How badly were women treated back in the day?
How badly were women treated back in the day?
Angel Roberts
Julian King
depends on where you are, but in most cases they were treated as some kind of property
Adam Fisher
thats in civilizations, of course
Robert Parker
Depends of the country you're talking about.
James Carter
Not anymore than males
Camden Taylor
Have a look at old gravestones. A male will most likely have their trade on it. The wife will have their husband's name on it.
Levi Perry
women were equals in business
Jordan Rodriguez
good
Evan Morris
That's just expected gender roles from a not so long ago era. That societal expectation and prejudice is not, in any sense, a way to show "women were treated like objects". Men fell in love and cared about their wife, beyond just pure societal pressure. Misogeny was not a big concern for them, but it's not like people thought that hitting your wife was ok, but rather, marrige was seen as more important so it put a predicament as to how to act, and in some sense, the man was the guardian of his wife. Obviously this isn't ideal, but we have developed a picture in which every man in the past was some drunk asshole who thought women are only there to have children.
Jack Adams
go back to /pol
Jose Hernandez
Peasant women were a shade lower in status than the men, tradition bound them but also meant certain aspects of the community ended up in their hands. For example wool, butter and beer was big business and spinning, churning and brewing were traditionally female roles, many would earn an income for themselves and gain a measure of independence.
There were virtually no female artisans and middle class professionals besides entertainers, though the average man didn't have much chance of rising station either.
Noble women could own a lot of property, usually land but also businesses, however professional opportunities were sparse, there were virtually no female officials, merchants or lawyers. An enterprising woman would have to hire men to perform these functions.
Isaiah King
Robert Morales
Badly enough one woman made it her personal mission to rectify the law.
en.wikipedia.org
>Caroline Elizabeth Sarah Norton (22 March 1808 – 15 June 1877) was an English social reformer and author active in the early and mid-nineteenth century.[1] Caroline left her husband in 1836, following which he sued her close friend Lord Melbourne, the then Whig Prime Minister, for criminal conversation (i.e. adultery). The jury threw out the claim, but Caroline was unable to obtain a divorce and was denied access to her three sons. Caroline's intense campaigning led to the passing of the Custody of Infants Act 1839, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and the Married Women's Property Act 1870. Caroline modelled for the fresco of Justice in the House of Lords by Daniel Maclise, who chose her because she was seen by many as a famous victim of injustice.
>In 1827, Caroline married George Chapple Norton, barrister, M.P. for Guildford, and the younger brother of Lord Grantley.[1][12] Norton was a jealous and possessive husband, given to violent fits of drunkenness, and the union quickly proved unhappy due to his mental and physical abuse of Caroline.[3][13] To make matters worse, Norton was unsuccessful in his chosen career as a barrister, and the couple fought bitterly over money.[14]
>During the early years of her marriage, Caroline used her beauty, wit, and political connections, to establish herself as a major society hostess.[4][14]
>In spite of his jealousy and pride, Norton encouraged his wife to use her connections to advance his career. It was entirely due to her influence that in 1831 he was made a Metropolitan Police Magistrate.[17] During these years, Caroline turned to prose and poetry as a means of releasing her inner emotions and earning money.
Angel Perry
In 1836, Caroline left her husband.[1][20] Caroline managed to subsist on her earnings as an author, but Norton claimed these as his own, arguing successfully in court that, as her husband, Caroline's earnings were legally his.[1][21] Paid nothing by her husband, her earnings confiscated, Caroline used the law to her own advantage.[22] Running up bills in her husband's name, Caroline told the creditors when they came to collect, that if they wished to be paid, they could sue her husband.[22]
Not long after their separation, Norton abducted their sons, hiding them with relatives in Scotland and later in Yorkshire, refusing to tell Caroline anything of their whereabouts.[13][23][24][25] Norton accused Caroline of being involved in an ongoing affair with her close friend, Lord Melbourne, the then Whig Prime Minister.[13][20] Initially, Norton demanded £10,000 from Melbourne, but Melbourne refused to be blackmailed, and Norton instead took the Prime Minister to court.[1][4]
Lord Melbourne wrote in a letter to Lord Holland that, "The fact is he (Norton) is a stupid brute, and she had not temper nor dissimulation enough to enable her to manage him."[20] Despite this admission, hoping to avert an even worse scandal, he pleaded with Caroline to return to Norton, insisting that "a woman should never part from her husband whilst she can remain with him."[20] Lord Melbourne relented a few days later, stating that he understood her decision to leave:
This conduct upon his part seems perfectly unaccountable...You know that I have always counselled you to bear everything and remain to the last. I thought it for the best. I am afraid it is no longer possible. Open breaches of this kind are always to be lamented, but you have the consolation that you have done your utmost to stave this extremity off as long as possible.[26]
Jayden Fisher
The trial lasted nine days, and in the end the jury threw out Norton's claim, siding with Lord Melbourne.[27] However, the resulting publicity almost brought down the government.[28] The scandal eventually died away, but not before Caroline's reputation was ruined and her friendship with Lord Melbourne destroyed.[29][30] Norton continued to prevent Caroline from seeing her three sons, and blocked her from receiving a divorce.[1] According to English law in 1836, children were the legal property of their father, and there was little Caroline could do to regain custody.[21]
Caroline was soon faced with an additional tragedy; the death of her youngest son, William, in 1842.[17][31] The child, out riding alone, suffered a fall from his horse and was injured.[13] According to Caroline, the child’s wounds were minor; however, they were not properly attended and blood-poisoning set in.[31] Norton, realising that the child was near death, sent for Caroline. Unfortunately, William died before she arrived in Scotland.[17][32] Caroline blamed Norton for the child's death, accusing him of neglect.[17] After William's death, Norton allowed Caroline to visit their sons, but he retained full custody, and all of her visits were supervised.[13]
Due to her dismal domestic situation, Caroline became passionately involved in the passage of laws promoting social justice, especially those granting rights to married and divorced women.[1][3][21][24] Her poems "A Voice from the Factories" (1836) and "The Child of the Islands" (1845) centred on her political views.
When Parliament debated the subject of divorce reform in 1855, Caroline submitted to the members a detailed account of her own marriage, and described the difficulties faced by women as the result of existing laws.
Levi Nguyen
Primarily because of Caroline's intense campaigning,[34] which included a letter to Queen Victoria,[35] Parliament passed the Custody of Infants Act 1839, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and the Married Women's Property Act 1870.[23][24] Her most recent biographer Diane Atkinson notes that unlike in 1839 and 1857, Caroline played no part in the campaigning for the 1870 Act.[36] Under the Custody of Children Act legally separated or divorced wives, provided they had not been found guilty of criminal conversation, were granted the right to custody of their children up to the age of seven, and periodic access thereafter. The Act applied in England, Wales and Ireland only. While Caroline could have hoped for custody of her youngest son, and access to her older sons who were seven and ten when the Act was passed into law, her husband insisted that her sons stay in Scotland.
The Act gave married women, for the first time, a right to their children. However, because women needed to petition in the Court of Chancery, in practice few women had the financial means to petition for their rights.[37] The Matrimonial Causes Act reformed the law on divorce, amongst others making divorce more affordable, and established a model of marriage based on contract. The Married Women's Property Act 1870 allowed married women to iinherit property and take court action on their own behalf. The Act granted married women in the UK, for the first time, a separate legal identity from their husband.[21][38]
Angel Nguyen
hey r*ddit
Luis Howard
This is the result of Caroline's political activism and polemical pamphlets recounting her experience with the law (before her intervention) regarding marriage, divorce and custody:
en.wikipedia.org
>1. The wages and earning made by a wife were to be held by her for her own separate use, independently from her husband. The meaning of wages included money made from any employment, occupation, or trade, or the use of any skill such as a literary, scientific, or artistic skill that resulted in money being made. This section also covered investments made with the money earned.
>7. This section dealt mostly with inheritance of property. A wife was allowed to keep any property she inherited from her next of kin as her own, subject to that property not being bound in a trust. She could also inherit money up to £200.
>8. This section allowed a married woman to continue to hold rented property in her own name and to inherit rented property.
>14. This section made married women liable to maintain her children from the profits earned from her personal property. It also continued the liability of the husband to maintain his children. In effect, this section made both parents legally liable while each spouse held separate property.
Cameron Evans
And also thanks to Caroline's political activism, in 1882 this was also passed:
en.wikipedia.org
>After years of political lobbying, the Married Women’s Property Act addressed the grievances presented by English women. The Act altered the common law doctrine of coverture to include the wife’s right to own, buy and sell her separate property.[8] Wives' legal identities were also restored, as the courts were forced to recognize a husband and a wife as two separate legal entities, in the same manner as if the wife was a feme sole. Married women’s legal rights included the right to sue and be sued. Any damages a wife might pay would be her own responsibility, instead of that of her husband. Married women were then also liable for their own debts, and any outside trade they owned was subject to bankruptcy laws. Further, married women were able to hold stock in their own names.
Women were treated badly enough feminists made it their mission to make the law better and fairer, and they did.
Cooper Bell
is that the tower of london?
Ayden Bennett
No