Francis king said:
monogamy doesn't exist in the animal kingdom becuase the animals can't sign wedding papers...
nevertheless, there are some animals that mate for life - but the point about being human is that we're not animals and we can make moral choices, because we have free will and are not merely subject to our instincts - we can choose to resist them if we decide to so do.
human marriage is a con- the roots of human marriage are like slave contracts
not jewish marriage. in fact, if you look at how slavery works in the Torah, all slaves must be freed at the end of seven years and, even while slaves, are entitled to various forms of compensation and can even be entitled to early emancipation for, say, the loss of a tooth, so we can't say that all slaveries are equal.
the women of the family were bought and sold like cattle and traditionally women had the same status within the household as cattle, and could be bought or sold just like that... they were goods, chattel, objects of the household owned by the menfolk... they did not vote, they did not perform on stage, they were not able to be politicians, and after marriage they did not work... women were second class citizens and considered less able and more feeble intellectually than men, and human marriage ceremonies are the last vestiges of this oppression of women...
not in judaism. the woman must always consent (read the story of isaac and rebecca) and, lest we forget, could not only engage in commerce and investment in her own right, but could also inherit (see the daughters of zelophechad) to say nothing of her right to a divorce. to be honest, i think your idea of this is derived from the way the greeks and particularly the byzantines used to treat their women, rather than the jews and muslims, or even, dare i say it, the romans. these are very generalised and rather splenetic objections in any case.
this is why women wear veils, when they wed- so the man doesn't see what he's paid for/or bought til he's up the aisle...
ahem. the jewish wedding ceremony involves a ritual known colloquially as the "bedeken", where the groom first sees the bride - without her veil - and then lowers it into place. this happens before the signing of the contracts or the ceremony. of course, in non-jewish weddings, this doesn't occur, so obviously such a perception might indeed arrive.
it's why we have the tradition of the Dad "giving away" his daughter today- in the old days he would have recieved a fee for this daughter if he was rich, or he would have paid a dowry, and paid for some man to take her off his hands if he was poor...
in judaism the marriage contract is all about what the man has to agree to provide for his wife as a condition of getting to marry her: food, shelter, clothing and sexual satisfaction. it is not about "buying" anything. obviously a father could enter into this contract on behalf of a minor bride but an adult woman (over 12 years old) would be expected to contract on her own behalf.
why does the woman take the man's name? because by taking his name she loses her own... and it's not just the name she loses, is it, but something of herself... the children by default bear his name too, and so become of him, rather than of her...
judaism is matrilineal. that means it's the mother's lineage that matters as to whether someone is jewish or not. the father's lineage merely determines the tribal affiliation.
let's not forget in the traditional ceremony a woman would always promise IN FRONT OF GOD that she would obey her husband...
again, you're talking about a christian ceremony, not a jewish one.
the alternative- being divorced and remarrying, traditionally, is difficult...
not if you are entitled to a financial settlement. in fact, if you have a decent financial settlement, you are not obliged to remarry. women, unlike men, are not obliged to marry.
and so, this great ideal of monogamy is really no more than a con... married forever? why should u, if he beats u, or runs around with other women? and the same applies to men, although, historically, men were always able to "put the women away", ie, lock them up, or send them away to nunneries, etc, if they were adulterous, but when ur a slave the same rules don't apply, do they? u can't send ur captors away... u can't lock up ur masters, unless u revolt...
i agree that without divorce and women's rights, you would be correct - but you may be surprised to know that in a jewish marriage contract, the man signs up to fulfilling "duties", not gaining "rights" - and the small print says that if he has bad breath, or a disagreeable job, or an unpleasant manner, or doesn't come up to scratch in the nooky department, he can be divorced. he can't, however, divorce *her* for any of these reasons!
b'shalom
bananabrain
