What was the main reasons why people married 40 years ago? And why was it considered important to marry?

Question

back then. I have read that children of unmarried mothers were labelled bastards. What social implications did that have? Why did people feel that it was ok to label children as illigitmate. Why was it expected that people marry compared to now days when 47% of relationships are not legally married? What about the male in the relationship what were the social implications for him if he did not marry his girl friend 40 yeras ago? Was he labeled? What were the social implications for the woman. Any legal implications if people were not married.
I put this question in another section and I meant to put it in womens studies

Answer 1

My 'mother' did not marry the man I liked to refer to as my "Father" (note the capital letter?) until 4 months after I was born. She did so for money. She had a second child to another man, before walking out on her marriage and deserting her children so that she and her young girl friend could run away together. That was in the late 1950's. My Father tried to take care of us but, due to the intervention of female social workers, both my brother and I were fostered out, and we have never met again. I have talked with my Father only three times in the last half century. My 'mother'...not once.
So much for ancient history...........


The quick and simple answer to your questions is this:
Five decades ago people didn't know any better.
Men and women married because it was 'the done thing'. It was just like holding down a job, going to church and fighting in a war. You did it because everyone else did. Men for a home cooked meal and a live in laundress. Women for the security of being a "Mrs.", and the rewards of motherhood.
Bastards (yes, Me) were a slight upon the good name of our fair and honorable society. We were that bitter reflection that reminder others that the world was not a perfect place. We burst the bubble of ignorance based security that coddled people in their day to day lives. A man who 'knocked you up' normally had only two choices: stay, or run away. How is that for a straight answer? The boy/man could stay and do the 'right thing' by the girl/woman, settling done and losing his freedom in exchange for the responsibility of being the 'bread-winner', or he could 'clear out' and leave her to the tender mercies of government instrumentalities, charitable organizations, religious foundations, or family and friends. Most men who 'shot through' on the 'missus' and 'brat' were considered to be both cads and bounders. Young women went to 'Unmarried Mothers Homes' run by the church (take Your pick, Catholic and Protestant, even the Salvation Army ran them), papers were signed and adoptions (or 'miraculous pregnancies') transpired. The young, unmarried mothers (aka, 'fallen women') were often dis-owned by their next of kin and left to their own devices. As far as the courts were concerned it was far too much of a time consuming bother to chase after the father, that was more a 'family affair', albeit, many men were charged with various crimes, not the least of which being 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge' or even rape, in order that they might be either forced to take responsibility for their actions, or be punished because of them. Many men joined the Army or Navy under assumed names to avoid the Courts. This was in the days before 'Human Rights', 'Political Correctness' and 'Social Conscience' were topics of open debate.
I hope that that helped you.
Cheers, Ashleigh.

Answer 2

Socially, people either wanted to or where railroaded into marriage out of respectability. Until even fairly recently it has been considered bad to have a child out of wedlock and marriage has been used as a misguided attempt to secure a set of parents for a child.
Legally, a married couple have always had more rights under the law in terms of inheritance and hospital treatment etc. This has always been a problem of co-habiting couples and gay partners who could be completely disregarded at will readings or more easily contested and who might have had a lesser say in the treatment of a partner in hospital.

Fortunately things have improved. I am not against marriage, but it shouldn't confer a higher social and legal status than people 'proven' to be in a committed relationship.

Answer 3

The morals of the country was very different 40 years ago.

Yes children were labeled bastards. Socially they were outcasts 100 years ago. However in later part of the century, pregnant women would go to homes for unwed mothers and put their babies up for adoption because it ruin them social if they kept their baby.

It necessay to marry becuse of the possibility of children out of wedlock, it was look down on if a couple were sexually active.

Most of the time thhe man would be forgiven but the woman her reuptation was ruined and would be socially outcast as it was unfairly thought that it was the woman's place to control the situation to not have sex.

For the woman it was important to marry for security and to have children.

There were laws about it but seldom enforced.

Answer 4

1) The father's rights have been taken away from him:
- 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]

- 50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]

- Women initiate nearly 75% of divorces while retaining full custody nearly 80% of the time.

2) The children suffer:

- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
and 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
[Center for Disease Control]

- 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

and much more...
But many in woman's studies have always considered less marriage a good thing, and like anything else, you can put a good spin on anything.

- "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan(feminist)
- "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." - Andrea Dworkin(feminist)
- "The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon(feminist)
...

Basically, people got married because they needed each other to survive. With technology today, people do not need each other to survive(most jobs were physically laboring, technology in the house has grown to make housework less, and so on).

Answer 5

You have answered your own question. Social stigma and pressure were the 'stick', sex and social acceptibility were the'carrot'. I don't think there were any legal implications except for problems inheriting by illegitimate children

Answer 6

Ashleigh gave you a well-thought out answer. I didn't know about the stamped epithet. Etymology, anyone?
I married 39 years ago because I loved someone. My husband married me because it was the thing to do.
C. :)!!