196

I agree. It was certainly more common for child marriages but not that extreme. That guy was definitely a pedo. If you are buying your wife a doll for her wedding present you need to rethink your life choices.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Make sure to insist on a honeymoon in Germany as over here marriages under 16 get auto-divorced (16-18 a judge will decide) and you have a solid reason for asylum.

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.

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

Idk that sounds completely American pride-ish to me... 🤮

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_interactionism

Stay in school everybody.

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't the skulls often shaped a bit differently? If the textbook was just showing that and not saying something about one shape making a certain race superior, is that still a problem?

Different races will often have little differences right? My favorite example is the gene variant ABCC11 that is extremely common in South Korea. It limits the production of odorous sweat by reducing the activity of apocrine glands. I think it also affects whether ear wax is wet or dry. I'm kind of jealous of that one and am waiting for CRISPR to be available for it. Well maybe not, but I'd at least think about it.

We learned it in forensics and reconstructive cosmetology. The shape of the skull can often be used to determine race. I loathed having to list out the scientific names, because they're not words you say nowadays.

In the American TV show BONES this was literally done every episode. It wasn't a race thing really it was presented in a respectfully "scientific" manner.

I feel like there's maybe a couple other issues

“Sociology, A down to earth approach” by James Henslin, 2007.

According to some other comments, it wasn't.