"...I desire you would remember the ladies..." (political)

[Stella_Omega]

In a letter dated March, 1776 Abigail Adams asked her husband to ensure the rights and freedoms of women as well as men.

He answered, in effect, "Aren't you the cutest little thing!"

I wish I wasn't looking at this stuff. I wish this stuff didn't exist for me to look at.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

In a letter dated March, 1776 Abigail Adams asked her husband to ensure the rights and freedoms of women as well as men.

He answered, in effect, "Aren't you the cutest little thing!"

I wish I wasn't looking at this stuff. I wish this stuff didn't exist for me to look at.

He was a prisoner of his time . . . as are we all.

 

[starrkers]

In a letter dated March, 1776 Abigail Adams asked her husband to ensure the rights and freedoms of women as well as men.

He answered, in effect, "Aren't you the cutest little thing!"

I wish I wasn't looking at this stuff. I wish this stuff didn't exist for me to look at.

*checks flight path and running shoes*

Stella, aren't you just the cutest thing?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/starrcats/smilies/runaway.gif

 

[Stella_Omega]

He was a prisoner of his time . . . as are we all.

Yes, indeed. But women were more imprisoned. than John Adams was.

Please, read his reply very carefully.

In it he says that no man would ever mistreat a woman... Despite his wife's pointing out that women were, at that very time, being brutalised by their husbands without any recourse or rights.

If you scroll down that page, you can see the immediate political consequences of his neglect;

1777 -- Women lose the right to vote in New York...
1780 -- Women lose the right to vote in Massachusetts...
1784 -- Women lose the right to vote in New Hampshire...
1787 -- Women in all states except New Jersey lose the right to vote.

In 1920, 144 years later, women regained the right to vote.

Starrkers, I ain't got no sense of humor no more.

 

[Carnevil9]

Women? Voting? You can't be serious.

Next thing you know, they'll want to drive cars.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yeah, Carney! Or, you know-- having abortions on our own recognisance. Or not having headaches from slamming into that glass ceiling any more.

Yes, it's very old history.

But our Constitution still does not say that women are created equal along with men, and that women, as well as men, share those famous inalienable rights.

 

[starrkers]

Starrkers, I ain't got no sense of humor no more.

Sorry Stella.
I'll be a good girl. Promise.

 

[Carnevil9]

......But our Constitution still does not say that women are created equal along with men, and that women, as well as men, share those famous inalienable rights.

That's true, sweet cheeks, it doesn't. But our Constitution doesn't say those things about men, either. You are probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is not the law of the land.

Personally, I prefer knowing what the hell I'm talking about before opening my pie-hole, but maybe that's just me.......Carney

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

It's all bullshit anyway. The Constitution doesnt protect you, people do. And when people fail or refuse to act, youre screwed regardless of what a piece of paper says.

In this state, from 1877 thru 1925, it was legal for a sheriff to grab you and lease you for labor. There was no trial. The sheriff tossed you into a prison wagon, collected a fee from the contractor who leased you, and you were bye-bye for a year. The contractor could flog you with a whip. If you had too little cash on you you were a vagrant. End of story.

This shit still goes on. The recent child custody event is Texas is a good example.

 

[JagFarlane]

Yes, indeed. But women were more imprisoned. than John Adams was.

Please, read his reply very carefully.

In it he says that no man would ever mistreat a woman... Despite his wife's pointing out that women were, at that very time, being brutalised by their husbands without any recourse or rights.

If you scroll down that page, you can see the immediate political consequences of his neglect;

1777 -- Women lose the right to vote in New York...
1780 -- Women lose the right to vote in Massachusetts...
1784 -- Women lose the right to vote in New Hampshire...
1787 -- Women in all states except New Jersey lose the right to vote.

In 1920, 144 years later, women regained the right to vote.

Starrkers, I ain't got no sense of humor no more.

Wooooo go NJ -grins, native to NJ-

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Wooooo go NJ -grins, native to NJ-

My thoughts exactly

 

[colddiesel]

A Question.

Did all men have the vote in the US in 1776?

They didn't in the UK until 1867 and in most countries until later. Until the Married Womens(note only married women ) Property Act of 1881 English women were essentially the property of their Husbands or Fathers.

We have made a lot of progress but we can't apply our standards to a past age - can we?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

COLD-DIESEL

The way it generally worked was large land owners got to vote or head of household voted. So some women did vote.

Women brought dowries to their marriages. The husband controlled it, but it belonged to the wife to dispose of however she pleased. The dowry was balanced with the wife getting a 1/3rd vestment in her husband's estate. One third of his stuff belonged to her.

I inherited land many years before I married. When I sold the land in 1982 my wife had to approve the sale.

 

[oggbashan]

A Question.

Did all men have the vote in the US in 1776?

They didn't in the UK until 1867 and in most countries until later. Until the Married Womens(note only married women ) Property Act of 1881 English women were essentially the property of their Husbands or Fathers.

We have made a lot of progress but we can't apply our standards to a past age - can we?

The Married Women's Property Act was an attempt to reverse the 19th century trend of disenfranchising women. Before the 19th century women could vote IF they were landowners with enough property. Women could own and run a business. Women were Freemen (sic) and Guild members in cities and could trade within the city's boundaries. It originally started when widows took over their husband's shop/business but then women could trade alone if they had successfully completed an apprenticeship. Women apprentices usually learned their trade from a relation but that wasn't essential.

Some of my female ancestors were Freemen. One of my great-grandmothers owned an omnibus company in London. Another was a Master (sic) Weaver employing her sons, daughters, nephews and nieces together with a few others whose relationship to the family was nebulous. Both were widowed early but even if their husbands had survived I don't think they would have had much say in their wives' businesses.

One of my aunts, born 1891, was a Freeman of the City of London in her own right. She used her position to campaign for Women's Suffrage and had a sympathetic hearing from her fellow Freemen (of both sexes).

The Victorian idea that women should be domestic goddesses and nothing else was a reversal of earlier roles. Before the suffragette (and suffragist) movements was the campaign for women's education that started in the 18th century. Early National School foundations educated boys and girls equally.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

A Question.

Did all men have the vote in the US in 1776?

They didn't in the UK until 1867 and in most countries until later. Until the Married Womens(note only married women ) Property Act of 1881 English women were essentially the property of their Husbands or Fathers.

We have made a lot of progress but we can't apply our standards to a past age - can we?

All men did not. Landowners and gentlemen had the vote-- obviously, any gentleman would have owned land... Indentured servants had no vote.It goes without saying, slaves had no vote.

And I don't know if Abigail's use of "ladies" when she could have said "women" is significant-- but usage is significant, pretty often.


I can't apply my standards to a past age, but it makes me sad that Abigail was not able to apply her standards in that past age. What would this country be like, I wonder, if women and men had been political equals all these two hundred years?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

All men did not. Landowners and gentlemen had the vote-- obviously, any gentleman would have owned land... Indentured servants had no vote.It goes without saying, slaves had no vote.

And I don't know if Abigail's use of "ladies" when she could have said "women" is significant-- but usage is significant, pretty often.


I can't apply my standards to a past age, but it makes me sad that Abigail was not able to apply her standards in that past age. What would this country be like, I wonder, if women and men had been political equals all these two hundred years?

How about economic equals? As Ogg implies, women had owned and run businesses clear back into Roman times. In Sparta, unlike "advanced, democratic" Athens, women basically ran the economy. What happened during the 19th Century might make a really good object lesson about what happens when someone sets out to do things "for your own good". The Victorian lady was supposed to be so protected and cosseted that she lost whatever economic and political equality she had with her man a hundred years before. Benevolent or not, patriarchalism cost women big time. In the same way, benevolent social engineering will cost us all big time. Only individual choice maintains freedom.

Stay armed.

 

[rengadeirishman]

Stay armed.

good advice that

 

[Stella_Omega]

In the same way, benevolent social engineering will cost us all big time. ..

Like what kind of benevolent social engineering? The statement added to our constitution that women and men of all races have equal rights-- that's benevolent social engineering?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Like what kind of benevolent social engineering? The statement added to our constitution that women and men of all races have equal rights-- that's benevolent social engineering?

No, no, no. You know me better than that. Like the kind that outlawed six-woman basketball in the midwest because "you should all be playing on the same team as the men so it will be more equal". Yeah, that really happened under LBJ.

 

[amicus]

A source of continual amusement as forum posters dance around the base question of whether the female of the species is qualified to participate in affairs affecting society as a whole.

The Suffragettes and their offspring:

Banned alcohol
Instituted the Income Tax
Created untouchable National and State Parks, removing private land from public ownership
Created Social Security
Through Eleanor Roosevelt, created the United Nations.
Instituted Roe v Wade
Challenged the concept of marriage between a man and a woman.
Are well on their way to banning Tobacco products.
Lobby for free day care, maternity leave, 'special treatment' in the work place because they are female.
Get 'special treatment' from government agencies at all levels because they are 'mothers' with dependent children and no visible means of support.

And a thousand more gender specific events that benefit the female.

Now I love the ladies, I truly do, but...

...the nature of the female is different, if not polar opposite to the male.

There are more women voters than men and more women in college now than men.

The nature of the female is more inclined to protect the nest above all; to obtain the security and guarantee of the home and children above all else. I respect that.

But when it comes to matters of societal concern, just like the Space program, (although I think it should be private enterprise), women in general would gladly give up research and space exploration for Health Care, Social Security, and all the social programs that fire up the left.

That is to say, the female is inward looking and introverted, the male, extroverted and outward and future oriented, because nature made us that way.

The battle of the sexes continues and you shits don't even know that war has been declared.

Amicus...

 

[elsol]

There are more women voters than men and more women in college now than men.

-----
The battle of the sexes continues and you shits don't even know that war has been declared.

And that is why we will lose... women tricked us into a building a system (civillization) that favors their 'nature'.

Stupid fucking forefathers!

I say we nuke it all to rubble so us guys have a chance.

 

[angela146]

But our Constitution still does not say that women are created equal along with men, and that women, as well as men, share those famous inalienable rights.

To put a sharp point on it, the only way that women can be denied rights is if they are not "persons". Take a gander (ha ha) at this (emphasis mine):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's often referred to as the "equal protection" section. Originally added to give former slaves equal rights to everyone else, this section applies to all "persons".

Here's the rub: the ugly truth is that until the 1960s, a lot of folks (including many women) did not consider women to be "persons". I have that on the authority of a number of women and men much older than I am - people who remember the 1950s. It was a common-sense kind of thing: women were more like "accessories" to men, having been created by God for men's pleasure.

As "non people", women had only those rights that were specifically afforded to them. For example, the nineteenth amendment specifically applies voting rights.

I cannot speak directly to that attitude of the times, since I wasn't born yet. However, one of the things that I have to admit I admire about my father is his willingness to talk about the difference in attitude between "then" and "now". This was in the context of his trying to convince me to seek appointment to one of the service academies (preferably, in his mind, Annapolis).

He was brought up to believe that women were a kind of auxiliary-human, and that most people accepted that attitude until the mid 1960s. He had to wrestle with the issue at the time. It was a huge change in perspective for him and for society at large.

In retrospect, he admitted a feeling of shame that he didn't question that notion until women collectively whacked him over the head with it.

I'm sure that there will be those who say I am full of it - that women were-too recognized as people back then. I can't argue the point from any personal knowledge, except to say that I have heard this same idea from others who remember those days (worded differently by different people).

Anyway, if one wishes to ensure the rights of women, it would be helpful to make sure that society - and the law - start by completely and expressly recognizing women as people.

Don't take that for granted.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you for that, Angela

 

[elsol]

I'm sure that there will be those who say I am full of it - that women were-too recognized as people back then. I can't argue the point from any personal knowledge, except to say that I have heard this same idea from others who remember those days (worded differently by different people).

As 'they' start to speak to tell you that you're full of it, direct them towards Amicus... conclusive proof.

Although auxillary-human might be a bit much for Amicus-- I read him thinking of women more like pets... ones that a good owner puts electric shock collars on so they'll stay in the kitchen.

And *cough*cough* it wasn't REALLY that long ago, I mean *sheez* god fucking forbid my stepfather ever pick up a broom or a sponge.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are a lot of Amis on the internet. They spew all the vomit that shame prevents them from saying to anyone's face.