Weird arranged marriage 'filters' heard in my family

[Arvind]

So my cousin brother is looking for a match – the usual arranged marriage talk – and during the discussion I heard some preferences from the elders that felt quite odd.

- They don't want a girl who is a single child because, according to them, 'single children don't know sharing' and will be too attached to their parents.
- They also avoid families where both siblings are girls. Their reason is that later the groom might be treated like their own son and expected to take care of everything since there's no brother in the family.

They said this very casually, like it's a normal part of matchmaking.

I'm not trying to start a fight, just genuinely curious – how common is this mindset in Indian arranged marriages? Have you heard similar 'filters' from families?

[Vidya]

People can have preferences. Whether they get what they want depends on market circumstances. Why should we judge?

[Varunesh]

They will face the consequences later..

[Firoz]

I can't believe people here aren't finding anything wrong with this... when women are expected to take care of their in‑laws like it's their only duty in life, but men are given an option and even advised to avoid it?

[Mayank]

That's just heartbreaking. As a single girl child, I never imagined people could think this way so casually. A woman is expected to love, adjust, care for, and stand beside her husband's entire family without question... yet the moment a son is expected to care for his wife's parents too, society suddenly calls it 'unacceptable'? How is this considered normal? And how do so many people fail to see the unfairness in it? Sometimes I truly wonder how people have become so emotionally detached nowadays...

[Ramesh]

And this is why the whole setup feels so transactional, with feelings coming last or not considered at all. My parents had a filter that the guy's sister, if any, should already be married. People in the AM setup are too practical.

[Tushar]

This shows more about their small‑box thinking than anything else. They want to stereotype people and put them in a box when they themselves haven't even looked outside it. These folks think boy‑parents are parents but girl‑parents are not. Why shouldn't a girl take care of her parents even if she has brothers?

[Arjun]

In my state, a single girl is often ideal because her parents' property will eventually come to her. If there are only two girls, at least fifty percent of the property will eventually go to them. If there's a brother, there's usually no property left apart from dowry. That's the thinking here. Usually they don't mind taking on the responsibilities of the girl's parents. People even perform last rites as if they are sons.

[Mukesh]

Well, I have the same view for men. A single male child means he will have to provide everything for his family and will be too attached to his parents, unable to say no to their requests. I also avoid families with both siblings as men because, from experience, they have zero idea about girls or our hormones and expect the woman to handle household chores as well!

[Rahul]

What you have found is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Manoj]

I've heard the single‑child version too, but more as 'they will be pampered' (that was about a guy, not a girl). Although I've seen many only children who aren't spoiled?