Happy new year
Did I read this wrong or the author is really trying to frame it as a cutesy normal thing?
I don’t see that at all, seems like they’re just pointing out how cultural norms can change over time, which is a basic tenant tenet of sociology
1937 is surprisingly recent for this to be considered acceptable.
Apparently this was actually a pretty significant case, as it was publicised at the time and led to the creation of laws setting the minimum age for marriage at 16. Although, wikipedia claims he was 24 rather than 22. I feel like this suggests this wasnt really the norm at the time the way the textbook suggests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_Charlie_Johns_and_Eunice_Winstead
There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?
The second paragraph to the right of the photo talks about how our perception of these things changes with time, and while it seems shocking to us now it would once have been taken for granted. It was a big news story at the time and was not taken for granted.
Edit: I guess my wording was a bit off. I meant to say that it was not within the cultural norms of the time. As worded, it sounds like I’m discussing its frequency rather than its level of acceptance - that’s my bad.
Intended meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm
Given that the law was passed two weeks after they were married I think it has already been drafted and the whole subject was probably one of much debate. Also note three neighbouring states passed laws at the same time.
It seems likely that someone said “find a story about under-age marriage for our front page”, and these two hapless yokels (or should I say Johns the hapless yokel) were the only ones stupid enough to have their photos taken.
In summary, I think society was working up to passing a law like this, and these two had a bride that was younger than most and got married at the right time.
That said, the author has definitely tried to imply that this sort of marriage was commonplace in the 30s, when it was probably at most “unusual”.
Maybe an example that gets the point across would be European royalty. When Mary Tudor was six, she was promised to Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. He was 22, and they were cousins.
While that might not be typical of marriages in England at the time, there are certainly similar cases among the nobility until relatively recently. Enough to make the point about how cultural standards change.
While it is suggesting it was common at the time, it doesn’t outright state they’re talking about that time. At earlier points in history it certainly was acceptable, but we probably don’t have pictures of it to go in textbooks. This reeks of them having a general point to make and having a picture that almost fits that point. I’ve made more tenuous connections for college papers before.
Also, while it’s not as drastic, I was doing some looking into family history recently and I found some ancestors who got married around that time. The marriage certificate listed the wife as 17 and the husband as 21… but the math didn’t add up when I found their birth certificates and on the marriage certificate she was aged up from 15 and he was aged down from 22. It was in a small farming community and at that point in time and place schooling was largely abandoned during harvest and as soon as kids were old enough to help out on the farm full time they would just stop with school. And for women, helping out on the farm meant taking care of the house and raising kids generally. Time at school was a waste for them so they just got right to the adult stuff immediately.
pic of the newly married couple
this was pretty bad. it was bad enough that even back then you had people pointing out how bad it was. it was so bad that various states passed laws so that it would be against the law, going forward.
the textbook’s point is that even though this wasn’t common place, it was somewhat taken for granted.
i can kind of understand somethings. like how it was probably far more common back then for people to be married by the ages of 15-18. i can get that. but the case of Johns and Eunice, it was shocking even then. that should tell you something.
that thing being that Johns was a pedophile.
Maybe it’s just unfortunate connotation with the phrasing but “these marriages were taken for granted” sounds like the author is saying that people didn’t appreciate that they could do that back then.
That really isn’t what that phrase means, taken for granted just means people thought it was a normal part of life. It’s taken for granted now that we don’t have metallic skin and electric eyes, but if we are lucky that won’t always be the case.
I beg to differ. This is straight up the second definition on Merriam Webster. It’s a poor choice of words if the author didn’t want readers to interpret it this way.
to value (something or someone) too lightly
Ok, this may be wrong history but I could have sworn I saw some article a few years ago explaining that this marriage happened because it was the middle of the great depression and her parents couldn’t afford to feed her or something like that.
Makes it worse, imo.
That said, was he a pedo? If sex happened then obviously yes, but I thought this marriage was a charity case more so than a “indulge a pedo who’s interested in our daughter during the depression” situation…
I’m gonna have to go find that article at some point…
Edit: welp, I went looking for it, couldn’t find it, so everything above this line may be bullshit, but based on the age she had her first child at, yeah I’d say that obviously counts as some pedo shit
Interesting. That would certainly change the situation. Please post it if you do find it or DM me. I would be curious if that was the case!
Even if it was a charity case and he waited to fuck her until she was of age it’s still grooming. They should have lynched this motherfucker as soon as he expressed interest in marrying a 9 year old.
My dad was born in Eastern Kentucky in 1916 so grew up in the same era and region. He knew a guy that married a 12 year old and the guy confided in him that the first day he came home from work after getting married he found his wife playing with a doll. He felt bad, and of course he should have.
Even that marriage was considered bad back then, and this 9 year old of course is about as horrible as can be imagined.
“…in 2017, Human Rights Watch pointed out that Afghanistan has a tougher law on child marriage than parts of the United States…” 😨
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
That’s cute & all, but even if certain things happen to be correct, I don’t give a flying fuck what the people running Afghanistan have as laws of the land. They’re so fucked up. Just had a discussion on here, they’ve got all these laws, kill the homosexuals, homosexuals are just an abomination. But hey…there’s this powerful warlord or prominent man engaging in bacha bazi…ehhhhh, we’ll pretend that’s not happening. Maybe even join in. Gross hypocrisy.
