The purpose of adhering to gender roles

[Beanieboy]

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Perhaps people believe men should be the one working outside the home so that they are the ones to bear their own curse....

Serpents were cursed to eat the dust, and don't, but simply have no limbs, but were never cursed to stop talking, so I'm not sure what happened there. Somebody dropped the ball.

I think this applies to some people's thinking, but it's a real stretch to think that God commands men to work, and women to stay home.

 

[LJSGM]

Serpents were cursed to eat the dust, and don't, but simply have no limbs, but were never cursed to stop talking, so I'm not sure what happened there. Somebody dropped the ball.

I think this applies to some people's thinking, but it's a real stretch to think that God commands men to work, and women to stay home.

I don't think a serpent was a snake, I think it was a dragon.

 

[cantata]

Serpents were cursed to eat the dust, and don't, but simply have no limbs, but were never cursed to stop talking, so I'm not sure what happened there. Somebody dropped the ball.

I think this applies to some people's thinking, but it's a real stretch to think that God commands men to work, and women to stay home.

I agree - I think the relevant passage in Genesis is a description of the consequences of the Fall, not a series of commands.

If anything, it seems to suggest that one should strive for a pre-Fall way of doing things.

Anyway, if we were to take them as commands, we would, I think, be obliged not to offer women pain relief during childbirth.

 

[allhart]

Serpents were cursed to eat the dust, and don't, but simply have no limbs, but were never cursed to stop talking, so I'm not sure what happened there. Somebody dropped the ball.

I think this applies to some people's thinking, but it's a real stretch to think that God commands men to work, and women to stay home.

Well in the garden that had no sin until the apple ;therefore, didn't have decay, so what work was there before the apple,but to worship and have fellowship with God?

 

[LJSGM]

I agree - I think the relevant passage in Genesis is a description of the consequences of the Fall, not a series of commands.

If anything, it seems to suggest that one should strive for a pre-Fall way of doing things.

Anyway, if we were to take them as commands, we would, I think, be obliged not to offer women pain relief during childbirth.

Nor use fertilizer for farming.

or machines...

 

[allhart]

also I believe before God wiped out man and animals in the flood. We couldn't say there wasn't animals of, so called mystical proportions. Dinosaurs are a little wild to the imagination, but where a legitimate species at one time and who knows what was walking or flying the sky in their times. In our lack of discovery.

 

[ke1985]

I, likewise, fail to see how one's gender makes one more or less of an authority figure. Authority is gained through superior knowledge or skill, not by means of certain reproductory organs.

Exactly.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Argument about whether established gender roles are important is pretty common on Christian Forums, but I'd like to address this question specifically to those who think that adherence to these roles is important. I want to ask you whether you are inclined to draw a distinction between elements of gender roles which you regard as being natural, and those which you consider to be socially constructed.

Let's talk about children. Suppose that you have a son who demonstrates a preference for wearing pink clothing. You must be aware that the association of pink with girls and femininity is entirely socially constructed. In fact, up until around the 1950s, the gender-colour association was reversed; pink was viewed as the more appropriate colour for boys, and blue for girls. Knowing this, are you troubled by your son's preference for pink? What about if he wanted to wear a mid-calf length denim skirt, rather than jeans? If you would object to or be troubled by this, is the source of your concern different from, say, if you discovered that your son wished to play with dolls or become a ballet dancer (if indeed you would be troubled by these occurances)?

What I would like to ascertain is this: does your enthusiasm for adherence to established gender roles have to do with your child's attainment of a development into adulthood that is in keeping with his or her biological nature; or is it more about adhering to the accepted roles which you regard as necessary for a child's proper social development? Is this a matter of biology - of what is "natural" for a boy or a girl - or of society - of what is expected of a boy or a girl? Or is it something else entirely?

Well generally, before 1950-1970s second wave feminism came into play men had much better knowledge of "stepping up to the plate" so to speak. Gender roles are very important because 1. It is God's plan and 2. If there weren't differences and roles there would be no need for 2 sexes.

However during this time in the confusion of the sexes we have seen great changes, for the worse. When feminism started to rise women started to become more masculine, intimidating, less feminine and as a result men started to become more feminine and less of a role model for their children.

Becuase men started losing their roles as provider, supporter, role model, etc. we in turn had more dead beat dads, divorce, men walking out on their children, domestic abuse, etc. This was because the males role in family and in society became confused and effeminate. Homosexuality started to go on the rise again, women started to become more indimidating, less feminine, more abrasive, more job oriented rather than family, and in turn men reacted in a unnatural way to this problem. This is what was socially constructed during the 1960-1970s culture and is what hampered women in such a great way that it will take decades to fix. Its no surprise that Roe V Wade and No Fault divorce became legalized right during this time either. It was an all out attack on the womans natural God given role in the world, and they would do everything and everything to deconstuct and do the exact opposite of. This is what led to the masculinzation of women today(and in turn the effeminization of men which in turn led to more dead beat dads and abuse, Newtons law). And because of it today there is so much confusion and identity problems for todays couples. Women today have become so abrasive and indimidating that young men won't even go up to them and talk to them anymore. Whereas back earlier on a man could easily talk to a woman because of her inviting feminine features and general humbleness of women back then. Today women barely exude any of these features anymore, both in the way they act and the way they talk. And because of this todays couples will already be in a weakened state already with an increased chance for divorce and marital problems. God said women must be modest, meek, humble, feminine, and quiet in their actions and words because that is what God put in their nature in order to find a good husband and to take care of her children. Children need to see these types of traits in their mothers today.

Luckily however these types of traits have become more common in the western countrys, mostly North America and Northern Europe. It isn't a surprise however that these 2 areas have the 2 largest divorce rates in the world. There are many other parts in the world where women have retained their femininity and modest features, eastern europe being a good example and parts of middle east, mexico, south america and asia.

We need roles for the sake of our wellbeing and our familys and most importantly because God tells us so in the Gospel. Otherwise children are growing up in a sterile unnatural enviornment

 

[Everlasting33]

Well generally, before 1950-1970s second wave feminism came into play men had much better knowledge of "stepping up to the plate" so to speak. Gender roles are very important because 1. It is God's plan and 2. If there weren't differences and roles there would be no need for 2 sexes.

However during this time in the confusion of the sexes we have seen great changes, for the worse. When feminism started to rise women started to become more masculine, intimidating, less feminine and as a result men started to become more feminine and less of a role model for their children.

Becuase men started losing their roles as provider, supporter, role model, etc. we in turn had more dead beat dads, divorce, men walking out on their children, domestic abuse, etc. This was because the males role in family and in society became confused and effeminate. Homosexuality started to go on the rise again, women started to become more indimidating, less feminine, more abrasive, more job oriented rather than family, and in turn men reacted in a unnatural way to this problem. This is what was sociall construction during the 1960-1970s culture and is what hampered women in such a great way that it will take decades to fix. Its no surprise that Roe V Wade and No Fault divorce became legalized right during this time either. It was an all out attack on the womans natural God given role in the world, and they would do everything and everything to deconstuct and do the exact opposite of. This is what led to the masculinzation of women today. And because of it today there is so much confusion and identity problems for todays couples. Women today have become so abrasive and indimidating that young men won't even go up to them and talk to them anymore. Whereas back earlier on a man could easily talk to a woman because of her inviting feminine features and general humbleness of women back then. Today women barely exude any of these features anymore, both in the way they act and the way they talk. And because of this todays couples will already be in a weakened state already with an increased chance for divorce and marital problems. God said women must be modest, meek, humble, feminine, and quiet in their actions and words because that is what God put in their nature in order to find a good husband and to take care of her children. Children need to see these types of traits in their mothers today.

We need roles for the sake of our wellbeing and our familys and most importantly because God tells us so in the Gospel. Otherwise children are growing up in a sterile unnatural enviornment

Restricting women to strict and rigid gender roles was very much oppressive and sexist (not allowing them to vote) for thousands of years.

Both men and women can be modest, meek, humble and quiet. To imply that only women should exhibit these traits and/or for it to define their "feminine" nature is alarming. It is psychologically damaging to be so rigid! :o

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Restricting women to strict and rigid gender roles was very much oppressive and sexist (not allowing them to vote) for thousands of years.

Both men and women can be modest, meek, humble and quiet. To imply that only women should exhibit these traits and/or for it to define their "feminine" nature is alarming. It is psychologically damaging to be so rigid! :o

to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored -
Titus 2:5

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered- 1 Peter 3:7


Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12


Women, for their part, should display their beauty by dressing modestly and decently in appropriate clothes, not by braiding their hair or by wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, - 1 Timothy 2:9


The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says -
1 Corinthians 14:34

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness - 1 Timothy 2:11



In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives - 1 Peter 3:1



take this up with God. It is clear that a humble woman is one who knows God's word. You know what the scripture says. I prefer to stick with truth. Gender roles are much better than ruined familys. Again if we didn't have roles God would have created everyone Asexual.

 

[mpok1519]

actually, we've always had the same amount of dead-beat dads, spouse abusers, etc even in light of new gender roles, we just have better track of it all nowadays. A large portion of divorces weren't even reported prior to the new divorce laws of the twentieth century; heck, a dead beat dad could walk out on his family, and courts wouldn't even grant the wife a divorce, even in cases of abandonment.

The two do not hold hands with each other.

Specific gender roles arent causation for 'problems at home'.

 

[Everlasting33]

to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored -
Titus 2:5

Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12


Women, for their part, should display their beauty by dressing modestly and decently in appropriate clothes, not by braiding their hair or by wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, - 1 Timothy 2:9


The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says -
1 Corinthians 14:34

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness - 1 Timothy 2:11





take this up with God. You know what the scripture says. I prefer to stick with truth. Gender roles are much better than ruined familys. Again if we didn't have roles God would have created everyone Asexual.

Debating those verses is for another thread but I want to say something.

Your previous post implies that feminism has contributed to the overall decay of our society. I won't argue that there are many men who are not stepping up to the plate and that there are many women who have contributed to the unstable family environment.

However, if we look through history (both Western and Eastern), we do not see consistent stability, peace, harmony, and perfect gender roles. For thousands of years, men were given permission by the church to beat their wives. Homosexuality and prostitution was quite rampant and popular in ancient Egypt. Wars and hate have existed since the beginning of time. Minorities such as blacks and women were oppressed for much of America's history.

No society is perfect and both men and women contribute to the overall problem.

But to restrict and control society based on gender roles (not based on ability but on one's sex) will only lead to oppression.

Do you believe women should not teach in schools and not speak in church?

 

[Everlasting33]

actually, we've always had the same amount of dead-beat dads, spouse abusers, etc even in light of new gender roles, we just have better track of it all nowadays. A large portion of divorces weren't even reported prior to the new divorce laws of the twentieth century; heck, a dead beat dad could walk out on his family, and courts wouldn't even grant the wife a divorce, even in cases of abandonment.

The two do not hold hands with each other.

Specific gender roles arent causation for 'problems at home'.

Good post

 

[CreedIsChrist]

actually, we've always had the same amount of dead-beat dads, spouse abusers, etc even in light of new gender roles, we just have better track of it all nowadays. A large portion of divorces weren't even reported prior to the new divorce laws of the twentieth century; heck, a dead beat dad could walk out on his family, and courts wouldn't even grant the wife a divorce, even in cases of abandonment.

The two do not hold hands with each other.

Specific gender roles arent causation for 'problems at home'.

Well that is just an assertion. What the records say is that divorce went up 40% since 1940 to 1970 and children bore out of wedlock rose 20-30%.

http://www.divorcereform.org/why.html

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Debating those verses is for another thread but I want to say something.

Your previous post implies that feminism has contributed to the overall decay of our society. I won't argue that there are many men who are not stepping up to the plate and that there are many women who have contributed to the unstable family environment.

However, if we look through history (both Western and Eastern), we do not see consistent stability, peace, harmony, and perfect gender roles. For thousands of years, men were given permission by the church to beat their wives. Homosexuality and prostitution was quite rampant and popular in ancient Egypt. Wars and hate have existed since the beginning of time. Minorities such as blacks and women were oppressed for much of America's history.

No society is perfect and both men and women contribute to the overall problem.

But to restrict and control society based on gender roles (not based on ability but on one's sex) will only lead to oppression.

Do you believe women should not teach in schools and not speak in church?

I believe the womans main role is childbearing and the home. That is what God says, not me. I don't believe women should preach from the pulpit because theres a biblical problem with that.

Also the stats say differently, while feminism hasn't led to the decay in all of society I would say its the number one factor leading to divorce and the ruin of familys. Nothing else can explain such the dramatic rise in divorce after 1950 and the perfect timing of Roe V Wade and No Fault divorce right after:

Change Over Time in Divorce Rates

The number of divorced people in the population more than quadrupled from 4.3 million in 1970 to 18.3 million in 1996, according to a Census Bureau report on MARITAL STATUS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS


"14% of white women who married in the 1940s eventually divorced. A single generation later, almost 50 percent of those that married in the late sixties and early seventies have already divorced. ... Between 1970 and 1992, the proportion of babies born outside of marriage leaped from 11% to 30%."
Amara Bachu, Fertility of American Women: June 1994 (Washington D.C.: Bureau of the Census, September 1995), xix, Table K. Cited on page5 ofThe Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher

"According to the National Center for Health Statitics (1988: 2-5), the divorce rate rose from 2.5 per 1000 population in 1965 to 3.5 in 1970 to 4.8 in 1975."
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 15, citing National Center for Health Statistics, 1988, 2-5, cited by Thomas B. Marvell, Divorce Rates and the Fault Requirement, 23 Law & Society Review 544, n.4, (1989).

Divorce increased almost 40 percent from 1970 to 1975.
Brian Willats, Breaking Up is Easy To Do, available from Michigan Family Forum, citing Statistics from National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Cited in Kenneth Jost and Marilyn Robinson, "Children and Divorce:What can be done to help children of divorce," CQ Researcher, June 7, 1991, pp. 353, 357.

The marriage rate has fallen nearly 30% since 1970 and the divorce rate has increased about 40%.
Ahlburg and DeVita, "New Realities," 4-12. Cited on page 5 ofThe Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher


"In America, divorce used to be difficult to obtain and, usually, impossible without good reason: adultery, abandonment, abuse, alcoholism. In 1880, according to the historian Robert L. Griswold, one marriage in 21-fewer than 5 percent-ended in divorce. Over time, there have been peaks and valleys in the divorce rate, such as the period immediately following World War II, when returning soldiers found things rather different from how they had left them, or were themselves tremendously changed by war. "But beginning in the mid-1960s," writes Griswold, the divorce rate "again began to rise dramatically, fueled by ever-higher marital expectations, a vast expansion of wives moving into the work force, the rebirth of feminism, and the adoption of 'no fault' divorce (that is, divorce granted without the need to establish wrongdoing by either party) in almost every state." Griswold continues, "The last factor, although hailed as a progressive step that would end the fraud, collusion, and acrimony that accompanied the adversarial system of divorce, has had disastrous consequences for women and children.'"[Powell, D. (2003) Divorce-on-Demand: Forget about Gay Marriage- What About the State of Regular Marriage? National Review, v55 i20. Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP.]

Reconciliation after Separation
A sociology professor from Baltimore posted this citation on the FAMILYSCI listserv:
"The only statistic I have is the one cited in my marriages/families
textbook, but it may (or may not) be dated: "Approximately 10 percent of all
currently married couples (9 percent of white women and 14 percent of black
women) in the United States have separated and reconciled" (Wineberg and
McCarthy, "Separtion and reconciliation in American marriages," Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage 29, 1993: 131-46). If there's a more recent cite, I
haven't bumped across it yet."


Catholic Annulment Statistics:
"For the year 2002: of the 56,236 ordinary hearings for a declaration of
nullity, 46,092 received an affirmative sentence. Of these, 343 were handed
out in Africa, 676 in Oceania, 1,562 in Asia, 8,855 in Europe and 36,656 in
America, of which 30,968 in North America and 5,688 in Central and South
America."
Year
Divorces per 1,000 population
1950 ...........
2.6
1955 ...........
2.3
1957 ...........
2.2
1960 ...........
2.2
1965 ...........
2.5
1970 ...........
3.5
1971 ...........
3.7
1972 ...........
4.0
1973 ...........
4.3
1974 ...........
4.6
1975 ...........
4.8
1976 ...........
5.0
1977 ...........
5.0
1978 ...........
5.1
1979 ...........
5.3
1980 ...........
5.2
1981 ...........
5.3
1982 ...........
5.1
1983 ...........
5.0
1984 ...........
5.0
1985 ...........
5.0
1986 ...........
4.9
1987 ...........
4.8
1988 ...........
4.8
1989 ...........
4.7
1990 ...........
4.7
1991 ...........
4.7
1992 ...........
4.8
1993 ...........
4.6
1994 ...........
4.6
1995 ...........
4.4
1996 ...........
4.3
1997 ...........
4.3
1998 ..........
4.2
1999 ..........
4.1
2000 ..........
4.2
2001 ..........
4.0

 

[mpok1519]

Well that is just an assertion. What the records say is that divorce went up 40% since 1940 to 1970 and children bore out of wedlock rose 20-30%.

http://www.divorcereform.org/why.html

Yes; but what I'm saying is that divorce has gone up, but only because women have stood up for their rights in the face of spousal abuse, abondonment, etc. The same amount of abusers, and dead-beats has been the same, only recently have the women said "Screw it, I don't care of the bible says I'll go to hell if I divorce, its better than living on earth with this devil." Of course divorce has gone up; Women have realized they do not need to adhere to what religion says in order to be happy. I believe a big reason why divorce has increased is because society realizes it cannot tell them whats right and whats wrong; only the individual can decide what is best for theirself.

You cannot blame diversity in gender roles for problems at home.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Yes; but what I'm saying is that divorce has gone up, but only because women have stood up for their rights in the face of spousal abuse, abondonment, etc. The same amount of abusers, and dead-beats has been the same, only recently have the women said "Screw it, I don't care of the bible says I'll go to hell if I divorce, its better than living on earth with this devil." Of course divorce has gone up; Women have realized they do not need to adhere to what religion says in order to be happy. I believe a big reason why divorce has increased is because society realizes it cannot tell them whats right and whats wrong; only the individual can decide what is best for theirself.

You cannot blame diversity in gender roles for problems at home.

Actually most divorces are filed under irreconsiliable differences with only a small percent being domestic abuse.

Divorce has increased because modernism is hurting our values. Its not some crazy "liberating" event that its cracked up to be. In fact our domestic abuse rate has increased since. There are more dead beat dads because mans gender role has become so confused and hazed that they can justify what they do much easier now. Also feminism made women more rebellious and brash and thus increased turmoil in their marriages.

 

[Everlasting33]

I believe the womans main role is childbearing and the home. That is what God says, not me. I don't believe women should preach from the pulpit because theres a biblical problem with that.

Also the stats say differently, while feminism hasn't led to the decay in all of society I would say its the number one factor leading to divorce and the ruin of familys. Nothing else can explain such the dramatic rise in divorce after 1950 and the perfect timing of Roe V Wade and No Fault divorce right after:

How exactly does feminism lead to divorce?

What specific components and themes of feminism lead to divorce?

How does your idea of gender roles protect against the likelihood of divorce?

 

[Garyzenuf]

Well that is just an assertion. What the records say is that divorce went up 40% since 1940 to 1970 and children bore out of wedlock rose 20-30%.

Do you think that post-war women had become less dependent on men, having realized they were quite capable of raising children, having a full-time job, and managing the household budget without the need for a man?

I'm sure this realization alone could have emboldened many women of the time to make a life on their own if need be.

*

 

[QuakerOats]

Well generally, before 1950-1970s second wave feminism came into play men had much better knowledge of "stepping up to the plate" so to speak. Gender roles are very important because 1. It is God's plan and 2. If there weren't differences and roles there would be no need for 2 sexes.

However during this time in the confusion of the sexes we have seen great changes, for the worse. When feminism started to rise women started to become more masculine, intimidating, less feminine and as a result men started to become more feminine and less of a role model for their children.

Becuase men started losing their roles as provider, supporter, role model, etc. we in turn had more dead beat dads, divorce, men walking out on their children, domestic abuse, etc. This was because the males role in family and in society became confused and effeminate. Homosexuality started to go on the rise again, women started to become more indimidating, less feminine, more abrasive, more job oriented rather than family, and in turn men reacted in a unnatural way to this problem. This is what was socially constructed during the 1960-1970s culture and is what hampered women in such a great way that it will take decades to fix. Its no surprise that Roe V Wade and No Fault divorce became legalized right during this time either. It was an all out attack on the womans natural God given role in the world, and they would do everything and everything to deconstuct and do the exact opposite of. This is what led to the masculinzation of women today(and in turn the effeminization of men which in turn led to more dead beat dads and abuse, Newtons law). And because of it today there is so much confusion and identity problems for todays couples. Women today have become so abrasive and indimidating that young men won't even go up to them and talk to them anymore. Whereas back earlier on a man could easily talk to a woman because of her inviting feminine features and general humbleness of women back then. Today women barely exude any of these features anymore, both in the way they act and the way they talk. And because of this todays couples will already be in a weakened state already with an increased chance for divorce and marital problems. God said women must be modest, meek, humble, feminine, and quiet in their actions and words because that is what God put in their nature in order to find a good husband and to take care of her children. Children need to see these types of traits in their mothers today.

Luckily however these types of traits have become more common in the western countrys, mostly North America and Northern Europe. It isn't a surprise however that these 2 areas have the 2 largest divorce rates in the world. There are many other parts in the world where women have retained their femininity and modest features, eastern europe being a good example and parts of middle east, mexico, south america and asia.

We need roles for the sake of our wellbeing and our familys and most importantly because God tells us so in the Gospel. Otherwise children are growing up in a sterile unnatural enviornment

I think you're romanticizing history, portraying it as something it was not. I'm going to quote a couple of posts I made earlier in the 'ban no-fault divorce' thread.

I think humanity typically craves order, and when something happens to disrupt an established order, chaos arises, not because the disruption is necessarily a bad thing, but because we become confused, so to speak, and no longer know how to function properly as a social unit; almost like a fear of change. I sincerely believe that this is what has happened to us since the onset of feminism, and other similar movements. The 'order' of woman as the weaker vessel, and man as the provider, etc., has been disrupted, and so we've become 'distressed.' Charlotte is wearing pants, and working a nine-to-five job. According to our previously established social order, she has taken on the role of a man, and so people, men included, begin to treat her as they would treat a man. If you've ever heard the saying 'it's all in your head,' I think it applies here. The reality of the situation is that we need to re-examine the order that we've established and modify it in accordance with contemporary society, and in accordance with the facts.

and

...The problem really rests with the people themselves, and their reasons, or lack thereof, for getting married. In the past, society was less diverse, and thus a majority of the people in any given community could be relied upon to have the same sort of convictions, so to speak, whereas now, that's less common. I mention this because it made things easier in a sense, and couples today generally don't have that 'benefit.' I think that we need to do more to encourage couples to really get to know each other before they make a marriage commitment. Communication is very important. Also, one must realize that many marriages only 'worked' in the past because there was little other choice, as you said, divorce was difficult to get, and women didn't have the opportunities that they do now. I imagine the people in some of these marriages endured all kinds of abuse.