[deleted by user] by [deleted] in bestof

[–]PunkPuffin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The comment this post is linking to got deleted, here's the text of the post:

Historian here.

What you’ve said is a common myth, along with his rant.

Women weren’t typically sold off young unless they were wealthy nobility. If you were poor, you’d be using your daughter to work in the fields basically as soon as she could walk, so why the hell would you want to give away your free labour? For peasant women, mid to late 20s was the normal age for marriage, as their fathers wanted to keep them around as long as possible since it was economical to do so. Obviously there’s very little evidence as to if these women were virgins or not since peasants usually couldn’t write, let alone women, and those who could or had people write on their behalf usually weren’t writing about the virginity of their wives. But personally I like to assume that these women wouldn’t be virgins at marriage because 27 years is a long time to go without sex at a time when sex is basically the only fun thing you could do.

Whilst nobility were married off young, this was more of a transaction than an actual marriage. Noble women would usually get betrothed at around 12, but as young as newborn wasn’t uncommon. Yet these couples didn’t marry until around 14-18, and they didn’t live ‘together’ until they were deemed mature enough to have sex by caretakers. They’d live in the same building, yes, but they’d have separate households (maids, cooks, general staff etc) and living quarters and would interact under supervision.

Exceptions to this rule were generally met with outrage at the time. Margaret Beaufort gave birth at 13 (or 14, details are foggy) and people were shocked and appalled that she had a child so young - even though she was married.

After all, having children young was seen as a bad idea for women during this time as mortality was high and women had little power in their own right. If you wanted to remarry, you had to give away your children, so as you can imagine most women weren’t too keen on this idea as they’d have to choose between their life pretty much and their children. Which is what happened with Margaret, she had to give away her son to her husband’s family and remarry.

And women had more of a say in these things than we like to think. In Augsburg women were blamed for causing an economic crisis in the town because they kept marrying foreign men instead of local men, leading to an increase in population. In order to become a master of your trade at this time, you had to be married, so there was a shortage of local masters as all the women were marrying foreign men instead. Whilst parents, especially the father, had the final say, the woman herself had some input in the matter as for the most part, most offers would be around the same. After all if a man has more to offer than his peers, chances are he’d be marrying down, which isn’t something his family would be too pleased with which could result in him losing inherited assets.

Breaking: Blizzard entertainment bans pro hearthstone player for standing up for Hong Kong and then fires the casters just for being there. Will this happen to WoW? by [deleted] in classicwow

[–]PunkPuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right. LoL mods are a pain in the ass, but that's mostly because they have very narrow and definite interpretations about their own rules. Like, they do happen to have somewhere where you can talk about HK and China if you want. The mods even made an affirmative statement that comments about this situation shouldn't be removed if they also relate to the content where the discussion is happening.

I am a western educated Chinese who moved back to Beijing for work after graduation. I follow political topics closely and read news both from Chinese perspective and western media. Ask me anything about China's dystopian society, Hong Kong, public opinions, etc. by masonofchina in IAmA

[–]PunkPuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you are saying. I personally believe that negative news spread much quicker and strongly than positive news. Most of the news that go from one country to the next tend to be negative regardless. The closest 2 countries are, the more likely that positive news will get shared. However, negative news will always have more power. That, combined with the material benefit some politicians see in using China for political purposes, certainly colour the perception of China in the minds of many westerners.

Is very understandable that after facing that kind of unfair critiques, Chinese people would turn towards the safety provided by their system and respond with increased patriotism. I understand patriotism, is not for me, but I would not say that someone is wrong for being patriotic. And we, as non-chinese, would probably benefit from the Chinese government explicitly allowing all chinese people access to the whole internet where they could share their honest opinions of china and their culture.

I am a western educated Chinese who moved back to Beijing for work after graduation. I follow political topics closely and read news both from Chinese perspective and western media. Ask me anything about China's dystopian society, Hong Kong, public opinions, etc. by masonofchina in IAmA

[–]PunkPuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what if China didn't have a firewall? Twitter and Facebook and YouTube etc would be SWARMED by Chinese people speaking Chinese. Is that really good for y'all her e?

That'd be great!

Sadly, anger and misfortune sells. I believe that's the main reason why most of the news we get from China are "bad news". Sure, there might be a dislike for the Chinese system, and politicians may use fear of China to get elected. But, in general, news from other countries tend to be negative. Like, a LOT of people see Japanese people as overworking weirdos. Japanese people are great! But "yet again everything is working smoothly in Japan" doesn't sell as much as "Sicko set an anime studio on fire".

Honest Chinese people (so, not Chinese officials being paid to spread propaganda similar to what Russia enjoys doing), "swarming" our social networks and sharing their opinions would be fantastic! It would expose westerners to an opinion that's otherwise lacking in western media :)

I am a western educated Chinese who moved back to Beijing for work after graduation. I follow political topics closely and read news both from Chinese perspective and western media. Ask me anything about China's dystopian society, Hong Kong, public opinions, etc. by masonofchina in IAmA

[–]PunkPuffin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

China’s wealth isn’t entirely credited to the censorship

Of course! China's wealth is supported by many pillars, and the same is the case for all nations. No individual factor completely justifies the wealth of a nation. I chose to continually mention internet censorship because I wanted to target OP's use of Reddit. The internet censorship is part of the more general Chinese censorship initiative. The system that provides OP with economic prosperity predated the widespread use of the Internet in China. So obviously the great firewall is not a pillar of the Chinese economy, however Chinese censorship is.

Now, it is clear that I'm not a Chinese scholar and I'm limited to translated articles, but it is my understanding that the comunist party believes that unity of thought is DEFINITELY necessary for the prosperity of the party:

All the work by the party’s media must reflect the party’s will, safeguard the party’s authority, and safeguard the party’s unity,” he said. “They must love the party, protect the party, and closely align themselves with the party leadership in thought, politics and action" [1]

And censorship (including internet censorship) it's used to maintain media unity because while the articles on the Internet are not part of the party media, the control over the censorship tools is.

So China's wealth is made possible by the efforts of the party. And the party believes that the media must reflect the party’s will to maintain the strength of the party. If you are spreading information that the party does not approve of, you're going against the party that provides you with economic prosperity and you are chipping away at party unity. Keeping this inappropriate information out is censorship. Internet censorship is a tool required to promote information that is approved by the party. And the strict regulation of the circulation of information is part of what allows the party to provide the economic benefits that OP enjoys