Marrying before a war is so irresponsible if you're a woman. You'll forever be branded as ...

Im sorry, but thats such a misogynist thought...so what if she wants to marry him before a war? istg, ppl need to understand that just because your husband is dead, does not mean that your life is over. Women have rights too uk. Gosh, and if this were a man whose wife died, ppl wouldnt even bat an eye to it. This type of behaviour and thinking is what will lead society to its doom. You're trying to pass sexist comments by adding 'luckily, its not as cross nowadays' at the end but guess what, just by writing this comment, you are proving that sexism still exists.
(╬￣皿￣)凸

It's a mixed bag. Becoming a widow was more of an issue if you planned to remarry and had kids. Similar to today where there's a lot of emotional baggage. On the other hand, widows who were rich with no kids were more independent than most women and could could remarry easily because of fortune hunters. And in certain countries, widows of war receive support from the army. In some ways, marrying before war is protection because she'll be taken care of if he dies. She'll have his wealth and hopefully an heir for his position. The flip side is, it's much harder to move on emotionally if he does die, especially raising a kid on your own.

So, I'm pretty sure she said it b/c she wanted that extra connection with him to give him something to come back to. I thought it was rather touching. Also, she would not be the kinda person that would fall apart and be ruined by something like that. Not all women are like that, and not all men can handle it if their wife dies. Gender has NOTHING to do with that. And ppl are still sexist a-holes nowadays, so that hasn't changed. It's just closeted more than out in the open. It hasn't fixed the issue.

i understand, but making it seem like everyone will blame her and bully her if her husband dies is wrong. Gender doesnt matter when the pain of losing a loved one falls upon you. So why make it seem like SHE will go through all of that just because she's a woman, that i dont understand.

First of all, calm down! Can't you distinguish between misogynist ranting and a historian's insight? Didn't I say that it was so back in the day? I'm feminist af, but I also have the qualifications to comment on historical facts.

I agree. And if the child is young, some male relatives could claim being their representative if it's a society that doesn't allow women to hold that power. One thing I'd like to add, if a woman was from a stable family, she would've been better protected under the legal shield of her father.

Unfortunately, that is true and infuriating. As I already said, her situation would be actually stable since her fiance is rich and influential. I was also speaking from the pov of historical legal systems, so women were definitely at a disadvantage. I was only speaking in terms of that - naturally, in terms of emotions and attachments, gender is irrelevant.

That person was talking about how THAT ERA AT THAT TIME.Of course now,people dont think like that anymore.But during that era and time being a widow was seen as a "flaw"