Șapte cuvinte despre mariajul tradițional în trecut (2/7)

Our ancestors hoped for in a “traditional marriage” isn’t quite the roses and white picket fence that they believe it to be. Even though the definition of marriage as “an agreement between two people” has never changed, if you take a look into history it seems as though the idea of traditional marriage has.

* The women didn’t have a say. A blissful, traditional marriage is depicted as the husband and wife discussing issues and forming to decisions together for the good of their family. In a „traditional marriage,” this was not so. During American colonial times, William Blackstone stated that the “very existence of a woman is suspended during a marriage” and that she ceased to exist as a person without thought or voice. Basically, once she married, the woman’s job was to obey, cater to, and heed the word of her husband.

* The woman didn’t have any rights. In a “traditional marriage”, not only did a woman not have a say in family decisions, she didn’t have any rights either. After centuries of prejudice, finally in 1971, Ruth Bader Ginsberg fought for a woman’s rights within a marriage; this led to the abolishment of the existing law that during a dispute, males must be preferred to females. Furthermore, it was only in 1979 when head and master laws were abolished in most states, which stated that a husband could do whatever he wanted with his house, his family, and his wife and her possessions.

Din categoria:Breviar de mistificări Tagged: Lisa M. Douglas, mariajul tradițional, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, traditional marriage, William Blackstone