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).
19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands
51–60 of 115 posts
Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands
#52Damn SJWs.
Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands
#53Earlier 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'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
#54The 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 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
#55Earlier 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.
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
#56Earlier 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.
Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands
#57Earlier 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.
Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands
#58From 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 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
#59Earlier 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.
"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
#60Earlier 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.
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".