20 ms·
this has always bothered me too, to the point of making me think that the "only a century ago, women were considered property" claim to either be a false oversi
by adamrezich 3y ago
this has always bothered me too, to the point of making me think that the "only a century ago, women were considered property" claim to either be a false oversimplification, or require far more justification than I've ever seen given to the topic.
because like, I can sell my property, in addition to buying it—so I'm not really sure how that adds up, either.
- Dracophoenix 3y agoThe doctrine applied to married women is called coverture. Coverture deems that a married woman has no independent existence or right, but shares with her husband the benefits and (some of) the rights of he had possesses. > because like, I can sell my property, in addition to buying it—so I'm not really sure how that adds up, either. Bodily organs are recognized as property and yet many countries forbid their purchase or sale irrespective of the owner's or purchaser's consent.
- adamrezich 3y ago> Coverture deems that a married woman has no independent existence or right, but shares with her husband the benefits and (some of) the rights of he had possesses. this does not sound like "property" to me, at all. it sure doesn't sound like the way things are done today, but, it does not sound like "property" either. as of now, I maintain that this popular shorthand is a poor descriptor.