It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feminism, and Secret Societies

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by akilles
Does this mean Women are the key to combatting the Illuminati
?

I think a woman speaking out is in many ways more powerful than a man doing so, and in many ways I think Feminism distracts women from attacking OTHER critical issues.


Why do you need to combat a bavarian political organization that no longer exists?



SHHHH!!!! Leave him alone. Maybe he'll go combat them and leave us alone.




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
..........when pig's fly


Truer words were never spoken, my dear.


Just ask yourself this question guys: Where would we be without women?


Not pretty, is it?

And hey, what of the source of that quote? Any chance of seeing that?

[edit on 3/3/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good candidate for 2008.

There's still a good two years of denying it ahead of him though.

All I wanted to mention about Feminism was that it was manipulated to extremes (and of COURSE not all feminists are extreme) and that many of these extreme feminists were actually detracting from the positive aspects that Feminism does provide.

You can call Henry Makow fascistic, for suggesting that males and females should not struggle for power in a relationship? He says he concedes things to his wife, the point he is making is about TRUST in a relationship, where he supposes that the woman knows the man is always thinking about what is best for them, and the man trusts the woman to believe in him.

If that is resembling fascistic, fine, but I don't think that kind of stability in a normal relationship is sexist, oppressive, or slavery as one put it.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
1+3 still equals 2+2......

no two peoples brains are the same, by the way.


[edit on 4-3-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The problem isn't feminism, the problem is radical feminism.
The problem is those women who want superiority instead of equality. The problem is the women who want to have thier cake and eat it too.
The problem is women who look down on women who choose to raise a family rather than have a carreer, shouldn't both have the right to make thier own choices?
Is a woman like Carly Fiona woth more than a housewife? Many Radical feminist would not only say yes, they would say the housewife is betraying women.
To me there is no difference except what they chose to do with thier lives.

The other problem IMO is women who scream about equality, and rail against those inequalties which are detrimental to them whilst staying silent on those inequalities which benefit them.

Why aren't more feminist's fghting for paternity leave? Isn't doing so in the nterest of gender equality?
Why aren't more feminists fghting to change child custody laws? Isn't the ideas that women are naturally better mothers detrimental to ther cause, I hear many feminists say so yet how many have protested the fact that women are automatically awarded custody of chldren after divorce unless the husband can prove she is an unfit mother?
WHy aren't more feminists protesting the fact that the Miami-Dade fire department has two different physical standards to become a firefighter, one for men, and a lower one for women, isn't having two seperate standards for the different sexes exactly the opposite of what they are fighting for?

The problem isn't women who work, or wmen who being allowed to join the army, the problem is women who say they are equal but stll want to be treated special when t is advantageous to them.

As an example I recently got my company to enact a dress code policy which many "feminists" in the company were against, it states that both men and women are required to wear a suit and tie, and allthough women may wear skirt suits, they may not expose cleavege and the skirt must be below the knees. We enacted this policy becuase the men were all comming in in suits, while many of the women were dressing in miniskirts with blouses designed to expose as much clevage as possible. Now I have nothing agianst women dressing in that manner outside of the office, but inside the office there is no place for it. In a place of professional business people should be expected to dress and act like professionls. However many of the same women in my office who rail aginst sexist behavior, felt this new dress code was sexst, despit the fact that all it did was make the dress code more equal.
Before men and women ahd different dress codes, now they are they same, how is that sexist?

Like I said I think the sexes are equal, and support equality, unfortunatley In my experience many feminist do not want equalty, they want benefcial inequality.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
well, maybe they lack a cause...
oh, wait, I know!!

www.cbsnews.com...

here's a worthy one for them, and well, their influence might save some lives!!



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good candidate for 2008.


But not eligible. Arnold was not born in the U.S.A. and unless they've changed the Constitution (or unless they change it before then) he can't be elected President



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by senrak

Originally posted by akilles
I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good candidate for 2008.

But not eligible....*snip*

I can't even imagine the Consititution could be changed in time. All the states needed to ratify the Amendment. Remember all the time and energy that went into passing the ERA...and that never got ratified.
Dream on, akilles.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Women have the same rights as men formally (on paper), but not substantively.
That's the need for feminism.

Wrong. Feminism is no longer about equality - it's about superiority, and that's being granted very rapidly.


While according to law men and women are both equal, it is not so within society.

Right. "Women are the victims," (hence two violence against women acts
gain custody of the child, literally, 9 out of every 10 divorces in which a child is involved, and, by default, gets half of the ex-husband's belongings. Not to mention the fact that a woman can call the police, say "he hit me," with no physical evidence whatsoever - other than the man bleeding half to death from her, and he's automatically going to jail. Yeah, women have it so bad.



There are many men and women alike who think there is an inherent inequality there

They're right - men are inferior now, legally and otherwise.


That's the reason for feminism, because until people really think that men and women are equal then there is a chance of falling back into old ways, where women get the short end of the stick.

How do women get the "short end of the stick" exactly? Can you provide examples?


Just as there are things men can't do, but women can.

Right, like masturbate by leaning against the washing machine.


It's a tragedy that young-middle aged women who are politically aware and active are almost non-existant

And whose fault is it? Not men's. The women who are politically unaware are such by their own choices - not by any form of oppression or segregation, so don't try to play that card.


both, to me, equate to slavery

Yep, my old lady gets whipped if she doesn't do what I say.



Man i hate feminism. Women have equal rights RIGHT now! why would they continue to argue for the rights of women if they already have it? And they always argue that Women can do EVERYTHING men can but i do not think that is true- men are born with a different body structure and our brains our wired differently.

I agree. It's a plague.


If woman are so equal then lets vote one in as a president

One has to quit watching Oprah and eating bon-bons long enough to actually run for President. I do not recall ever hearing of a woman candidate - and the cause is not inequality, it's the fact that a woman has never attempted, really attempted.


Rumblings are being heard from Hillary Clinton and Liz Dole

*Shudders*



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and this is the case with feminism vs radical feminism.

The real agenda again, is to keep women from getting married. Why?
"In many parts of the world, stressing marriage and long-term monogamous relationships doesn't protect women from AIDS because they are unable to control whether they have sex. The approach — favored by the American anti-AIDS package — also could backfire in areas where being married actually increases the risk of contracting HIV, research has found."

Wow... That is backwards logic, all so that they don't have to embrace the fact that a man and a woman can have a stable, balanced relationship, even in the 3rd world?

The most extreme views on Feminism are unfortunately the voices that get heard. Why don't women become involved in 'HUMAN ISSUES' instead of just women's issues, if they are interested in equality?

How many people here have seen a teenage mother? From a small town of about 3000 people, I have seen more than a dozen. Who here would claim these women to be worse off in life now, without knowing anything about their life before getting pregnant.

Who can say that some women don't WANT to become a mother before age 20? Are we really so arrogant to claim these women want to be doing something different?

The girls mentioned above were partying their life away before getting pregnant, and unfortunately it doesn't 'fix' all of their ways, but I recommend talking to a teenage mother before advocating what extreme feminism has suggested repeatedly.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
"both, to me, equate to slavery....
as does the original idea of marriage, with the husband as the head of the household. "

I believe that is the actual quote that was referred to above?

the "both" refers more to the economic situation that many face in this country more than "marriage"--mainly being in debt, or being dependant on the us welfare system....
sorry, that's how I believe.
and yes, I would also throw in the old time idea of the traditional marriage where the man is the king of his castle...blah, blah, blah.

And, well, what would throw something into the realm of slavery would be just how much the dependency on one would pressure you into doing those things in which you wouldn't normally chose to do yourself.
thus, employment, in the right circumstance, could be construed to be a form of slavery also. try having a boss that is miserable to you while you are too dependant on that paycheck to be able to quit, and yet not able to find another quick enough. laws and rules, as well our ability to be kind to one another has kind of fluctuated throughout our history.....when it fluctuates and mankind loses their ability to feel compassion and act in inhumane ways, or when resources get tight and there is not enough to go around, the slaves are more likely to know that they are slaves.

if some had their way, a wife wouldn't even have the option of "quiting" her job, regardless of how miserable her husband made her.
a man would be stuck also, but if the wife decided to be a witch and refuse to cook for him, well, he's the one with the money (in the "traditional marriage"), and well, he could just decide to spend in buying himself food at the resturant instead of on groceries for the family, now can't he.....


by the way, sure, you may not beat your wife, but some husbands do. and well, I think some men may have been happier living in a few hundred years ago, when they could buy their wife at an auction, and beat her whenever he wanted, and it would all be very much legal!



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by senrak

Originally posted by akilles
I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good candidate for 2008.

But not eligible....*snip*

I can't even imagine the Consititution could be changed in time. All the states needed to ratify the Amendment. Remember all the time and energy that went into passing the ERA...and that never got ratified.
Dream on, akilles.


long way from hercules in new york.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
"In many parts of the world, stressing marriage and long-term monogamous relationships doesn't protect women from AIDS because they are unable to control whether they have sex. The approach — favored by the American anti-AIDS package — also could backfire in areas where being married actually increases the risk of contracting HIV, research has found.

One study conducted in several areas of Kenya and Zambia found that among teenage girls, HIV infection levels were 10 percent higher for married girls than for those who were sexually active but not married. Similar findings have been reported in Uganda.

Married women in some African countries are in more danger of HIV than unmarried ones because young women often marry men much older than themselves — for financial security — and these men are more likely to have had other partners and thus been exposed to HIV, the report found. "


try looking at each aspect of the marriage, you most certainly can decide on some of these aspects to be harmful, without throwing the whole concept of marriage out the window...

why is it necessary for the man to be considered the "head".....isn't it possible for them to equal partners, able to come to agreements that meets the needs of both?
why would it be necessary for the women to be reliant on the husband for her "financial security", can't they both be the breadwinners, as well as they caretakers of the children?
I think there are many couples who not only found it possible, but found that they prefer it that way....


"Married women in some African countries are in more danger of HIV than unmarried ones because young women often marry men much older than themselves — for financial security — and these men are more likely to have had other partners and thus been exposed to HIV, the report found. ""

here in the US, we would consider a young women who is marrying an old rich guy a gold digger, wouldn't we....
well, it appears that these women's financial security rests so heavily on their choice of men that it is more of a custom to marry them old!!! thus, they are more apt to be exposed to aids, since the older man has had other partners.

are all you married men out there willing to wear condoms when having sex with your wife CONSISTANTLY....at her request?
and well, if we all did, would we also be using artificial means to produce our babies....

these women don't even have the priviledge of asking probably.

attack the feminist movement all you want, but well, it is just an offshot of a much broader movement that swept the country during the 1800th century that probably started before that.
without that broad sweep you would be still bowing to kings.
quite possible you would be slaves...
and even if you weren't slaves, unless you had a business of your own, you wouldn't be enjoying all the nice perks of modern day employment....with it's safe working environments and at least halfway decent wages.

let's see, they attack our constitution, wanting to bring it back to mid 1800th century levels......undoing all of the above.

they don't like the labor unions, want them gone.

they scream about the regulations that government puts on our industries and businesses, they should just leave them alone....

and of course they don't like the feminists....

and, well, they have driven much of our population into a type of complacency, they have the money, or if they don't they have the credit, or if not that, well, they have good ole uncle sam, to buy all the goodies that they not only need, but much of what they want. Only, they aren't really in such a good spot, are they? if they decided that all the books should be balanced out, and all the debts should be paid this year, where would most of us be, even if we sold everything we owned? I don't think we are in a good spot.

"These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves;

it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration." "


I don't get into the illuminati and the other stuff associated with the line of thinking that the original person posted is expression. But it seems that they have not only been doing this to women, but to all of us.

dependancy=slavery.....and in the past century or so, this country seems to have created a society of dependants. even our government is so dependent on corporations that they jump when beckoned. if the resources dry up, the slaves will then begin to realize that they are slaves, only by then, it will be too late. a pampered slave is still just a slave.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Just one question.

So these old rich African men. Why didn't they marry the 'other' partners that they had?

Because the guys have the mentality that they can screw around until they are old and not commit to a woman until then, is that what you are suggesting?

Because then you are suggesting it is not even the Woman's choice to DATE a man in the 'horrid' third world.

You talk about making decisions equally. So should a Husband capitulate to his wife? Or do you claim this would never happen, a woman trying to make a man subordinate in a relationship?

Morality and tradition are the accumulated knowledge of centuries, some of which has been obviously perverted to be biased against women. You say why can't both be breadwinners, well, why can't only women be the bread-winners in some cases? What, you say no woman would want such a man, yet men who fully appreciate their wife know their is nothing like that Love in the world. To know you need each other, that you are equally important in different roles.

One cannot exist without the other in a balanced family.

Extreme feminism has done little more than make many young women resentful about their 'role' in life, which has fed them lies about taking orders the rest of their lives, and giving up their identity. Please, do you honestly believe all men treat their most loved ones this way?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

try having a boss that is miserable to you while you are too dependant on that paycheck to be able to quit, and yet not able to find another quick enough.

Right, and women are the only ones to suffer from this. I must have a vagina I don't know about.


by the way, sure, you may not beat your wife, but some husbands do. and well, I think some men may have been happier living in a few hundred years ago, when they could buy their wife at an auction, and beat her whenever he wanted, and it would all be very much legal!

Right, and some women beat their husbands; some cheat on, murder, or attempt to murder their husbands. What's your point?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
=================================================
"Right, and women are the only ones to suffer from this. I must have a vagina I don't know about. "
===================================================
what was also in that post...
===================================================
"I don't get into the illuminati and the other stuff associated with the line of thinking that the original person posted is expression. But it seems that they have not only been doing this to women, but to all of us.

dependancy=slavery.....and in the past century or so, this country seems to have created a society of dependants. even our government is so dependent on corporations that they jump when beckoned. if the resources dry up, the slaves will then begin to realize that they are slaves, only by then, it will be too late. a pampered slave is still just a slave."
=====================================================

Does it sound like I am just talking about women here???


====================================================
"So these old rich African men. Why didn't they marry the 'other' partners that they had?

Because the guys have the mentality that they can screw around until they are old and not commit to a woman until then, is that what you are suggesting?

Because then you are suggesting it is not even the Woman's choice to DATE a man in the 'horrid' third world. "
=====================================================

More than likely they did marry the "other" partners they had, but maybe some didn't maybe some bought them, ect. As far as the women's choice to date a man.....well, I'm not sure....it could just be that some of these young girls were "given" to the old men as gifts....who knows, how many princesses in old Europe were given to men they didn't like for marriage. Maybe the practice of polygamy is acceptable.

=====================================================
"You talk about making decisions equally. So should a Husband capitulate to his wife? Or do you claim this would never happen, a woman trying to make a man subordinate in a relationship? "
=====================================================

What I am saying is that what it all comes down to, the man must decide for himself what he should do, as well as the women. IF their marriage is worth a danged to them, they should be able to work it out, where, ya, one will have to cede their position, but at least both will agree that what has been done was in the best interest for the entire familiy.

=====================================================
Morality and tradition are the accumulated knowledge of centuries, some of which has been obviously perverted to be biased against women. You say why can't both be breadwinners, well, why can't only women be the bread-winners in some cases? What, you say no woman would want such a man, yet men who fully appreciate their wife know their is nothing like that Love in the world. To know you need each other, that you are equally important in different roles.

One cannot exist without the other in a balanced family.

Extreme feminism has done little more than make many young women resentful about their 'role' in life, which has fed them lies about taking orders the rest of their lives, and giving up their identity. Please, do you honestly believe all men treat their most loved ones this way?
====================================================

IF their marriage is worth a danged to them, they should be able to work it out, where, ya, one might have to cede their position, but at least both will agree that what has been done was in the best interest for the entire familiy.

Originally, all I was saying was that maybe instead of wasting time (not to mention our taxdollars) changing stupid road signs so they are more "politically correct" if the feminists wanted to do some good, well, here is ripe pickings for them!! The original feminists wouldn't have been worried about the stupid signs to begin with. The situation they were addressing (weren't like those of africa) but were similar in many ways.....today's feminists have lost sight of the dream maybe....a world where everyone is equal....
by the way, these original feminists didn't want any more than the same legal standing as men...they didn't want more than men, they didn't want 150 laws written to make life easier for them by alleviating half their responsibilities in life...or as a mother. they want the paychecks they earned to be written in their name, not their husband's....who while not in ALL cases, but in enough cases, the husband would do with as he wished, and hey, the women was still responsible for cooking the meal to feed the family, regardless of weather or not the money was there to buy the food! They wanted some say, if their husband decided to make a deal with the brothal down the street involving their 14 year old daughter.
And, noone there could deny that such things were going on....the proof was there for all to see if they wished to look!
And, niether can anyone today deny that there is enough men (and women) out there willing to discard their responsibilities for a good time! The side-effects of their behavior is all over the place!!
But, when all is said and done, the truth of the matter is, that when the man decides to ignore their responsibities, or the women does....those responsiblities will fall on the one left behind....so, well, the truth is, essentially, that both are equally responsible for both the care and nurturing as well as the financial aspects involved in the raising of the kids. So, when dealing with the law, and legal issues, we'd be better off starting from this point, than the one that says that the women are the caretakers, the men are the breadwinners....especially now, when in so many households, both need to be bringing home the bacon.
The proof that we were never really considered "equal" are those things that many men are complaining about now... they separate, usually the kids are given to the mom, and the child-support payments are given to the men. Then, a whole slew of benefit programs kick into effect, thus elimating the responsibility the women really has to at least be providing half of the finances needed while the men might get off with hey, a few hours with the kids a week, maybe, but then he can always cancel!! The system is so screwed up, that even in the cases where the men do get custody, they find that the same programs that are there to help the moms are extended to them...since well, there is still a pretty big gap when it comes to wages in this country...so usually the men do make more money than the women...and well, their pay is well above the guidelines involved for the programs... But well, considering the cost of childcare, he'd have to be making a heck of alot to be able to cover it, and still feed, house and cloth his kids....and how often do you hear about dead-beat moms....not often...because no one actually expects her to make enough to support herself and make a major difference in the finances of her kids....



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Excuse me for suggesting you might be slightly deranged.

In a healthy relationship, the man and the woman discuss the issue, and then the MAN decides!

He must decide what is best for them, but there can be no arguing about it after the fact, both parties must accept what was decided as being best for the family/relationship.

Feminism has made women resentful of this RESPONSIBLE process! And it has made Dawnstar use examples like supposed Polygamy in the 3rd world, and all men prostituting their 14 year old daughter for some pocket change.

I think the funniest thing was A HUSBAND spending his WIFE's money. Wow, the reciprocal does not happen everyday, now does it. The situation is totally opposite from how it was described, in a situation where a man is overworked to provide for his family, is he SPENDING ANY of his money on himself?

No, it all goes to his family, which his wife takes care of! Man, we are trying to combat extremism, and talk about how to restore normal relationships, and the point being made is that blaming MEN is not the answer! Suggesting every one becomes a double income household is tantamount to death of the family. What's next, mandatory work for children at age 14?

When I was a kid, I thought feminism would enable me to be a Stay at Home dad, and I thought it would be great. Good thing I quickly realized that was never what they wanted...



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Susposed polygamy???


Polygamy is common in Africa. Isatou says she knew nothing of the marriage plans until Kadijha told her. She then confronted her husband about the marriage and the prospect of genital excision. But Mr. Bah says his decision was made. And both Isatou and Kadijha say they felt the weight of it through beatings. “It is in fact true. Where we’re from in Africa the women can’t be in the right. They can’t be in the right at all. When I say that my daughter doesn’t go to school and my wife says, ‘No, she has to go to school,’ I beat her. My uncle and my aunts beat the girl and were telling her never to leave for her whole life. We beat them savagely,” says Mr. Bah. Isatou says the family accused her of adopting Western ideals and acting superior.
www.politinfo.com...

The story of Anna Issa from Tarime District in the northern Tanzanian region of Mara, illustrates how woman-to-woman marriages can impact negatively on their health, although the idea behind the practice is often noble. A woman, who fails to bear children is at times permitted to take another woman as her "wife" to get children - often with men chosen by the "husband" - on her behalf.
Issa, 31, got "married" at 15 to an older woman under a practice locally known as "Nyumba Ntobo".
"Soon after the marriage, I went to live with my 'husband', and since she was unable to perform conjugal rights by consummating the marriage, the old woman had to search for men to sleep with me," Issa said.
"When I got children they were named after the old woman's family name," Issa said, in a survey conducted by the Tanzania Media Women Association (TAMWA).
www.alertnet.org...



www.atimes.com...
www.womensenews.org...

there's nothing susposed about it....it's happening, deal with it!

"Feminism has made women resentful of this RESPONSIBLE process! And it has made Dawnstar use examples like supposed Polygamy in the 3rd world, and all men prostituting their 14 year old daughter for some pocket change. :

why is it responsible? I mean, the man tends to be gone more than the stay at home mom is, seems to me, that she would be more familiar with what is going on in the household?

"I think the funniest thing was A HUSBAND spending his WIFE's money. Wow, the reciprocal does not happen everyday, now does it. The situation is totally opposite from how it was described, in a situation where a man is overworked to provide for his family, is he SPENDING ANY of his money on himself? "

ain't never heard or read of any of the husband's checks being cut in the wife's name though, have you?

"No, it all goes to his family, which his wife takes care of! Man, we are trying to combat extremism, and talk about how to restore normal relationships, and the point being made is that blaming MEN is not the answer! "
ya, that's why they would cut the wife's check out in the husband's name in the 1800's isn't it? just to irk him more by making him give more money over to her.


"Suggesting every one becomes a double income household is tantamount to death of the family. What's next, mandatory work for children at age 14?"

seems more realistic, in this age and time, when most households need the two incomes to live....
or, are you saying that we should just be building our society for the comfort of the rich and famous?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Good thing I was born in Africa and you've only read about it.

This is exactly what I was talking about extreme feminism distracting women from whats important.

You talk about 'in this day and age', well, my ENTIRE argument is that this 'day and age' scenario has been entirely manufactured to create conflict between men and women, one of the tactics being forcing women into the work place under the assumption that it is their choice.

But you have said you don't address that side of issues, 'supposed' goings-on, influences by the CIA financing extreme feminists, and so on.

In the traditional family, if you take away the man having to work for his family, and have taken his final say in decisions, what is he there for? To feel emasculated? Feminism's most deviant argument (which you are perpetuating) is that it was not 'Nature', but Male assertion and physical violence that resulted in the (phrase you use) Patriarchal society.

In a loving relationship, the 'traditional' way is not slavery, it is co-dependence. Thats why roles are important! I can't convince any one if their life experience has dictated otherwise.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
"You talk about 'in this day and age', well, my ENTIRE argument is that this 'day and age' scenario has been entirely manufactured to create conflict between men and women, one of the tactics being forcing women into the work place under the assumption that it is their choice. "

============================

would you like to try again???

==============================

Resolved, That the fundamental error of the whole structure of legislation and custom, whereby women are practically sustained, even in this republic, is the preposterous fiction of law, that in the eye of the law the husband and wife are one person, that person being the husband; that this falsehood itself, the deposit of barbarism, tends perpetually to brutalize the marriage relation by subjecting wives as irresponsible tools to the capricious authority of husbands; that this degradation of married women re-acts inevitably to depress the condition of single women, by impairing their own self-respect and man's respect for them; and that the final result is that system of tutelage miscalled protection, by which the industry of women is kept on half-pay, their affections trifled with, their energies crippled, and even their noblest aspirations wasted away in vain efforts, ennui, and regret.

Resolved, That in consistency with the spirit and intent of the Statutes of New York, enacted in 1848 and 1849, the design of which was to secure to married women the entire control of their property, it is the duty of the Legislature to make such amendments in the laws of the State as will enable married women to conduct business, to form contracts, to sue and be sued in their own names -- to receive and hold the gains of their industry, and be liable for their own debts so far as their interests are separate from those of their husbands -- to become joint owners in the joint earnings of the partnership, so far as these interests are identified -- to bear witness for or against their husbands, and generally to be held responsible for their own deeds.

Resolved, That could the women of the State be heard on this question, we should find the mass with us; as the mother's reluctance to give up the guardianship of her children; the wife's unwillingness to submit to the abuse of a drunken husband, the general sentiment in favor of equal property rights, and the thousands of names in favor of our petition, raised with so little effort, conclusive prove.
WHEREAS, The right of petition is guaranteed to every member of this republic; therefore


Resolved, That it is the highest duty of legislators impartially to investigate all claims for the redress of wrong, and alter and amend such laws as prevent the administration of justice and equal rights to all.
Resolved, That all true-hearted men and women pledge themselves never to relinquish their unceasing efforts in behalf of the full and equal rights of women, until we have effaced the stigma resting on this republic, that while it theoretically proclaims that all men are created equal, deprives one-half of its members of the enjoyment of the rights and privileges possessed by the other.

Woman's Rights Petition to the New York Legislature, 1854

alpha.furman.edu...

===========================================

the conflict was there, way back in 1854....women were working....way back there, in 1854....and the abuse of power was there.....way back in 1854



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join