Isn't this the kind of thing the War on Terror is supposed to be fighting? Didn't they learn anything from the Who Wants to Marry a Whore fiasco? Reaching deeper into the pits of despair, and back in time to the feudal era, Fox has come up with a new reality show that will explore the atavistic joys of arranged marriage:
- Take "American Idol," add a bit of "The Bachelor" and sprinkle in the arranged marriage element of "Monsoon Wedding"—and you've got the idea behind Fox's next big reality franchise.
The network is developing "Married by America," a weekly reality series that will search for folks hungry to get hitched—and then set them up with arranged marriages. The American viewing public will play matchmaker, voting on which couples will get engaged.
The concept borrows from a practice that, while rare in the United States, is prevalent in many other cultures.
- "Married by America," the series—targeted to bow early next year—will likely unfold over six to eight weeks, beginning with a nationwide search "for people who are tired of the dating scene and are open to the idea of having a marriage arranged for them," said Fox reality chief Mike Darnell.
- Details are still being hammered out, but producers will likely first cast a small number of people—perhaps four people, evenly split between men and women—who want to have Joe Public find their match for them. These folks will remain the same throughout the course of the show.
After that, another large group of potential brides and grooms will be winnowed down by marriage experts so that each person in the first group has, say, five or 10 potential mates. All of this will take place over the course of the first episode of the show.
- In episode two, people in the large group will be grilled by the friends and family members of the small group in a pageant-style setting. The family members will then choose two finalists.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Beaver
Oh, get over yourself. You sound really angry about this. It's just TV. Relax.
2 - Hina
Mr. Eric Olsen.
I did not know there was a such a group as the "Islamists". Perhaps you were meaning to refer to Muslims or those that follow the faith and religion of Islam. If you are going to write an article on the basis of sterotyping members of a religion, at least get the name of the group right. Better luck next time.
3 - Kate
I don't feel that it is necessary or prudent to involve and isolate a particular group of people in order to create a clever punch line for your critque, especially in a time when issues like these are so sensitive. The fact that you could not even correctly identify the group by its name does not help your cause either.
4 - hurrm
sorry about that, my browser screwed up.
5 - Brian Clouse
Dear Eric,
First, it is quite possible that there could not be two ideologies further apart at this moment than the religion of Islam and the Fox television network. Second, your suggestion that " The Islamists," as opposed to, say, The Mormons, The Hindus, The Jews, The Chinese, The Sikhs, The Irish, The Blacks, or whoever "should like this" belies your cowardly selection of the only group you had the guts to portray negatively, though quite ignorantly, in your article. Third, are you suggesting that our enlightened and progressive American system of courtship where people have several relationships spawned by dating, leading to pre-maritial sexual relations, often leading to co-habitation, frequently leading to the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions, and occasionally leading to marriage, often leading to unhappy marriages, which leads to rampant marital infidelity, which is the leading cause of divorce, which, in turn, frequently leads to phenomena like "deadbeat dads" and other social woes is somehow a more civilized alternative to so-called arranged marriages? I'm not convinced that "our" way is any better. However, I agree with you that the show is a stupid idea.
6 - Liz
It's a sad thing that such uninformed rot as this is published day after day in public forums such as newspapers and the internet, perpetuating religious, racial and cultural ignorance, intolerance and hatred. The only worthy point made in this article is that the tv show is a stupid idea.
7 - Mica
Dear Eric
Unfortunately the title that you thought would make you "the worlds cleverest" did not have the reaction you hoped for.... Word to the wise,you don't have to be ignorant to be funny or to get your point across.
8 - A.J.Calhoun
To be brief (not my habit):
The idea for the show is stupid. So has been the idea behind the wildly popular show "The Bachelor"
(which seems to be upending "The West Wing" in popularity for some reason). It's been DONE awready!
Regarding a seemingly unrelated matter, the adoption of the non sequitur "Islamists" by elitist right-wing xenophobes is a huge disappointment to those of us who embrace some form or sect of Islam, who are exceedingly hip, and/or just plain think Americans should be more hip and/or intelligent in public than to make up code words like "Islamists" in order to convey one's veiled contempt for some group of people or another. Wake up and smell the urine.
9 - rainier wofcastle
There are Islamists and there are Muslims. Let us make the distinction clear. A muslim is someone who follows the religion of Islam and is content with that.
Islamists are those who believe that the whole world should subscribe to Islam and would not be happy until a Islamic Caliphate living under the shaaria law is establish. In short, they are fascists and they are our enemies.
10 - lidia
Dear Eric:
Your article is both ignorant and offensive to anyone who subcribes to a set of beliefs outside of what YOU consider to be "the norm".
Sorry to tell you that although your piece was one of opinion, it really wasn't necessary to add your two-bits as to what you think is a normal marriage. Marriage nowadays is a controversial term. We speak of marriage, and a variety of other issues arise...homosexual life partnerships, commonlaw marriages, arranged marriages--> what gives you the right to decide what is considered to be a normal marriage???????
I have taken personal offence to your article not only because I am a muslim (and not an Islamist as you ignorantly assumed) but also because I am a born citizen of a western country.
I have had the pleasure of growing up in a western society and mainatining my ethnic and religious roots. I have had the opportunity to see what both worlds offer and consider myself to be open-minded and liberal.
Please, take a moment to see why I could be so offended by an obvious disregard for people in both worlds:
To begin with, your blatant depiction of islam as a savage religion is neither insightful nor correct... "We could have a show involving polygamy, infanticide, female genital mutilation, and dysentery, which are also prevalent in other cultures: we could call it Anthropologist's Wet Dream." If you had cared to research your article correctly, you would have discovered that these are primal practises which DO NOT have their origins in Islam but rather in cultural practises guising themselves as Holy practises.
Secondly, the conept of arranged marriages is albeit primal, but considering the divorce rate in america...I'd say "those cultures" in "those countries" are doing a pretty damn good job of figuring out what marriage means. Furthermore, if you would like to consider arranged marriages in western countries, why don't you know that the practise of arranged marriages has modernized according to the times? The formality of the process is still the same, but the methods have changed. If you had cared to inquire into the process, you would have discovered that although the process is initiated by a match-maker, the partcipating individuals themselves make the final decision on whether to marry based on their relationhip and the extent to which they are compatible, attracted to each other and so forth. I really don't see a difference between a match-maker and getting set up by a friend or family member.
Thirdly I really do feel that it was your intention to write an opinion article on the show itself. However, your misguided effort has resulted in some obvious misrepresentation. As a writer, it is your job to research the topic you will be writing on. It is sad to think that in this day and age, there are still people who persecute and attack beliefs of others all because of a lack of knowledge. As one comment stated earlier, the Salem Witch Trials were a horrific example of the ignorance of westerners towards a minority of people who challenged "the norm". Isn't it ironic that we can do the same today and call it an opinion piece?
Please.
Next Time, do some responsible reporting.
11 - Tsza
The people who are so vehemently defending these shows are, in fact, the target audience. Adolescent - a cross-cultural, pan-racial, non-gender-specific term used to describe immature people that don't have a clue.
12 - Eric Olsen
The only conclusion I can come to regarding the bulk of these comments is that a message board somewhere must have latched on to this story, and people already had their generic complaints written before they even came to this site, because most of them have nothing to do with what I wrote.
By the way, hurrm, I didn't mean to delete your main post, just the multiple versions. Please feel free to repost.
I will address some of the specific complaints in a separate comment.
13 - Eric Olsen
Regarding specific complaints: I am well aware of the difference between "Islamist" and "Islam" - since this story has nothing to do with Islam, and nothing I said has any bearing on Islam, my choice of title was very purposeful.
Rainier's definition of "Islamist" is approximately mine, so please refer to it for the distinction. Since Islamists will not be content until the entire earth lives under their peculiar version of fundamentalist Islam, they were a good choice as representative of repressive, backward-looking, closed-mindedness - hence the title.
Regarding the article itself, it is commentary on a stupid, shallow, exploitative idea for a TV show - that's all. There is nothing whatsoever in it about Islam: "polygamy, infanticide, female genital mutilation, and dysentery" are asinine practices in various cultures and I was simply making a list of those of which I strongly disapprove.
Is arranged marriage as egregious as these? No, but it is an anti-individual, backward-looking, repressive, controlling practice that goes against everything that America is supposed to be about. People are resposible for the success of their own relationships, so it is immaterial how many of them fail or succeed for this argument. The point is that when pressure is exerted on individuals by family, friends, society to accept a relationship not of their own making, this most basic freedom is removed even if they have the right of final refusal. To make a mass entertainment out of this form of intimate coercion is despicable.
14 - Eric Olsen
Just to make sure that my point is made: this article/commentary is not about Islam, has nothing to do with Islam, doesn't make reference to Isalm, and anyone who read it should know this.
This article is about a really stupid idea for a TV show, and about my opinion of arranged marriage, which I am completely against. Arranged marriage is anti-individual, anti-freedom and as a result to be decried. Arranged marriage is a crutch, it is insular, it deflects responsibility for one of life's most important decisions, and undermines both free society and the sanctity of marriage, which is based to two equal souls finding each other and freely choosing to spend their lives together.
15 - Liz
Simply by mentioning Islam in your title you have included it in your article in the minds of most of your readers. Since Islam is currently under attack, as communism was in the '50's, many people are sensitive to it being mentioned. As to your column being on a message board, to my knowledge it is not. We are simply responding to what appears to be a slight against a very decent philosophy. As for arranged marriages, you have not bothered to look into the concept which, as pointed out previously, is no more anti-freedom than someone making a suggestion. The modern arranged marriage is only older, experienced loved ones making suggestions to young people wishing to make a life-long commitment based on their (the older ones') own experiences and wisdom. Whether the young people involved wish to act on their suggestions is entirely up to them. You still have two equal souls finding each other and freely choosing to spend their lives together. If anything, "arranged" (perhaps the word itself needs to be changed) marriages bring families and societies closer together in a sense of involvement.
16 - brette
Way to go Eric. Sometimes you just have to call 'em like you see 'em. By the way, to all of those people so vociferously extolling the virtues of the fundamentalist culture by comparing the divorce rates between the two might want to keep something in mind. In societies which practice female genital mutilation, require 3 male witnesses of good muslim character to testify to viewing a rape before an individual may be convicted, requires women to be draped from head to toe in shapeless attire, stones women for adultery, and which as I recall from a number of articles and interviews, thinks that the rape of a woman is a stain on the family honor (because presumably she didn't fight hard enough) requiring another male family member (usually her father or brother) to execute her to redeem their dignity, it is obscene to even suggest that the "low divorce rate" reflects anything other than the total and complete subjugation of one sex by the other. There may very well be more mainstream or moderate versions of islam, and these practices may be more geographic than idealogical in their nature, but that doesn't avoid the basic fact that these cultures and their abominations masquerading as "family values" are the reality for millions of people. Any comparison of our culture to theirs on the basis of the "divorce rate" is obscene.
Oh, and by the way, I think the show is a joke but ultimately we only have ourselves to blame since there must be enough of us out there watching this crap to make it worthwhile to keep putting it on.
17 - Shabazz
With the name of Allah (G-d), Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Gather your friends, your popcorn, and wine and let this amuse you. Pleased be amused by this: The destruction of the twin towers of life. From the deep dark preception of horror and death, comes the arrangement of a marriage that's not physical, but spiritual and mental. Yes, knowledge matters. And, your site is under construction of destruction all the time. Satan said to God (G-d), Oh God(G-d) I don't make them come, all I do is call them with my flashy attractions." To set standards for people causing them not to be insightful in their relationship from self to God(G-d). Allah(G-d) is giving us the opportunity to look around us and read the signs of time. We are responsible for what we allow to come into our being. We are products of our environment. Fox is responsible for creating the atmosphere. The clever foxes are not so clever. Some people have the strenght to bring family traditions that are unacceptable to a squeaking hault. The sound of squealing tires can be made good. Stopping on a dime when you see destruction and flowing it very quickly in the opposite direction. Hum, Yale University, a law school? Just another Fox. Institutional education without the real God(G-d). America the good. America the bad. Choose you America the good. Don't be pursued by the bad. Evil spirit, mischief, horrible death sentence. All of this is designed to take us into a foreign and mental destruction. Change you, yourself. With your heart and good intentions. Who will.
18 - Jim O'B
Misleading statement about muslims. A better show, one that we could all get into, would be "helping Muslims achieve martyrdom" by napalm bombing various cities in Saudi Arabia. Based on a wheel of fortune format, spin the wheel, accumulate bombs, and winner gets to pick the city to toast with his winnings. Now that would be good fun, and solve a lot of present and future political problems.
19 - Gunars
All I can say is: I'd hate to see who my parents would have picked as my wife. As a Christian, I understand the concept of and arranged marriage. Would I be correct in stating that the Muslim faith also believes that God ordained marriage? If so, then our responsibility as His Creation is to pray for our prospective mates, and wait for Him to do the "arranging". After all if our faith is in God, then it stands to reason that He who created us does, in fact, know what's best for us. And in a time when the sanctity of marriage is being challenged, to suggest a TV show which reduces it to just another form of entertainment is not only stupid, it is sacreligious.
20 - omalley
Eric,
It was a real joy reading your bilious screed, a beautiful example of the self-righteous and uninformed attitude that leaves much of the rest of the world disgusted with Americans.
Might I suggest that you need to live a little and see some other points of view. Try moving out of your parent's basement. After that, perhaps you could take a exotic vacation and see how people live in the next county.
Just a couple of suggestions,
Respectfully,
Jim
21 - Al
Hi Eric,
I just have a comment on to make on some of the responses to your article. First, I agree that you article title was a miss leading but upon reading the entire article I noticed your article was not about islamists or muslims at all.
Also, let me clear something up. Arranged marriages occur mostly in countries in the middle east in which islam the main religion. When a marriage is arranged, many times the woman has no say because in those countries women are not considered to be of any value. Also, if a woman refuses she could be killed or murdred and although the law in those contounries is against murder, it occurs routinely with no punishment because islam allows it. It is also interesting to know when a woman or male choose to convert to a christian religion in Eygpt (which is a muslim country), they are punished by death. All my comments are true and well documented in muslim countries but especially about the punishment for converting to christianity in Eygpt.
Also, I can understand why these so called muslims which made the comments to your article are so angry. They angry because they themselves are ignorant of the muslim religion (even if they are muslim) and about your comments.
22 - brette
bilious screed? Jim, respectfully, might I suggest that you take yourself a little less seriously.
23 - Emma
Your article is so lame.
Stop attacking cultures of what you know nothing about. You don't even know anything about your American culture . There is no such thing as Islamists.
Americans practice polygamy. You call it cheating. Utah allows it.
Female genital mutilation: You mutilate other parts of your bodies for the sake of beauty: breast implants, tummy tuck ins, and so many horror stories there.
Honor killings: Domestic abuse and rape happens everyday in America, to all classes of women.
ARRANGED MARRIAGES: Catholics and Jewish people do it ALL the time.
24 - Chris
Reading your article- I understood and agreed with your angry response to the mentioning of a NAME used to define your thought. There is a way to deter this- talk about practices, not names. You did so in regard to inhuman customs in many cultures, without mentioning the names of these cultures. That raised no bile! As you may have noticed- as long as there are no names mentioned, everyone assumes that you are talking about
someone else! "It couldn't happen to me" is like a second human skin, and applies to all.
However-I presume that you used the "Islamist" reference with the purpose of raising ire, and stimulating comments. Good job, it worked!
25 - Eric Olsen
Alrighty then, this is quite a discussion. If my screed was bilious, it was bilious toward the idea of a television show based upon arranged marriage
Liz, if your idea of "arranged marriage" is so loosey-goosey as to need another title, then you aren't talking about arranged marriage, you are talking about something else. I have no problem with blind dates, dating sevices, singles organizations, etc. I have problem with institutionalized social structures that substitute for personal freedom, responsibility, choice, judgment.
The "divorce rate" argument, as Brette says, is dissembling at best as all it really says is some cultures are more accepting of divorce than others. As grim as divorce is - and I have gone through one, which nearly killed me - divorce is better than emotionally or physically violent, or loveless marriage. Where divorce is not allowed or is very difficult to obtain, there you have rampant infidelity, not the other way around.
Also, "Islam" isn't in the title, "Islamist" is.
The way to make this world a better place if you are Muslim isn't to overreact and get defensive in response to people like me who have nothing against you per se, it's to speak out against your own who advocate violence against Infidels, spew vile anti-Semitic canards, oppress women, and conflate church (or mosque) and state.
American leftists who defend this hellish nightmare, get a clue and develop some self-respect.
And Jim, I've been to 49 states, and 10 countries on 5 continents. What do you think I'm "respectfully" missing?
Regarding the word "Islamist," if you live in a cave perhaps you haven't encountered it. Look the the book titles above for enlightenment. The word has been around for some time and means something very specific as loosely defined by Rainier above.
You are all entitled to your opinions and welcome to speak, but please don't be so ignorant when calling someone "ignorant." Thanks.