Aestu wrote:
This is completely untrue.
Ah, this old trope. "You're wrong because I said so." It's funny you should say that then make the case that it isn't.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
That's what they'd like you to believe. Honestly, marital infidelity was socially frowned upon regardless of which gender was the offending party,
Meeting with whores or other women of ill repute is okay,
as long as the man (or woman) kept it to himself.
First off, marital infidelity such as you describe wasn't "OK," just because the offending party didn't get caught. What you're saying is that so long as the offending party successfully kept their behavior secret, there were no consequences. What were the consequences if they failed to keep their behavior secret, and
why were there consequences if that individual's behavior became known to others? Oh, yes, it was BECAUSE MARITAL INFIDELITY WAS SOCIALLY FROWNED UPON REGARDLESS OF GENDER.
Thanks for making the case for me.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
the only difference was that the possible consequences for women were worse since their husband could basically drop them and they'd have no means of support and wouldn't have much chance of marrying (and by extension finding support) again if he could prove infidelity. That was the only disadvantage women ever had in the matter, and it was a financial one.
Walking out on one's wife was a major stigma, it's tantamount to turning one's back on society and is regarded in kind.
It was so for a very useful reason. As you point out, the man who walked out on his family, had an economic advantage. Society considered moral factors more important than economic ones, so it took steps to check the advantage of those who saw it the other way, by stigmatizing walk-outs and such.
Do you think it's funny that despite the post you replied to (and quoted) being "completely untrue" you are acknowledging that the "untruth" about women being at a financial disadvantage is, in fact, true?
Aestu wrote:
Go watch some movies, or read some books, from the first half of the century - the Twilight Zone series, for example, or Clint Eastwood movies (which are not accurate depictions of the Old West, but are very accurate depictions of the mores of the times in which they were made). Go read apolitical biographies of famous people (most Presidents before Reagan, for example).
Not only have I probably seen every spaghetti western that was filmed in the 70s more times than you've touched yourself while thinking about pixels--because my dad, and don't fucking get me started on it--I was, unlike you, actually alive during the period to which you're pointing.
Aestu wrote:
The reason you have the "Ronald Reagan B&W flick" view of the past that you do is because you get your notions on how it was from secondary sources (i.e., really bad blogs), never by looking at the past directly. The problem is, you look at the past - old books and movies, or others' perceptions of them - as a literal representation of the world they depicted, and not as a depiction of how those people saw the world and dealt with it - their value system.
Aestu Trope #2: I know what you've read and it's wrong. Always a treat.
You know, I don't believe I've ever actually seen a Ronald Reagan movie.
Aestu wrote:
The Torah commands that the corners of one's fields not be cut, that they be given to "the widow, the orphan, the stranger". Yes, being without a husband, or family/land/connections ("the stranger") was a terrible curse. But society had ways to manage it. The commandment is the direct religious equivalent of secular welfare.
The problem is, those kinds of social laws have a definite economic cost, and the libertarian/free market economics/"self-reliance" you support are fundamentally incompatible with those social mores. And when attempts are made to fill that same void with tax-and-spend, well, people try to argue that "free flow of wealth" will fulfill the moral need, when the fact is that just wasn't the case.
Charity and libertarian ideals aren't mutually exclusive. Even Ayn Rand saw nothing wrong with charity, and only objected to people engaging in charity out of guilt or due to social pressure instead of doing it because the philanthropist gained fulfillment from the act.
It's also funny how someone who chastises me for thinking people in the past were "motivated primarily by financial factors" keeps referring to the economics of marriage.
Aestu wrote:
In your very post. You think people back then were motivated primarily by financial factors. That is the bias of the present day. That is the difference between then and now. Moral wisdom versus cold, hard economics. That is the cost of the free market. Moral decay. Money makes right.
If you believe that marriage wasn't primarily a financial arrangement then you're the one operating with a modern bias. You even acknowledged as much when you agreed that men had an economic advantage. Why did the man have that economic advantage? Because he was the one with the capability to earn/produce...a capability his wife's productive efforts (cooking, cleaning, childcare) historically supported.
It's like you've adapted to more-and-more of us ignoring your gibbering half-assery by starting to argue with yourself. The arguing just for the sake of arguing silliness you engage in is, aside from being annoying, a sad cry for attention.
Your Pal,
Jubber
