Mongrelcel
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2020
- Posts
- 5,879
- Reputation
- 13,025
There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true.
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:
And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:
While, in my mind, the historical right to vote was tied at the hip to military service it has come to my attention recently that many people do not believe it work(s)(ed) that way. The idea is that the right to vote is not dependent on the draft.
After doing a bit of research, I will admit that I cannot find any US state or local law which ever made voter registration directly dependent on military service or draft registration. On top of that, the selective service draft did not even exist for much of the countries history.
However, conscription in other forms did exist. The state militia system has existed since 1792. The militia at that time was defined as ALL white, male citizens. Shortly before the emancipation proclamation, this was expanded to include black male citizens. And the militia act stated that "any number" of this group could be called into battle. It was was a more vague version of the draft, which did not specify HOW recruits would be selected. States were simply expected to produce a certain number of "volunteers" by any means necessary. Which, if you think about it, means it wasn't really voluntary.
Thus, every male who has ever met the basic eligibility requirements to vote in a US presidential election has also met the basic eligibility requirement to be pressed into military service through either the militia system or the draft.
Even then some women didn't think it was fair that they could vote on issues that men would be responsible for upholding (something known as a moral hazard -- making decisions for things that other people bear the costs of).
The source from The Atlantic (here) which was written in the early 1900s by a female anti-suffragette mentions the issue of prohibition. Which was often supported or opposed down gender lines. Women could vote to criminalize alcohol consumption for men which would then be enforced by other men.
Which is what ended up happening once women were given the right to vote. And was also one of the main reasons people supported or opposed women's suffrage in the US.
To this day, a majority of voters are women, and there's evidence that women have, in aggregate, used their disproportionate political power to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of men (I'm sure not maliciously, this is just what happens given enough time with that kind of political imbalance).
Info taken from this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.
And another except:
(Emphasis added)
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:
And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:
- As a kind of default, property was held in the husband's name on behalf of the marital unit that also included the wife. The husband was only entitled to half of it, much like how marriage tends to work today (which many people, including contemporaries from the time, thought was unfair to men, not women).
- Husbands and wives were treated as a joint entity under the husband's name in common law for trivial matters, but in higher courts (known as courts of equity), they could also be treated as distinct persons. That means married couples could, and did, engage in contracts with each other, sue each other, and have separate estates, debts, and interests. A wife was not bound to her husband and her rights did not derive from him in any way.
- Men were not allowed to beat their wives. Spouses could, and did, prosecute each other for domestic violence in court. Court records from that time period prove this. (In the US, domestic violence laws at the federal level weren't passed untill around 1920, but domestic violence was still prosecuted under regular assault laws before that time; it was never actually legal, unlike what some people try to twist this around to mean).
- A dower was an "insurance plan" meant to secure a woman's financial independence in the event that her husband died or divorced her. The modern equivalent is alimony. It was not a "payment" that was used to purchase a wife, and the husband did not own her. The system was unfair to men, not to women, and in modern times we're still trying to get rid of alimony / palimony in the name of gender equality.
- Women could and did divorce their husbands. Court records from that time period prove this. They also tended to get better settlements than the husband did. Women as far back as 597 CE are recorded as living in estates that once belonged to their ex-husbands.
- Women could and did own property. Property deeds and marriage contracts from that time period prove this. In fact women owned property independent from their husbands more often than the reverse (what was hers was hers but what was his was usually also hers).
- Women could and did work. Accounting records from businesses at that time prove this. There's even evidence that women were paid exactly the same per unit of output as men (which is how labor was paid back then). Women did on average earn less which has been taken as evidence of a wage gap. But this was likely based on working hours and productivity differences between men and women, not discrimination.
- For most of history, education was a punishment that "taught" discipline, not facts. They were heavy on corporal punishment and forced labor. Which was meant to build character and instill discipline in children. The reason women weren't "educated" is because it was believed that they behaved themselves better and therefore didn't need to be educated. There was only a small overlap between education becoming useful for learning things, and women not being allowed to be educated.
- Inside the family unit, women were usually in charge, not men. This was especially true in pre-industrial Europe and is also true today.
- Women could and did hold power in history. Including running businesses and ruling over entire nations.
- Women received universal suffrage very shortly after men in most parts of the world. The reason it took longer for women was because a person's right to vote was tied to services and obligations that they were required to give to the state. Things like fire brigades, militia training, the draft, attending caucuses, paying taxes, etc. For men, the right to vote has never been something that was given to them for free, so the idea that women could get it for free wasn't "obvious" to people at the time (not even to other women). This nuance has been lost today because men's obligations to the state have largely gone away over time (everything except for the draft, and compulsory military training in countries that still do that).
- Women were instrumental in building and shaping the world we live in today. Unlike race or class, men and women have always lived together, shared similar spaces, and occupied the same positions in society.
While, in my mind, the historical right to vote was tied at the hip to military service it has come to my attention recently that many people do not believe it work(s)(ed) that way. The idea is that the right to vote is not dependent on the draft.
After doing a bit of research, I will admit that I cannot find any US state or local law which ever made voter registration directly dependent on military service or draft registration. On top of that, the selective service draft did not even exist for much of the countries history.
However, conscription in other forms did exist. The state militia system has existed since 1792. The militia at that time was defined as ALL white, male citizens. Shortly before the emancipation proclamation, this was expanded to include black male citizens. And the militia act stated that "any number" of this group could be called into battle. It was was a more vague version of the draft, which did not specify HOW recruits would be selected. States were simply expected to produce a certain number of "volunteers" by any means necessary. Which, if you think about it, means it wasn't really voluntary.
Thus, every male who has ever met the basic eligibility requirements to vote in a US presidential election has also met the basic eligibility requirement to be pressed into military service through either the militia system or the draft.
Even then some women didn't think it was fair that they could vote on issues that men would be responsible for upholding (something known as a moral hazard -- making decisions for things that other people bear the costs of).
The source from The Atlantic (here) which was written in the early 1900s by a female anti-suffragette mentions the issue of prohibition. Which was often supported or opposed down gender lines. Women could vote to criminalize alcohol consumption for men which would then be enforced by other men.
Which is what ended up happening once women were given the right to vote. And was also one of the main reasons people supported or opposed women's suffrage in the US.
To this day, a majority of voters are women, and there's evidence that women have, in aggregate, used their disproportionate political power to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of men (I'm sure not maliciously, this is just what happens given enough time with that kind of political imbalance).
Women receive more government benefits than men…
Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf
Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1
And men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.
u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: . Updated version with newer data:
Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9
Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331
Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights...latest_uk_tax_data_are_in_british_women_paid/
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dr2iqa/us_social_security_oasi_and_disability_di_data/
Lake, Rebecca (2016, May 23). 23 Shocking Statistics Of Welfare in America. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
United States Census Beureau (2016, May 28). 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month. Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
...Because women have consistently voted to expand government benefits to themselves
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Kenny, L. W. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?. Journal of political Economy, 107(6), 1163-1198. Available from: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Bertocchi, G. (2011). The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state. European Economic Review, 55(4), 535-553. Available from: http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/ELIT2008/bertocchi_g1882.pdf
Abrams, B. A., & Settle, R. F. (1999). Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state. Public Choice, 100(3-4), 289-300. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026099?seq=1
And men are the ones who pay for these benefits; Women consume more government resources than what they pay back in taxes.
u/xNOM (2015). The benefits gap -- a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI). r/MensRights. Available from: . Updated version with newer data:
Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., & Laws, A. (2013). The distribution of income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: Some evidence from New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance, (10). Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mell/1c8cff018bec64646d696b3b18c0d85a743f81f9
Blaker, Magnus. (2017). Kvinner koster staten 113.000 kroner mer i året enn menn [Women cost the state NOK 113,000 more a year than men]. Side3. Available from: https://www.side3.no/vitenskap/kvinner-koster-staten-113000-kroner-mer-i-aret-enn-menn-4402331
Andersen, Torben K. (2013). Kvinder er en ”underskudsforretning” [Women are a "deficit business"]. mandagmorgen. Available from: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/kvinder-er-en-underskudsforretning
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights...latest_uk_tax_data_are_in_british_women_paid/
https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dr2iqa/us_social_security_oasi_and_disability_di_data/
Van Creveld, M. (2013). The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.
https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate estate chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info:VIfWu5LLPikJ:scholar.google.com/&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate estate chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info:VIfWu5LLPikJ:scholar.google.com/&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
Info taken from this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/
Last edited:
