I did back up my arguments.
Faragher: Sugar Creek and other writings
Forgot the author, but “Nature’s Metropolis”
You have the guy who wrote “Democracy in America” who I also cited.
THIS is backing up your arguments? You can’t even name the author’s of books that supposedly refutes my evidence. Please. Could you do any less work?
For the record, I provided you with a document written 150 years ago by a famous suffragist and women’s rights activist and endorsed by over 300 of her peers(women AND men). Her name was Elisabeth Cady Stanton and she as well as the document(The Declaration of Sentiments) are well know and well respected reflections of their time period and before.
This is an excerpt from her wikipedia entry AND the reference for it’s proof:
Even as a young girl, she enjoyed perusing her father’s law library and debating legal issues with his law clerks. It was this early exposure to law that, in part, caused Stanton to realize how disproportionately the law favored men over women, particularly over married women. Her realization that married women had virtually no property, income, employment, or even custody rights over their own children, helped set her course toward changing these inequities.
-Stanton, Eighty Years & More, pp 31-32, 48
Just about any historical study from this time period, if you actually read it without pre-conceived notions, will show you that women held a lot of power in this time period.
Prove this. Shouldn’t be too hard since it encompasses, as you say, “Just about any historical study from this time period”. Here’s my proof that you are wrong:
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to law in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men, both natives and foreigners.
Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.
He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.
He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
-Declaration of Sentiments 1848
Men were ostensibly the heads of households, but they could be dropped very quickly in the American courts with everything the family owned going to the woman.
Wrong again. But you keep ignoring the truth and maybe someday you’ll be right. Again, my proof:
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master — the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes and, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women — the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man and giving all power into his hands.
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
-Declaration of Sentiments 1848.
Women purchased husbands with a dowry.
Just admit that you don’t know what a dowry is. I told you what it is in my last post yet you stubbornly refuse to believe me. For the love of God, please look it up, already.
What you are referring to is a “bride price” which is what a man paid to a woman’s family to secure her hand in marriage. Not only do you not know what a dowry is, but you also have it mixed up with another custom AND you have it backwards.
Men were responsible for all manual labor and for any job that was either dangerous or physically discomforting with the minor exception of child birth, and only because they did not have the genetics for it.
Yeah, and men were responsible for all positions in government as well as all of the highest paying jobs such as lawyers and doctors. And in ANY case where a woman did the exact same job as a man, she was paid less. Sometimes much less.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.
-Declaration of Sentiments 1848.
Blind denial of my sources does not mean they are not provided, 505. I know I am debunking all the myths taught to you from school, but that also does not mean it is untrue.
You aren’t debunking anything. You are flat out lying and saying it’s the truth.
And I am not denying your sources. You just haven’t provided any information from them that refutes my evidence. It isn’t my job to read all of those books to find the nuggets you say are in there. It is YOUR job to provide those nuggets in an easily digestible form for the benefit of everyone here who is reading this. Saying they exist and then not providing them isn’t proof. I can say Santa Clause exists, too.
It just means that the historical revisionists did a very good job in changing how history is portrayed instead of allowing the truth to resurface
This is my absolute favorite.
Are you saying, that even now after all these years of freedom of information, that there is still some conspiracy to prevent some parts of history from being told truthfully? By whom? Radical historians bent on gaining absolute power for women by falsely guilting us into believing that women were mistreated in the past when they were clearly in control of their lives.
OMG! It’s true! Women have been in control of the western world the entire time! And now they want the WHOLE world! And the only people who can stop it are the Commander and some guy who wrote a book, I think.