That example could be another example of being relative. Men were considered the representative of the household and the wife. That was the culture of patriarchy. It could be a problem if your hypothesis that all aspects within the marriage were dominated and dictated by unjust and abusive men was true, but if the whole culture is built off the notion that men were representatives of the wife and the family then it doesn't quite match the reality you are attempting to paint. Its just a system, but it doesnt mean the system is oppressive or unfair by design.
"It's just a system". Yeah ok.
Which law are you referring to exactly in regards to the bank account? Feminists know all these laws like the back of their hand ready to pull them out to paint their picture of male domination and mistreatment of women.
Banks could refuse women a credit card until the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 was signed into law. Prior to that, a bank could refuse to issue a credit card to an unmarried woman, and if a woman was married, her husband was required to cosign. Beyond rare exceptions throughout history women were only really allowed to attend university in the 18th and 19th century. The first time a court recognized that office sexual harassment as grounds for any legal action was in 1977 (the case of Barnes v. Train). Spousal r*pe was not criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems implicitly accepted wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife (
"Domestic violence".
Encyclopædia).
"By the end of the 1870s, most courts in the United States were uniformly opposed to the right of husbands to physically discipline their wives. By the early 20th century, it was common for the police to intervene in cases of domestic violence in the United States, but arrests remained rare. Wife beating was made illegal in all states of the United States by 1920." (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: just good policy, or equal...-a058511048)
These are all just a few relatively contemporary American examples, never mind older ones and those fom different cultures.
Do you mean single women weren't allowed their own bank account? Look you disagree that such a system heavily emphasized men as a womans sufficiency rather than being in control of their own finances and that is your right to do so, but don't say that method is outright oppressive. You are comparing two very different times together, the nature of the labor was diff from how it is today. By default most of them wanted children and by default a husband is needed for that so by default a caretaker of the home is needed. Many of the laws and customs are going to be built off of this reality. A single woman desiring to be single would have been the minority. Systems of law are always deficient/incomplete in matters dealing with minorities cause cases involving them are usually peculiar and bizarre territory.
Some women were FORCED to want a marriage and children regardless of their personal desires. You yourself admit the system recognized men as the family "representative" and that laws were built around that. So obviously women married as they also have been because that was the only way they could get provision. Not because they wanted to. I'm not saying most women didnt want marriage or that weren't any loving couples who genuinely cared for each other but c'mon man. If you know anything about the history of marriage then you know its historically been a system of exchange of property between men with women as the asset. Plus: polygamy? Stereotype of the man cheating on his wife and running off with someone younger and prettier? Few couples in antiquity married for love. And it certainly wasnt because of a chivalrous need for men to protect women, sorry if that's the lie you've swallowed. The romanticized version of marriage is also a relatively new feature in human history. And that's not on feminist sources, that's actual historical facts.
Umm... Most women sought after children and a husband which again, placed a need for one parent to provide these hands on caretaker responsibilities.
Social norms and economic politics hardly allowed room for couples to play to their true strengths. Probably why so many marriages were strained.
Not to mention given the nature of the work in patriarch times I don't think too many women complained about caretaker functions. I mean there weren't exactly too many secretary and office jobs back then or jobs that accommodate a persons comfortability. There was no AC room to sit in. Do you even think most women if given the choice would have wanted to go out and work allot of these jobs for financial freedom if given the choice between that and raising their own children? Maybe this financial freedom limitation actually saved allot of women who simply could not do allot of the jobs that were needed at the time and there was a shortage of jobs that women could perform so not all women would have been able to work women's jobs. They would have been stuck doing jobs associated with men. Maybe these limitations encouraged them a means of proficiency through a husband though you just dont like that idea.... There is allot of context you just simply wont apply to these discussions. Maybe in allot of these instances a woman being stuck with a man was simply the best way for her proficiency given the nature of the work at some times or a shortage of needed jobs. There are allot of variables... If I set up laws giving financial freedom to a class where jobs are in short supply allot of people wont have jobs, because of short supply.... which means they need another means of proficiency.
If I make laws however that emphasize another means of proficiency like marriage this person can now be proficient and the persons survivability is increased. Maybe that is why these "said" limitations were set on women and work, because it encouraged something unrealistic and an outcome that may not have always favored a women's chance at being sufficient in and of herself.
Lmao if you doubt women's proficiency I can only assume you've never read about women's role in WW2. Or even the jobs they did in the 50s. Wtf does an AC room have to do with anything? You're projecting, again, on what you WISH or assume women thought like or believed. Over all the examples you were already given about how women from members know personally had to take on the breadwinner role or genuinely enjoy the independence (or needed it due to screwed up situations) is completely lost on you.
But, again... Between taking care of their kids and working out in the elements what do you think most women preferred? Between possibly not having a job cause of shortages and having no means to survive to having a chance to survive, but under the house of someone else what are you going to choose? The system may have not been perfect, but maybe it had been better than a bunch of jobless men and women with no means to survive.
Wait what job shortages are you referring to?
Yeah 80 percent of the time its women, because its determined they are more fit caretakers. There is no real basis other than this.
Btw, seeking custody isn't considered a means of separating kids from their father? The father should just be grateful he gets weekends? Wow how compassionate
Wow wow but if women are born caretakers and men are not then why does it matter?
