it could teach the two people who were in the relationship what is important to them. They learn from the experience and take that information with them.
Others can correct me if I am wrong, but I kind of see this dating-as-learning-process as the sentiment behind American dating, more so that the ‘picking up’ of people at bars and one-night-stands I see depicted in movies.
Of course there are people who do do that one-night-stand thing, but I don’t think those people are looking for long-term/real relationships at all, they are looking for physical gratification, and that’s it.
I think you are missing out on one big point in your analysis of an Indian guy with an American women…. that is awareness.. you make it sound like, if an Indian guy is in this scenario, he won’t be aware of what’s going on or trying to make sense of anything, just plowing blindly ahead like Sahid Kapoor going after Kareena Kapoor in a Bollywood film. But I don’t think life is that filmi, and I think while some guys might not be reflective of their own actions, there are also plenty who are.
5. December 2009 at 9:29 pm
IndianDude and Lindsey thanks for your kind comments,
Guys,
To my earlier post I would add ;
c. To look for a commitment and a family- minded girl to get married to.
This meshes well with the statistic that GG has in the original posting, that a lot of American male-Foreign female marriages work out longer and the divorce rate is lower. IMO that works well when the guy is traditionally masculine and alpha, and the female is traditionally feminine, coming from cultures with a traditional view of feminity.
The US is the land of the self empowered men of action, and has a masculine culture. In some ways analogous to Australia’s. Unfortunately there is a lot of intolerance as well, on an individual basis. Religion and Politics are sensitive issues, and sometimes taken extremely seriously. Many people I know, really have strong views on religion and politics, and it sometimes crosses over into interpersonal relationships as well.
A lot of Indians confuse a friendly manner as being real friends when dealing with people from the US. India being a less “outgoing” country, when you’re a friend, you share emotions and events and care a lot. In the US, you;re on your own.
The Indian “chaltha hai”style tolerance is uncommon in the US. Relationships are “proper” and defined, unlike the vague fuzzy cloud of Indian and Asian relationships where everyone is related personally. Thus the propensity to take affront is greater; I know people who wax virulent in their criticisms of politicians of the opposite party.
Thus IMO, some factors that MAY account for the greater rate of Foreign male-White female divorce rates are:
1. Clear cut relationships and strong boundaries in a lot of american relationships. Lack of family orientation leading to a long standing resentment in the males’ mind, who is used to more family orientedness.
2. Strong feminism, the perception in the foreign husband’s mind of an
uncaring attitude in the female, as compared to a more feminine wife.
3. Intolerance on eithers part.
4. Emasculation/betaization of the male, leading to loss of attraction in the female.
5. On a lighter note: McDonalds !
Cheers guys. I do understand that my comments might be offensive. Let’s discuss them.
Cheers,
LF
5. December 2009 at 9:47 pm
I’m not sure there is much left to discuss…. since you have not really responded to any other persons responses, rather you are just rewording what you said before– so my response would still be the same.
Again– one of your big mistakes is your stereotype of a what a man/woman should be, and also your over stereotyping of Indian men— I hate to tell you, but not all men are the same. Not every man (or woman!) is looking for the same thing in a relationship, so your overgeneralizing ‘advice’ would probably not help the majority of people in the world. You do realize that, even if one was to buy your ‘alpha male’ theory, that obviously, not every male can be alpha, there can only be so many leaders in the world! Yet so many more men than just the ‘leader’ types are in happy relationships, so how do you explain that.
How about relationships where the husband is physically disabled– obviously he would not fit the stereotypic role of ‘alpha’ male in a case where he needs to rely on others for help in day-to-day life– yet women do marry disabled men(or stay with men after they become disabled), so how can you explain those cases?
I think you need to look around a bit– and you’ll see that each and every relationship has it’s own different components and not one formula is going to work for everyone.
5. December 2009 at 6:58 am
@Shyamsundar
“In gulf states, men can get divorce on demand
by saying talak 3 times
and there is no alimony and only return of mehr or dowry”
Actually the triple talaaq doesn’t count legally until it is registered in court. The female doesn’t return her mahr unless the divorce proceeding is a “khul” type of divorce. Decisions about alimony and also child support are decided by the courts. Each country is different, but provisions for alimony and child support do exist in the manner of garnished wages, similar to the system in the US. Usually, males also get preference in child custody, should they seek it, after the children reach a certain age (again different from country to country) and males have the choice to get immediate child custody should the ex-wife re-marry, which is also gives GCC males power to threaten ex-wives with taking the children should they re-marry.
“For women in gulf is almost impossible to get divorce,
unless husband gives it to her”
Yes, this is true. Patriarchal, androcentric courts do favor men and it can take women years to be “allowed” to divorce their husbands, even when the present evidence of abuse or infidelity. More often than not, the female’s family helps her achieve a divorce, either by bribing judges or by intimidating the husband into conceding to a divorce if he doesn’t initially agree.
“And then there is legal polygamy, 4 wives at a time”
Yes this is also true. Polygyny is not the norm, but it is not uncommon in the GCC countries, though it is uncommon in the rest of the Muslim world. Actually though, younger GCC women refuse to marry into polygyny (a choice that their grandmothers who were arranged to marry in their early teens did not have)…often it is the plethora of female divorcees who accept a polygynous situation. Since GCC women are not so accepting of polygyny, GCC men have also been known to go to nearby countries like Egypt and India to pay poor families for young bride and bring her into a polygynous situation. There are thousands of women here who came as brides from Hyderabad, India in the 1980s and 1990s, for example. There a great deal of social ills caused by the androcentric laws here, which facilitate the abuse and oppression of women.
I never said the case here is ideal for women. I simply said that women are more financially independent, educated, and their empowerment has increased, all of which is true, despite the androcentic personal/family laws…GCC women are well educated, travel abroad for higher studies, have greater decision making power over their own lives, take on leadership roles in public, and are active in public life. This was not true for their grandmothers. The divorce rates are also not far behind US divorce rates in several GCC countries and this has been the case since unification and development in the GCC nations. Some local misogynists also attribute the high divorce rates here to local men not being able to deal with the modern, empowered women. Once again, there are other factors involved in the high divorce rate issue in the GCC nations.
My point was that for people who say that for Westerners and their (our) individualism, it is not selfishness and lack of ability to be self-sacrificing for the betterment of family that is the sole reason for high American (and generally Western) divorce rates. The GCC societies have similarly high divorce rates, but their culture is not particularly individualistic.
I also believe that a component of the rising divorce rates in the West and the GCC have coincided with a greater empowerment and financial independence of women who can divorce without worrying about who will provide them food and shelter or worry about becoming a huge financial burden on their birth families.
5. December 2009 at 10:21 am
“I also believe that a component of the rising divorce rates in the West and the GCC have coincided with a greater empowerment and financial independence of women who can divorce without worrying about who will provide them food and shelter or worry about becoming a huge financial burden on their birth families.”
I agree with that, and I argued on another discussion on this topic, that that is really not a bad thing! In many places, women do not have the option, and must stay in the marriage, even in cases of emotional or physical abuse, because they have nowhere to go and no one to support them.
An educated woman has options.
6. December 2009 at 10:19 pm
Okay guys, this post of mine is not going to be diplomatic or kind or nice, but it contains all the reasons why I have posted what I have posted. I also am not going to be posting much because of time constraints.
Linzi , I think we are getting lost in semantics here, but my point has been put across properly in my earlier posts.
Most of my posts are about relationship advice to the males. I recommend that the males maintain a leadership position in the relationship and not allow the attempts to betaize them by the woman, to succeed. This is advice for short term, long term relationships, marriage, etc. Putting the lady on a pedestal, supplicating, etc. is a risky route which may lead to trouble. Even if you think that the lady in question is undeniably higher value than you are, it is a fallacy to supplicate. This is true if you are dating a girl who is gori, or a kali or a bhoori, or somebody else. Donot allow your woman to control you. This, in short is my view of how the basics should be in a male female relationship dynamic.
No amount of “connection” or emotional love, or romance, makes up for a relationship in which the woman calls all the shots.
My advice to the ladies would be to encourage their own feminity and not fall into the trap of rah-rah feminism and break the balls of your guy. be feminine and encourage your guy to be masculine.
Denial of sex after marriage and /or kids is a common thing to happen as well. Don’t let that happen to your relationship. Accept the fact that male sexual drive is greater at times.
Men are well and truly only about one thing. Sorry, but that’s the way guys are made, no matter how much they or women say “its about the connection, or this or that”. That ONE THING is predominant in a males mind, and women can do all to deny it.
Women usually have two different agendas, that of the “Lover” and of the “provider”. She’d ideally like to have the “lovers” strong alpha male genes, and the provider to take care of the babies produced by those genes. Which is why many women like “bad boys” to hang out with and nice guys get constantly rebuffed and heartbroken. The same women like a provider type guy to raise kids with and pay for yoga sessions and the like.
Please take a look at “Sperm Wars” by Robyn baker on Google books.
Indian society on the whole, are geared to produce very good “provider” type family minded people. Providers may or may not be good Lover type guys as well. Lover type guys are usually alpha.
——————————————————————
Now take a look at the OP (gorigirl) and her post again. Please look at the broad outlines of the statistics.
Statistics clearly show that;
Alpha male+feminine female=long lasting relationship.
Now please link what you think of as being alpha and beta to culture. Self centeredness, and individualism leads to alpha people.
Specifically, American culture produces individualistic alphas. Many Asian culture encourages submissiveness. This is beta. This, combined with the fact that East Asian women are more open to dating outside their own race, gives us the white male-east asian female cliche.
Look at Gorigirls OP again and the statistics.
Why do white american female+Foreign male marriages last less long as the opposite? Alpha female, brought up in a culture where divorce is not a stigma. Combined with the fact that the male may be a good provider, but not socially alpha enough to lead her. Loss of attraction on the females part. Simple as that! 75% of divorces are initiated by women, as the laws are, for better or for worse, geared to favour the female.
Also a woman’s desirability or beauty is a depreciating asset. A guy’s skill at his job usually appreciates. That’s why women push for commitment earlier than guys do.
Why are guys all about one thing only? Because its in their biological favour to spread their genes as far as possible.
Why do guys boast about their conquests and women do the exact opposite; i.e play down the number of guys she has been with?
because women do not want to look promiscuous. Why? Because promiscuity is biologically linked to disease. Thus the appearance of being promiscuous is a death knell for a females chances for spreading her genes. This leads to what is known as the Madonna Whore complex; i.e a guys do not like their women to have had a tonne of partners. This is also why many Indian guys like to date in america but marry in india.
This is also the reason why women , even though they frequently have high sex drives, do not initiate sex, wait while dating to have sex, and sometimes even avoid sex altogether. So as to not give the impression that they are promiscuous.
Women want attention. Attention is the precursor to resources which are necessary for living.
Why do women want to make the guy wait for sex after dating?
Because women seek to maximize the attention that they gain from a man or men. And for the guy; what you get after you have spent a lot of time on, you tend to value more than if you get it easily. Thus a woman who does not put out easily is the one who guys fall for and invest more of their time and resources in, and hold at a higher pedestal than women who put out too easily.
Why do some women go to bars all dressed and dolled up but rebuff all guys who approach them? Why do women put up online profiles but reply to one or two emails? Why do women flake on dates constantly? Why do many women give signals to guys but donot allow them any further access?
To maximize attention and weed out the guys who are unfamiliar with the mating game. Basically the same sperm race that occurs during pregnancy occurs here. Why? Because guys who are familiar with the mating game, have better “game” genes passed on by their player dads. Attention=resources. See the advertising industry.
Why is a woman’s weight and age an improper question to ask her?
Same reason: women are a depreciating asset. Physical beauty and figure and age are important parameters for guys who seek the best possible genes for their offspring.
Why do a lot of Indian guys like white girls? Fairness is seen as a sign of better genes, as the Aryans in India or the upper castes were typically fairer.
Why do many white girls like Indian guys to get married to?
A lot of Indian guys with their degrees scream “Provider”. The family oriented nature of Indian guys is also a plus. Emotional intelligence is also linked to career success. Hence Indian.
Also See lover provider agendas above.
Why do guys like having a wife who is less educated or less career oriented than them?
See the reference to the Alpha male-submissive female above.
Why are women strangely attracted to a guy who gets a lot of girls?
Why do guys who are known as “assholes” get away with what they do?
Social proof, which states that this guy has something going for him. This is why taken men seem attractive to a lot of women.
Why do women like a guy who is socially at the top of the chain?
Because social status precludes attention which precludes resources. Bragging rights and position in society of women.
Why are big breasts and wide hips and blonde hair attractive to guys? Signs of Fertility. Why do women hate it when their guys pay attention to other women? Why do women hate it when a guy looks at porn? Why do women constantly seek approval from the guy that she looks good and is not getting fat? See the long “attention” paragraph above. And this maintains her desirability.
Why is tall and broad shouldered considered good? Physical fitness= genetic fitness.
Thus to play the mating game well, the best instruction for the guys is to be both more alpha ‘lovers’ and better ‘providers’.
The rest are all details and word play.
My points may sound misogynistic and wierd and whatchamacallit. It is strictly in my experience. I suggest you keep it in mind while dealing with your partners also, you might notice some trends that resonate.
Its okay if many people disagree, its just my bit to extend the argument and the depth of the discussion.
Cheers,
LF.
6. December 2009 at 11:46 pm
First and foremost, what you makes sense– in a very specific way: that was is extremely simplified over stereotyped sense— one in which you have narrowed all people down to focus on a single biological objective– reproduction. Additionally you are selling the human’s mind and ability to reason short.
And that is how you miss the nuances of the human existence. Sure, there are some people like that. But there are also a lot of people who are not. And by boiling everyone down to over stereotypes you are missing out on the vast majority of humanity– with is diverse and full of variance.
You just don’t get it. You are missing something here, and I think that is the ability to see beyond your overgeneralized views is holding you back.
For example– much of your ideology is based on the ‘provider’ concept. But in a modern world, where a woman is free to work, earn money, and live on her own, she does not need to find a partner who can simply provide for her.
You also compartmentalize men and women into these different worlds as if they have nothing in common and would never have the same needs– I hate to tell you this, but women like to have sex. It is important for them too. I don’t know about other women, but the reason I don’t like pron isn’t because I feel threatened by it– it’s because it is unrealistic– it does not properly “educate” a man on how to please a woman and leaves men (or teenage boys) with extremely wrong notions of pleasing a woman.
Men are depreciating value as well- if you want to talk about physical stuff– men get old and fat and bald– do you think a women likes that? She can also go and find a new young man– ever heard of a “cougar”?
So many of your questions about women and men are so silly– you see everything as a game– everything as insincere– have you never had a sincere connection with a person of the opposite sex? I mean, I don’t know what you have done in your life, but have you had a friend of the opposite sex, just a friend, and had a normal conversation with them?
I have been telling you all along– but I will explain to you more clearly, and from a more personal perspective– if it helps you see that not everyone is the same:
I have NEVER ever been attracted to an ‘alpha male’ in my life. I don’t like big burly muscular men, in fact, many men I find attractive are shorter than me. Not that I look for shorter men, I just don’t base my attraction on someone’s height.
What I look for in a guy is generally intelligence and mutual interests– art, poetry, etc. I like a person who is confident in themselves, but not egotistical. If a guy tries to swagger in the room and show-off, I usually will write them off immediately– I just don’t find a large ego attractive.
In terms of feminism versus being “masculine” you seen to think that a feminized women will automatically be ‘in charge’.. When I think of feminism, I don’t see it as a bid to be in power, I see it as a bid to be treated as an EQUAL. And that’s what I want in a relationship as well as in the world in general- equality. This of course, is work, but if both partners are willing to work on it, it can be achieved. If one partner is not cooperative– it will not happen.
When I look for a partner, my first concern is not “what job do they have, how tall/muscular are they, how much money do they have/make” etc. It is about companionship– do we get along, do we understand each other. I want someone I can enjoy with– I can have discussion, I can share my interests with them, and enjoy their interests. I like and enjoy spending time with their friends, and vice versa.
Additionally, my partner and I should have the same ethical viewpoint– I have certain visions of positive ways to interact with the world, and I would look for a partner with similar viewpoints (No, I am not talking about ‘religion’)
My fiance and I do not have jobs currently, we are both studying, and planning our future. I do not expect him to be my ‘provider’ but rather I see life as a chance for each of us to pursue our interests and talents and make a positive impact on the world. In that way, we each can experiment and search and find the jobs we are looking for. My fiance is not a ‘typical’ Indian by any means– he is not in one of the big popular fields– he studies literature.
According to all your beliefs about men and women, he would not have a partner– sense he does not fill your stereotype of the ‘alpha male’. Additionally, according to your beliefs, I would not be a desirably partner– I am not submissive, I am not small and cute and easily dominate-able. I speak my mind, and I plan on providing for myself, regardless of whether I have a partner or not. Additionally, I would not ‘let’ a man be in control of me or take ‘charge’ of my life. Equality is what I seek.
Now keep in mind, that doesn’t mean I tell my fiance what to do or order him around. Sometimes I give him advice, sometimes he gives me advice. But we ask each others opinions and try to amke decisions together we are both happy with.
It sounds like to me that this idea of a relationship is very foreign to you. My advice is this: there are many different crowds in America (or Europe) the trick is finding the right group of people, who you can see eye to eye with. If you make all your friends at a high-powered law office, or a bar, or at a vegetarian supper, you are going to meet different kinds of people. So, my guess is you have been limiting yourself to very a limited (and probably very well-off and vain) crowd of people– and hence seen one small subgroup and lifestyle.
It’s the same with my experiences in India. There are many different crowds of people I can hang out with, and with each comes a different outlook and way of interacting with the world. I have meet your type of guy– the one who wants to be the ‘dominating provider man’, and guess what? I hated him. In fact, I never spoke to him again after he revealed this character of his– and this is supposed to be attracting women? That’s laughable. His behavior was arrogant, disrespectful, and unimpressive, regardless of the amount of money he was attempting to throw around to try and impress me.
Bottomline– there are many different types of people in this world, so don’t box yourself in. (or all men, or all Indian men, or all women, or all white women, etc). Doing so is only going to limit your options, and limit the people you meet. Be open. Don’t buy into the stereotypes, and just remember all sorts of weird people have long relationships, and they don’t fit into any norms– there is someone out there for everyone.
7. December 2009 at 12:06 am
And, while I don’t want to censor anyone, I think both sides of this issue have expressed their feelings on the matter enough for this blog post. If either one of you would like to continue this conversation, I encourage you to take it to the forum section. However, I think we’ve strayed far enough off the topic of this particular post.
7. December 2009 at 12:09 am
Don’t worry, I’ve said my thoughts (in many different words)… I don’t have anything left to say on the matter!
7. December 2009 at 12:32 am
Linzi,
Thanks for your awesomely well written comment. You include lots of nice things, and I wish you and your fiance the best for a long lasting, happy relationship.
I see by your description of what you look for in a guy, you following a females biological agenda pretty closely. That’s not necessarily bad or good, it just is.
Intelligent+nice+matching viewpoint=socially good, and good emotional connection for good pair bonding.
arrogance=poor social skills, miscalibrated person. The strongest alphas are nice.
I for one, am working on my social skills. I have a long way to go, and the best way I find is to be genuinely myself.
Cheers,
LF
P.S: Point duly noted GG. Cheers. LF
8. December 2009 at 12:38 am
Divorce and women .
From friends, I hear, that one of the main reasons for divorce is cheating, which comes after a woman has lost her drive to be with her husband. This usually happens after many years into a monogamous marriage.
Ref:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/magazine/29sex-t.html?pagewanted=1
Of course, most relationships on this board seem to be newish, and thus would not be facing this issue. However if it comes up, its a good idea to be aware of its existence.
Best of luck managing your drives. I know women have it a little more complicated than men do.
10. December 2009 at 6:10 pm
GG;
I don’t have a forum id, and I might not like to make an account and give out private data.
That’s why I posted in this thread, which was continuing with Linzi, and not in the forum.
Cheers,
LF
11. December 2009 at 10:25 am
LF – to post in the forum, you just need a user ID and an e-mail address, same as when you’re posting a comment.
11. December 2009 at 12:51 pm
Guys,
Not going to be posting on this thread, with this, my side of the argument is completed.
In my posts I have described the process of betaization which occurs when men reduce their leadership in the relationship. And the solution that I recommended the males to take, was to lead more, and the females to embrace their feminine side more.
This process of betaization in a marriage can be clearly seen in this video. This is from Jon and Kate + 8, in which clearly, Jon seems to be more energetic and in charge of the relationship when they were dating, 10 years back. Later, Kate seems to be more in charge, as seen in the current time period interview. When women start to dominate too much, the guy doesn’t feel good, which leads to further issues. In Jon and Kates case it led to divorce.
Clearly seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-R0R9PZR8
and in Cate Blanchett and her husbands case; here;
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/video/200909/20090925-blanchett-raw_video2.flv
16. December 2009 at 10:48 pm
LF wrote: “Later, Kate seems to be more in charge, as seen in the current time period interview. When women start to dominate too much, the guy doesn’t feel good, which leads to further issues.”
You have filled your head with profligate stereotypes.
1) If the guy doesn’t feel so good when the woman dominates, consequently ending the marriage in a divorce, it bothers you.
2) Shouldn’t it be equally bothersome for you to see a marriage where the guy dominates and the woman doesn’t feel good?
You haven’t made a case for 1) and against 2). And your examples are grotesque, for they are both “celeb” examples.
You have assiduously lobbied the “70-30″ (male-female) relationships without any shred of data to support them. One can employ the same rhetoric you used to counter your claims, by supporting “30-70″ (male-female) relationships. Do you see it?
17. December 2009 at 4:17 pm
Indiandude.
Thanks for your reply. Stereotypes and cliches exist for a reason. That; they fit a lot of patterns.
I am not trying to prove an strong academic type point. My comments are seriously in my opinion only.
If you see these patterns occurring through your relationships with women, take my advice, if not , cast it aside. I assure you that , that is of more use than arguing about academic points on a website which is designed to help intercultural couples, especially women share their experiences. My comments and the nature of the truth that I live goes against the idealistic grain, but it reflects the realities of the world.
There is enough room in the world for everyone’s world view to be correct. So to each his own. If, in living our own lives, we may help others by giving them glimpses to our own attitude, excellent.But nothing is right or wrong, or blasphemous, or stupid. What is definitely inappropriate is using coarse language that discourages free thought on an internet forum. That should be avoided.
Cheers,
LF
24. December 2009 at 12:35 pm
“I assure you that , that is of more use than arguing about academic points on a website which is designed to help intercultural couples, especially women share their experiences. My comments and the nature of the truth that I live goes against the idealistic grain, but it reflects the realities of the world.”
Making sensationalist generalizations about entire cultures–both Indian and American–and incessantly lobbying the (nonexistent) success of patriarchal marriages require a lot of data. And this has nothing to do with an academic debate. You haven’t in your nearly dozen messages made any attempt to establish your point, which is why one person rightly called you a “troll.”
“There is enough room in the world for everyone’s world view to be correct.”
No, there isn’t. Definitely not for naive relativism…or self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectual pretensions.
30. December 2009 at 2:32 am
As I said earlier:
“There is enough room in the world for everyone’s world view to be correct. So to each his own.”
Cheers.
23. December 2009 at 2:55 am
Separation and divorce really brings a lot of hurt for both individuals who used to believe that their love will see the through, only to be frustrated by so many things that caused their break up. The proceedings even add more insult to injury, as both undergo rigid questioning and tense dialogue.
16. January 2010 at 7:58 am
We have a friend who is going through a divorce.
He is anglo, and his wife is Chinese.
What makes their circumstances so exceptional to me is that having known them for about 7 years, I have always considered them to both be responsible, decent and level headed.
They have a 6 year old son, which they seem to dote over, and they were both clearly very good parents.
Now in the past Ms B made some incidental but ominous comments about the wife, which I disregarded at the time. Ms B told me that the wife would bitterly complain in private about her husband, but there was no substance to the complaints. Ms B described the complaints as being “child-like” and repetitious in nature.
Had my wife not told me this, I would never have thought this woman was child-like, nor someone who complained about her husband behind his back. She just seemed too nice and empathetic in public. In fact, she really won me over as a great mother and a great wife.
But clearly I was wrong!
Well, this couple separated about a year ago. Since then the husband has wanted to see the child 3 days per fortnight, but the wife refused. She would only agree to 8 hours per fortnight.
So after failing to get anywhere in mediation, the husband filed for greater access to his son via the Family Court.
In response his wife filed allegations of child sexual abuse.
Now I won’t go into detail about these allegations, but to say that they are completely preposterous and bizarre.
I read the wife’s statement and the allegations in full, as did Ms B. We both agreed that the wife was either lying or she is so disturbed by the divorce that she is deluding herself. In fact I had to pinch myself a number of times as there was no logic in the ramblings, apart from references to women’s intuitition and references from the internet about bed wetting being linked to child abuse. She also supplied some selective snippets from the internet suggesting that any form of shared care was disruptive to children.
My final take was that this was all about child support, given that in Australia child support reduces if the child sees the other parent on overnight stays. Its the only way I can understand what has happened.
But now to my point, and this is eerily similar to one of the comments by a poster to a previous post.
The husband has hired a solicitor and barrister to represent him in Court.
He told me recently that while in a briefing with his barrister, the barrister said that in his experience, Chinese born wives are particularly malicious during divorce. In fact he mentioned that of the 5 most spiteful wives that he comes across per year in his work as a barrister, about 3 tend to be Chinese born.
Now make of this what you will, but if true, it is a worrying statistic for many fathers out there.
21. March 2010 at 1:03 pm
Divorces are never based primarily on interracial or intercultural relationship or any other stereotypes , its just matter of how much you love each other and willing to work through differences as we grow. I was married to an american for 5 years, whom I loved dear and near to my heart , found out she was having an affair for 3 years and I didn’t knew about . It was a hard lesson for me and very hard to cope with feelings , I would say that was one of the worst things happened to me. Only Time has helped me out , I am into my second year and still recovering … separation stings, infidelity will almost kill you.
21. May 2010 at 1:10 am
http://acheloisunplugged.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/khaleeji-gender-dynamics/#comments
Hi Gorigirl,
Achelois’s blog is an interesting and thought provoking space to visit. Since I brought up the issue GCC societies also having high divorce rates and which are comparable to US numbers, I thought I’d come back to link Achelois’s post on her break down of reasons for high divorce rates in the Gulf.