Kate chose not to obey

[Queen Victoria]

Don't forget the 'dowry' thing.   Women were so 'prized' that often Daddy would pay for someone to take her off his hands.
 

Actually the dowry was meant to compensate the daughter for her share of the inheritance.  It would be maintained separately (ideally) for her use if she became a widow. 

[Adam]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

That in itself doesn't, no. I would view my wife as "my wife" but I would also be "her" husband. I wouldn't want the laws to place me above her though. When it's legal for a man to rape his wife, that's about more than just thinking of her as "your" wife

THat is possession in the same way that slaves were viewed as possession

Of course not on the same level, but the same in the sense that both are people viewed as the property of their masters.

[bodie]

Don't forget the 'dowry' thing.   Women were so 'prized' that often Daddy would pay for someone to take her off his hands.
 

Actually the dowry was meant to compensate the daughter for her share of the inheritance.  It would be maintained separately (ideally) for her use if she became a widow.

In India
 Dowry is a payment of cash or valuable gifts from the bride’s family to the bridegroom upon marriage.

[Jack]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

That in itself doesn't, no. I would view my wife as "my wife" but I would also be "her" husband. I wouldn't want the laws to place me above her though. When it's legal for a man to rape his wife, that's about more than just thinking of her as "your" wife

THat is possession in the same way that slaves were viewed as possession

Of course not on the same level, but the same in the sense that both are people viewed as the property of their masters.

Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.

['Butterflies']

I wonder what they would serve Rover with? What do you think, Adam?

Aw fuck. I just saw this More fucking pictures of dead animals

[Al Swearegen]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

That in itself doesn't, no. I would view my wife as "my wife" but I would also be "her" husband. I wouldn't want the laws to place me above her though. When it's legal for a man to rape his wife, that's about more than just thinking of her as "your" wife

THat is possession in the same way that slaves were viewed as possession

Of course not on the same level, but the same in the sense that both are people viewed as the property of their masters.

OK so you can 100% say for absolute certain that a) It is legal for a man to rape his wife and b) that possession as in slave OR possession as in she is mine and with me so you can't have her and she is my responsibilities.

For is to "be legal for a man to rape his wife" UI want you to show that law because I know that in some cultures rapes are hard to prosecute for because courts do not want to go there.....but that is not to say it is legal. So, big claim, can you back it?

[El]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?

I'm not saying it's barbaric.  I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it.  Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up. 

It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner.  Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves?  No.  But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.

[Adam]

Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.

Is what what this discussion is about?

The whole sexism thing is over a few threads, but it's generally been about

1. marriage historically being about passing on a woman from her father to her husband
2. women's position in present-day Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc

And as for the slave thing, of course it's not the same thing. But the whole concept of someone being owned by someone else is. A woman was owned by her father and then by her husband.

[TheoK]

In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.

[Adam]

OK so you can 100% say for absolute certain that a) It is legal for a man to rape his wife and b) that possession as in slave OR possession as in she is mine and with me so you can't have her and she is my responsibilities.

For is to "be legal for a man to rape his wife" UI want you to show that law because I know that in some cultures rapes are hard to prosecute for because courts do not want to go there.....but that is not to say it is legal. So, big claim, can you back it?

a. Rape of woman by her wife was not even legally recognised as rape until relatively recently. You would not be prosecuted for raping your wife as it was not even seen as rape.
It is still not a criminal offence in a lot of countries, even today
And yes, there have been cases  in the UK where (before the law was changed) men have got away with rape of their wives because of the marital rape exemption.

http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r

b. Not sure what you're asking of me here? What do you want evidence for?

Of coures I'm not saying that me referring to my wife as "my" wife is the same as slavery. I'm not even saying the historical status of wives is the same as slavery. I'm saying legally and socially, they were viewed as the property of their husbands. They were people owned by their masters. Of course they weren't sold at auctions, but they were owned by their husbands nonetheless. Not slavery, but ownership of a different kind.

[Jack]

Holy crap. Is that what this discussion is about? Have been avoiding that one. Was talking about marriage traditions being viewed as passing the ball or something. Don't really view it as a different level of the same thing at all, no.

Is what what this discussion is about?

The whole sexism thing is over a few threads, but it's generally been about

1. marriage historically being about passing on a woman from her father to her husband
2. women's position in present-day Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc

And as for the slave thing, of course it's not the same thing. But the whole concept of someone being owned by someone else is. A woman was owned by her father and then by her husband.

I was just commenting about marriage ceremonies and the sense of ownership married couples and parents can experience; you responded with rape and slavery and I wasn't talking about that. Have no argument to what you say on those topics, so I'm not going to discuss that with you.

[bodie]

In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.

Do you mean the full bill,  or just their half?   In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch'  -  i have no idea why

[Al Swearegen]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?

I'm not saying it's barbaric.  I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it.  Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up. 

It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner.  Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves?  No.  But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.

Is that what is happening PMSElle or is it more truthfully that I am seeing the word sexism where I think it has no context.

As to the question posed, it may have more to do with the fact that the chance of women having survived their own birth and childhood illnesses were very likely to die off in one of many births they would have. Which of the two genders had the best prospect to earning money for the kids? If you say "Women could not be relied upon due to the increased chance of dying", then I think that we have agreed

[Jack]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?

I'm not saying it's barbaric.  I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it.  Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up. 

It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner.  Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves?  No.  But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.

That makes sense, though am still fond of chivalry.

[TheoK]

In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.

Do you mean the full bill,  or just their half?   In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch'  -  i have no idea why

Their half.