"Traditional Values"
Robert Plamondon
overlook a few of the less savory reasons why marriages lasted so
long in the past.
In days gone by, no matter how viciously a husband beat his wife, and
no matter how often he molested his children, the marriage would stay
together. Wives and children had no legal rights, and there were no
support groups; women would be told to endure it, and the children
would not be believed.
Since the crimes weren't reported, as far as the record can tell, all
of these wife-beating child molesters of bygone days had *perfect*
marriages! The men were often considered to be pillars of the
community, examples to the young, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
These days, of course, the women are less well-behaved -- why, they
complain even when no bones are broken! Lordy! Worse yet, the
children *tell*!
So the real difference between then and now is twofold -- women and
children have rights now, and the level of hypocrisy about marriage
has subsided from its Victorian level.
Back to the thrilling days of yesteryear? No thanks.
--
Robert Plamondon
{turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
Ray Frank
People were not perfect then just as they are not perfect now.
You have not proof of the degree to which child molesting and wife terrorizing
took place in the past. If you assume that it was just as bad back then as it
is now but appeared not to be for lack of reporting it then on that premise we
can make any asumption we want about the behavior patterns of a past age.
For example we can assume that there were 2,000,000 abortions per year every
year from as far back as you want to go, but due to lack of reporting it, we
were unaware of the degree to which this activity took place.
Moira Mallison
>People who lament the decline in the institution of marriage tend to
>overlook a few of the less savory reasons why marriages lasted so
>long in the past.
(* A good article, Robert. Thanks. *)
Another aspect: The commitment that Ray Frank so highly regards
did not come out of a higher moral fiber, but more probably from the
fact that women were economically trapped in marriages regardless of
the quality of the relationship. Women, for the most part, did not
have the required skills to be able to support herself, let alone
her children.
Moira Mallison
tektronix!moiram
Colonel'K
< You have not proof of the degree to which child molesting and wife terrorizing
< took place in the past. If you assume that it was just as bad back then as it
< is now but appeared not to be for lack of reporting it then on that premise we
< can make any asumption we want about the behavior patterns of a past age.
< For example we can assume that there were 2,000,000 abortions per year every
< year from as far back as you want to go, but due to lack of reporting it, we
< were unaware of the degree to which this activity took place.
Fine. If you would like to cling to THAT reasoning, then I'll assume
that in the past the divorce rate was 50%, but due to lack or reporting it,
we were unaware of the degree to which this activity took place.
If you DON'T want to cling to that reasoning, you have no case. I rest mine.
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"
Scott J. Berry
ihnp4!hou2g!scott
Michael Lonetto
Ray replies to Robert Plamondon:
> People were not perfect then just as they are not perfect now.
>You have not proof of the degree to which child molesting and wife terrorizing
>took place in the past. If you assume that it was just as bad back then as it
>is now but appeared not to be for lack of reporting it then on that premise we
> can make any asumption we want about the behavior patterns of a past age.
> For example we can assume that there were 2,000,000 abortions per year every
> year from as far back as you want to go, but due to lack of reporting it, we
> were unaware of the degree to which this activity took place.
There actually were a great many "unreported" abortions in the past.
Many of them took place under questionable conditions, often resulting
in infection and more serious complications. If abortion was outlawed
again we would almost certainly revert to the same situation, you would
not have to read of the "2,000,000 abortions per year", but that
wouldn't mean they weren't happening, only that they weren't happening
under conditions of good medical practice.
I know that this was only brought up in passing, but it was a dig I
couldn't let slide.
--
____________________
Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute,
455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016
(allegra!phri!lonetto)
"BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
aMAZon
Moira,
I think that if you really investigate the past, you'd find
that women did have the skills to support themselves and their
children. What was illegal was for a married woman to keep her
own earnings (until the Married Woman's Property Act, ca. 1860,
was passed in New York). In fact, I've seen articles here at
work relating to work benefits and such things that demand
a husband's signature on the wife's record (if it's in
Louisiana). Fortunately, that kind of thinking is not current
in Illinois.
You're absolutely right about most marriages being based
on economic grounds. A daughter was looked upon as another
commodity, like a cow or a goat.
--
aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
*open to possibilities*
Harvey
another reason for women to stay married was that she
would probably loose her children if she didn't. The
custody of children was routinely given to the father,
not the mother. I'm not sure when this changed. Does
anyone know?
Miche Baker-Harvey
{ihnp4|decvax}!masscomp!miche
Susan Finkelman
I think it was in the 1920's & 1930's when the notion of the importance
of the mother to a young child was coming into intellectual fashion. I
know that the notion of mother's pensions (ie. the welfare system which
evolved into our current AFDC) also had it's roots then. The swing
from almost universal paternal custody of children after a divorce
to almost universal maternal custody was very rapid in cultural terms.
Susan Finkelman
{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
Paul W. Karber
> You're absolutely right about most marriages being based
>on economic grounds. A daughter was looked upon as another
>commodity, like a cow or a goat.
Are you trying to say that in the past people did not love their
child unless it was male? Or are you trying to say that in the
past people loved their cows and goats. :-)
Let's just say that in the past people often unfairly valued
male children more then female. But we'll change that. :-)
>aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
> *open to possibilities*
^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You could be wrong?
--
Of course I could be wrong.
siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
Ray Frank
>
> > You're absolutely right about most marriages being based
> >on economic grounds. A daughter was looked upon as another
> >commodity, like a cow or a goat.
>
the mode of thinking of western societies.
In Africa, cannibals existed. It would be wrong to generalize and say in the
past, people ate their cousins. It would be right to say in the past there
existed isolated incidences where some societies practiced cannibalism.
Sherry Mann
> all be explained away in terms of wife-beating.
> better chance of working!
>
> Comments?
> --
> Saumya Debray
>
Without trying to negate the very valid points Saumya brings
up about differences in individual and societal expectations
between cultures and their possible influence on the divorce
rate, I'd like to comment on the 50% figure above.
I was amazed to learn yesterday (from an expert in the field
of family abuse) that 50% of the women in this country can
expect to be physically abused.
Disclaimer - This is not offered to prove that abuse can
account for 50% of the divorces in this country.
I also will provide no proof or sources for this
information.
It is being offered in good faith and I hope will be
received the same way.
.
--
* *
* * * *
* Morgaine le Fay * (Sherry Mann, AT&T Bell Labs
* Naperville, iham1!smann)
*
*
Alan J Rosenthal
companion, that's amazing etc, but if you actually haven't, but you have a few
wonderful years, and part, isn't that great too?
Todd Jones
> companion, that's amazing etc, but if you actually haven't, but you have a few
> wonderful years, and part, isn't that great too?
That's great if there are no children involved. Divorce between parents
is infinitely messier than divorce between non-parents.
I speak not out of experience, but out of speculation. Corroboration
and dissent encouraged.
|||||||
[ O-O ] Todd Jones
\ L / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
|___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
Cheryl Stewart
>In article <27...@ihuxf.UUCP> feat...@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) writes:
>
>> You're absolutely right about most marriages being based
>>on economic grounds. A daughter was looked upon as another
>>commodity, like a cow or a goat.
>
>Are you trying to say that in the past people did not love their
>child unless it was male? Or are you trying to say that in the
>past people loved their cows and goats. :-)
In the past, many people KILLED their child unless it was male.
I'm not talking about 19th century amerikka, I'm talking about
more primitive cultures.
The history of infanticide shows that it was limited to
a) female infants
b) stepchildren and bastards
>Let's just say that in the past people often unfairly valued
>male children more then female. But we'll change that. :-)
>
Understated, but reasonable.
Cheryl Stewart
Ken Arnold%CGL
>In article <6...@ccice2.UUCP> p...@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes:
>>In article <27...@ihuxf.UUCP> feat...@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) writes:
>>> You're absolutely right about most marriages being based
>>>on economic grounds. A daughter was looked upon as another
>>>commodity, like a cow or a goat.
>>
>>Are you trying to say that in the past people did not love their
>>child unless it was male?
>
>I'm not talking about 19th century amerikka, I'm talking about
>more primitive cultures.
>
>The history of infanticide shows that it was limited to
>
> a) female infants
> b) stepchildren and bastards
Although I think Cheryl's response was, in general, quite correct, I
must (well, I *will*) make an historical correction. The history of
infanticide shows that infants in categories (a) and (b) were *more
likely* to be killed than others. However, it was a well known
practice among many groups (the ancient Greeks, for example) to expose
male children who did not seem healthy, who were born under *very* bad
auspices, or who came at times of personal poverty or community
famine. People were much more willing to expose a female infant since
it was also a long-range burden on the family, but it was in no sense
*limited* to female, stepchildren, and bastards. Otherwise, a fine
response, Cheryl.
Ken Arnold