Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did, but the misery was of the marriages of older generations. Women married because it was their only way out, and they didn't do it for love.
It pisses me off when people talk about the "good ole days" of marriage (always dudes, or close to it)... sorry, marrying because you have to and not because you want to, isn't good. It freaking blows.
What a blanket statement. What era are you talking about?
My grandparents married in the 1930s and they did it for love. Their marriage is the blueprint for what I think a marriage should be. Unconditional love, or as close as humans get to it.
They would never have considered their marriage unusual for the era either.
Yes. I hereby volunteer to exchange options for guarantees. Give me the bird in-hand, and keep all of those lurking in the bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43
I can see why some guys would like to go back in time: more social judgement on women's behavior, little no support if they leave, few jobs for women. The OP's definition of balance is much different then mine. Or are we going way, way back? We are essentially sold by our fathers for a dowry, we are then considered the husband's property (you can do anything you want to your property), women couldn't hold assets or inherit.
In some ways, a more egalitarian society advances the overall prosperity. In other ways, the advance of some, comes at the expense of others.
Consider an extreme example. Imagine a world where all of humanity is ruled by a secretive council of say 100 people. Those 100 have a pretty cushy life, do they not? It would be a demoralized, unimaginative society - probably an abusive police-state. If suddenly a revolution came, and that order were to have been supplanted by something resembling a democracy, then billions of people would be uplifted and given vastly more opportunities. But what of those 100? Would their personal quality of life improve? Would they cheer the change, or pine for the good old days?
What a blanket statement. What era are you talking about?
My grandparents married in the 1930s and they did it for love. Their marriage is the blueprint for what I think a marriage should be. Unconditional love, or as close as humans get to it.
They would never have considered their marriage unusual for the era either.
But was it an option for your grandmother to not marry at all in the 1930s? It's fantastic that she and your grandfather were in love, but if she hadn't married him, she would have been expected to marry someone else. Had she gone off to Paris to be a photographer and ride around on a motorcycle instead that would have been scandalous at the time.
But was it an option for your grandmother to not marry at all in the 1930s? It's fantastic that she and your grandfather were in love, but if she hadn't married him, she would have been expected to marry someone else. Had she gone off to Paris to be a photographer and ride around on a motorcycle instead that would have been scandalous at the time.
I can only assume you are young, because only young people characterize earlier eras in such extremes.
Of course it was an option not to get married. She did have a job prior to marriage, and women were readily employed as teachers and nurses or employed in offices. One of my grandmothers best friends never married - she worked as a bookkeeper her whole life and lived alone.
It was not "scandalous" to go to Paris and be a photographer. Maybe rare, but not scandalous.
We are slowly losing all sense of proportion about earlier eras. I see so many young people writing about times they never lived in, and I don't recognize the world they're talking about.
Historically, the only times when love was not a prerequisite for marriage was in societies with arranged marriages where the families married off their children to create an alliance based on money or property. The concept of marrying for love had been around a long time before my grandparents got married. You can read more about the history of marriage and marrying for love was a popular concept even in the 1700s for goodness sake.
Historically, the only times when love was not a prerequisite for marriage was in societies with arranged marriages where the families married off their children to create an alliance based on money or property. The concept of marrying for love had been around a long time before my grandparents got married. You can read more about the history of marriage and marrying for love was a popular concept even in the 1700s for goodness sake.
One source to consult is Stephanie Coontz "Marriage: A History"; Marriage, a History - Author Stephanie Coontz . In the West, love was idealized as the aegis of marriage for quite some time. But love as necessary-and-sufficient condition for marriage is fairly recent, dating back to perhaps the 19th century.
The advantage of marriage as an alliance of families "based on money or property" is that divorce becomes unlikely, because simply put, it's bad for business.
But there's another advantage - for men! - about the "good old days", mention of which has thus far been elided in this thread. And that is, in the "good old days", the suitor had mainly to impress his potential bride's father, and not the bride herself. As somebody who earns his living negotiating with older men, I'm far more confident in my ability to impress the father, than the daughter.
But there's another advantage - for men! - about the "good old days", mention of which has thus far been elided in this thread. And that is, in the "good old days", the suitor had mainly to impress his potential bride's father, and not the bride herself. As somebody who earns his living negotiating with older men, I'm far more confident in my ability to impress the father, than the daughter.
I agree that this last bit happened a lot in the past, but it wasn't universal. I think it also depends on what "good old times" you are referring to.
In the early 20th Century, you still had to win over the bride. Generally you won her over than asked her father if you could marry her (before asking her... although often she knew you were going to ask).
In Victorian times, you still had to court the women you were interested in as well. You couldn't even court a woman unless you got past her mother (or other female chaperone). If you got past all that and to the point where marriage was in the cards, then you talked to the father. After that he could propose to the potential bride and she could refuse. Now maybe a father could pressure her to marry, but it was often encouraged to be coy (AKA play games) and really make the man beg for marriage.
Now before Victorian times (at least in the US) after the Revolution, marriage happened a lot because of a pregnancy. In the 18th Century, up to 40% of brides were pregnant at their weddings. So that might be more of the "love" factor coming in. Although that leaves 60% who weren't. The reason for this is a bit of rebellion after the rebellion--knocking the old ways which was the fathers arranging everything. Before the Revolution, the man and woman didn't get to pick each other at all. The fathers arranged the marriage and it was very much a business deal.
I found this information from sources citing the Widner University Center for Human Sexuality Studies.
Still, it's fascinating stuff. I think (depending on which time period you lived in) it was easier for some men and harder for others to marry. Today is no different I suppose. At least today it isn't only and all about money (still comes into play of course, but it's importance isn't as influential). And at least you can marry outside of your social class, race, and religion. And you don't need to get permission from anyone other than the woman you are interested in. Imagine falling in love with a woman and she loves you, but your families say no--you had no recourse (someone named "Billy Bob" wrote a tragic play about that I hear).
I've said it before. I don't think I would want the good old days. I like modern medicine, modern laws, modern freedom. No way on Earth I want to go back to a time where others lose their freedoms so I can have it "easier." To me that just sounds evil. Besides, let's be realisitic. Unless you were a wealthy landowner, you were worth less than dirt too in the grand scheme of things.
I can only assume you are young, because only young people characterize earlier eras in such extremes.
Of course it was an option not to get married. She did have a job prior to marriage, and women were readily employed as teachers and nurses or employed in offices. One of my grandmothers best friends never married - she worked as a bookkeeper her whole life and lived alone.
It was not "scandalous" to go to Paris and be a photographer. Maybe rare, but not scandalous.
We are slowly losing all sense of proportion about earlier eras. I see so many young people writing about times they never lived in, and I don't recognize the world they're talking about.
Historically, the only times when love was not a prerequisite for marriage was in societies with arranged marriages where the families married off their children to create an alliance based on money or property. The concept of marrying for love had been around a long time before my grandparents got married. You can read more about the history of marriage and marrying for love was a popular concept even in the 1700s for goodness sake.
People on this forum talk about before the 1980s like it's the middle dark ages or something.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooting Stars
What a blanket statement. What era are you talking about?
My grandparents married in the 1930s and they did it for love. Their marriage is the blueprint for what I think a marriage should be. Unconditional love, or as close as humans get to it.
They would never have considered their marriage unusual for the era either.
Read the article, it was addressed in there, with stats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
