Posted on 05/26/2002 2:17:07 PM PDT by RogerFGay
Many widows were young. In times of war or conflict, it was men who died. If the woman died intestate, the property was divided among her children. If she had a will, it would have been awarded as her will directed. Women in general made sure any daughters were well inherited. This is just the way it was.
Women at that time held at least half the privately owned property and a controled a good portion of the corporately or business owned property, if not outright ownership. Women owned and controlled many businesses in those times, their civil status modified to allow torts and other civil action against them as owners.
Are you talking about today, or early last century?
What we have today is nothing like the way it used to be. Women were advised to marry in many cases using the argument that it was the way to increase her property. What property a women brought into a marriage remained hers. The husband controlled the property during the marriage, but could dispose of it only with her consent.
Divorce, when it happened, had to have a basis in damage: infidelity, nonsupport, physical cruelty, abandonment, and in a lot of cases, civil death (long prison terms). If the charge went against the woman, she would retain the property she brought into the marriage. If the charge went against the man, his property was awardable as alimony. This was before the 19th amendment, which made women taxpayers and gave them civil responsibilites and duties.
The old system was heavily loaded in favor of women, even in the face of debts.
I also think the property rights laws varied among the states.
Only very minor differences. This area was controlled by the common law in every state but Louisana which used the Roman civil law.
Furthermore, since many Americans lived on farms in times past (and not too many of them were wealthy), that farm was a family enterprise. Widows can run a farm by themselves. Ditto for the family business.
Not getting your point here.
Women may have owned wealth, but I believe you exaggerate the extent of the wealth they held.
The condition of women at that time was more or less defined by the custom of coverture. They were short on civil duties, but also equally short on civil responsibilites. They were long on property, personal and real. When they married, their business for the most part was controlled by their husband, but the courts rode herd on that relationship, and, in any controversy involving that relationship, heavily ruled in favor the woman.
The notions people have today about the past customs (and not too long past) are patently false, and much of it outright lies made by people who knew the truth. You have been lied to and made to think false information and implication are true. If you check the support behind the 19th amendment you will find a lot of backing from financial institutions, because when she inherited property with a note attached they could do nothing drastic to recover it.
In all things important to a woman, she not only had custom and public support but legal and court support. There are even cases where the court ordered a husband to pay more attention to his wife, and it was enforced by the executive department of the state!
All in all, if I were a woman, I would much rather be one under the old system of law than this one. There were downsides, of course, but downsides only as seen from the viewpoint of a male nature, not a female nature.
What's funny about this "debate" is that absolutely no one on the supposed side of the dad LISTENS. I've said REPEATEDLY that I don't want to screw over the dads that actually pay their bills, but we can't protect the deadbeats. The situation we had 20 years ago was exactly like you think is a good idea, abandoned wives had no choice but to take it on the chin, no choice. Literally every company in this country had more ability to collect on bad debt (through collection agencies, the courts, if the debt was sufficient even wage garnishment) than the mother of some one's kids. If that doesn't strike you as sick then I have to think there's something seriously wrong with you.
I notice no one even contemplated responding to my idea. What if we gave spouses that were supposed to receive child support the exact same bill collecting capabilities as corporations? With the same proof requirements. See nobody is proposing we go to some mid-level. Everybody working againt the current system wants to go back to how it was in the 70s, and that was no good. And letting people collect on bad debt isn't socialism, if you think it is you need to spend some real time in school learning what big words mean.
" The husband controlled the property during the marriage, but could dispose of it only with her consent."
Considering that the husband was the head of the family (and still is in mine), and that divorce was a scandal in most all circles, it would not have been difficult for husbands to "dispose" of their wives wealth as they saw fit.
They could and did. They hired help or used the labor of their children. If the farm was a profit making enterprise, they hired a ramrod to control and direct the help. Please, do not take the counsel of fiction in novels and movies to form your knowledge of those times. Most do not relect the truth of the man/woman relationship then under the law. If you want to get a true picture, read the law from that time and read appelate court cases using that law.
Sorry, I can't continue this discussion in the face of this statement. I didn't read the rest of what you said. If you can say that, I, personally, can't give credence to anything else you say. Waste of time. Bye.
Two friends of mine have gone thru divorce in the last couple of years. In BOTH cases, the wife started playing around, then decides to divorce the husband and rape him in court so she can live comfortably with her new boyfriend.
I'm sure. Most who are, don't.
They rarely ever controlled their own wealth.
I've said all I can say. Believe what you want. I would strongly recommend you read up on the topic and investigate your subjectively held convictions. You may be surprised.
Just came over from a thread about the death of the American car business, why am I not surprised by this attitude. It's exactly the same mentality.
Any healthy entity (person, company or nation) will always strive for perfection. Once you're willing to accept otherwise you've already lost.
You've consistently ignored my repeated stated position as to WHY enforcement is important (again, because in a wide open system people are more obligated to pay their electric bill than child support). You're continuing to ignore my proposed solution which would kick the fed out AND give a level of useful enforecement.
I'm forced to think you have alterior motives. That in truth you do want a wide open system that allows men to walk away from familial obligations. What is so terribly wrong with holding people responsible for the debt that they've incurred. I've thuroughly read all of your stuff, and yes I agree that the federal program is bad. Again why is it I can admit the areas where you're right but you find it so difficult to admit somebody else might be right? Took me half a day to get you to admit that there really are deadbeat dads. Apparently there's no way to get you to admit that actual deadbeat dads should have to pay their debts just like any other deadbeat.
And as for you and William if you'd actually read your history books you'd find that the economic system that allows for the greatest strivings towards perfection is capitalism; communism/ socialism produced 3rd rate garbage when it produced anything at all. So as for what I'd be willing to give up the answer is NOTHING, giving things up means no longer striving for perfection. Perfection means having your cake and eating it too. We can never get there, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
I know of one case where the husband left his wife for another woman but they never divorced. They've been living apart but still married for 20 years. The husband has changed women several times. The wife has remained faithful to the "marriage" for the 20 years he's been absent. She's a devout Catholic so she would never remarry even if they divorced. Besides, she believes they'll get back together some day.
We don't know what all goes on in private in people's lives. People put up with a lot for years before a marriage ends. Sure, some people divorce at the drop of a hat, but I'll wager not that many.
No wonder people mourn for the death of the American family.
Nahhh... that never happens... those kind of things are always the husband's fault. Like the cases where one spouse maxes out multiple credit cards to ridiculous five figure sums and then obtains new accounts and repeats the process as the other spouse scrambles and struggles to keep up... the problem is always the same... either it's the husband's fault for running up the debt himself, or it's the husbands fault for earning too little to keep up with his poor deprived wife's shopping habits. This causes as much divorce as infidelity.
It would probably be helpful if you would stick to your own proposals and stop putting words in the other fellow's mouth. You're not being persuasive with that act, you're just sounding like a guy waving his arms around emotionally.
Your proposal to turn debt collection over to what amounts to private collection agencies is one that few conservatives should object to, especially since the government appears to be wasting most of the money they are currently spending on enforcement. Your proposal does not, however, deal with the other piece of the puzzle, which is that the award amounts themselves are being set by systems and procedures that date from an era when bogus research produced by feminist activists with little regard for truth ruled the day. We have a bunch of horrible laws that date from that era, and these support-level algorithms are among them. Mr. Gay appears to have spent considerable time working and researching in this area, and if you were a little less intent on labeling him instead of hearing what he has to say, you might learn something. It is simply not true that all attempts to make child support awards less onerous are motivated by a secret desire to abandon. You keep going there, and it's annoying. Please stop it.
Got any stats on this wild assertion? Seems like some of you people make up all kinds of stuff as you go along.
Yes, addiction DOES break up marriages. There are many types of addiction; gambling, drugs/alcohol, compulsive shopping, compulsive eating , etc. Both men and women fall prey to addictions. If the couple has really tried to get these things resolved and they can't, then divorce is the only real alternative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.