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
OK, I'm not even sure if we're disagreeing or talking apples and oranges.
Are you saying the tradition wasn't sexist
then, or are you saying it's not sexist
now?