When you find someone to set you up with someone you met and liked.
OK, that was probably anticlimactic. But I’ve often wondered what exactly defines this state of being known as “in shidduchim.” It can’t be defined by the pro shadchanim, because I’ve only ever been to one, and since we disagreed on what kind of guy I wanted, I never heard back from her. So it isn’t professional shadchanim that define shidduchim. Because I’m in ‘em.
Nor is it about third party introductions. I mean, my MO cousins get introduced to guys via their friends, as do I. (At least, I do when they guys don’t go and get engaged before I can snag a date.) And it’s well known that some people practice “shadchanus” by pairing up guy-girl ride-home-from-wedding combos. So obviously it’s ok for a guy and girl to meet on their own in shidduchim as well.
I started wondering about this when my MO cousin started grilling me about the shidduch resume. Naively enough, someone from that end of the family had thought to set me up, and my grandmother said, “Oh, why don’t you ask her for her shidduch resume?”
Like any normal person who hears such a disgusting combination of words – “shidduch resume” – honestly, how much worse an approach to marriage can you get? – she was rather horrified. It was a solid two hours before I’d gotten her to understand that the shidduch profile is a matter of convenience, and not the auction catalog summary. It was an odd position, to be defending that scrap of headache, and I guess it means I’ve come around a bit in the past two years. (Ye gods, it’s two years!)
Anyway, I was mulling over the difference. I mean, letsay I meet a guy at a wedding, and my cousin meets a guy at a wedding (please invent in your mind some tznius way we managed this at a properly segregated event). What would make me the shidduch dater and her the non-shidduch dater?
The only answer I could come up with is that I wouldn’t get the guy’s number and ask him out (or the reverse). If we were interested, we’d send out “small world” feelers to discover that my aunt is his cousin’s former babysitter or something, and have one of the connections set us up, even though the connection doesn’t know either of us well and would rather spend the time filing her nails (or buffing his, as the case might be).
It’s not that finding a third party is better. It’s actually inconvenient for everyone involved. It does buffer us a bit from the harshness of rejection and rejecting, but that’s about it. So why seek the shachan out?
Well, it’s obvious. Because you’re in shidduchim. And that’s how shidduchim go. If you didn’t get a shadchan, what would show that you belong to the ultra orthodox community? Exactly. It’s an affiliation thing. In this community you shidduch date – you don’t meet people. So you know you’re in shidduchim when you have to dig up a shachan.
Well duh.
Comment by right — July 27, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
It’s not that finding a third party is better. It’s actually inconvenient for everyone involved. It does buffer us a bit from the harshness of rejection and rejecting, but that’s about it. So why seek the shachan out?
The assumption that the only honest answer is Because you’re in shidduchim. And that’s how shidduchim go, is simply not true. I’ll go a step further: having read you for a while, I’d venture that if you genuinely thought it such a useless headache, you’d skip it.
I would suggest that the simple reason that you subscribe to this little idiosyncrasy of the frum world (again, not just why the frum world prescribes it, but why you subscribe to it) is because the alternative, or rather the lifestyle that the alternative allows and engenders, is something far worse than the logistical headache of arranging a meeting with someone you don’t yet know.
What some would call the effect, and others believe the purpose, of this and countless other conventions of “shidduch dating” (a yucky term if there ever was one), is simply to keep a frum young man and woman meeting from becoming a “normal”, everyday event, and therefore a commonplace and cheap one.
The very headache of having to get someone to suggest this thing ensures that it will be a “big deal”, not something to be done on a whim. It keeps the underlying notion that by Jews, the very fact of a boy and girl meeting is an event suffused with holiness, kedusha, energy, karma, whatever you want to call it. In short, keeps the excitement about it. Is that seriously something a foible of the system worth keeping only because of the “affiliation”?
This comment has gotten too long, and I’ve been preaching. I have no issue with most of your critiques of various points of the “system”: some, while necessary, can be annoying (as this one may well be). But the blanket dismissal you did this time is something I’m not used to seeing you do.
Comment by not *that* frum — July 28, 2009 @ 12:40 am
The very headache of having to get someone to suggest this thing ensures that it will be a “big deal”, not something to be done on a whim. It keeps the underlying notion that by Jews, the very fact of a boy and girl meeting is an event suffused with holiness, kedusha, energy, karma, whatever you want to call it. In short, keeps the excitement about it. Is that seriously something a foible of the system worth keeping only because of the “affiliation”?
Except that isn’t. Two people meeting is really nothing more that two people meeting. Two people clicking with each other is something special, and is more than exciting enough even without jumping through all of the additional hoops of ’shidduchim’.
Comment by Zev — July 28, 2009 @ 1:28 am
It means you’re “in shidduchim”, but much like many people “in shidduchim”, you might end up marrying someone where the world of shidduchim played no role other than adding annoying layers.
(Hence my feeling that many people who will tell you they dated through the shidduch world got married through anything but.)
Comment by Ezzie — July 28, 2009 @ 6:46 am
Not *that* frum – you just said what I said in a longer, preachier way. I said it’s an affiliation thing – it means being part of the community and keeping standards like the community does. Since, among the orthodox, one does not meet (wo)men on their own (officially), one does not acknowledge such a meeting, rather jumping through the hoops to avoid the appearance of it.
Though I think you’re going a bit far talking about holiness in a meeting between boy and girl. I’ve never noticed any holiness in it, and you’re the first person I’ve heard try to pretend there was any. Even in high school nobody ever called dating holy.
Comment by bad4shidduchim — July 28, 2009 @ 6:59 am
“Since, among the orthodox, one does not meet (wo)men on their own (officially), one does not acknowledge such a meeting, rather jumping through the hoops to avoid the appearance of it.”
Going to quibble about the use of “orthodox” here. For one thing it’s not true: plenty of people who are “orthodox” who met someone and then dated them without intervention, even a “pro forma” one. What you are talking about is a group norm, of a particular group that you belong to. That your group falls under the rubric of “orthodox” does not mean that the particular social structure of your group defines what is orthodox.
Comment by Prof K — July 28, 2009 @ 10:25 am
Interesting way of looking at it. It reminds me of a shiur I went to, where R’ Goldwasser gave an example of a guy who found out about this girl and he figured she would be good for him, but didn’t have anyone to be his shadchun, so he decided to be his own Shadchun, he called up the girl’s father and said he knew about this great boy, and he said all his maailos, and then they go out, and they get engaged and the father wants to give the shadchan money, so he asks the boy where the Shadchan is, and he says don’t worry, he’ll come. So the “shadchan” never shows up, so the father gives the money to the boy to give to the shadchan. So then the question becomes, 1- what does he do with the money? 2- does he have to do teshuva for saying false words? 3- does he have to tell the girl and father what he did?. So the answer basically is that he can’t keep the money, because a person can’t be their own shadchan, your not helping anyone but yourself. He doesn’t have to do teshuva because nobody got hurt from it, only good things came out. I forgot what the answer was about telling, I think it was that he doesn’t have to, for shalom bayis sake.
Comment by Jewish Side — July 28, 2009 @ 10:35 am
You pinpointed the defining difference very well.
Comment by Ariella Brown — July 28, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
ProfK – I knew I was going to get into trouble about that. That’s why I used ultra-orthodox in the post, but this morning I was in a rush… one should never post in a rush.
Comment by bad4shidduchim — July 28, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Jewish side: I thought the answer was that he could keep it for shalom bayis purposes because the bottom line is that the girl’s happy, the boy’s happy, so everyone’s happy – why turn things over by saying how it was done.
Comment by chan — July 28, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Even in high school nobody ever called dating holy
First of all, who said that’s a good thing. The fact is that it is a step in the direction of marriage, which is inherently holy.
The word holiness is probably not the best way of wording what I was trying to express. “Un-cheap” is perhaps more accurate (but not a term I’d be big on using. Although) that is the very definition of holy – “קודש” is the antonym of “חול”. Substitute “holy” every time it appears in Torah with “un-trivial”, and the sentence will make sense. (והייתם לי קדושים כי קדוש אני) Which is why marriage itself, as well as relations between the sexes, is traditionally addressed by Judaism under the category “kedusha” – simply the (ultimately) un-trivial relationship.
My point is that such a meeting is – or should be – a “big deal”, not something to strike up casually. The very necessity of keeping up pretenses – even the ones that everyone sees through – is simply an extra way of declaring that such interactions ought to remain outside the realm of the banal.
In other words: The point possibly not that such a meeting is by definition wrong, and therefore we need to lie to cover up a (at least slightly) shameful fact. Rather, even if for whatever reason this is being arranged directly, we affirm our commitment to keeping such a meeting a special thing (cf. the oft-used in Halacha concept of hekker).
That many Jews who consider themselves somehow “above” the MO label fail to grasp this notion, is not an argument I find particularly compelling. There are many sensitivities that Western culture has in large measure succeeded in derpriving us of. And by “us”, I mean the Orthodox of all stripes.
Comment by not *that* frum — July 28, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
I think there’s an issue of tznius involved, in that by using a third party you don’t have to sell yourself, so to speak. Instead of going on about yourself and why the person should date you directly to that person, someone else does it. Within this system, I’d have zero problems going straight to one of the person’s friends or acquaintances and having them be a go between, which I guess is your “small world” approach. And the person who sets up the ride you mentioned would be an obvious go between. I have a friend who met her husband at mixed tables of singles at a wedding (the chosson and kallah did this purposefully). She called up the kallah, and off they went.
My instinct was to say this is freeing, because you avoid the pressure of personally trying to get someone to go out with you. I know that was the case for me. But I’ve read too much on this blog about the pressure of constantly being the person the shadchan can get a date for, so…
Comment by staying afloat — July 28, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Chan: right for shalom Bayis purposes he doesn’t have to tell. So maybe he gives the money to the person who he heard about the girl from. Or maybe to tzedaka of some sort, he doesn’t have to give it back and tell.
Comment by Jewish Side — July 28, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
properly segregated functions will have all the young people out in the same hallway texting.
I think it is great that they have the chance to walk around talking to a friend at another wedding while looking at the schoira.
after that they can move to talking loudly outside on the sidewalk. the advantage to that is you can see who is a smoker.
Comment by daughtersintheparsha — July 28, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
I think being “in shidduchim” also usually implies a level of parental control when the single is young. Having a third party set you up gives the parents time to investigate the match. Meeting on your own does not. I was a shiduch dater but open to meeting people on my own. I met my husband on my own, but you can be sure my parents still went about their investigating (and I was not a teenager asking for permission).
Many people also like the shidduch system because it saves you from having to break up with someone after one or two dates. Someone else will do it for you. This has it’s pros and cons, but it is what it is.
Interestingly many non Jews are looking into professional matchmakers these days because they are finding it hard to just meet people on their own and appreciate having someone investigate and screen their dates for similar values.
Comment by seminarytoscientist — July 29, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
couldn’t agree more. at a friend’s wedding i was accosted by a professional shadchan “so what kind of girl are you looking for? a baalat midot?”… i had an urge to respond “no! i am looking for a nasty shrew”
the entire shidduch lexicon from the “read” to “resume” to “shidduch market” should be scrapped for their shallow and mindless connotation.
Comment by daniel — July 31, 2009 @ 12:15 am
“The very headache of having to get someone to suggest this thing ensures that it will be a “big deal”, not something to be done on a whim. It keeps the underlying notion that by Jews, the very fact of a boy and girl meeting is an event suffused with holiness, kedusha, energy, karma, whatever you want to call it. In short, keeps the excitement about it.”
This is just bizarre. As someone who has dated both through shidduchim and through meeting on my own, the idea that there is more ‘excitement’ when it is set up is completely backward. One of my biggest issues with the shidduch system is the lack of natural, healthy excitement that comes from meeting someone you like, getting to know him, and finding out that he likes you enough to ask you out. I find this makes the experience much more weighty and significant than, “Oh well, someone thinks it’s a good idea, I guess I’ll give it a shot and hope he’s not too socially awkward.” If a frum guy and girl meet through an appropriate avenue, I don’t think that there should be any stigma in the guy being a man and speaking for himself.
Comment by LRS — July 31, 2009 @ 1:35 am
If a frum guy and girl meet through an appropriate avenue, I don’t think that there should be any stigma in the guy being a man and speaking for himself.
Very good. Now let’s just check and see how many steps it takes before this fine picture (which, bar a few small points, I am not intrinsically against) is reduced to something more resembling the scene at a local bar, or the Shaleshudes at a MO shul near you. Pure hefkeirus, with flirtation lishmah galore.
In a more innocent world, I would agree that the way you suggest is not a bad thing. In Der alte heim, Europe of old, where male-female relations were, it seems to me, more substance-centered (a poor translation of tochen’dik), far more things than today were not only tolerated, but acceptable. In the world we live in, with non-stop exposure to TV (even when there isn’t one at home), billboards in the streets, a sex-crazed culture, where it’s a normal thing that in the most “frum” of groups, 15-year-olds of both sexes are conversant with names like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears – and no-one is shocked and horrified, so numb and accustomed are we to the “reality” – in short, where in all things moral our inner compass is so, so much lower than that of even two generations ago, I firmly believe that we do need some safeguards that were perhaps unnecessary in the not-so-distant past.
Comment by not *that* frum — August 2, 2009 @ 3:58 pm