Comment: My article on The family grown by the FED, defined by the state

(See in situ)


My article on The family grown by the FED, defined by the state

TITLE: From Coverture to Coureageousness

From covert-baron to coureageous, women of the colonial period America through the 20th century inhabited a universe by which natural laws were valued by a divine patriarch. Since the middle ages, womens' actions were hardly actions at all under the law and most married women's economic or politican actions were pegged to the intent of their husbands. In the late 1700's, if a married woman was injured and sought damages upon a court, an action under the law lacked standing for such women until consent of the claimants husband was first obtained. If the wife chose to rebel against her husbands intent and fulfill economical actions for herself all such actions were voidable by her husband. Upon recourse, a court was insidious enough to investigate the actions of women to ensure the husband played no part; an investigation demoralizing the character of women at the expense of the family. What's worst, a husband could be legally obligated to correct the misbehavior of his wife in the same moderation he is allowed to correct his servants. Domestice chastisement was encouraged by the early colonial state.

Women were considered covert-baron, under the protection and influence of their lord husband. Most states during the ravages of slavery sought to ethnically cleanse the stewardship of slaves by passing acts designed to clarify what is a slave. These acts implied that, upon intermarrying, slaves will come from the women, not the man. Maryland's legislature chose to express their intent to resolve the issue by claiming all woman who intermarry with any slave shall serve the master of her slave husband and all kids born of such free-born women, shall be slaves as their fathers were. These laws enundated the south and further chastised a long felt subordinate role for woman in the American household.

Despite a long history of subjogating women to the constitution of men, historians are still debating whether women carried their inferior status from England to the colonies without normative changes to reproach the issue. Richard Morris, a historian in the 20th century, concluded in his "Studies in the History of American Law", that the economic and social conditions of the colonial period effectuated change to free women from the bonds of English common law. Morris wrote that an action for alimony separate from a suit for judicial separation alowed a married woman to be protected from cruelty and abuse by her husband and enforced humane paternalism for the first time. Many historians would disagree, arguing that when the court proscribed abuse by the husband, the court still enjoined the wife to live with an abusive husband. Many historians would argue real changes to the status of women did not occur until the 18th and 19th centuries.

Marylenn Salmon, in her study "Women and the Law of Property in Early America", stipulated that the role of women during the 17th to 19th century was one of enforced dependence. Salmon exclaimed only at limited times and circumstances did a wife gain partial control over her family's estate while males held the power to manage his own property as well as his wife's. Salmon's view is a repercussion to generalizations made by men like William Blackstones in his essay "Women in the eyes of the law", where he set out to clarify and justify intrusions into a women's capacity as a citizen. Blackstones essay was likely warranted as a judicial response to the Feme-Sole Traders Acts that gained ground in support for a wife's right to exigently manage her husbands estate. As much as early male officials preferred to clarify the fundamentality of a women's status as so different than a mans, womens rights groups in the middle of the industrial revolution were equal to voice their concerns.

A group of widows in New York, in an anonymous letter to the editor of the New York Gazette, wrote disparangingly that there exists atleast some measure for which widows contribute to the support of government, and that such widows ought to be entitled to some of the sweets of government. The letter went on to outline the subtle aspects of male-dominated networks and how widows can network with just as much vigor as men and stand just as tenacious as men in the heat of battle.

During the outbreak of the American Revolution colonialism was rife with a spiritually-oriented protest against the king. Cunning men from New York to Virginia became warriors, under the law, to strike bayonets in the hearts of englishmen. The revolution was spilt with the blood of men, as most revolts are. The bravery and honor of men in these times of war are admirable only for other men whilst women knitted away bullet holes from the vests of male patriots. Only in times of a real renaissance such as the era ending the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19th century could women address the manevolance of the patriarch by spilling the ideas of oppression equal to the blood of their protestant forefathers.

Conditions of the industrial landscape were carved out so the traditional family became more dependent on the market itself rather than the land. Agrarianship in rural areas became replaced with working machines capable of mass production. Labor and goods raced to the cities where speculators were abound. Urban environments cluttered with people unionized under the banner of assembly lines. Children were born out of markets alien to the family and thus became wholly dependent upon the labor of their parents. Husbands and wives were separated by industry into their capacity for labor and only when pressed upon these conditions did the nuclear family emerge. Against this pressure of scarcity, the new industrial model of family constructed an unprecedented pedestal for women to push their legal status.

The Panic of 1837 sparked a cultural change among women. Women groups organized more so than ever before to protest economic uncertainty. In 1848, at Seneca Falls, Elizabeth Stanton and Lucretia Mott organized a convention for which, drawing parallels from the declaration of independence, the two women contrived their sentiments to the patriarch and his unduly reign over gender. Outlining how this patriarch has never allowed women to exercise the first right of a citizen, nor elective franchise. The women go on to list how the patriarch positions females in subordination to males whether in church, in state, in commerce, or even history itself. Stanton and Mott go on in great detail over different aspects of a woman's legal status in relation to men, noting how false public sentiment has been sustained by designing a different code of morals for men and women.

The Seneca Falls declaration was followed by judicial and legislative actions to recognize the fallacies inherit in 19th century jurisprudence. The New York Married Women's Property Acts protected women from spendthrift husbands who forced the family into insolvency. The New York act sought to establish for the first time, separate property for women not commingled into marriage, would be exempt from the debts of the husband. These acts began pushing the new pedestal for womens legal status into contemporary history providing substrate for equity in wives' treatment.

Enforcing equality with men was still amiss. In the supreme court case of Bradwell v. Illinois, Bradwell argued for a women's admission to the bar as a citizen under the fourteenth amendment. Bradwell contended admissions are regulated by the State of the person who requires a license to practice law and such state is bound by the privileges and immunities clause in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Miller, speaking for the courts in an 8 to 1 majority, trunkated the privileges and immunites of citizens from their respective state with a oppresive interpretation of the Slaughterhouse cases. In Minor v. Happersett, the supreme court continued to refuse a women's privileges and immunities in protecting a womens right to suffrage; a testiment to the idea that women had yet to truly declare independence from the king. The case of Susan B. Anthony in 1873 represented the spiritual transformation necessary for the women suffrage movement when Madam Anthony stated "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.".

This case sparked a movement among the growing classes of industrial era feminists to advocate for the right of suffrage until the final ratification of the nineteenth amendment in 1920. Subsequent to the passage of the nineteenth amendment, women have retained nearly equal access to all legislative spheres, juidicial spheres, while lacking progress in executive spheres. In 2013, women continue to press for equal access to modern technologies in forming their entreprenuerships. From coverture to coureageousness, the stoic bravery of past female voices will continue to crack the glass ceiling of the workplace until all people are we the people.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.