Where arranged marriages actually, bad, in the grand scheme of things? I'm starting to think they were not bad. Along with men being in control of the fiances.

There is a reason why all of civilization in the past ALL became patriarchal and favored men having priority. A society runs better and efficiently when a man is given precedence because you have your soldiers, you have your round-the-clock back-strength workers from farmers to hunters, your official clerics who aren't taking time out of pregnancies, you don't have disorder from unsatisfied men, and you have your breeders. Women will be looked after anyway in a male-dominated society. Mind you, these are people who had all the time in the world to think about their place in the world without distractions like we have today in the modern world.

>>511142290
Nothing you said answered OP's question.

Liberalism's central problem is that there are certain things that individuals are simply not very good at handling on their own without collective assistance (forming stable, long-term relationships being an obvious example), but when confronted with this just obtusely shifting the blame back onto the individual by patronizingly explaining
>Well it's your fault :^) just bootstraps your way into figuring out :^)
Conveniently elided in most instances is that the people who do manage to "figure it out" on their own are often aided by copious amounts of money, which is why the bourgeoisie is fine with ignoring its obvious shortcomings