I am not saying that 50 years ago most women were in abusive relationships.
I am saying that those who were in abusive relationships had no way out. To even think about a divorce was against many Church's law. To leave a husband for adultery was neither financially viable (woman held little capital in their own names and had poor job choices) or religiously tolerable in many conditions.
Many woman married the people her family told her to marry, or the man who got her drunk and pregnant. Communications between the man and the wife were more often one way. Then again, many of them were not.
To say that 50 years ago things were perfect, that all marriages were long thought out callings from God, where both the bride and the groom came to this sacred moment with full understanding and love in their hearts, equally commited, is to put an impossible goal for us to reach with today's society.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan -- you obviously disapprove of that man's decision about his thumb. He would rather sacrifice his body than his convictions. While I wouldn't make the same decision, I greatly respect him for making it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, my parents were married about 45 years ago. I can tell you with no hesitation that, where they are concerned, your ideas of marriage at that time was not theirs. They got married because they fell in love.
I think maybe you need to go back another 50 years or so.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read the journals of ancestors of mine that lived 200 years ago. They also got married because they loved each other, so I don't think another 50 years is going to do it. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
and from all accounts I've heard my grandparents were married because my grandmother seduced my grandfather into sleeping with her and he felt guilty.
Oh yeah and she was into seducing men because she was too lazy to finish college and wanted a way out.
I think 100 years ago he would have been totally correct. Or do you not realize how much you reap from the benefits of women's sufferage?
100 years ago, you were your husband's property. You could be returned like a runaway slave if necessary even though slavery was over. You could be beaten as long as the stick was smaller than his thumb.{apparently this is untrue according to Stormy see below, but I still stand by the returned runaway bit}
No wonder the old time feminists are ticked off at the younger generation that takes their freedoms for granted.
I am positive that I'm not being fooled in at least two of the relationships (the other one there's a possibility). In those, at least one member of the relationship has strong religious convictions and does not (or did not in one case) want to have sex until after they are married. The funny thing is that the parents of the unmarried religious couple share your view and don't believe them when they say they don't have sex. But these two are my best friends and I know that they wouldn't lie to me.
As for the "appearance of evil" of the situation (even though I don't think that premarital sex is necessarily wrong), I think that if conviction is strong enough than temptation can definately be avoided. There's no need to sacrifice things that you find worthwhile if you trust yourself enough to follow through with your convictions.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even today, in the countryside, you marry the man your dad drank vodka with, thus arranging for your marriage.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ- I thought it was obvious that I was being extreme.
quote: You could be beaten as long as the stick was smaller than his thumb.
Just because they COULD doesn't mean they DID, to all women. Even my great-grandmother, who died at ninety-eight five years ago, felt like a partner with her husband. She told stories about the two of them doing hilarious things together, and she never seemed opressed by him.
I'm trying to say that, sure, women were oppressed, but that doesn't mean that women were treated horribly by their unfeeling, SOB husbands. I'm sure SOME were, but not all. I don't know any old women who have anything but kind words to say about their husbands, although it's possible that some of them just choose not to talk about it. But it's a far cry from saying "Women could be beaten! Women were slaves!" to the REALITY of it, that all the women I know, at least, have beautiful memories about their marriage and felt like they could be themselves.
I know that's a kind of anecdote, but I've never understood why anecdotes don't seem to be viewed as viable, in some situations. If I have 100 bald people standing in front of me saying that they took Aleve and the next day their hair fell out, and then an article is published saying that no link is found between Aleve and hairloss, I'll probably still believe the ones who lost their hair. Why? Because, no matter what you hear, what matters is the actual thoughts and experiences of the real people around you. And I never meet old ladies who are glad their oppressive husbands are dead, because now they are FREE!
Again, I'm not saying they NEVER existed, I'm just saying they don't even make up a fraction of the people I know.
quote: No wonder the old time feminists are ticked off at the younger generation that takes their freedoms for granted.
I don't know any, do you? Do you have angry old ladies in your family?
Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate all the strides feminists made in this century. Things like the vote, alimony, child support, equal pay, and making wife abuse illegal can be directly attributed to them. I am NOT saying that women have not been oppressed.
I AM saying that a LOT of them don't see it that way.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the rule of thumb. (I apologize for the partisan link that attacks feminists, but I think it does a good job of debunking that particular myth.)
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
grin PSI, obviously you haven't read much feminist literature. The older generation of femminists are distinctly going through a period of self-examination in what they write.
The have been trying to figure out why the next generation isn't as activist because the couple before them were for the most part. IT is because things have reached a more equal state, and the younger generation takes it for granted that it always has been that way.
Maybe overall the repression wasn't there. But the entire culture was such that it was far more societally acceptable than it is now. Obviously there were happy marriages then and there are happy marriages now. I doubt the actuall percentage of happy marriages vs. unhappy ones has actually increased much, even if the number that end in divorce has risen.
posted
Storm thank you for that, I'd read about it in some non-feminist sources as well. BUt it must just be an old urban legend.
However, I'm wondering at the actual freqency of domestic violence charges back then too. I know in Oklahoma what does go unreported and it isn't pretty. And there are far more places that a battered women can go for help too and they still are underutilized.
quote: The have been trying to figure out why the next generation isn't as activist because the couple before them were for the most part. IT is because things have reached a more equal state, and the younger generation takes it for granted that it always has been that way
I know why I am not more activist. Because if women get anymore equal, we're going to be better than the men.
No, that's not really true. It's more because I don't agree with most of the things that newer feminists want to do. It all seems to be much more extreme now than it was decades back.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, I would guess that women were much less able to report, or get away from, domestic violence up until fairly recently. After all, how would they support their children when the law was so lax on child support and women were very much discouraged from having any kind of career outside of the home? Without shelters, where would they run to that their husbands couldn't find them? In those halcyon days when to be divorced was a badge of shame, what woman would want to be divorced?
edit: What I'm trying to say is that I wasn't trying to say domestic violence didn't happen or that it was prosecuted even remotely like it is today.
posted
PSI you should know that the most angry old lady matriarch in my family, my grandma, is trying to beat me into a "Traditional" model into which her own daughter barely fits and feels that the fact that I am an engineer and have a career is rephrehensible. Perhaps this is why I have feminist leanings though I agree that many of them have gone to a fringe that doesn't quite make sense to me.
Studies have shown that if you survey women about what they actually believe, most (my psycho grandmother excluded) will agree to the original feminist premisies. They just don't agree with the most modern and vocal feminists. THis has also caused some self examination in the self-identifying "feminist" community as they grow older.
My mother *was* told by her father what she should be majoring in in college. She wanted to major in chemistry, he told her that "girls do biology" and she switched. I would have thrown Marie Curie in his face but Marie Curie was a strange bird herself, and isn't a great role model as far as fitting in to society goes. Then when she hated biology because it wasn't chemistry, rather than going to her first love, she switched to teaching, because that it was a traditional job that her father would approve of and she knew she could graduate with in a short amount of time.
posted
And actually I was compliant in that regard as well. Maybe because of my mother, I wanted to major in chemistry. Though I loved the subject as much as she did I think.
Anyway I was told, "No don't major in chemistry, you can't get a job, major in chemical engineering because that is useful" you can fall back on that when your husband dies.
I am proud to have completed engineering school, and proud to be an engineer. I'm extremely lucky because I have a job that a chemistry major could do just as well as I do, for half the pay. Most people after getting to know me wonder why I'm not a research scientist going for a PhD. Well I didn't love engineering and it burned me out in gradschool. I honestly don't think I would have burned with pure chemistry, the love that was there (and still exists) would have helped get me through that burnout slump that most grad students go through.
posted
The appearance of evil thing really gets me going. Isn't there some rule about not making assumptions. I lived with a guy last year. We weren't dating we just shared an apartment and rent. I had my own bedroom and he had his and that was that. The only difference between having a female roommate was the level of bathroom cleanliness.
I know some of my really religious friends really looked down on me for that. They know that I don't plan on having sex before marriage, but it was the appearance that bothered them. According to them I was giving off an appearance to people who didn't know me that it was okay to live together before you get married. Argh. I mean I *suppose* it is true but if someone's actually stupid enough to not even talk to me and then base some decision on what I believe I'm not sure that the fault lies with me. Doesn't that somehow fall into that thing about not judging others.
Argh. I mean if I could have found a female roommate I might have. But I, much like celia and Banna, work in a "guys" field. And when I tried to find a roommate none of the girls responded to my request from 1300 miles away. I live alone now but the whole thing still bothers me. (Decides to not talk about having more guy friends that female friends.)
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's more because I don't agree with most of the things that newer feminists want to do. It all seems to be much more extreme now than it was decades back.
What??!! MORE RADICAL than the vote, or financial independence, or the right to work, or to have custody of your own children, or that spousal abuse be made illegal or .... *splutters* no wonder there ARE angry older feminists out there @#$$ you think this stuff wasn't radical!!! Posts: 141 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
If I were in love, and the guy loved me back, then I would want to stay together forever, and I'd expect he would too. If one of us didn't, I would think it meant something were wrong. That the commitment wasn't there.
I don't mean I should be making these decisions for others, though. If my children wanted to do this, I would counsel against it but then support their decision. I would treat their partner as their spouse.
My brother did this, and now he's divorced. He's just one case, and yet the two things do seem related to me.
I don't think I would ever get divorced except for infidelity, abuse, or drug or alcohol addiction.
I can really see AJ's decision, though. It's as though her family by being so coercive makes it nearly impossible for them to marry, even if they wanted to. How could you knuckle under to granny and her bribes and threats? <laughs> I couldn't do it! That would totally keep me from marrying too. Even though paradoxically, that's letting her influence the decision. Still!
And the thing about being friends with guys, I feel the same way as AJ. I have lots of friends who are guys. I always have and always will. My best friend when I was pre-kindergarten age was a guy, my interests and hobbies tend to be things that mostly guys like, and I work in a field dominated by men.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not saying that 50 years ago most women were in abusive relationships.
I am saying that those who were in abusive relationships had no way out.
zgator, m_p_h, and PSI, I'm glad that your ancestors had loving relationships, but that doesn't mean that that was the norm, any more than abusive relationships were the norm.
Let me give you some anecdotal evidence from much less than 50 years ago. My mother was widowed very young (from doctor #1). She had been raised to marry well - she was told that since she was so beautiful it didn't matter than she was stupid. She married her second husband (my father) with the overwhelming approval of her family - he was chief of cardiology and that was all that mattered to them. It didn't matter that he wasn't Jewish and that he had a little drinking problem and a small problem with drugs. Oh, and he also had an explosive temper and was violent while intoxicated. It never occurred to my mother to divorce my father - she knew her society lifestyle would be over. They didn't let divorcees sit on the board of the ballet or chair the Junior League flower show. She finally had to do it when he broke my nose so badly that my septum was smashed and gave me a concussion. We were fine until my father decided to skip town and stop making alimony and child support payments. My mother was left with no skills and no way to support her child.
My paternal grandfather refused to let his wife work outside of the house. He also refused to let his daughter go to college b/c he said it was a waste to educate women. Of course, he also refused to pay for my father to go to medical school b/c he wanted him to be an engineer.
BTW, women do NOT have equality in the workplace. Most entry-level positions in large corporations for women are still secreterial, regardless of whatever degrees they hold. Most entry-level positions for men are lower to middle management. When I was VP of a mid-sized company, we had vendors and clients who would insist on dealing with the CEO (male), rather than me or the President (female). If you want more anecdotal evidence, I can regale you for hours with stories of my girlfriends' struggles in their fields.
Look at Martha Stewart. She gets reviled and called a witch when a man in her position would be admired for being assertive and savvy.
---------------------
About living together before/instead of marriage...
I don't see the harm. Andrew and I lived together for 6 months before our wedding. I graduated and got kicked out of the dorm and it just didn't make sense for me to go through the huge hassle of finding a place in NYC for 6 months and having to move all my stuff twice. I had my first post-college job and I was planning a wedding. Our families were supportive, but then we were engaged. I think that living together before marriage ultimately strengthened our relationship.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and from all accounts I've heard my grandparents were married because my grandmother seduced my grandfather into sleeping with her and he felt guilty.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
