Uh oh... I sense anger in the Esmay household ;-)
Well said.

Its a nice thing for Dean that he had sense enough to marry someone like Rosemary. But ... lets hold back on trashing Donna Reed. My grandmother was just like her. It wasn't that she "simpered", she just happened to honestly agree with my grandfather 99% of the time. Yet, somehow people knew better than to cross her. She was a force of nature to be reckoned with over things that she felt were important. Take another look at Donna Reed. Was she disrespected? Was she doing things against her will? Was she sullen and resentful? Would she have thanked you for noticing her powerlessness (or would she have laughed at you for missing the actual power)? I heard once that being the queen is a powerful position, capable of both destroying or saving the king. If you're looking for an example of a woman obviously unhappily trapped in surburia with jerks, how about that mother on the WonderYears? She didn't agree with her husband about anything. I wonder how they even ended up together. I don't think they were a good couple. And I don't like EverybodyLovesRaymond either. They're just mean to each other. Wait. Lapsing. The point was that Rosemary shouldn't let the passion of the moment push her into the feminazi trap of trashing Donna Reed.

"feminazi cunt"?

Good lord.

I want to somehow show support for what you have said, Rosemary. It is no fun bucking the politically correct bullshit and then finding yourself being accused of being a Nazi (or a synonym thereof).

Character assasination is what you and Dean will experience because you dared attack their mythological heroes or debunked their facts.

I'm sure there are tons of people who agree with you but are scared shitless to comment. They'll probably write to you in e-mail because they aren't interested in getting the hate mail by posting publicly, or the traffic for traffic's sake.

Mi foxhole su foxhole.

Two quick comments:

1) The real Donna Reed was far more powerful than her character on the show.

2) Kind of unrelated, but important to the core of this on-going thread (actually more related to the "Greatest Americans" stuff that's got Meryl, Kate et. al. so upset): Susan B. Anthony has got to be the most overrated female in modern history. She didn't start the sufferage movement (Stanton did). She wasn't successful in her goals in her own lifetime. I truly wonder if her leadship actually hindered the cause. After all, it's only when she stepped down from a leadership role when the ball for women's sufferage really got rolling. There are far more deserving figures than this failure.... I now duck for the reponses.

Well I cringed a wee little bit at Rosemary's comments only because now I don't know if Meryl will ever forgive me. But it's hard not to feel good when your mate comes out swinging in your defense, and God knows I love her. Thanks darling.

Mrs. du Toit: What continues to astound me is that no one denies any of the facts we've discussed. Women had all sorts of rights and lots of respect and power in this country long before there was any 19th amendment. There was no brutish period when big bad men oppressed women by denying them any "right" that most of them craved--a right few even understood themselves to need.

No. Instead women started thinking they wanted it. In some places they did have it, but there was confusion over whether that was right or not. Most other places they didn't have it, so shouldn't it be the same everywhere? Countless women thought they didn't want it and shouldn't have it.

So, as is usual in circumstances where women aren't very clear about exactly what they want, men muddled about, trying to please their women and to reach compromises and otherwise avoid the issue if possible.

Finally, the overwhelming majority of men--being decent, caring, and honorable creatures who loved and respected the women in their lives--ratified the amendment, and in breathtakingly short order by any historical measure.

Saying this just infuriates people, doesn't it?

Okay, by saying "you're welcome" on behalf of our male ancestors torqued some people off. But I thought I was just tweaking noses--and making a darned good point about the honor and decency of the men of American history. Some seem to have gotten that point, some not.

Ah well. It's been fun. I just hope I don't lose any friends over this.

It's true that women had "lots" of rights, but haveing SOME rights is not the same as having ALL rights. "There was no brutish period when big bad men oppressed women by denying them any "right" that most of them craved--a right few even understood themselves to need." Bullshit. In the 1800s, womens property rights depended almost exclusively on their marital status (i.e. it belonged to your father or your husband). Women were almost totally excluded from higher education until the 1900s. Rape of your wife wasn't even criminal in most states until the latter part of last century.
If you want to point out flaws in the statements of specific "feminazi cunts", more power to you. Name the names, and dispel the myths. But don't sit here and pretend that women were not (are not) oppressed to any significant degree. It's just ridiculous.

Patrick,

I think it is a stretch to call not having property rights opressive. Unfair, possibly, but opressive? I think that many people currently look bad at attempt to paint malice where it didn't exist.

Many men of the 19th century and prior didn't want to have women take on the burdens and responsibilities that come with many such things. Politics is a dirty, nasty business and many men didn't wish to have women have to deal with it directly. Though it may be an alien idea to many now, there was a time when families actually worked togehter and benefited each other. Women had political power long before they had the right to vote, they had many of the benefits of land ownership without owning land. The system was not designed to oppress women. I will not aruge that some men have and had used it for that purpose, but most did not. Instead it was desigend to let men deal with issues and free women to deal with other issues. A division of labour into areas that it was percieve that each gender was better equipped to deal with. You may label that as misguided, but malice and oppression were largely not a part of it.

I agree totally (and I've said so in another post) that the system was not designed to oppress women...it is a cultural inheritance that evolved over hundreds of years. But that doesn't do a bit of good for the countless women who were in fact oppressed. You state that malice and oppression were largely not a part of it, but can you back up that claim? I don't think there is any way to quantify this 'oppression' (no one was keeping stats on spousal abuse back then), but by most accounts it was fairly widespread, and impacted most aspects of womens lives. To deny that it occurred at all is blatantly false.

I have quite a few examples of land deeds showing that I had more than one female grandparent (or Aunt) who owned property--back in the 1840s to 1900+.

I do not know where this idea that "women could not own property in America" came from.

It's nonsense.

George Washington BECAME the wealthiest man in the country when he married Martha--because SHE was the wealthiest person in the country when they married. How'd she become so wealthy and a property owner if she wasn't allowed to be one? It's nuts.

Weren't property rights different from state-to-state? (And, yes, its opressive to work all your life only to have all your property go to some distant male relation of your late husband if you didn't have a son). Kinda the same way divorce settlement laws are different today?

"feminazi cunt?"

I don't think that qualifies for either Judith or Meryl; therefore, if you lose friends over this I would not be surprized.

Disappointing and sad.

"George Washington BECAME the wealthiest man in the country when he married Martha--because SHE was the wealthiest person in the country when they married. How'd she become so wealthy and a property owner if she wasn't allowed to be one? It's nuts."
Not sure of that specific case (property rights varied a lot over time and location during the early part of US history), but mostly a woman could inherit property (or in the case of widowers, they may have purchased it together with a prevous husband), but when she married (or remarried), control of that property was immediately ceded to the husband. And if he died, she could only inherit one third. Thus, most women who had property were owners in name alone.

The myth that women had no rights and power before the early 20th century is bs...always has been. As far as women in politics. In my experience women in politics are a lot nastier than men, hold grudges longer and are more vicious in revenge. Granted my experience is mostly in the UK. I used to hear that "if women ran the world it would be more peaceful" at Colby from my femi-nazi professors. What a load of crap that is...

And please don't give me the line that women have to be nastier because they are in a male dominated game. It just does not wash.

Just remember that the world leader that dominated the world with a empire like it has never seen, was a woman. And so was the leader that resisted the Roman invasion of England and the one that resisted the domination of the Unions and tin-pot Argentinian dictator.

I'm not getting involved in this but I thought you may be interested in seeing what irry says on his site: http://snurl.com/210d

Allison, I think it is correct to say that property rights varied from state-to-state.

Andrew, I still don't know where the idea that one third went to her husband or to say that her property automatically became the husbands property. Yes, that is true, but it worked BOTH ways. He got hers. She got his. That's how Martha became so wealthy, because she was a wealthy widow.

I think it is possible that we are projecting back some of our more modern abilities to disinherit and choose who we leave our estates to. I don't think that most of the states allowed this sort of thing.

I had a great great Aunt who bought property on her own (1850s). Her father and brothers bought property at the same time--all in their own names. The title of that property stayed in her name until SHE sold it.

When my great-grandmother was 18 (1895) she was given a birthday present of 11 farms, 2 blocks in the downtown, plus $50K in cash. She OWNED those farms and the buildings that sat on Main Street.

She bought a house, in her name, in 1900. Sold it in 1901 and bought it again in 1903. All the deeds were in her name and she was married.

When her mother remarried a man in the 1870s, he borrowed a large sum of money from her for his business. If he had automatically gotten control of her assets he wouldn't have had to sign a loan document to borrow it from her.

A man could not disinherit his wife (similar to the Dutch system where a parent cannot disinherit a child).

David:

"feminazi cunt?"

I don't think that qualifies for either Judith or Meryl; therefore, if you lose friends over this I would not be surprized.

Where on earth are you drawing the conclusion that I was referring to Meryl or Judith with the term Feminazi cunt?

First off, buddy, Judith was not even mentioned on this post ANYWHERE.

Second, I was specifically referring to myself as a feminist and stating unequivocally that I am not one of those loony feminazi types.

I won't be losing any friends over this because my friends know me and accept me.

Disappointing and sad.

You are disappointed? You don't know me at all. If you did you would not for one minute have drawn conclusions. You would have done what I suggest and read what I say and not try to decipher me.

If I meant to intentionally insult anyone - I would have done so by name and there would be no mistaking it.

So don't fret about it anymore. I'm used to people overreacting and getting it wrong.

Some of the responses to Dean and Rosemary just go to show how much history has been distorted by the illiberal feminists, to the point that everyone thinks that life for women in the USA pre-19th Amend. was nothing but oppression.

Women were of course tremendously powerful in the United States from day one--and that's what pisses people off I think.

Women could always own property in this country--always. It is true that by convention or law in some states, a man had the legal control of any of his wife's property--however, this was why women were very careful about who they married, when and why, because they understood this to be the husband's role. It was about a division of labor that they all understood and accepted--and that the women of that world, who were very powerful and influential, played a crucial role in both creating and perpetrating.

Because, of course, women were always very powerful and very influential in this country.

There is no evidence that spousal abuse was ever widely accepted-although, again, women of an earlier era understood marriage to be an important business relationship, and thus the character of men they married was of utmost importance precisely because of the danger presented by men who might drink too much or become violent.

The Women's Temperance movement--a very powerful political force long before the 19th amendment--was all about ending child abuse and violence toward women. That was the driving force behind it in fact. Fighting what we now call "domestic violence" has been a political cause that decent women and men have fought in this country for, literally, centuries. Including the many powerful women of the 18th and 19th century, whose power and influence was enormous.

I think Patrick needs to learn more about women in history--it's clear that he's swallowed a lot of misogynist claptrap spouted by illiberal and misinformed folks parading themselves as feminists.

Dean, do a quick google search on legal decisions regarding womens rights. You'll see that all through the 1800s 1900s, women were petitioning for rights that they did not have, but that had long before been guaranteed for ALL men. This is not 'liberal claptrap', this is documented legal history. (Other 'liberal claptrap' that I must also be misinformed about: legality of 'passion killing' of wives (but not husbands), denial of credit to single women and divorcees, equal pay and sex discrimination/assault in the workplace. Most of these problems were not even addressed until the 1900s.)

You mention that women had great power to fight spousal abuse as far back as the 1800s...but I have to ask, if they were so powerful, why weren't they more succesful? As I've pointed out, wife-rape wasn't even illegal in most states till the late 1900s! And you state that spousal abuse wasn't widely accepted, but if it wasn't a problem, why were they motivated to fight it?

Also, you imply that it was OK for a husband to have legal entitlement to all of a womans property, as well as her children, as long as she selected a good man. I have no doubt that this worked out OK for many women, but what about the ones for whom it didn't? The vast majority of them had no recourse at all...

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

i hate being called a feminist, and i don't consider myself one, but i know where you're coming from rosemary. isn't it funny that you get more respect by earning it than demanding it?

The problem I have with your view, Patrick, is that it seems to deny women their considerable role in creating the system that was in place in the 1900s in America, and before. Women have always exercised a huge amount of political power in the United States, and have enjoyed rights as far back as the 18th century that would be the envy of women in many countries today.

Yes, you can find many cases of women petitioning the government for redress of grievances back in the 1800s. But I'd like you to stop and think about that for a minute: women, petitioning the government, for redress of grievances?

You mean, like, they had some kind of personhood that they were able to assert? Like they could actually petition for redress of grievance? Jesus Christ, that all by itself is an amazing right, and an incredibly important recognition of women's rights.

Furthermore, while you can find many cases of injustices where women's complaints were dismissed, would it not also be fair to look at where there were inequities visited upon men by the legal system? These, too, have always existed, and still exist today.

The victim/victimizer, oppressor/oppressed dialetic tends, I think, to overshadow the tremendous importance and power that women have always had in America. Which is why I say it's fundamentally misogynist in its assumptions. What was it that I said earlier?

Young woman: It's horrible that you were so oppressed!
Old woman: I was oppressed?
Young woman: Yes! Obviously!
Old woman: I never really felt that way.
Young woman: You were and you just didn't know it!
Old woman: Well maybe you're right, dear.

At what point to we stop focusing on the picture of "woman the oppressed" and start focusing on "social institutions that don't make sense?"

Dean,
I think that due to the volume of posts, you might have confused my position with some of the others. I've no beef with your contention that many so-called feminists exaggerate the extent to which women have been oppressed. I agree. I just don't think that you can deny the many cases where oppression did occur, as you seem to want. And I don't see any need to deny them. Admitting that oppression occurred is not sexist or misogynist in and of itself. Throughout history, many groups have wound up with the short-end of the stick through no failure of their own. Is it the colonist's fault that they were controlled by the British Crown? Is it the native-americans fault they didn't have technology to fight the whites? Or the africans fault that they wound up slaves? There are many, many forces that affect society besides the individual strengths (or weakness) of it's members.

I feel like the part of your "assumptions" that you consider misogynist (and misandryst, too) is that stating that women were oppressed by men must in fact lay blame with both groups (women for being weak, and men for being mean). And while many people may do just that, I don't personally see it that way. There are a lot of other causes for the situation. (among them, biology, social evolution, victorian-era mores, and most importantly, human nature.) Hopefully this clarifies things a little.

This thread is very old, so not much point in my replying to it now, but, I don't "blame women for being weak." I'm telling you that women were as much of a privileged class as they were oppressed. I don't need to "deny oppression," what I'm tired of is people denying privilege and power, which is what women have always had lots and lots of in Western civilization. Denying that IS fundamentally misogynist, and misandrist.

It has nothing to do with women being "at fault for being weak." They WERE NOT WEAK. They were not powerless. They were not helpless, and if they were oppressed, they were also oppressors, since they had an equal role in creating and maintaining the social order. In fact, possibly a greater role, depending on how you look at it.