- This topic has 31 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why is it that the way our shidduch system works is that the boy gives the yes first and then the girl looks into the boy? I feel that a girl should be given equal opportunity to give the yes first and then the boy would look into the girl. This would give girls a bigger opportunity to get more dates and hopefully will help the shidduch crisis.
So stop complaining and go give a boy a yes.
(And then you’ll discover that there was something else behind the normal procedure: numbers.)
Whoever is asked about the shidduch first, should be the first one to say yes or no.
Isn’t the purported reason regarding the female emotional reaction of being rejected?
As PBA noted, boys are far more likely to say no for comparative rather than substantive reasons. More girls get rejected because more girls are in play. Preserving the girl’s dignity is the idea. Pre-approval may help a little though. A girl that’s ready to go out tomorrow has a competitive advantage, all other things equal. Just saying.
Females take rejection better. They sometimes kill the people who rejected them, but generally they take it better than males.
As PBA noted, boys are far more likely to say no for comparative rather than substantive reasons
I don’t think that’s what I said.
fny: Men need no dignity?
I don’t think that’s what I said.
Why do the numbers affect who is asked first?
I had assumed as Lior did, and that the numbers exacerbate the issue, because the boy is more likely to say no.
PBA: Why do numbers matter? I assumed you meant because there are more girls per guy, and therefore more girls are going to get rejected (a girl that gets rejected because there’s someone else is rejected for a “comparative” reason). Even if you did not mean that, I did. Sorry for assuming though.
Lior: Read it again, think it through, and if you still have the question I’ll try to break it down for you slowly.
Boys have lists to choose from. As far as I know, girls don’t. It’s a flawed system, but it does work for many people, but not all. There are too many singles out there and people feel forced to marry by a certain age, even when they are not ready.
Isn’t the purported reason regarding the female emotional reaction of being rejected? “
I sincerely doubt anyone was concerned with the sensibiities of the girls when they made that “rule.” No one likes being rejected, boy OR girl. And half the time it is the MOMS doing the rejecting. So they are actually being rejected by another female.
But, oomis, fny attributed it to “preserving the girl’s dignity”. Do you disagree or do you think that preserving the boy’s dignity is equally vital?
Lior, you said: “But, oomis, fny attributed it to ‘preserving the girl’s dignity’. Do you disagree or do you think that preserving the boy’s dignity is equally vital?”
I’m glad you understood my point in which all dignity is presumed equal. Thus, the two choices are either 1. Disagree with me, or 2. agree with me that all dignity of either gender is treated equally.
I am so glad you decided to read what I wrote carefully, think about it, and formulate a carefully worded response.
I just have one issue with your wording. The quote: “preserving the girl’s dignity” seems to be misplaced. One might think you understood me to be saying that a girl’s dignity is more important, when I clearly said and meant no such thing. This quote might lead me to think that you did not think about what I wrote in a meaningful way. After all, my main point was that girls are more likely to be rejected because there are more of them. Thus, assuming all rejection is equal, it would minimize the amount of rejection in the world if girls waited until after they were approved.
Now the question is what motive do you have for putting that quote in there. I’ll attempt to list the options. Please let me know which option
is/are correct.1. You didn’t read what I wrote well enough even though I requested that you do
2. You read what I wrote well, but couldn’t comprehend it
3. I was unclear and somehow implied that a girl’s dignity is more important than a boy’s. Please let me know how and where I implied that, so that I can learn from this and be more clear in the future
4. I was clear enough, you read it, and understood it, and your mischaracterization was deliberate. This is the option that is most disturbing to me. Why would you do that?
3. It is at best debatable whether a numerically greater number of instances of being declined for a date is an affront to one’s “dignity” and you didn’t clarify why you’d think dignity to be at issue when accepting or declining an offer to date is a non-public matter.
Fny, you may not be saying it, but are we forbidden to say that women are more sensitive, and that the reason the default is how it is is so that if there’s a no, the boy suffers it and not the girl?
As I recall, this protocol was the norm before we understood age gap (although it’s possible that the greater chance of a girl saying yes was already observed, just not understood).
??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????
:?”? ?”?
id havta agree with dy on this. basic mitzius.
I’m not disagreeing about the possibility, DY. I was annoyed that someone just can’t read.
Lior: The question was why girls don’t give the “yes” first. My response was that more girls get rejected than boys and preserving their dignity is important.
The reason you claim not to have understood what I was saying is because I didn’t directly link dignity to rejection, you assumed I meant that a girl’s dignity is more important.
I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. I’ll accept that reason “3” came into play. I just think that “1” and/or “2” were far more relevant.
Now allow me to explain my point a little more. When a person is rejected before they look into someone else, the rejection is often without their knowledge of, investment in, or acquiescence to, the shidduch. A rejection is in essence saying “I don’t want you.” When someone has to hear that from someone else, it is an affront to their dignity. When it occurs after the person has said “I do want you” to the other party, the affront to their dignity is compounded. The word dignity as I’m using it refers to worthiness.
In sum, more girls=more guy rejections and the party with propensity to rejection should go first, as a rejection which occurs before the other party says yes, is less of an affront do dignity.
But, oomis, fny attributed it to “preserving the girl’s dignity”. Do you disagree or do you think that preserving the boy’s dignity is equally vital?”
I think that preserving ALL people’s dignity is important. Sometimes feelings will be hurt and it is unavoidable. But boys are just as apt as girls to feel bad when rejected, though they are trained from birth to hide their feelings better and girls are encouraged to let loose emotionally.
I also do not agree that this preserves the girl’s dignity, especially if she is fully aware that her name has been suggested to Boy X and he said no.
If all guys wouldn’t look into girls until the girls said yes then this whole problem would be reversed. Since boys are doing the sifting process they automatically have longer lists and automatically are going to be saying no more often. If the girls had to do research before it is suggested to a guy then the girls would be left with piles of resumes and the guys would feel like there aren’t enough girls to go around.
If only it were just about how it felt…
If only people stopped submitting “resumes” for what is a non-job-nterview, stopped doing extensive “research” for the non-term-paper, and just let people meet each other in a comfortable way, without being taught their entire lives that there is something inherently immodest about that, maybe we would see things happening in a much more pleasant way. I said it before, I will say it again – I HATE THE SHIDDUCH PROCESS as we know it today. Life was much easier when I was in the parsha (and we didn’t call it a “parsha,” it was just plain dating).
We are considered a Yeshivish family (both my wife & I are college graduates). My 5 married children cumulatively dated 25 people. Only 1 was redd by a shadchan who doubled as my son’s Rebby. When you have acquaintances redd shiduchim, the girl has first choice if they come to you first.
This system of using acquaintances to redd shiduchim, works, as 4 out of my 5 children found their bashert that way.
We are considered a Yeshivish family (both my wife & I are college graduates).
I don’t know what the definition of yeshivish is, and I think you can be yeshivish even if you go to college, and even if you graduate, but I am pretty sure that graduating college is not what makes you yeshivish.
PBA: I think that was just a qualifier.
Where in Shas is this “rule”? I completed a daf yomi cycle and must have missed it.
:?”? ?”?
Also, :?????? ?.
?”? ?”?
The quote has nothing to do with shidduchim, it has to do with proper treatment of ones’ wife!
Lol its in like last week’s daf (which I naturally did like today).
You must be going to a conservative daf yomi and they skip the nonegalitarian parts. I’m guessing a cycle takes about a month-month and a half?
I wasn’t claiming that it was egalitarian, I was questioning the source for the “rule” regarding shidduchim expressed by the OP. The examples given don’t seem to have anything to do with our modern shidduch system.
Sensitivity to women’s feelings doesn’t go out of style, and Chazal’s dictum of ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? hasn’t expired.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.