Oh how the times have changed. In 1910, when this article was written, marriage was depicted as just something a woman commits to with a handsome wealthy man, just for the reason that he is handsome and wealthy! Nowadays I feel like we have definitely evolved from that train of thought. Now most people marry because they love the person and feel that they want to spend the rest of their life with that person, and its great! You shouldn't marry someone just because they can support you, (although this does happen...coughcough sugar-babies). Its more obvious that people do marry for love, because gay marriages are on their path to being legal in the States and honestly, that wouldn't exist if people were just marrying for the money...at least I think. Personally, I don't think I could live and have a family with someone who just wanted me because I was pretty and could take care of the house/family. That's just ridiculous.
-Nicole
I agree, marriage has changed dramatically between now and 1910. Marriage is more secular and more of a partnership then it once was. It is also more of a privet agreement between 2 individuals and the government then a public agreement between the father and future husband.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you, but I also wonder if there are some parts of Goldman's article that are still true in some ways. Although we might not rank wealth as high in level of importance for marriage as we used to, isn't marriage still a financial contract in many ways? What is the role of money in partnerships and marriage today, and how is this relevant to gender?
ReplyDelete