It seems like a tremendous risk — traveling thousands of miles into lonely territory to marry a person you met through an advertisement in a newspaper — but it was a gamble that many men and women in the 19th century were willing to take. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2023/06/mail-order-brides/
@estherschindler not much changes, huh?
men saying 'give us some wives' like women are property w/o agency. so many men seem to think the exact same way today.
& patriarchal systems that keep women getting paid less, burdened by caregiving, emo labour, & work of a household keeps their prospects for independence ltd...forcing them to consider marriage their best option.
no wonder so many men feel women making their own $, being educated, choosing to build careers is so threatening.
@singlemaltgirl Less so in these cases than elsewhere, I think. These men wanted a "helpmeet" in the most literal fashion. And both parties went into it with their eyes open -- often with a bit of letter writing ahead of time, according to the article.
Plus it easily could be a better option for a woman alone. City life was rough.
@estherschindler by helpmeet, they wanted a breeder, a housemaid, a labourer, & a sex worker. how is that any diff from what so many men want nowadays, too?
i wouldn't think women went into it eyes open. there were plenty of men lying about their prospects, wealth, or character to attract a wife. that women took the chance was about not really have options - as you say, life in the city was rough. life for women, in general, was rough. no?
@singlemaltgirl To be fair, options were limited for everybody. Men had more opportunities... but only in comparison. We all have it MUCH better, nowadays.
I try to bring compassion to the situation, and to imagine the choices each of those people had. We all make the best decisions we can, at the time, based on what we know.
@estherschindler we can bring compassion while still underscoring the circumstances, systems, privileges, & advantages that certain peeps had over others.
men have it better under a patriarchal system. white cis het men have had it best under a colonial, white supremacist system which is what we're talking about in the 🇺🇸 at that time & for now.
let's not both sides, this.
compassion & empathy can be applied while still respecting actual historical context.
@singlemaltgirl @estherschindler
I'm not sure that's accurate. WHCM do better in colonialism in relative terms, that is in comparison to the victims of colonialism. But in absolute terms a strong case can be made that we ALL do better when WE ALL do better, even WHCM.
@singlemaltgirl @estherschindler
I think we agree on that point. But if WCHM think that they need to return to colonialism in order to do well (whatever that means), I would say that they are wrong. There are better ways.
@Boyceaz if you're talking about the betterment of all society, then colonialism isn't it. however, if you are taking about the betterment of the individual, then colonialism is where it's at.
check out any top billionaire list.
money = power.
money = ability to control one's own destiny.
money = ability to build supports against potential harms & trauma.
most cis het me will protect this system fiercely.
it's why they have such a strong backlash against equity mvmts.
@estherschindler
@singlemaltgirl @estherschindler
Funny that the majority of WCHM think of themselves as belonging to the group of billionaires, but you're right, they do. And they're wrong.
@Boyceaz oh, i agree that colonialism is a dehumanizing horrid system for everyone - peeps, planet, animals, everything.
that doesn't mean that white cis het men don't benefit the most from the oppression & harms done to others thru the system of colonialism. AND white cis het men to the largest extent, built, control, & maintain colonialism.
@estherschindler