Happy new year
Textbooks can be wild. My A&P textbook had a graphic showing the difference between Caucasian, Asian, and SSAfrican skulls. I was like: what the eugenics?
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
196
16436 readers
1966 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We learned it in forensics and reconstructive cosmetology. The shape of the skull can often be used to determine race. I loathed having to list out the scientific names, because they're not words you say nowadays.
Pardon my ignorance, but aren't the skulls often shaped a bit differently? If the textbook was just showing that and not saying something about one shape making a certain race superior, is that still a problem?
Different races will often have little differences right? My favorite example is the gene variant ABCC11 that is extremely common in South Korea. It limits the production of odorous sweat by reducing the activity of apocrine glands. I think it also affects whether ear wax is wet or dry. I'm kind of jealous of that one and am waiting for CRISPR to be available for it. Well maybe not, but I'd at least think about it.
Which textbook?
“Sociology, A down to earth approach” by James Henslin, 2007.
"...in 2017, Human Rights Watch pointed out that Afghanistan has a tougher law on child marriage than parts of the United States..." 😨
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
That's cute & all, but even if certain things happen to be correct, I don't give a flying fuck what the people running Afghanistan have as laws of the land. They're so fucked up. Just had a discussion on here, they've got all these laws, kill the homosexuals, homosexuals are just an abomination. But hey....there's this powerful warlord or prominent man engaging in bacha bazi.....ehhhhh, we'll pretend that's not happening. Maybe even join in. Gross hypocrisy.
They're so fucked up.
That's the point. The fucked up place has stricter rules on this fucked up thing than places in the US.
That's fucked up
pic of the newly married couple
this was pretty bad. it was bad enough that even back then you had people pointing out how bad it was. it was so bad that various states passed laws so that it would be against the law, going forward.
the textbook's point is that even though this wasn't common place, it was somewhat taken for granted.
i can kind of understand somethings. like how it was probably far more common back then for people to be married by the ages of 15-18. i can get that. but the case of Johns and Eunice, it was shocking even then. that should tell you something.
that thing being that Johns was a pedophile.
Ok, this may be wrong history but I could have sworn I saw some article a few years ago explaining that this marriage happened because it was the middle of the great depression and her parents couldn't afford to feed her or something like that.
Makes it worse, imo.
That said, was he a pedo? If sex happened then obviously yes, but I thought this marriage was a charity case more so than a "indulge a pedo who's interested in our daughter during the depression" situation...
I'm gonna have to go find that article at some point...
Edit: welp, I went looking for it, couldn't find it, so everything above this line may be bullshit, but based on the age she had her first child at, yeah I'd say that obviously counts as some pedo shit
Even if it was a charity case and he waited to fuck her until she was of age it's still grooming. They should have lynched this motherfucker as soon as he expressed interest in marrying a 9 year old.
Maybe it's just unfortunate connotation with the phrasing but "these marriages were taken for granted" sounds like the author is saying that people didn't appreciate that they could do that back then.
I agree. It was certainly more common for child marriages but not that extreme. That guy was definitely a pedo. If you are buying your wife a doll for her wedding present you need to rethink your life choices.
Apparently this was actually a pretty significant case, as it was publicised at the time and led to the creation of laws setting the minimum age for marriage at 16. Although, wikipedia claims he was 24 rather than 22. I feel like this suggests this wasnt really the norm at the time the way the textbook suggests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_Charlie_Johns_and_Eunice_Winstead
There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?
The second paragraph to the right of the photo talks about how our perception of these things changes with time, and while it seems shocking to us now it would once have been taken for granted. It was a big news story at the time and was not taken for granted.
Edit: I guess my wording was a bit off. I meant to say that it was not within the cultural norms of the time. As worded, it sounds like I'm discussing its frequency rather than its level of acceptance - that's my bad.
Intended meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm