In Kyrgyzstan it’s common to kidnap your future wife(economist.com)
economist.com
In Kyrgyzstan it’s common to kidnap your future wife
https://www.economist.com/1843/2022/12/19/the-bride-snatchers-of-kyrgyzstan
92 comments
In Mexico it is common to say that a woman was stolen or kidnapped ("Se la robó") when a couple elopes. Curious that the same face-saving mechanism is common in other parts of the world.
As a boy whenever I heard a woman had been "stolen" I couldn't help but picture a man carrying her off on his shoulders in the middle of the night while she helplessly tried to get away. Took me a while to understand it was usually consensual.
As a boy whenever I heard a woman had been "stolen" I couldn't help but picture a man carrying her off on his shoulders in the middle of the night while she helplessly tried to get away. Took me a while to understand it was usually consensual.
> Curious that the same face-saving mechanism is common in other parts of the world.
In many cases, it is just preserving language describing the act given the prior assumption that the woman was property of the male head of household until disposed of by them in marriage, devoid of her own agency, while the man attempting to marry her without that consent was fully possessed of moral agency and thus had stolen her from her appropriate custodian.
In many cases, it is just preserving language describing the act given the prior assumption that the woman was property of the male head of household until disposed of by them in marriage, devoid of her own agency, while the man attempting to marry her without that consent was fully possessed of moral agency and thus had stolen her from her appropriate custodian.
In the case of Kyrgyzstan that doesn't seem to be a "prior" assumption.
I meant that as why it would be common where the current use is primarily “face saving”, but even in those cases it is still bowing to the continued social relevance of the same attitude, because it only saves face if you assume that abduction is less of an affront to norms than a woman exercising agency with regard to marriage, so “prior” is something of an exaggeration in any case.
OK, point taken.
https://youtu.be/tT03T7SlLb8?t=3235 There was a scene in The Emerald Forest (1985): Boy taps girl lightly with ceremonial club. "No, do it right!" (WHOMP)
The Kyrgyz term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_kachuu covers elopement, certain kinds of arranged marriage, and actual kidnapping. YMMV
Ok this is a long article, and I don't have time to read the whole thing. But it is reminding me of several very dark things she said. One was how women do not refuse sex, and yes women get beat if they burn the food. Yikes.
So yes there are some serious problems there, but do take it with a grain of salt. Some people are lucky.
So yes there are some serious problems there, but do take it with a grain of salt. Some people are lucky.
She interviews several people who say this -- "well, it was basically OK for me, so I think this practice is fine." But I find it hard to trust such perspectives as truly considered if the alternative is living for decades with the conviction that your husband did something truly monstrous to you and now you're just waking up next to him every morning like it never happened.
> Gonna go read the article now and see if I need to make any updates.
Yeah I'd say the murder the story centers on and several other stories recounted don't fit what you said too well. The article also calls into question how voluntary these "voluntary" kidnappings truly are in their social context.
Yeah I'd say the murder the story centers on and several other stories recounted don't fit what you said too well. The article also calls into question how voluntary these "voluntary" kidnappings truly are in their social context.
Take a look at my second comment.
I think with my first comment you got what was literally said to me.
My second comment is me recalling and re-reading between the lines.
I think with my first comment you got what was literally said to me.
My second comment is me recalling and re-reading between the lines.
Interesting that kidnapping is considered face-saving as compared to a private marriage.
This appears to be the crux of the problem...
"if you’re unwed at 25, you’re thought to be on the verge of spinsterhood, pretty much the worst failure imaginable"
This sentiment seems to be near-universal in all but the most "progressive" societies (and even in some parts of those). And it results in all manner of grotesque and absurd behavior that robs people - mostly women but also men - of their humanity and autonomy.
I applaud every young person with the courage to buck this trend in their own societies. The cost of doing so is often very high, but the pattern can only be broken by people brave enough to face those consequences and help craft a less restrictive world for the next generation.
"if you’re unwed at 25, you’re thought to be on the verge of spinsterhood, pretty much the worst failure imaginable"
This sentiment seems to be near-universal in all but the most "progressive" societies (and even in some parts of those). And it results in all manner of grotesque and absurd behavior that robs people - mostly women but also men - of their humanity and autonomy.
I applaud every young person with the courage to buck this trend in their own societies. The cost of doing so is often very high, but the pattern can only be broken by people brave enough to face those consequences and help craft a less restrictive world for the next generation.
> And it results in all manner of grotesque and absurd behavior that robs people - mostly women but also men - of their humanity and autonomy.
I disagree that “humanity” and “autonomy” belong together in that sentence. I’m pretty sure that having kids by roughly 25 is how the human species has evolved to function. That’s the nature of “humanity”—the human condition.
That “sentiment” you decry—the social pressure to marry and have children in your 20s—is probably necessary for a sustainable society to exist. As you acknowledge, it’s nearly universal. And I can’t help but notice that the exceptions—what you call “progressive” societies, where “autonomy” has vanquished “humanity”—are all in decline. They are all propped up in the meantime by immigration from societies like the one I’m from, where moms and aunties start hassling you to get married once you hit 25.
I disagree that “humanity” and “autonomy” belong together in that sentence. I’m pretty sure that having kids by roughly 25 is how the human species has evolved to function. That’s the nature of “humanity”—the human condition.
That “sentiment” you decry—the social pressure to marry and have children in your 20s—is probably necessary for a sustainable society to exist. As you acknowledge, it’s nearly universal. And I can’t help but notice that the exceptions—what you call “progressive” societies, where “autonomy” has vanquished “humanity”—are all in decline. They are all propped up in the meantime by immigration from societies like the one I’m from, where moms and aunties start hassling you to get married once you hit 25.
No, you don’t understand, it’s completely normal and healthy for a society to shrink by close to half generation-to-generation. Sure, after 10 generations of this kind of decline, the population figure shrinks to only 0.1% of the former figure, and no longer sustains culture or even economy to keep all this autonomy practical (as healthy and productive economy is crucial to any degree of autonomy, the concept of autonomy and freedom from unchosen bonds is completely foreign to poor people in places like the Bangladesh you are from, due to simple economic reality), but think about all the autonomy the generation that inherited the civilization right at its peak, before it entered terminal decline (i.e. us) have enjoyed!
More seriously though, I don’t think it will be so bad. Evolution works. Blood lines of the autonomous people will perish, and the breeders will inherit the earth. For me, I’m doing my part.
More seriously though, I don’t think it will be so bad. Evolution works. Blood lines of the autonomous people will perish, and the breeders will inherit the earth. For me, I’m doing my part.
[deleted]
A less restrictive world is not necessarily a better world. We live on and are proceeding to ruin a finite living area called Earth. Only with some kind of massive social re-engineering will any semblance of modern society still exist 200 years from now. That probably has to involve restrictions on how people eat, work, and mate.
The modern Western idea appears to be to treat life like an infinitely reconfigurable video game tuned to every individual. That will soon become a luxury for only the richest people. The rest of us need to get by as best we can, and that may mean young women and men will have to take what they can get and make themselves happy with it.
My wife dreams of winning the lottery and transforming our lives. Meanwhile we are genuinely content in our relatively hardscrabble existence… only because there is no alternative to it.
BTW I kidnapped my first wife (well she ran away from home to live with me, so her parents thought of it as kidnapping). She was 18, I was 17. But I had my own apartment, so… My second wife kinda sorta kidnapped me. Or at least she stalked me for a year before revealing herself and unleashing her plan to marry me. My son’s wife of eight years came for a visit from Canada and never returned home (for immigration reasons they were forced to get married sooner than they wanted to, so I guess America kidnapped her?).
The modern Western idea appears to be to treat life like an infinitely reconfigurable video game tuned to every individual. That will soon become a luxury for only the richest people. The rest of us need to get by as best we can, and that may mean young women and men will have to take what they can get and make themselves happy with it.
My wife dreams of winning the lottery and transforming our lives. Meanwhile we are genuinely content in our relatively hardscrabble existence… only because there is no alternative to it.
BTW I kidnapped my first wife (well she ran away from home to live with me, so her parents thought of it as kidnapping). She was 18, I was 17. But I had my own apartment, so… My second wife kinda sorta kidnapped me. Or at least she stalked me for a year before revealing herself and unleashing her plan to marry me. My son’s wife of eight years came for a visit from Canada and never returned home (for immigration reasons they were forced to get married sooner than they wanted to, so I guess America kidnapped her?).
You’re talking as if this was just some social construct, when it’s absolutely not. If a woman doesn’t have children by a certain age, then she will never have children. The idea that it will become impossible to have children is an intimidating thought for many women, even if they don’t necessarily have immediate plans to have them, and the appeal of committing to a relationship with a women who cannot have children is reduced for men (again, even if they don’t have any immediate plans for children).
Women get left behind by biological realities. Pretending this is just some form of social tyranny is clearly nonsense.
Women get left behind by biological realities. Pretending this is just some form of social tyranny is clearly nonsense.
Clearly it's easier to conceive in your 20's for both men and women, but menopause (which tends to happen around age 50) is not necessarily the end of the story for women. Women can often become pregnant after menopause with their own pre-menopausal frozen eggs. If not, they can more often use a surrogate to bring their frozen egg to term. This can cost up to $40k for the procedures and storage, which is expensive but getting cheaper over time. I'd be surprised if girls being born now are ever nearly as anxious about menopause as today's quinquagenarians.
"If a woman doesn’t have children by a certain age, then she will never have children"
In what universe is this any of your concern? Not this one.
And of course it's tyrannical. People with little or no power (children, very young adults) are being forced, coerced, threatened by the power structures in their lives to make decisions they don't want to make. This is nearly a textbook definition of tyranny.
In what universe is this any of your concern? Not this one.
And of course it's tyrannical. People with little or no power (children, very young adults) are being forced, coerced, threatened by the power structures in their lives to make decisions they don't want to make. This is nearly a textbook definition of tyranny.
I would point out that it's of great concern to many women, often without any significant imposition by men.
I've never heard of a society that coerces women into not getting married and having children. And the imposition is by adult women and men against younger women and men, not simply men against women.
I absolutely do not agree with stigmatizing child freedom, or any notion of "spinsterhood", I just think we can acknowledge that this is a common concern with or without coercion, which is hard to measure and hard even to define.
> This sentiment seems to be near-universal in all but the most "progressive" societies (and even in some parts of those).
In what universe is this sentiment any of your concern? I presume you imagine this one?
I’m simply pointing out your mistake, which is that this is not simply some sentiment that can be modified with the appropriate social conditioning. It is the ordinary human reaction to undeniable biological realities. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that this was an appropriate basis for actual tyrannical behaviour, so please don’t try to gaslight me into defending such a position, because it won’t work. As I have said elsewhere, even in the most progressive countries in the world, this is still a ubiquitous concern.
In what universe is this sentiment any of your concern? I presume you imagine this one?
I’m simply pointing out your mistake, which is that this is not simply some sentiment that can be modified with the appropriate social conditioning. It is the ordinary human reaction to undeniable biological realities. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that this was an appropriate basis for actual tyrannical behaviour, so please don’t try to gaslight me into defending such a position, because it won’t work. As I have said elsewhere, even in the most progressive countries in the world, this is still a ubiquitous concern.
"It is the ordinary human reaction"
Here is a novel idea that apparently never occurred to you, let's allow each ordinary human to have their own reaction.
Here is a novel idea that apparently never occurred to you, let's allow each ordinary human to have their own reaction.
Why should anyone feel pressured to have children at all? That's a pretty horrible way to view the world, you're acting as if a woman's value is decreased once she can't have children anymore. That sounds a lot like social tyranny to me.
I’m not suggesting anybody is pressured to have children. Only that those who want to have to do so by a certain age, and the among those who do not or who are unsure, some portion of them decide that they do want to when confronted with the reality that they will no longer be able to.
> you're acting as if a woman's value is decreased once she can't have children anymore. That sounds a lot like social tyranny to me.
A woman’s value as a partner would be decreased for anybody who wanted to have children, or who at least wanted the option of having children. The idea that if you want a partner, you’re going to have to attract one, is not a tyranny. There are some people who think that this is tyrannical, for instance the incel community, but they are clearly wrong.
> you're acting as if a woman's value is decreased once she can't have children anymore. That sounds a lot like social tyranny to me.
A woman’s value as a partner would be decreased for anybody who wanted to have children, or who at least wanted the option of having children. The idea that if you want a partner, you’re going to have to attract one, is not a tyranny. There are some people who think that this is tyrannical, for instance the incel community, but they are clearly wrong.
"A woman’s value as a partner would be decreased for anybody who wanted to have children"
Again, please explain why this is any concern of yours. If you want to seek out and help woman who voluntarily want help finding a partner and having children, get at it. Otherwise, supporting a system that coerces or forces young people into decisions against their will is a form of tyranny.
Again, please explain why this is any concern of yours. If you want to seek out and help woman who voluntarily want help finding a partner and having children, get at it. Otherwise, supporting a system that coerces or forces young people into decisions against their will is a form of tyranny.
HuwytGreen(1)
The age is not 25 and, anyway, who says being a mother is every woman's life's ambition?
I didn’t say it was every woman’s ambition. But many people reevaluate how they feel about the idea when they are forced to confront the fact that the choice will soon be taken away from them. This doesn’t happen at age 25, but probably starts to become more apparent for many people around that age. Keep in mind it often takes years of planning to go from deciding you want to have children to actually having them.
Most women I know had kids in their early-to-late thirties. Maybe you need to get out in the world and interact with more and different kinds of people, because it appears you perspective is severely limited.
And the solution that's been arrived on is robbing women more fundamentally of any choice at all about what kind of life they will live. I think we're better off with the risk that maybe some people will wish they'd tried motherhood earlier than the alternative.
That’s clearly not true, because this issue still exists in societies where women have full autonomy and legal protections. It’s created by biological realities, not social conventions. It’s not simply a trendy sentiment that can be bucked (which is the claim made in the comment I originally replied to).
I'm not sure what is clearly not true but many women marry past 25 and have children.
I don’t think it is 100% society as much as it is biology that has shaped that ideology
So? Does that make it right?
Reproducing is biologically hardwired into us. That doesn’t make it alright to judge people who either can’t or choose not to but I also don’t think we are going to change something so core to our biology any time soon, and yes a part of that is the judgement that may come along with it. Doesn’t hurt to try though.
Interesting Vice documentary on the subject: https://youtu.be/DKAusMNTNnk
There's an important part in that documentary
https://youtu.be/DKAusMNTNnk?t=1597
https://youtu.be/DKAusMNTNnk?t=1597
For context - bride "kidnapping" on wedding day is also wedding tradition in many European countries, though it's just pretend of course.
And the "real" kidnapping is not just Kyrgyzstan thing, but plenty other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
And the "real" kidnapping is not just Kyrgyzstan thing, but plenty other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping
I can't help but wonder if people post things to HN as a semi-automated way of getting an archive link :)
In this case it's overkill, if you don't enable javascript, the entire article is perfectly readable, including images, and without cookiewall or paywall.
[deleted]
>The researchers broke this figure down into those abducted “without consent” (6%) and those “with consent” (16%). Yet the idea of consent is difficult to parse in a country
I knew some Kyrgz who talked about this and they said the real thing was rare, illegal and still happened (almost exclusively in remote villages) but mostly it was a performative ritual done by couples who were dating.
I think the Economist is being intentionally obtuse here. 6% / 16% is about right.
I knew some Kyrgz who talked about this and they said the real thing was rare, illegal and still happened (almost exclusively in remote villages) but mostly it was a performative ritual done by couples who were dating.
I think the Economist is being intentionally obtuse here. 6% / 16% is about right.
6% is hardly what I'd call "rare".
Maybe read further into the story before committing to that opinion or at least to the end of that sentence.
If you’re interested, I would recommend checking out the short film “Ala Kachuu - Take and Run”.
Can’t say if the film is an accurate portrayal, but it really angered me to imagine people having to experience this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kachuu_–_Take_and_Run
Can’t say if the film is an accurate portrayal, but it really angered me to imagine people having to experience this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kachuu_–_Take_and_Run
Not to make light of issues presented in this article, there’s a delightful comedy from the 1990s called Black Cat, White Cat about a Roma community. I’m reminded of some scenes from that film. Serbian director, Emir Kusturica
This is also a tradition of sorts in some Hmong communities. Was shocking to learn about it, especially to learn that it's not a thing of the past.
Not just "the past" but the idea it happens only in far away places
like Kyrgyzstan. In London, Bradford and some other UK cities there is
an underground problem around arranged marriages that sometimes
escalates into kidnap, violence and even "honour killings". There's a
shroud of silence around it because Britain is a "modern
multi-cultural" country.
I don't think there's anything wrong with arranged marriages, just forced marriages. I know that sometimes it is both, however arranged-but-unforced marriages are more common.
Agreed. They can work out very well if consensual. Indeed plenty of
young British Asians are supportive of the traditions. It's when it
goes wrong that the wheels fall off, and usually it's women who come
under immense pressure or physical threat.
It's an ancient and noble tradition! And it's not like cultures should or even can change with times to adapt to new circumstances, should they? Get outta here with your cultural insensitivity!
Speaking seriously, cultural tolerance can only exist to a certain extent because each culture has some things it absolutely (or almost absolutely) prohibits and disdains, so when two incompatible in such a way cultures meet, something has to give.
Speaking seriously, cultural tolerance can only exist to a certain extent because each culture has some things it absolutely (or almost absolutely) prohibits and disdains, so when two incompatible in such a way cultures meet, something has to give.
Forgive me but that sounds rather sensationalist. If you have any evidence of this phenomenon I would be interested to see it.
Not that arranged marriages sometimes happen and honour killings too (albeit extremely rarely), but that there’s a “shroud of silence” around such things when they do happen.
Not that arranged marriages sometimes happen and honour killings too (albeit extremely rarely), but that there’s a “shroud of silence” around such things when they do happen.
A film to give you an insight is Banaz: An Honor Killing [1]. It's
based around a real case. It's often hard for police or social workers
to penetrate communities that close ranks to cover up cases like this.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn-VhFHkUoY
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn-VhFHkUoY
There isnt a shroud of silence around it. The foreign office even has a forced marriage unit.
There's plenty of help and support for it.
There's plenty of help and support for it.
I don't know Kyrgyzstan. But the story itself says:
> In response, the Kyrgyz parliament raised the maximum sentence for bride kidnapping from three to seven years.
and the tale at the beginning of the story is rare and extreme enough to spark a national campaign of outrage. I'm not saying that this phenomenon does not exist, but I do wonder if the Economist is not up-playing this for curiosity/shock value.
> In response, the Kyrgyz parliament raised the maximum sentence for bride kidnapping from three to seven years.
and the tale at the beginning of the story is rare and extreme enough to spark a national campaign of outrage. I'm not saying that this phenomenon does not exist, but I do wonder if the Economist is not up-playing this for curiosity/shock value.
The story cites statistics from the government itself:
"In a Kyrgyz government survey conducted in 2016 and funded by the UN, some 22% of the country’s women reported that their marriage had begun with an abduction, known as ala-kachuu, or “grab and run”. The researchers broke this figure down into those abducted “without consent” (6%) and those “with consent” (16%)."
6% is not routine, but I don't think it would be fair to call it "rare and extreme", either.
"In a Kyrgyz government survey conducted in 2016 and funded by the UN, some 22% of the country’s women reported that their marriage had begun with an abduction, known as ala-kachuu, or “grab and run”. The researchers broke this figure down into those abducted “without consent” (6%) and those “with consent” (16%)."
6% is not routine, but I don't think it would be fair to call it "rare and extreme", either.
It also says that seven years penalty was less than the penalty for kidnapping for any other reason and that this law has seen weak enforcement because police don't really take it seriously.
It sounds like what was rare and extreme was the murder, not the kidnapping.
[deleted]
I wonder if that's where Sacha Baron Cohen got his idea for Borat when kidnapping Pamela Anderson! He probably confused Kyrgyzstan with Kazakhstan!
You know, I gotta say that time has not been kind to Borat. The casual racism in the service of satire feels pretty dated today and not in a good way.
The point of the Borat movie was to make fun of western peoples beliefs about foreign people and foreign cultures.
In order to capture the audience, it uses satire. It takes ideas about foreign people, exaggerates these ideas even further, and investigates how people react to these exaggerated ideas. It turned out that even when taken to ridiculous extremes, many people (as seen in the movie) were willing to buy the idea that Borat was a real person from a foreign country.
Borat does feel dated now. But perhaps that also means, the movie was effective on some level, in highlighting these beliefs? And perhaps even to help combat said beliefs?
In order to capture the audience, it uses satire. It takes ideas about foreign people, exaggerates these ideas even further, and investigates how people react to these exaggerated ideas. It turned out that even when taken to ridiculous extremes, many people (as seen in the movie) were willing to buy the idea that Borat was a real person from a foreign country.
Borat does feel dated now. But perhaps that also means, the movie was effective on some level, in highlighting these beliefs? And perhaps even to help combat said beliefs?
What Borat did in his film was purposefully ridicule dirt poor people from Eastern Europe, making them look like bigoted idiots who might live in a makeshift barn with their cow and playing the whole thing for laughs. There was a lot about it that really was kinda despicable.
Wait until you hear about early sesame street
I fully agree! My comment wasn't to endorse his movie but merely to suggest an origin for the main plot.
They're both Central Asian countries so it seems plausible that they would both have a similar custom. The reference seems a bit in poor taste given the content of the article though.
It was a common practice in many traditional societies of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
cf Кавказская пленница, to understand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6amCG2KHlRg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping,_Caucasian_Style but note also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner_of_the_Caucasus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping,_Caucasian_Style but note also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner_of_the_Caucasus
I was expecting this practice to be widespread today. NOT !
It's there as well.
[deleted]
She said the only realistic thing, in the movie Borat, was the kidnapping scene, and even that was outlandish.
Gonna go read the article now and see if I need to make any updates.