YC-backed Muzmatch definitely doesn’t want to be Tinder for Muslims
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
-: Completely privacy (nickname and pictures hidden), particularly from family. (Family shame)
-: GPS validation, selfie verification etc. (Anti-catfishing)
-: Walis, or guardians in on the chat. (Family approval)
-: Rewards for good behaviour. (Anti abuse & dick pic behaviour)
It's impressive, culturally, but as a father of a 13 year old girl, some of these features appeal. Yes I am protective because I've seen how bad men can be on dating sites. However I recognise I have no right to impose myself on her privacy. Yes, educate her about the darker side of online dating. Yes, be that friend that does not judge and is there to support her. BUT no, do not control her. That is simply wrong. I love the fact my daughter has an independent spirit and does, rightly, stand up to me when she feels she is right and feels comfortable talking to me about pretty much anything (or her mum ;) ). Most importantly we trust her and give her the privacy she cherishes.
The thing is these dating apps are for 18+ year olds and that is when this logically fails for me. What right do I have to control an adult in such a way?
As an aside, about being a father. When my daughter was born I spoke to my neighbour who had two 18 & 19 year old girls. I asked him how it all works. His answer was "You have them until they are 14, and then you are there to pick up the pieces."
The other night I took a taxi home and started talking to the driver. He mentioned his 13 year old daughter was only allowed a basic phone and 1 hour of Facebook, observed, every night, just in case. I was surprised. I just regularly ensure my daughter knows about the various dangers and that she can always talk to us. I've seen this too many times though. Parents blocking porn web sites, then me hopping onto their computer and showing them porn on twitter.
Anyway getting back onto Muzmatch. I suspect it is a good cultural match, where the idea that women/men cannot be trusted and must be controlled, but still providing the ability for women/men to hide their identity from their own family and friends to prevent that control.
It is not about you enforcing this on your daughter. The religion demands it. So if the app also facilitates that, it will appeal more to the target audience.
Coming from a Muslim family myself, I can tell that Islam has so many rules most Muslims (if not all, given that some of these rules are contradictory) ignore most of them and only follow the ones they strongly agree with and are part of their culture since probably pre-Islamic times. So no, I would have to say I disagree here, Muslims who control their daughters like that do it because they want it, not because "the religion demands it" though that's the primary excuse they use (I've seen fathers who drink alcohol and eat pork for example or don't pray and yet still go full control freak on their daughters "because Islam demands it".). And yes, this goes for most religions but because Muslims tend to be much more culturally conservative than others, it shows a lot more in their cases.
And regarding the idea that Muslims are looking for marriage and not for casual encounters, it is possible to achieve it without focusing on religion aspect. For example, in India websites like shaadi.com (shaadi literally means marriage) are used as dating websites where participants know that they plan to marry in near future.
Also, I would expect VCs with supposedly liberal beliefs to stand for inter-religion marriages as they are much more dangerous (seriously, you can get killed for it) and not for an app "where single muslims meet".
I've only see clear indication that they are liberal as in less government control.
YC is about innovation. Hundreds of start ups make it to YC, I don't see why an app for Brahmin singles to mingle is inherently not worthy of YC.
Instead of speaking in riddles why don't you just say plainly what you are thinking.
[1] https://www.christianmingle.com/
[2] https://www.jdate.com/en-us
P.S: I am also Indian.
But I also understand this is a cultural difference with America, and I'm curious to read views from other people around the world in this thread.
EDIT: not sure why I'm being downvoted, I'm trying to give a perspective from a different part of the world which I think is relevant to how such an app might be perceived there. I'm not trying to insult anyone.
Muslim: https://www.islamunion.fr/ http://www.meetarabic.com/ https://www.mektoube.fr/
Catholic: http://www.theotokos.fr/ http://www.notre-dame-des-rencontres.com/ https://www.iktoos.com/
Jewish: https://www.jdream.fr/ http://www.e-mazal.com/ http://j-link.fr/
I'd be curious to know what percentage of French people are strictly looking for a partner inside their religious or ethnic community compared to other countries.
As a French living in Paris coming from a Muslim family I think ironically you may be the one living in a silo. Most French Muslims do not agree at all with "religion as something people slowly liberate themselves from", this may be common among your mostly white liberal friends I suppose but it is _not_ the case for Muslims. Also, as have been pointed out, there are plenty of Jewish, Muslims and Catholics dating apps in France.
Clearly google knows I surf, but doesn't know I'm married...or maybe it does...
I bet people would not be that relaxed. #justsayin'
FWIW, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't have preferences, but for a lot of apps and depending on your gender/ethnic composition, the inclusion of other ethnicities doesn't really mean you are exactly on a level playing field.
Those policies exist all across the US and Europe as well, as well as the rest of the world. It's not limited to India.
I don't see what's the problem. It makes perfect sense to me
Temples of any religion are usually not public grounds and can enforce visitation rules.
If things are illegal they can typically get shut down directly. They don't need to be 'frowned' upon. Things being frowned upon shows a cultural preference or development.
This is patently untrue. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I'm neither Muslim, nor Hindu, nor Sikh, nor Buddhist nor Shinto and I have been welcomed into everyone of those great religion's temples in many different countries throughout the world. They are very much public places.
The meaning you seem to be using the term to mean welcoming everyone by choice of the owner (e.g., "everyone can come to my restaurant"). However, in this case the owner can also impose their own visitation rules (e.g., prohibiting a dress type that is offensive to one group but perfectly acceptable to another).
I think that here in the US a church/etc can do the same thing using a 'private property' law of some sort. Something to the effect of "It's our private property and we don't want <whomever> here"
That said, most religious groups that I've seen (in the US) try to welcome potential new members and have (like you said) welcomed visitors as well.
IMHO in many traditional societies young people want to shake off the controlling habits of former generations and such an app would actually be a concrete step backwards.
(Full disclosure: My wife is Chinese muslim, and we have muslim friends in Australia, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Tunisia, UK, etc. I am personally irreligious.)
Wait, what are you implying here? A dating site exclusive to Muslims isn't suggestive of B, C or D. There are dating sites exclusive to African Americans for example, are they backwards and regressive too?
Sure, but the features listed elsewhere in this thread that they've chosen to implement are.
Dating app for Mormons or Atheists would be a more appropriate analogy.
> Dating app for Mormons or Atheists would be a more appropriate analogy.
Of course, both of those exist, too.
It's not the same.
It's true that you can't directly control (though you can influence)) ascribed racial status (the rest of society collectively does that) but, that's true of all ascribed statuses (including ascribed religion, though that's often not significant in modern Western societies.)
By this logic white people raised in certain parts of America are African Americans.
Many people find anything offensive, but I don't see any particularly good reason to think there is anything particularly deserving of it in this concept.
> Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they (a) necessarily want to find a muslim partner
I would think that even Muslims who do not want exclusively to find a Muslim partner would recognize that there are Muslims who do wish that.
> IMHO in many traditional societies young people want to shake off the controlling habits of former generations and such an app would actually be a concrete step backwards.
Allowing people who don't share their open attitude toward dating he opportunity to have a dating forum that supports their preferences does not prevent those with open attitudes from pursuing more open venues, which are not in short supply.
Christian Mingle doesn't stop Christians that whose dating interested isn't religiously restrictive from using any of the vast area of open-preference dating apps in the universe, the Muslim equivalent would be no different in that regard.
Except that arranged marriage is still common in Muslim society. See the section: "Islamic dating practices and community programs":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marital_practices
and see:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9568360...
I fail to see how the fact that arranged marriage remains common in Muslim society is germane to the point that sentence is offered in response to or even the wider discussion of this app, except insofar as both arranged marriages and the existing structures which support it are an incumbent factor which any dating app targeting that population necessarily must contend with.
>".. don't see any particularly good reason to think there is anything particularly deserving of it in this concept."
Using a dating app to find spouse would likely to be seen as offensive by families that believe in arranged marriages.
Did I misunderstand the comment?
I thought the religion required it? What is a "muslim" in this case?
I don't believe its reciprocal in that a Muslim woman a may not marry a Christian man unless he converts.
Yeah, I know that's how it's kinda played out (much like how the BKDs here in America insist we are a "Christian Nation" - despite things like the Treaty of Tripoli and other documents to the contrary) - but that doesn't make it objectively true.
Of course, in some cases (even here in the west), if you dare mention such a thing within 'the faith' - you could find yourself on the other side of an honor killing by your own family (especially if you are a woman; such enlightenment).
To think, this is the exact same place many evangelical Christians want to take our nation too as well. Lovely.
If I'm a Muslim and I want to date/marry a Muslim and there are a lot of things I have to solve for as a result of that, it makes a whole lot of sense that technology help me solve for those things.
What is the LTV of a user like you? match.com charges ~$20 per year. How many years are you planning to use it (or any other dating website / app) for?
You are missing a key point here - this is a matchmaking app masquerading as a dating app. So they can extract a lot more value from a customer despite their brief tenure on the app.
Also, this is great marketing for Muzmatch by techcrunch. Title entices people for engagement, statements enforce the values of the people that will use the service and the purpose / mission statement is well mixed by the central thesis.
That's why people say to not start a dating service, because the base fundamentals are terrible. You need a tremendous advantage in acquisition or retention to survive.
It was at some time considered the 'better dating site' as far as demographic goes before dating sites for the 'better educated and better paid' demographics became more prevalent.
In London there is a parallel legal system that does run counter to British law. Here hidden-camera footage how a "Muslim judge" suggests to a woman, she should just accept being beaten on a regular basis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZCFdHkd4A
Hence, counseling or after-marriage check-ins with the women whether they are threated well would be a real help.
>"Not just market size — we’re more than 100 times larger market than the Jewish market, for example — but the real difference is the seriousness and intent."
Is that not kind of self-righteous and condescending? What is the implication, that people from other religious groups or those without religious affiliations somehow aren't serious about meeting someone? Or that their intentions are not quite as sincere? Why is this somehow their exclusive domain?
"I think some people think it’s just like JCrush for Jews. But it’s totally not about that from where we stand."
I think they are implying Muslims are proportionally less promiscuous than Jews. I wonder if this is so :)
Orthodox Jews don't even touch ther dates until marriage!
All of this sounds like a big improvement on Tinder. I'm not Muslim, but I'd try a dating site that worked like this. They should open it up but allow users to restrict to the Muslim subset if they choose.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel...
and
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gay-marriage-muslim-coup...
Maybe others think that view of religion is closed-minded. :)
edit: countdown until Dang detaches this tangent thread in 3, 2, ...
This feels like the "god of the gaps" argument, that reduces god to pretty much anything. In reality, religion is far less abstract.
The abstract axioms of reason aren't really the same as religious articles of faith.
> It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all
Depends what you mean by "reality". The closest institution wrt the nature of reality, is "science" which strives to discover its nature, and even implies by method that it is purely phenomenal. Compare/contrast with a church - which defends its doctrines rather than verify them.
The larger point is that derogatory comments about belief systems only point to the speakers subjective inability to comprehend said system, nothing objective about the system itself.
> derogatory comments about belief systems only point to the speakers subjective inability to comprehend said system
Why? Where do you make this point? Can I play that game too? "Failure to agree with my comments only point to listeners subjective inability to comprehend said comments."
Also, I thought that was the definition of "faith" - Is that inherently "derogatory"?
This is not to say that mathematics is wrong, of course, just that since it is not internally consistent -- and since nothing is -- everything becomes an object of belief at some level. Therefore relying on notions like "the burden of proof lies upon the person making an assertion or claim" is turtles all the way down -- NOTHING is provable and EVERYTHING is a belief.
If that's the case, then it's tautological. In practice, "provability" is partially quantitative, not starkly Boolean (True/False)
I'm not sure Russell's Teapot concept was troubled by his later failures to create an internally consistent body of mathematics:
> Russel's teapot was mathematics as he could not meet the burden of proof at the axiomatic level, yet we still believe it to be true.
You don't need to meet a BoP at an axiomatic level, by definition of what an axiom is. We still accept the analogy of the teapot, because the axioms are accepted by standard. If this acceptance is "faith", it is still far from religious faith, whose "axioms" are not reduced/irreducible, but complex, dependent (on reason) and ad-hoc.
Giant enthymematic jump right there.
Math on the hand is so useful it was used to designed my cell phone, my car and the computer I type this on.
One of these these things has evidence and rich history of working and the other is religion. There is some false equivalence going on with your saying that we can't explain every detail of math it is somehow comparable to a thoroughly incorrect view of reality.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14920276 and marked it off-topic.