U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2016, 12:44 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
Yup, that same "poor schnook" who had every legal right to treat you as his property- to beat and rape you at will, among other things.
This is a common historical revisionist / socialist retelling of history.
Surely all men savagely beat and raped their wives, because all wives are perfect and never do anything wrong...
...

But I can't find any law that obligates a man to support and defend to his dying day a horse, a dog, cattle, tools or even land. Yet, women are claiming that they're "treated as his property!"
I can't find evidence that men endowed their property rights to their horses, dogs, cattle, etc.
But I can find evidence that men repeatedly endowed their wives - with PROPERTY.
How curious that property can own property...
Yeah, right.

As to coverture, the transfer of a wife's property to the husband, that has its basis in property right law. Private property is defined as that which is absolutely owned by an individual. Two or more claimants reduce it to estate (qualified ownership - subject to taxation, etc). Since a husband is the one obligated to support the wife and children, it makes sense for him to have sole dominion.

But it wasn't cast in stone. If a wife wished to not transfer her property to her husband, she signified this by keeping her maiden name. But it also absolved the husband of the life long duty to support her. Can't have it both ways. Coincidentally, sovereigns like Queen Elizabeth II (Windsor) do not take the family name of their spouses (Mountbatten).

Duty to support - - -
NON-SUPPORT. The failure or neglect unreasonably to support those to whom an obligation of support is due ; e.g. duty of parents to support children; duty to support spouse. Such failure to support is a criminal offense in most states. See e.g. Model Penal Code Sec. 230.5.
Nonsupport of a child is a parent’s failure, neglect, or refusal without lawful excuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her child in necessitous circumstances. Nonsupport of a spouse is an individual’s failure to without just cause to provide for the support of his or her spouse in necessitous circumstances.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1058

ALIMONY - Comes from Latin “ alimonia” meaning sustenance, and means, therefore, the sustenance or support of the wife by her divorced husband and stems from the common-law right of the wife to support by her husband.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.73
Under the old common law, a wife had the right to be supported by her husband.

Some pre-socialist court rulings - - -
“ The right of a father to the fruits of his child’s labor has its foundation in his obligation to protect, nurture, and educate the child.”
- - -The Etna , Fed. Cas. No. 4,542 [1 Ware (462) 474] (1838)

“ The common law rule exists in this state that the father has a paramount right to superintend and nurture of his children.”
- - - People v. Olmstead, 27 Barb. 9 (NY 1857)

“ A mother, during the lifetime of the father, is not bound to support her minor children.”
- - - Gladding v. Follett , 2 Dem. Sur. 58 (NY 1883)
So those "bad, evil" men had the lifelong duty to support their wives and children, while the women had no legal duty to support. What a lousy deal for women! No wonder they leaped at the chance to use government as their sugar daddy, and make all workers support them and their children. Now, women could be QUEEN of the household. Except it backfired, and forced women into the workforce, to pay those glorious socialist taxes. D'oh!
And as career women, who can afford to have a large brood, or pay child care?
D'Oh x 2!

 
Old 09-24-2016, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
I don't doubt that this could be accurate. It wouldn't surprise me that the poorest people of the time would want more hands to help the family out.
And don't forget the extended family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
Philosophically speaking, however, I have a difficult time accepting in our modern times the idea that people should be bringing children into the world simply to help them out in their old age. Treating women like broodmares, whose only duty in life is to raise those who will help her and her husband when they are elderly is extremely distasteful to me, to put it mildly.
So whose children should the elderly and infirm burden?
Total strangers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
I fundamentally believe that all people should have the right to choose the path that they want in life. If a woman wants to stay at home with 10 kids, great. If that's what she wants.
But you like the idea that government can compel others to work for the benefit of a recipient.
Okay.
So you like government imposed compulsory charity and expropriation of property for the benefit of another. . .
Slavery by socialism.
Got it.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,094,834 times
Reputation: 12891
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If that's the case, pity those POOR Muslim women in Afghanistan, West Bank, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and so on.
The examples you gave were from Western societies, yes? And this thread is about Western Societies, yes? (There's a clue in the thread title.)

The majority of western women now have access to birth control, some better quality and better reliability than others, but access.

When men deny women access to birth control, you get things like the birth rate in Afghanistan. That kind of birth rate is not a positive thing, btw.

The drop in birth rates in western society is because of easy access to birth control and not your contrived idea of socialism being the downfall of all society and men losing their - how did you term it? - oh yes, their rights and duties.

Oh, and the OP seems to think that the overabundance of males in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia is a good thing. Do you feel that way as well?

Last edited by MoonBeam33; 09-24-2016 at 01:02 AM..
 
Old 09-24-2016, 01:22 AM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,094,834 times
Reputation: 12891
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Surely all men savagely beat and raped their wives, because all wives are perfect and never do anything wrong...
So those imperfect wives needed to be beaten and raped? Put in their place, as it were?

Everyone reading your posts can see exactly where you're coming from, and it has nothing to do with "socialism."
 
Old 09-24-2016, 01:40 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33 View Post
So those imperfect wives needed to be beaten and raped? Put in their place, as it were?

Everyone reading your posts can see exactly where you're coming from, and it has nothing to do with "socialism."
Actually, that is YOUR presumption, not mine. I just pulled your chain, figuratively speaking.

Men and women are imperfect. But to presume that all men are inherently evil is YOUR mistake, not mine.
And socialism (slavery) does not resolve humanity's problems.

As to the retelling of history, again, try and find evidence to support the claims before you jump up and down and stamp your (virtual) feet.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 01:54 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,122 posts, read 9,210,319 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33 View Post
The examples you gave were from Western societies, yes? And this thread is about Western Societies, yes? (There's a clue in the thread title.) [But for some strange reason, non-socialist WESTERN societies, like in central and south America have HIGHER BIRTHRATES. Go figure.]

The majority of western women now have access to birth control, some better quality and better reliability than others, but access.

When men deny women access to birth control, you get things like the birth rate in Afghanistan. That kind of birth rate is not a positive thing, btw. [So whose descendants do you wish to eliminate in your esteemed wisdom?]

The drop in birth rates in western society is because of easy access to birth control and not your contrived idea of socialism being the downfall of all society and men losing their - how did you term it? - oh yes, their rights and duties.
[The evidence refutes that belief. But don't stop just because the facts don't fit.]

Oh, and the OP seems to think that the overabundance of males in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia is a good thing. Do you feel that way as well?
Actually, the future is dependent upon descendants. Failure to make sufficient, is a recipe for genocide.
It's basic BioWar 101.
Back in the 15th through 20th centuries, Europe was prodigiously producing surplus population and exporting them to colonies world wide, in north and south America, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

Now, thanks to socialism, the tide has reversed.

If you don't mind that your children will become strangers in their own land, pushed aside by those who didn't reduce their progeny, that's okay. But it's not something to be proud of.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 02:15 AM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,094,834 times
Reputation: 12891
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
The examples you gave were from Western societies, yes? And this thread is about Western Societies, yes? (There's a clue in the thread title.)

jetgraphics:[But for some strange reason, non-socialist WESTERN societies, like in central and south America have HIGHER BIRTHRATES. Go figure.]


Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
Because Central and South America have majority Catholic countries, and the Catholic church outlaws birth control. That is a basic fact that most people are aware of.
The drop in birth rates in western society is because of easy access to birth control and not your contrived idea of socialism being the downfall of all society and men losing their - how did you term it? - oh yes, their rights and duties.
jetgraphics:[The evidence refutes that belief. But don't stop just because the facts don't fit.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
The evidence also points to a drop in birth rates since the moon landing, so that must obviously be the cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Actually, the future is dependent upon descendants. Failure to make sufficient, is a recipe for genocide.
It's basic BioWar 101.
Back in the 15th through 20th centuries, Europe was prodigiously producing surplus population and exporting them to colonies world wide, in north and south America, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
Ah, now the truth comes out! You believe that European colonization of lands populated by brown people was a good thing! All those brown people wasting that land, just waiting for white people to show up and give them Christianity, small pox, and rats. Good times, good times.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 04:30 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 17,531,453 times
Reputation: 11103
The drop in birthrates in Western societies is not due to 'socialism', but that women have equal rights and opportunities, and aren't forced to be baby-making machines.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 06:00 AM
 
3,825 posts, read 6,182,945 times
Reputation: 3868
There is no doubt of the feminization of males. This is supported by low sperm counts and the surge in gay men.
Authorities have stated it has been very difficult to get an accurate count on gays through the years. They estimate that around 1960 gays represented about 10% of the population and today that has increase to 30-35%.
In the 1960's birth control pills were developed. Around 1980 pharmaceuticals began adding estrogen to the birth control packages. These hormones were and are excreted by the millions of women using birth control pills into our water systems that are not capable of removing those hormoes. Like it or not we are all getting a dose of estrogen by simply drinking our water.
This is compounded by all the hormones given to farm animals that are not only excreting their waste into the water system but also stored in their meat.
The effect of the hormones is mainly on children and may very well explain the rise in gays as these children grow up. Boys are not the only ones effected by the hormones. During this time frame girls have been having their periods sooner with earlier development if breasts.
Our water is full of various medications most of which are so diluted they have little impact on healthy individuals. However hormones are potent even at low doses.
 
Old 09-24-2016, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,574,957 times
Reputation: 24548
I have noticed that the weaker the man the greater the need to subjugate women or any other defined class of lesser beings. They want a hierarchical society with All Men able to dominate the girls and women. These men do not want to have to support themselves. They also want a many children as possible, sometimes using multiple women, to prove to their manliness to other males. Just look at the societies, now mostly Muslim, dominated by men. Most of these are infested by violence as these male children try to dominate their individual sandboxes. They father many children without any consideration theat the first result of gross overpopulation is Famine soon followed by Pestilence, Plague and War.

My personal preference is a low or no population growth with any economic growth used to decrease the differences between the wealthy and the rest of us. With a world population under 2 billion or so the need for wars to steal resources would be mostly eliminated. So would the profits of the War Industry. This society would be very feminized with the stress on peaceful cooperation instead of violent conflict.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top