He Doesn't Even Own A House: This Ad On Indian Marriages Is Sexist On Many Levels

Sexist groom housing ad: A finance company recently published an advertisement in that offered solutions to men struggling to pass the matchmaking test. Doesn't matter that it reduced men's worth to their paycheck or the size of their house. The ad, now viral, shows a visibly worried mom in the foreground of her blissfully carefree daughter, announcing, "He wants to marry my daughter and doesn't even own a house."

"Having your own home always makes you more attractive as a prospective mate," the ad goes on to declare in finer font.

Every bit of this advertisement rings alarm bells. The deeply sexist tone it takes cements both women and men in problematic gender roles - the former as what people stereotype as the 'golddigger' and the latter as the fated breadwinner. Is that all women are looking for in potential grooms, a fat wallet that can afford good housing? Can a married woman not be financially capable enough to be able to afford or contribute towards housing investments?

Additionally, why must the burden of financing a household rest solely on men? Is a man without a house not "attractive" a potential enough for marriage? Is that pressure to be the mandatory provider in a heterosexual relationship/marriage at all fair?

"Having your own home always makes you more attractive as a prospective mate" .
Just wow 🤯 This form of dowry no one wants to talk about. @GICHSGFIN pic.twitter.com/vGze5QhJry

— Praveen Angusamy, IFS 🐾 (@PraveenIFShere) October 20, 2021

What this particular finance company ad does, in a rather myopic manner, is reinforce sexist stereotypes that affect both men and women. But I find that equating a situation as presented in the ad with dowry, as many on social media did when the ad circulated and sparked outrage, makes for a disproportionate and short-sighted argument.

"Reverse dowry" is essentially not a phenomenon, since the concept of dowry is shaped on the foundation of oppression based on gender. Women pay the cost of being women. In cases where men are expected to be financially well-off to be considered as grooms, the display is of an imbalance of power in a relationship, not oppression.

Yes, men shouldn't have to be obligatory breadwinners. But society places this burden on them not to subjugate them but to award them with a degree of patriarchal authority instead.

Though this ad was by a finance company, it draws directly from the structural system of the institution of marriage in India as reflected through matrimonial ads. Groom families are still looking for fair, soft-spoken, domestic bahus who fit the regressive description of the 'good Indian woman.' Bonus, if the woman doesn't dare to question the patriarchal structure so prevalent in most Indian families.

An ad from earlier this year barfed up an entire Thesaurus' worth of adjectives to describe the wife a man was seeking: "caring, brave, powerful, rich extremely patriotic to India with a keen desire to increase India’s military and sports capabilities... an expert in child raising and an excellent cook, Indian Hindu Brahmin working girl from Jharkhand or Bihar."

The culture of matrimonial ads for arranged marriages has hardly changed in India because the mentality hasn't.

Families are still out seeking tropes instead of women. It's safe to say, that even in many cases of love marriages, the pressure of checking off certain boxes - housing, finance, career - exists as a requisite to families 'approving' the couple's union.

We're questioning ads popping up on social media. But what about the reality that exists outside our screens? Is that changing? Even as more women gain &t=2s">financial independence, are they being seen as individuals capable of supporting their partners in equal measure in marriage? For men, will the pressure to singularly provide for an entire family ever end unless India changes its perspectives towards women's capabilities to earn?

Views expressed are the author's own.

Trending now:

&t=2s