~ archived since 2018 ~

Unequal before the law: men women and the death penalty

whosthatcreep

August 14, 2020

20 upvotes

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1137%26context%3Djgspl%26sei-redir%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwjTneWHoZrrAhWptYsKHWkNAI0QFjAOegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3cKfgWrZUYJkQS86P-cGaf&cshid=1597393855292

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Unequal before the law: men women and the death penalty
Author	whosthatcreep
Upvotes	20
Comments	38
Date	August 14, 2020 8:33 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i9ia7x/unequal_before_the_law_men_women_and_the_death/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/unequal-before-the-law-men-women-and-the-death.845816 https://theredarchive.com/post/845816

Comments

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RagingHardBull 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ancient-Abs -9 points-8 points-7 points 5 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

What year was this published? Most of the references are from the 1970s to 1990s. Women were considered “chattel” or property of their husbands up until the early 90s so they were treated differently in the eyes of the law because they weren’t seen as a separate entity. For example, if your wife cheated on you with your neighbor, you could sue your neighbor for property damage (the wife was property). Some companies wouldn’t let women get credit cards in the 80s without the signature of their husbands.

You could legally rape your wife until 1990 in most states bc the idea was she consented at marriage.

While I’m not trying to discredit this argument, I think it helps to see that legally women were NOT seen of as equal to men, but akin to property or children so they weren’t seen of as “worthy of punishment”. It’s the same bullshit that occurs in religions that teach women as “more righteous than men” and makes men out to be naturally evil or with “animalistic emotions they can’t control”. This bullshit prevents women from living consequences and being treated equal to men.

[–]Mode1961 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RagingHardBull 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Publication date is literally right there on page one.

>your misreprentaition of coverture reeks of misandric revisionist history.

>source on "rape was considered property damage" please.

>married couples where legally considered one entity. Husbands could be held liable for debts made by their wives, makes sense that they had a say in financial decisions.

>you could NOT legally rape your wife in most states until the 90ies and the law that defined rape as something men do to women they aren’t married to did not protect male victims and only applied to male perpetrator. Leave it to a feminist to twist that into discrimination against women.

> the whole "misandrist is just misogyny in disguise" meme needs to die. sounds like someone saying "black men are disproportionately targeted by the police because white people are considered unworthy of punishment and to cowardly to commit crimes, so lets just focus on anti white racism and that will solve black ppls probpems mUHgIcaLlY"

>this is a sub about men’s rights, so thats what we post about, if you want to join a community that prioritizes women, well, you can barely spit out and not hit one, so wtf are you even doing here.

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here is the source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

Literally quoted the entire paragraph from the same source I sent you bc you never read it. Here it is again.

"Historically, in much of the world, rape was seen as a crime or tort of theft of a man's property (usually either a husband or father). In this case, property damage meant that the crime was not legally recognized as damaging to the victim, but instead to her father or husband's property. Therefore, by definition a husband could not rape his wife.[1] The view that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife was described by Sir Matthew Hale (1609–1676) in History of the Pleas of the Crown, published posthumously in 1736, where he wrote that "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract". Also, American and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, that is, a legal doctrine under which, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.[2] The implication was that once unified by marriage, a spouse could no longer be charged with raping one's spouse, anymore than be charged with raping oneself.[3]

In the US, the wife's legal subordination to her husband was fully ended by the case of Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[4] Many jurisdictions, including all fifty U.S. states, criminalizing marital rape by the 1990s. English common law also had a great impact on many legal systems of the world through colonialism. (Bovarnik, 2007)."

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

So you believe in BLM?

Well a famous advocate for black rights and abolistionist, Harriet Beech Stowe wrote:

"[T]he position of a married woman ... is, in many respects, precisely similar to that of the negro slave. She can make no contract and hold no property; whatever she inherits or earns becomes at that moment the property of her husband. ... Though he acquired a fortune through her, or though she earn a fortune through her talents, he is the sole master of it, and she cannot draw a penny. ... [I]n the English common law a married woman is nothing at all. She passes out of legal existence."

So are women grouped with the white people or the black people in this analogy?

Last time I checked, there are no countries in the world where men are legally prohibited from voting or driving. Yet, to this day, there are countries where women cannot vote, drive or LEAVE THE HOUSE. So tell me again how men are like the BLM movement?

[–]accidental_me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]accidental_me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]accidental_me 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]accidental_me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ancient-Abs -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Here is the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

Also, see South Carolina where spousal rape isn't valid unless a threatening amount of force is used during the encounter and the victim only has 30 days to report it. THIS IS THE CURRENT LAW.

"Rape—any nonconsensual sexual intercourse— between non-spouses has always been illegal. However, until 1975, every state had a “marital exemption” that allowed a husband to rape his wife without fear of legal consequences.

By 1993, largely in response to the women’s rights and equality movement, every state and the District of Columbia had passed laws against marital rape. However, it is often still more difficult for a spouse-victim to prove that she didn’t consent to her husband than it would be to prove non-consent with a stranger." https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marital-rape-laws.html

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

LMAO. Actually it is, you just didn't bother to read it. It was right under "HISTORY" literally the first paragraph. 😂 I'll copy it here so you actually read it this time.

"Historically, in much of the world, rape was seen as a crime or tort of theft of a man's property (usually either a husband or father). In this case, property damage meant that the crime was not legally recognized as damaging to the victim, but instead to her father or husband's property. Therefore, by definition a husband could not rape his wife.[1] The view that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife was described by Sir Matthew Hale (1609–1676) in History of the Pleas of the Crown, published posthumously in 1736, where he wrote that "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract". Also, American and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, that is, a legal doctrine under which, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.[2] The implication was that once unified by marriage, a spouse could no longer be charged with raping one's spouse, anymore than be charged with raping oneself.[3]

In the US, the wife's legal subordination to her husband was fully ended by the case of Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[4] Many jurisdictions, including all fifty U.S. states, criminalizing marital rape by the 1990s. English common law also had a great impact on many legal systems of the world through colonialism. (Bovarnik, 2007)."

Brownmiller, Susan, Against Our Will. Simon and Schuster, 1975, pp. 17-18.

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]whosthatcreep[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]accidental_me 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ancient-Abs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]accidental_me 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link