In this article, Mark Seymour discusses the arguments for and against divorce laws in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Italy. Those who opposed the divorce laws argued that such laws would be harmful to women because it would allow men to abandon their wives more easily. Because it was more difficult for women to remarry than men, their economic situation would have greatly declined as a result of such practices. The predominant Catholic ideology of the region was also very influential in keeping divorce laws from being passed. The Catholic church promoted the idea that divorce laws would "empty marriage of all meaning and lead to a free-for-all" and "free love." On the other side of the debate, authors such as Anna Franchi demonstrated through their writing the horrible plights of women who were forced to remain in unhappy or even abusive marriages. Seymour points out that Italy's failure to initiate divorce laws before the 1970's illustrates the resilience of Italy's patriarchal system. Many Italians feared that passing divorce laws which allowed equality for men and women would lead to emasculation of men and essentially undermine the stability of society.
This article relates to Mary Hartman's chapter "What Men and Women Want" because it demonstrates the fact that many felt that a man's masculine identity would be compromised if they did similar work (because of marriage equality) as women. This article fits under the category of gender because of it's exploration of traditional gender ideals which were threatened by divorce laws in Italy. It also fits under the categories of Law, Church and State, as well as Marriage and Its Dissolution for obvious reasons.
Showing posts with label Marriage and its dissolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage and its dissolution. Show all posts
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
"Marriage" by Josef Ehmer
In this passage, Ehmer discusses the idea of marriage in the 19th century and shows how demographics, the state, and other aspects changed during this time.
Many historians have argued that, beginning in the 18th century and carrying on into the 19th century with Romanticism, there was a shift toward romantic love as a reason for marriage. Young people were generally allowed to choose their marriage partners during this time. In addition, there began to be social disapproval for marriages forced by parents or with economic motivations. This did not mean that husbands and wives were considered equals in the marriage, though. In many occupations, husbands and wives had to work well together in order to achieve economic success. However, after the first half of the nineteenth century this began to shift and husbands were seen as the breadwinners and wives as the homemakers. Despite the idea of romantic marriage during this period, there were still social motivations involved. Forming kinship alliances was considered important in some rural societies and others considered marriage one of the few ways they could increase their social standing.
However, the state did not follow this ideal, and legal provisions argued for marriage to be “a moral and legal order independent of the wills of the two spouses.” Thus, control over marriage shifted from the Church to the state. Divorce was an issue that reveals the attitude of the state and marriage. In most countries in Europe until the mid-1800s, it was near impossible to legally divorce. However, even after divorce was later allowed under certain circumstances, in reality it rarely happened.
In discussing marriage demographics, Ehmer disagrees somewhat with the concept of the Hajnal line. Although the overall trends indicate that Western Europe married later than in the east, there was a great deal of regional variation. In Italy, for example, the marriage age for women could vary between 21 to 27 years, depending on which region you look at. This variation also holds true for celibacy rates across Europe. Marriage patterns did change during the 1800s, but in very different directions for countries. Ehmer believes this variation indicates overall that marriage was considered a choice for Europeans in the nineteenth-century.
Many historians have argued that, beginning in the 18th century and carrying on into the 19th century with Romanticism, there was a shift toward romantic love as a reason for marriage. Young people were generally allowed to choose their marriage partners during this time. In addition, there began to be social disapproval for marriages forced by parents or with economic motivations. This did not mean that husbands and wives were considered equals in the marriage, though. In many occupations, husbands and wives had to work well together in order to achieve economic success. However, after the first half of the nineteenth century this began to shift and husbands were seen as the breadwinners and wives as the homemakers. Despite the idea of romantic marriage during this period, there were still social motivations involved. Forming kinship alliances was considered important in some rural societies and others considered marriage one of the few ways they could increase their social standing.
However, the state did not follow this ideal, and legal provisions argued for marriage to be “a moral and legal order independent of the wills of the two spouses.” Thus, control over marriage shifted from the Church to the state. Divorce was an issue that reveals the attitude of the state and marriage. In most countries in Europe until the mid-1800s, it was near impossible to legally divorce. However, even after divorce was later allowed under certain circumstances, in reality it rarely happened.
In discussing marriage demographics, Ehmer disagrees somewhat with the concept of the Hajnal line. Although the overall trends indicate that Western Europe married later than in the east, there was a great deal of regional variation. In Italy, for example, the marriage age for women could vary between 21 to 27 years, depending on which region you look at. This variation also holds true for celibacy rates across Europe. Marriage patterns did change during the 1800s, but in very different directions for countries. Ehmer believes this variation indicates overall that marriage was considered a choice for Europeans in the nineteenth-century.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
"Till death us do part": life after a failed marriage, by Bailey
Bailey's article outlines her argument that "the majority of individuals suffered ...socio-economic decline" upon dissolution of their marriage. She cites numerous records of marital difficulties to support her claims. Men and women alike found themselves in a worsened situation if they chose to separate. These records can also be utilized to visualize the living and working arrangements of ex-spouses. Much of Bailey's documentation comes from eighteenth century England.
"Poverty frequently fragmented families," Bailey says. Among the poorer families, husbands left wives and children in times of dire economic need. Bailey points out that the connection between abandonment and economic difficulties is strong in the second half of the eighteenth century: this is a period when desertions rose, and simultaneously food prices increased and "probably outstripped wage rates." Monetary penalties, incarcerations, and transfer to America all are recorded methods of punishment for fathers guilty of absconding. This suggests the importance and severity with which desertion of families by fathers was viewed upon by the state.
Bailey argues that single and previously married people alike sought to create a household like unto marriage, where multiple parties work as one to fulfill responsibilities and pool resources. Even relatively well-off gentlemen who had dissolved marriages were compelled to find others that fulfilled the role of wife and mother. Bailey states the amount of co-dependency between husband and wife in this period was great, thus the dissolution of marriage had mutual detrimental affects. Bailey cites records of employment as the best gauge of living arrangements post-divorce, as records do not reveal living arrangements of separated spouses.
While women were often the victims of abandonment, Bailey states that it is a mistake to "type-cast" deserted wives as victims, as there is plenty of evidence that they were able to find jobs. Rather, divorced men are the ones more reliant on wives. This statement is backed by her using the statistic of more elderly women living alone than elderly men in the eighteenth century. However, the greatest lesson to be learned is the "extensive co-dependency within marriage.
"Poverty frequently fragmented families," Bailey says. Among the poorer families, husbands left wives and children in times of dire economic need. Bailey points out that the connection between abandonment and economic difficulties is strong in the second half of the eighteenth century: this is a period when desertions rose, and simultaneously food prices increased and "probably outstripped wage rates." Monetary penalties, incarcerations, and transfer to America all are recorded methods of punishment for fathers guilty of absconding. This suggests the importance and severity with which desertion of families by fathers was viewed upon by the state.
Bailey argues that single and previously married people alike sought to create a household like unto marriage, where multiple parties work as one to fulfill responsibilities and pool resources. Even relatively well-off gentlemen who had dissolved marriages were compelled to find others that fulfilled the role of wife and mother. Bailey states the amount of co-dependency between husband and wife in this period was great, thus the dissolution of marriage had mutual detrimental affects. Bailey cites records of employment as the best gauge of living arrangements post-divorce, as records do not reveal living arrangements of separated spouses.
While women were often the victims of abandonment, Bailey states that it is a mistake to "type-cast" deserted wives as victims, as there is plenty of evidence that they were able to find jobs. Rather, divorced men are the ones more reliant on wives. This statement is backed by her using the statistic of more elderly women living alone than elderly men in the eighteenth century. However, the greatest lesson to be learned is the "extensive co-dependency within marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)