History questions not worth their own thread II

[civver_764]

Why did it used to be so acceptable for men to have mistresses?

 

[vogtmurr]

I think it varies by culture. We have to differentiate between [loosely defined] polygamy and extramarital affairs, which in most eras was never really acceptable unless you were royalty, male or female, or by mutual consent with your spouse. But acceptance is subjective, and we only know marital vows haven't carried weight or been consistently enforced by courts in the past or present. Merely living together for a year or two is enough to be considered 'married'.

Nowadays in Canada, a woman can just as easily have an affair, with no legal penalty, is still entitled to half your worth, with custody of your children, whom you will also pay for regardless of her income, and you don't even get to declare them as dependants anymore. Thanks Liberals, glad I'm not one of the unfortunate victims of a misguided policy, which surely spells the end of most children growing up with two parents, or alienated dads willingly contributing to the care of their progeny.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why did it used to be so acceptable for men to have mistresses?

The short answer is that it was an aristocratic habit, and the aristocracy constantly overturned social convention when it was in their self-interest to do so.

Long answer? Well, it's a bit too long, but it's basically a manifestation of misogny, specifically the insistence on classifying women as "good" and "bad", which is to say sexually inactive and sexually active. "Good" women were pseudo-virginal baby-makers, "bad" women were whores, a dichotomy which we haven't exactly overcome today. While both were(/are) defined in terms of sex, the former are expected to be appropriately feminine, i.e. passive, while the latter engage with it in an unduly masculine fashion, and so are considered distasteful as marriage material. There's a bit of class privilege thrown in there as well, although that's a less constant factor.
And, on a less cynical note, there's the simple fact that most high-class marriages were arranged and loveless, so the men, who had the power to do so, would seek genuine intimacy elsewhere. Because those bloody toffs will insist on going and being human sometimes, the thoughtless bastards.

Nowadays in Canada, a woman can just as easily have an affair, with no legal penalty, is still entitled to half your worth, with custody of your children, whom you will also pay for regardless of her income, and you don't even get to declare them as dependants anymore. Thanks Liberals, glad I'm not one of the unfortunate victims of a misguided policy, which surely spells the end of most children growing up with two parents, or alienated dads willingly contributing to the care of their progeny.

The only part of this I understand is that the poster is very, very bitter about something, although I'm not convinced that he has any better idea than I do about what it is.

 

[Louis XXIV]

And, on a less cynical note, there's the simple fact that most high-class marriages were arranged and loveless, so the men, who had the power to do so, would seek genuine intimacy elsewhere. Because those bloody toffs will insist on going and being human sometimes, the thoughtless bastards.

To elaborate on this (specifically why men and not women), in the aristocracy, the important thing was producing male heirs. Simply put, their legitimacy could not be in question. If the heir was actually the son of another man, dynastic disputes would take place. Therefore, it was considered vital for dynastic reasons that women remained faithful. Unfortunately, there was no dynastic reason for the contrary to take place, so men could continue to have extra-marital affairs.

The change took place when society no longer could tolerate a double standard as regularly. I think some stigmas remain, but unfaithful husbands now also have a much stronger stigma. I'm trying to think of a reason, but I'm not sure. I feel Victorian era sentiments combined with Women's Rights movements were a part of it. When women were entirely dependent on their husbands, the least they could do is force their husbands to be with them and provide for them.

 

[Agent327]

I use the verb "to flee" figuratively, meaning to resist the Manchu conquest.

There were those Chinese who cooperated with the Manchus, those who resisted, and those who switched sides back and forth. It took the Manchus almost forty years from the capture of Beijing to pacify all of China and Taiwan. And while the Manchus did rule China with the cooperation of (some) Chinese they were still seen as foreigners. The Manchus themselves practiced a sort of segregation against the Chinese populace. There were many revolts against the Qing even before "the West showed up" (the White Lotus is probably the most famous).

I´m sure you are aware that many Chinese dynasties have had their revolts; it´s part of the yin and yang of Chinese history, the wax and wane of dynasties. And the Manchu, although they became thoroughly sinicized, were quite anxious to stay apart from the Chinese, who were 50 times the size of their own population upon conquest. Yet they were also anxious to include Chinese in virtually every aspect of their rule - save the dynasty itself. Ofcourse they were foreigners: they conquered China. What eventually overthrew them however, was not the fact that they were foreign, but rather that they were unable to resist Western encroachment - thereby failing their mandate of Heaven, according to Chinese tradition.

How is this relevant to the Queue Order?

Sidenotes are usually of little relevance - which is why they are sidenotes; however, in this case it is relevant as there is no mention of these Chinese being forced to wear the Manchu hairstyle - as mentioned.

 

[vogtmurr]

The original question itself is a loaded one, and I think my answer was reasonable. I was also pointing out that it is not merely acceptable nowadays for females, but financially encouraged for both genders. so what ? It led to a little side rant,

The only part of this I understand is that the poster is very, very bitter about something, although I'm not convinced that he has any better idea than I do about what it is.

No idea about it ? Read carefully then Traitorfish, because it is in the details that there are some inequities I got on a tangent with. Laws may be different elsewhere, Specific policy was enacted in the 90s which deprived former caregiving parents, allowed reasonable access at the discretion of the custodial parent, of even the right to claim their children as dependants, while their salaries are garnished according to a formula irrespective of the income of the recipient, who does not have to declare this additional disposable income. In some cases as you can imagine, this has a net effect of unreasonably enriching one and punishing the other. Therefore, a person may actually be better off to pursue that path simply on selfish financial grounds, for example: by the spouse who just ran off with your business partner, taking 75% of your business with them. There is a wide gap between ensuring the reasonable care and continuity of dependents, and reducing the former primary provider to poverty and virtual slavery, with no prospect of closure in sight. I really don't have such a reason to be bitter personally but I know how this can go. I am personally aware of some horror stories, and I know I'm not alone sweetheart

 

[Traitorfish]

The original question itself is a loaded one, and I think my answer was reasonable. I was also pointing out that it is not merely acceptable nowadays for females, but financially encouraged for both genders.

"Keeping a mistress(/master? man-mistress?) is financially encouraged for both genders"? Right. Sure it is.

No idea about it ? Read carefully then Traitorfish, because it is in the details that there are some inequities I got on a tangent with. Laws may be different elsewhere, Specific policy was enacted in the 90s which deprived former caregiving parents, allowed reasonable access at the discretion of the custodial parent, of even the right to claim their children as dependants, while their salaries are garnished according to a formula irrespective of the income of the recipient, who does not have to declare this additional disposable income. In some cases as you can imagine, this has a net effect of unreasonably enriching one and punishing the other. Therefore, a person may actually be better off to pursue that path simply on selfish financial grounds, for example: by the spouse who just ran off with your business partner, taking 75% of your business with them. There is a wide gap between ensuring the reasonable care and continuity of dependents, and reducing the former primary provider to poverty and virtual slavery, with no prospect of closure in sight. I really don't have such a reason to be bitter personally but I know how this can go. I am personally aware of some horror stories, and I know I'm not alone sweetheart

Oh, no, I got where you took issue with the laws in question (whatever feelings I may have about them myself), there just seemed to be certain undercurrent of resentment towards... Something. I have no idea what, or, at least, I don't quite feel comfortable reading to much in the apparent presumption that "running off" is a feminine pursuit. Maybe I'm wrong. Prose text and tone aren't always the best of friends.

 

[vogtmurr]

"Keeping a mistress(/master? man-mistress?) is financially encouraged for both genders"? Right. Sure it is.

That isn't quite fair to link a previous quote with my sentence. But as a matter of fact you're right: you may have the most to lose in divorce court for having an extra-marital affair ! on the other hand, the rewards can be just as great, with no penalty for an extra-marital affair. I think I get where you are going though, financial gain may be an incentive for divorce, not necesarily infidelity. One doesn't require the other.

Oh, no, I got where you took issue with the laws in question (whatever feelings I may have about them myself), there just seemed to be certain undercurrent of resentment towards... Something. I have no idea what, or, at least, I don't quite feel comfortable reading to much in the apparent presumption that "running off" is a feminine pursuit. Maybe I'm wrong. Prose text and tone aren't always the best of friends.

It is what it is Traitorfish, you compare the stats. I am saying simply, that there is too much of an incentive, to get involved with somebody for 2 years, merely for the prospect of a subsidized lifestyle at somebody else's expense. Especially in today's equitable job market. It is not the overall intent I have a problem with, just how it has been modified by appointed policy makers. Only a short sighted person can't see how that affects relationships today, or else maybe they have an agenda of their own. For one thing, single mothers tend to stay single. I'm trying to keep the text and tone as non-partisan as I can. I would rather if you did not seek to find some personal reason for this observation.

 

[Lord Baal]

I´m sure you are aware that many Chinese dynasties have had their revolts; it´s part of the yin and yang of Chinese history, the wax and wane of dynasties. And the Manchu, although they became thoroughly sinicized, were quite anxious to stay apart from the Chinese, who were 50 times the size of their own population upon conquest. Yet they were also anxious to include Chinese in virtually every aspect of their rule - save the dynasty itself. Ofcourse they were foreigners: they conquered China. What eventually overthrew them however, was not the fact that they were foreign, but rather that they were unable to resist Western encroachment - thereby failing their mandate of Heaven, according to Chinese tradition.

The full-scale revolt that overthrew them had precious little to do with outside encroachment. Unless you mean the encroachment of democratic ideals, which motivated the original mutineers.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, the Qing died because they modernized and tried to respond to external pressure, not in spite of it.

 

[Tee Kay]

I´m sure you are aware that many Chinese dynasties have had their revolts; it´s part of the yin and yang of Chinese history, the wax and wane of dynasties.

Did I ever say otherwise? Thing is, you make it sound like it was all fluffy bunnies between the Manchus and the Han Chinese until "the West showed up".

What eventually overthrew them however, was not the fact that they were foreign, but rather that they were unable to resist Western encroachment

Which I was not disputing, was I?

Sidenotes are usually of little relevance - which is why they are sidenotes; however, in this case it is relevant as there is no mention of these Chinese being forced to wear the Manchu hairstyle - as mentioned.

AFAIK the Qing forced the Queue on all their subjects. Sources please.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, the Qing died because they modernized and tried to respond to external pressure, not in spite of it.

To be fair, had they not tried to modernise in response to that external pressure, said external pressure would probably have turned them into a colony at some point anyway. They were pretty much screwed either way, poor chaps.

 

[Dachs]

Eh, maybe. I think that it's more fair to say that the nature of the attempted modernization was what screwed them over; they failed to keep their modern Beiyang military under central command. It worked well enough during the Taiping rebellions when provincial military leaders like Zeng Guofan and Zuo Zongtang were Qing loyalist die-hards. Yuan Shikai...not so much of a loyalist die-hard.

 

[Lord Baal]

Eh, maybe. I think that it's more fair to say that the nature of the attempted modernization was what screwed them over; they failed to keep their modern Beiyang military under central command. It worked well enough during the Taiping rebellions when provincial military leaders like Zeng Guofan and Zuo Zongtang were Qing loyalist die-hards. Yuan Shikai...not so much of a loyalist die-hard.

Well, he was loyal to the Empire. Just so long as the Emperor was a chap named Yuan Shikai.

 

[Yeekim]

Why did it used to be so acceptable for men to have mistresses?

What do you mean "used to"?

 

[Lord Baal]

What do you mean "used to"?

Depends on the country. Over here it's frowned upon. In Italy, it's practically a legal requirement.

 

[Karalysia]

Did the Decemberists really think they would succeded? I mean really? Of 9,000 troops stationed in St. Peterburg they only managed to get 3,000 and of those 3,000 many thought they were supporting Constantine against a coup by Nicholas not a Decemberist rising. In their testimony after being put on trial by Nicholas the key officers mention things like George Washington and government existing for the people, and the betrayal of Alexander and emancipation of serfs, and a constitution and republican government etc.... and I'm pretty sure the whole lot of them were flighty idealists with no notion of reality. And even if they took St. Peterburg and arrested Nicholas, did they think Constantine and his army in Poland would just sit there?

 

[Agent327]

The full-scale revolt that overthrew them had precious little to do with outside encroachment. Unless you mean the encroachment of democratic ideals, which motivated the original mutineers.

Yes, let´s forget everything that preceded the final overthrow of the Manchus...

Yeah, the Qing died because they modernized and tried to respond to external pressure, not in spite of it.

That´s one interpretation. I didn´t claim they didn´t try, just that they failed. (And the Nationalists in turn failed.) Again, I didn´t claim they didn´t modernize.

Did I ever say otherwise? Thing is, you make it sound like it was all fluffy bunnies between the Manchus and the Han Chinese until "the West showed up".

Ofcourse I did. O wait, I said they suceeded in maintaining their rule...

Which I was not disputing, was I?

Good.

AFAIK the Qing forced the Queue on all their subjects. Sources please.

Tibetans too? Turks? I thought we were talking Chinese only. AFAIK the practice was limited to the them. I´m not using any obscure source, BTW. If you´re actually interested in the subject, I suggest reading a handbook on either China or Manchu that covers the matter.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yeah, pretty much. Every other power who signed it did so to avoid crazy arms races. To Italy, it helped them even have a shot of keeping pace. Really no disadvantage to them.

I really can't emphasize enough though that the fact that they were even included was the biggest draw. No one previously would have thought to include Italy in a Naval Limitations treaty. Mussolini pounced at the opportunity to be included as a great power, plus he knew if he didn't sign it, Italy would never be included in future concerts of the great powers.

 

[Masada]

Tibetans too? Turks? I thought we were talking Chinese only. AFAIK the practice was limited to the them. I´m not using any obscure source, BTW. If you´re actually interested in the subject, I suggest reading a handbook on either China or Manchu that covers the matter.

... er, what. I'm not sure how that is relevant to Manchu attempts to keep ethnic Han on the right side of the willow palisade. But whatever, I'd like to see this citation and some sort of attempt to tie this to something.