The legal oppression of men in Britain 1820 -1908

2012-06-25T17:27:10+00:00

And never mind the millions upon millions of men who had to give their lives for the state.

The squeaky wheel always gets the grease, and I am starting to think that squeaking is an evolutionary adaptation of the human female.

C0CKPUNCHER · 2012-06-25T15:03:22+00:00

This is important as even the mods here tend to believe the feminist version of history.

ZimbaZumba · 2012-06-25T12:21:12+00:00

Brilliant find.

rightsbot · 2012-06-25T12:16:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

thrownaway23123123 · 2012-06-26T08:06:23+00:00

Part of the book is on wikisource -> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

Demonspawn · 2012-06-25T15:36:50+00:00

Every culture, throughout every period of history, has treated the average woman better than the average man.

JockeVXO · 2012-06-25T16:07:43+00:00

can we get a tl;dr?

Gingor · 2012-06-25T18:09:54+00:00

The laws from 1800-1900 are sexist, but they usually were modified to fit both after about 20 years.

Of course, harsher laws for men could've been justified in that period, seeing as women were kept in the household and had therefore no experience in the real world (Note that that only applies to upper class women, as the lower and a large part of the middle class had to work just as men)

JockeVXO · 2012-06-25T20:08:18+00:00

Excellent, thank you OP!

Liverotto · 2012-06-27T01:31:59+00:00

THIS IS PURE GOLD

Keep in mind this was written in 1908:

Every moth-eaten scrap of privilege, which is in favour of the woman, they retain. All privileges of the husband, no matter how firmly established, they deny as having ever existed.
Every woman's statement complaining of her husband is assumed to he true until he conclusively proves it to be false. The onus probandi [burden of proof] is on him and the difficulty he has to face is that of proving a negative.

Liverotto · 2012-06-27T01:56:51+00:00

The express wording of the law--and, much more, the tacit warping of the Criminal Law in favour of women by the bias of judge, jury, and the press--has created a regular system of conferring privileges on women as against men, or against the community in general.

The only exceptions to these privileges are:--

(a) If the offence has been committed by one woman against another.
(b) If the offence is by a baby farmer [caretaker], committed against other women's babies. The reasons for these exceptions are, of course, obvious, and need not be dwelt upon here.

TRIAL AND SENTENCE.

The rules are substantially the same as those affecting wives in particular, already enumerated.

(a) The least excuse is sufficient to exonerate any woman from penal consequences.
(b) All the women's statements against a man are assumed to be true until they are proved to be false.
(c) The proof of the actual deed of crime must be much more conclusive than in the case of a man.
(d) The jury almost invariably recommends to mercy on the rare occasions when they convict.
(e) A shamefully inadequate or even a nominal sentence Is imposed.
An obliging maiden sister--to help her married sister to procure divorce and confiscation of property against a troublesome husband--swears that the husband committed adultery with herself, the wife's sister! The judge and jury find this story a concocted lie. The infamous perjurer is not punished--is not even prosecuted. Obliging maid servants every day come forward to allege their own or some other woman's "immoral relations" with the victim husband. No one ever dreams of prosecuting them. It would be waste of time and money--as no jury would convict.
Women, it is notorious, every day perjure themselves in divorce suits, by denying that they committed adultery when their guilt is manifest. They are never prosecuted. The administrators of the law show by their practice--though not in articulate words--that they hold such perjury a venial fault, if not, indeed, a justifiable means of self-defence in the case of holy, inviolate woman. This privilege, like the analogous one of bringing lying charges against a husband, extends to the wife's friends and hirelings. Let a husband untruly deny his illicit connection with a woman if his wife is the accuser. The Public Prosecutor intervenes, as a case decided in June, 1896, shows clearly enough, when the male went to penal servitude. Yet, be it observed, it is only the man's denying with the object of protecting himself against his wife that is punished. If the man he not a husband, but a co- respondent: if he deny the truth with the laudable object of protecting a wife (who happens to be an adulteress--but that does not strip her of her privilege) then his perjury is pardonable and chivalrous.

DavidByron · 2012-06-25T23:43:51+00:00

Yes I hadn't heard about Bax either until recently. But basically if you delve into the history of feminism you uncover a lot of dark stuff.

Title	The legal oppression of men in Britain 1820 -1908
Author	mikesteane
Upvotes	16
Comments	32
Date	June 25, 2012 12:14 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vkh2j/the_legal_oppression_of_men_in_britain_1820_1908/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-legal-oppression-of-men-in-britain-1820-1908.1019134 https://theredarchive.com/post/1019134

Comments

THIS IS PURE GOLD

The express wording of the law--and, much more, the tacit warping of the Criminal Law in favour of women by the bias of judge, jury, and the press--has created a regular system of conferring privileges on women as against men, or against the community in general.