The more I see of the world, the more I am convinced that Christianity is the only philosophy that got marriage right.
But I think masculinists are wrong about what it got right.
Discussion
Because they conflate their local customs with Christianity.
Was nice as long as it lastet.
Then the statists came and took over marriage, making church marriage a parody, that "isn't the real thing, just an voluntary side-celebration for nostalgic people".
Well, that has led to a bifurcation in the quality of marriages, as there are increasingly "higher" (sacramental) and "lower" (concubinage). Which can be determined, statistically.
The word "marriage" has gotten watered down from misuse. That's why people now often add qualifiers like "I was married in the Catholic Church", to signify that they've got the gold-plated edition.
Still, you can't take your husbands name, if you've got 'only' married in a church.
You're not 'legally' married, you're basicly missing all your family-rights.
For them (statists) it's the same like doing an online marriage by a pagan grain-worshipping cult somewhere in the far east.
They don't accept it, it's not a 'real' marriage, it's 'just a religious one'.
This is the sad truth.
Yeah, but that's the way it is, with separation of Church and State. Most have state marriages as a prerequisite to church marriages, to deal with that problem, but it's a messy solution.
In the end, tho, the State will always want to jump in, once it's about kids and money, like inheritances and custody.
The state even using the term marriage is an affront. Should at most be a matter of familial incorporation. And if you call it that, I imagine people would be less fussy about same sex or even polyamorous arrangements.
Naming the civil contract after a religious sacrament is just asking for trouble.
You are likely to think that when you where brought up in a region where culture has been formed by Christianity. In other parts of the world people will likely think the same about their system.
Doubt. Women who convert to Christianity are usually pleased by the improvement it brings to romantic relationships, especially marital life. I certainly was. That was actually one of the major drivers for the spread of Christianity: Christ loved women more than other rulers did and that was reflected in the form of marriage He and the Apostles preached.
Also, that women are not considered "only useful as wives", but have a societal rank in different vocations.
I'd be curious to see the distribution of that across the globe.
My reading of the Norse sagas involved women wielding a notably large amount of power in society. Admittedly largely domestic power, but when a household consisted of over 100 people, wielding absolute power was no small thing. And then being able to goat their husbands by simply suggesting that doing anything other than what wives wanted was cowardice... Perhaps it's not fair to say this was indicative of all women of the time, given that of course these were the wives of the chieftans being written about, and not the thralls or other lower classes, but they did seem to be more empowered than many Christians of the era.
I would believe though that in Southern and Eastern Europe cultures would have been different, especially with smaller household structures around the same time period.
Norse women had husbands that were often absent. Don't know, if that's representative of anything.
Also, as you note, stories of Christian marriages tend to be full of depictions of totally normie households, like small farmers and smiths, and stuff. Not just the upper class.
Could be, though that absence was largely seasonal, with a LOT of time spent very much together through the cold dark winters.
I do wonder how much the shift away from agrarian society had to do with a shift in the perceived value breakdown of domestic vs public work. Running a farm and cleaning a small house are very different things (and often come with very different staffing arrangements). The isolation that comes with a more modern domestic life surely had a negative impact on the wellbeing of women in more recent modern society. That, and the relative access to capital. Some cultures seem to handle this better than others. I hear from the Japanese that men get lucky if they're given an allowance from what's left of their paycheck, while it wasn't very long ago here in America that women couldn't even have their own bank accounts or a credit card without their father or husband cosigning.
I would agree though that Christian marriage values are certainly healthier than contemporary secular humanist ideas. Where they'd rank among other traditional cultures is something I don't feel quite as qualified to weigh in on.
Not allowing married women to have their own accounts is actually a different issue than which spouse manages the joint accounts.
It's common, in many Western countries for men to earn the money and women to spend it, as budgeting is a chore considered part of housekeeping.
Agree. Wives are often very good at budgeting the household requirements, commanding the position over time.
In Taiwan my observation is that it is the norm with women also dominating the finance sector, if not leadership positions.
Husbands are expected to earn income for the household.
That said, that is a generalization and there are always exceptions.
That's one of my main beefs with all of this masculinist rhetoric: They always sound like they view women as nothing more than potential breeding mares, and their wives are just their personal mare that they can lock up in their barn, to keep other men from riding her.
That is a complete departure from New Testament teaching and Church tradition, and has nothing to do with the view of marriage defined in, for example, Ephesians 5 in the #Bible, where there is clearly a higher purpose to marriage
And 1 Corinthians 7, where it is clear that marriage is not the only appropriate vocation for a woman (or man).
Also, remember all the Manosphere guys all excited about that fertility cult, a while back? Quiverful or whatnot?
Yeah, that was pretty gross, but typical for their mentality.
I remember talking to some of them about that, back in the day, and they were surprised how horrified it made me, but there's nothing in Catholicism that demands you try to knock your wife up, every year, like you're in some sort of reproductive competition.
Being open to life doesn't mean she's constantly pregnant.
Why do you think that is? Iām curious
They want to have a wife, and they want the gubment to help them get one and keep one, so they're looking for some moral justification for it.
Any thoughts on Objectivist philosophy in this regard?
Whilst it makes sense to become married to ensure the best possible upbringing of children, it would not preclude divorce particularly after children were adults.
That is similar to Christianity today.
Wonder if you have given this much thought in comparison.
Marriage is good for the adults, too.
The Bible is clear that God hates divorce. Divorce is always a tragedy, and I don't know of any Christian denomination that doesn't agree with that.