Live data from Hacker News

19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

mimimatthews.com

51–60 of 115 posts

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

#51
The early Victorian era saw the greatest separation between the roles of the sexes in Western culture (they even had rooms for men and rooms for women), and is the source of modern sexism -- a notion which is often misunderstood by many (and viewed as accusatory, even though it is merely descriptive). At the core of Victorian sexism lies the notion (which had not been so pronounced, or well-formulated before) that women are to be treated well -- adored even -- but completely removed from all power. Their activities were to be limited to the domestic sphere (although that started slowly changing in the late 1840s), which was their domain. As this document says, a woman is to be well-treated, and even indulged -- but matters of importance are left for the husband alone. To this day, this is the core of most lines of feminism, and a cause of confusion to those who don't understand what modern sexism means. Some confuse sexism with misogyny -- which is disdain towards women -- while the two are separate. Sexism (at least in modern times) is a feature of a society where women are kept away from power, regardless of how respectfully they are treated. This is our heritage from the Victorian era.

As time went by, laws and traditions have changed as they always do -- slowly but surely -- and sexism (as well as racism) has become less overt and clear, but much of the essence -- less power for women -- sadly remains to this day (and this, too, will change, slowly but surely).

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

#52
“During the last few years, and since the rights of women have been so much insisted upon, and practically carried out by the strongest-minded of the sex, numerous husbands have complained to me of the hardships under which they suffer by being married to women who regard themselves as martyrs when called upon to fulfill the duties of wives.”

Damn SJWs.

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

#53
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loosely speaking, God/"Moses" put a bunch of rules in play for the early Israelites. Then Jesus came around and said "it's all about love." Then Paul clarified Jesus with more specific directions. So Paul > Jesus > Moses, mostly because of chronology. Let's take gay people as an example. Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love, and Paul said no to gay people. So even though Jesus is always right, in practice he…

> "Loosely speaking" I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely, for example, the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these comman…

> I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely

I'm just trying to hit the high points for a silly internet discussion.

> If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.

Been there. I found the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was more convincing than, say, Grudem's Systematic Theology, or any of the other reading from seminary.

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

#54

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…

The noble savage is another Victorian invention.

The Victorians can hardly be singled out for conquering and enslavement, given that was pretty much the norm for human history to that point. Victorians are saints compared to roman times, and the Romans themselves were honourable compared to what went before.

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

#55
post #16

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…

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.

The Torah allows polygamy.

It may have been a practical necessity after husbands died or were killed. No welfare or social security survivor benefits or similar programs existed.

But IMO it's something that only single men would truly find appealing. Married men quickly realize that additional wives and accompanying additional children are the last thing they want or need. :)

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

#56
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that physical and cultural genocide is exclusive to the Victorian era. How much difference is there in reality between the Victorian drive to civilize and Christianize, and the modern Western impulse to ram "democracy" and "freedom" down the throats of unwilling societies at the point of a gun? If anything, they were a lot less hypocritical than we are.

I'd wager that India and China would say there's a pretty big difference between then and now.

Yes. Now they get to be on the semi-dominant end of the spectrum.

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

#57
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The noble savage is another Victorian invention. The Victorians can hardly be singled out for conquering and enslavement, given that was pretty much the norm for human history to that point. Victorians are saints compared to roman times, and the Romans themselves were honourable compared to what went before.

Actually, the concept is most often associated with Rousseau in the 18th century. What the Victorian era had as an advantage was steam powered printing presses to spread uniform cultural concepts (regardless of their veracity or value) over broader areas more quickly. I'm glad we're finally living in an era that has gotten past that.

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

#58

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)…

There was a great comment on metafilter by `a fiendish thingy` a few months back about one interpretation of this idea of headship:

    I have two friends (who are married) who believe in
    biblical standards of the husband being the head of
    the household. HOWEVER. They are also outspoken
    feminists (both of them), and their belief in marital
    headship is based on their belief that a man’s job as
    the head of household who has been gifted with an
    outsize amount of cultural privilege is to actively
    fight patriarchy and bolster his wife’s human dignity
    in a culture attempting to diminish her personhood.
    (Like, head of household is a metaphor for Jesus being
    the head of the church, and Jesus died for the church,
    so they believe the head of the household should be
    constantly throwing himself on the sword of patriarchy
    to elevate his wife to her rightful place of equality,
    instead of expecting her to constantly be the person
    dealing with toxic misogyny all by herself. So
    headship in their marriage is not “I am in charge,
    fetch me my slippers,” but “As the privileged partner,
    I am charged with a special responsibility of helping
    us realize equality within our marriage and our world”.)

http://ask.metafilter.com/283189/Emotional-Labor-Checklist-S...

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

#59
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The noble savage is another Victorian invention. The Victorians can hardly be singled out for conquering and enslavement, given that was pretty much the norm for human history to that point. Victorians are saints compared to roman times, and the Romans themselves were honourable compared to what went before.

Actually, the concept is most often associated with Rousseau in the 18th century. What the Victorian era had as an advantage was steam powered printing presses to spread uniform cultural concepts (regardless of their veracity or value) over broader areas more quickly. I'm glad we're finally living in an era that has gotten past that.

And an empire with the world's largest military, ruled by a despotic aristocracy which had made most of its money from slavery, drug running, and land + resource grabs in distant countries.

"Moral" is perhaps not quite the most apt word.

>I'm glad we're finally living in an era that has gotten past that.

We haven't. The product has become American Neoliberal Capitalism instead of British Imperial Capitalism, but it's now sold on the Internet and through Hollywood and the media just as aggressively as the Victorians promoted their idea of culture to the world.

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

#60
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The noble savage is another Victorian invention. The Victorians can hardly be singled out for conquering and enslavement, given that was pretty much the norm for human history to that point. Victorians are saints compared to roman times, and the Romans themselves were honourable compared to what went before.

> The noble savage is another Victorian invention.

Are you sure? I would have expected them to take the opposite view of "savages", namely the Hobbesian view that their lives were "nasty, brutish and short".

Post reply on HN