Post #3: Marrying for Money

Mothers have the greatest influence on their daughters. When the daughters are young, they dress them up as a princess and teach them how to talk, eat and dress properly so that they can prepare them for a better marriage prospect. Mothers in every class behave differently. Mothers from the poor class prepare their daughters to act and look a certain way so that she can have a groom from the upper class and have a ideal “cinderella” wedding. The poor class mother does not see any way out of poverty for their daughters but to get them married in a higher society. Middle class families usually marry their daughters in the same class system and believe more towards love than money. We can not say the same for high class mothers because they do not want their daughters to marry someone under them. Most marriages are arranged. For an example, celebrities marrying other celebrities or businessmen rather than a common man that they would find on the streets. Even in todays society, mothers contribute a lot in the daughters lives, wanting them to live wealthy. However, it is both a right and wrong thing for marrying for money since they would lack of love and happiness but will have security and stability in their lives. In the 18th century, the novel written by Jane Austin, Pride and Prejudice was about a mother who is trying to marry her five daughters to rich and wealthy men. Another example that happened about just 30 years ago, when princess Diana was married to prince Charles because of class, position and money. Therefore, mothers preparing their daughters at a young age to become a attractive prospect for a wealthy man been happening since the 18th century (or even earlier) and will continue to happen further as a norm.


2 responses to “Post #3: Marrying for Money

  1. Sharp and insightful analysis, Manisha. It’s a quite “materialist” or “realist” critique, sensitive to class variations and material concerns, in the tradition of Marx. The point about the prevalence of “arranged” marriages, of one sort or another, is persuasive — and recalls Weber’s thinking on *status*. The notion of arranged marriage is very contrary to the spirit of liberal individualism and is often considered an affront to “liberal values.” However, the basic principle that a “community” (which could be family and beyond) would weigh in on these kinds of decisions makes a lot of sense too.

  2. I can appreciate you blogging about this particular topic. Coming from the culture I come from arranged marriages are frequent. Most times its for materialistic purposes and a means of gaining status in society, all too often the two people getting married are unwilling which leads to unhappiness. I think everything that we’ve studied in class thus far serves as an explanation as to why people are more concerned about societal values than individual happiness.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s