Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

mimimatthews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#31

Post by gd1 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #19
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #2

The destruction of Western society's moral backbone through the degeneration of traditional marriage such that the Victorian account reads anachronistic to a modern reader, is, I'd venture, a relatively positive development. The conception of traditional marriage that cruder familialists and social conservatives promote then is not really that traditional, nor divinely enshrined.

A good sentiment, though I'd quibble about the use of the word "moral" here. It's a shame there isn't better developed terminology, but the social norms and standards of the Victorian elite were quite far from anything I would term moral. Selfish, oppressive, iniquitous, abusive, racist, hypocritical, and worse. This was the culture that spawned and supported numerous physical and cultural genocides against native po…

Hmm, so the Victorians were " Selfish, oppressive, iniquitous, abusive, racist, hypocritical, and worse". I'm curious, you mention "numerous physical and cultural genocides against native populations around the world", can you give me a similar critique of one of these native populations? Pick one. Describe their morals and social norms for me.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#32

Post by rodgerd »

imissmyjuno wrote: post #13
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #2

The destruction of Western society's moral backbone through the degeneration of traditional marriage such that the Victorian account reads anachronistic to a modern reader, is, I'd venture, a relatively positive development. The conception of traditional marriage that cruder familialists and social conservatives promote then is not really that traditional, nor divinely enshrined.

are you saying social conservatives are sexist in a way that's similar to the patronizing behaviour quoted from the book? i'm a little confused about the 2nd sentence too.

(S)he's making two points as I read it:

1. Much of what is being described as traditional marriage practice isn't actually traditional; the article notes that what a modern person might consider Victorian marital values often weren't.

2. Much of what remains (as being actually traditional) is better off being destroyed.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#33

Post by xerophyte12932 »

ars wrote: post #26
rat87 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Torah allows polygamy. Ashkenazi Jews(descendant of those living in Germany around 900 or so AD many of whom later move east to Poland, Ukraine, and Russia) banned polygamy around ~1000 AD. I think it mostly died down in Sephardic and Yemeni after most of them moved to the Israel but I'm not sure if it was that common before that time.

Even when permitted it was very rare. For one thing only the very wealthy could afford it - each wife was required to have her own house (separate rooms in one house was not enough). For the most part it was practiced mainly by traveling businessmen/salesmen who would have a wife in each city where they worked. (Don't forget how slow and long travel used to be.) The main reason for permitting it is that historically…

As an insurance student, let me just point out male mortality is still considered higher than female mortality (hence higher premium rates for men). Though i have no numbers if the world has more females than males right now

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#34

Post by throwaeayBan »

Well, someone is lying. Either this artice or feminists who claim that back in day women were treated as chattel. Calling out propaganda aside - with all this feminism and men stayed in same place while women advanced their right far above what men have - men are still workhorses to provide, serv and sacrifice.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#35

Post by notdonspaulding »

__alta__ wrote: post #17
notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

> If this is all you know of "Christian marriage philosophy", please take the time to inform yourself. I'd suggest you find someone who claims to follow the Bible in their marriage and ask them how this passage specifically plays out in their married life. (Hint: If the passage is truly being followed, what you will find is anything but a bully of a man and a brow-beaten woman) I'll admit that passage is often what I…

I quoted that passage out of context intentionally, because I think it represents what most people think of Paul's marriage views, accurately or not. The whole chapter provides a great deal more context to Paul's thoughts on the subject:

https://www.bible.com/bible/59/eph.5.esv

    > What, in your mind, should be the outcome of someone who claims to follow the Bible in their marriage w.r.t. this passage?
I know about 300-500 Christian families from my town. When the vast majority of them read that section of Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus (Paul mainly wrote letters, and they weren't divided up into chapters/verses for reference until much later) the key takeaway for them is "I, as a Christian, am commanded to give up my rights for the sake of my spouse and our marriage."

In doing this, I think most people assume that Christians simply pretend they don't want what they really want, and pretend they do want what they really don't want. That's not it at all, and that's merely a recipe for a hollow, hypocritical relationship.

There are certainly differences amongst Christians, and I don't intend to paper over them. I'm just saying, if you have a Christian friend, ask them what these kinds of passages mean to them, rather than assume they are brow-beating their spouse based on two sentences taken out of the context of an entire letter Paul wrote.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#36

Post by [deleted] »

rodgerd wrote: post #32
imissmyjuno wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you saying social conservatives are sexist in a way that's similar to the patronizing behaviour quoted from the book? i'm a little confused about the 2nd sentence too.

(S)he's making two points as I read it: 1. Much of what is being described as traditional marriage practice isn't actually traditional; the article notes that what a modern person might consider Victorian marital values often weren't. 2. Much of what remains (as being actually traditional) is better off being destroyed.

[deleted]

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#37

Post by [deleted] »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

[deleted]

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#38

Post by throwitback »

ars wrote: post #25
throwitback wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a problem is that this passage tends to be the most taught marriage-related passage in the evangelical churches and para-church organizations I've attended? One can make many cases for models of Biblical marriage (David, a "man after God's own heart" was polygamous. This is not spoken against in the Bible, but his adultery with another man's wife was condemned. To me, this is implicit support.) One can also t…

> This is not spoken against in the Bible Deuteronomy 17:17 begs to differ: "And he [the king] shall not take many wives for himself"

That's more of a "so the king won't get too distracted" commandment (as the second half of the verse indicates!) Also, the verse before is about having too many horses. When Nathan judges David, the polygamy is de minimis.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#39

Post by eru »

xerophyte12932 wrote: post #33
ars wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when permitted it was very rare. For one thing only the very wealthy could afford it - each wife was required to have her own house (separate rooms in one house was not enough). For the most part it was practiced mainly by traveling businessmen/salesmen who would have a wife in each city where they worked. (Don't forget how slow and long travel used to be.) The main reason for permitting it is that historically…

As an insurance student, let me just point out male mortality is still considered higher than female mortality (hence higher premium rates for men). Though i have no numbers if the world has more females than males right now

There's female infanticide and gender-biased abortions to more than balance higher male mortality in lots of the world.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#40

Post by eru »

blowski wrote: post #12
notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

I agree. Every verse in the New Testament has to be viewed through the lens of Mark 12:30-31. > Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.

There's more than one passage proclaiming itself to be the most important. Compare eg Matthew 12:31-32:

> Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

> Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Post reply on HN