A matchmaker’s post about a Bengaluru woman earning over ₹60 lakh per annum has gone viral on social media, and for all the wrong reasons. The 32-year-old woman, according to the matchmaker, treated him like a “real estate agent” who should find her a “Vastu-compliant property deal”. Ayushmaan Kapoor, founder of The Date Crew, said the woman wanted to see the “best options first” and would “cancel” a match if a profile failed to tick even one box. He added that she appeared to be looking for someone she could “parade at Diwali parties”. However, the Internet was quick to defend the woman. Many users questioned the criticism, asking, “But wasn’t this how matchmaking has always functioned?”
‘This Isn’t MagicBricks’: Delhi Matchmaker
“Some people think matchmakers are like real estate brokers. A woman who is 32, makes 60+ LPA, from Bangalore came to us,” said Kapoor in a long LinkedIn post.
He added that when his team showed her potential matches, she presented a strict checklist, saying, “No Bengalis, Haryanavi, Bihari or UP – please. Only from Bangalore – try for the HSR area, we can look at Mumbai/Delhi profiles later. Let’s keep the compromise ones for later.”
Kapoor said that going through her checklist felt like browsing flats on MagicBricks. “Someone who fits her budget, location, cultural Vastu, and mental floor plan. Looks good on paper, makes her friends jealous, and doesn’t talk too much.”
He added that she was rejecting matches left and right, even over minor inconveniences.
Furious at this, Kapoor said that the matchmakers are not “local property dealers” and that “people are not listing”. “And no, there’s no secret drawer where we’re hiding the ‘perfect’ options.”
“So if you’re still approaching this like a negotiation, maybe you’re not looking for a partner. Maybe you’re just looking for a profile to parade at Diwali parties,” he went on to say, before stressing, “This isn’t MagicBricks. It’s real life. Start treating it like that.”
‘Wasn’t This How Matchmaking Has Always Functioned?’ Asks Internet
The post, however, did not sit well with many internet users, who gave Kapoor a reality check, pointing out that arranged marriages have worked this way for generations and that matchmakers have traditionally operated by checking and matching the preferences of both parties.
“‘People are not listings’. But, that’s what marriage websites do. List people – age, salary, hobbies, or whatever. What’s wrong if a woman is clear in her mind about the life partner she wants? A website’s job is to fill customer requirements – if it doesn’t, then the customer finds another that does. At the end of the day it’s a business trying to make money, not a best friend trying to find her friend a soulmate!” said a LinkedIn user in a woman’s defence.
Another added, “But wasn’t this how matchmaking has always functioned? First, the girl is selected based on wealth (of the girl’s father), skin tone, caste, etc. Only when these boxes are checked do the real discussions happen.”
“I don’t endorse this, but marriage has always been looked at as a trade. A barter of sorts, which pleases both parties. So in that pov, this woman doesn’t seem to be doing anything different,” said a third.
A fourth posted, “People have checklists even to fall in love and form a relationship. If you look deeply into it, nothing really ever worked without a checklist. How objective they are could be a different debate, but checklists always do exist. And we are hardly trained to fall for the character and integrity of a person. For us, it is always the exterior. We are not a community in general where people have a good degree of self-awareness.”
“Isn’t that what AM has been for generations? A transaction and choosing the best option? Both men and women do it, I am surprised that you are surprised that a woman did it,” a fifth said.
Women’s Day Special: Male Colleagues Share Their ‘Mann Ki Baat’ for Female Teammates in the Newsroom
