It is interesting historical information. Except for the introductory statement "Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring" which essentially asserts an expectation that we should accept this historical practice as the correct basis of laws today.
I'm currently 53. When I was 19 or 20, I had a college classmate in her 70s iirc who talked about legally needing her husband's written permission to even get a job when she was in her twenties. This was the degree to which women were treated as property. So, yes, around 80 years ago, marrying well was just about the only hope of financial solvency a woman had.
I'm a former homemaker. I raised two special needs kids and followed my husband's military career around the world. Between that and a serious medical crisis, I've been really dirt poor for years and spent some years homeless.
So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own.
But policies are always two edged swords. Given how incredibly poor I have been, I am incredibly leery of the existence of actual laws still on the books that are rooted in the historical artifact of treating women literally as property of their husbands, even if that law is supposedly in the interest of the woman who is otherwise expected to accept being treated as a man's possession.
I have worked hard to try to find my voice in a world that is often openly hostile towards a former homemaker and her views being treated like a real person. I get crapped on a lot by self-proclaimed feminists who are often childless career women who seem to not actually be happy with their lives and are taking it out on me for various reasons.
The world needs very much to find a way to help people both stay home to care for children when that is the right answer for the family and also help them get a real career afterwards when that time has passed. The law in question is part of the manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken.
Please note I was careful to not attack the GGP. I just commented that it made me feel better about a detail of my life that I occasionally lament as evidence of a lack of "romance" in my life. I had something better than romance. I had a husband who genuinely cared about my welfare, something that is typically lacking in marriages based on the idea that he basically bought her because he has money, even if it isn't as explicit as such arrangements once commonly were.
The engagement ring laws cited are part of a polite form of selling oneself into slavery. It should be ancient history, but in 49 states, it is still the law.
> So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own.
Isn't that the whole idea behind alimony? Assuming the marriage ends prematurely (i.e. not "till death do us part") and speaking of the husband's responsibility in the matter.
As to society's responsibility in this matter, women have 100% the same rights as men in this day and age (well, other than the "right" to be conscripted) so at some point people just need to accept that choices they make in life will have certain drawbacks and/or advantages which may or may not affect their future in positive and/or negative ways. I'm also roughly the same age as you so I know there really weren't "manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken" in our lifetime and in fact the plight of women has arguably been the best it has ever been in all of human history. I'd even go as far as say it's The Golden Age of Womendom. Though, admittedly, things were a bit different pre-90's with regards to single mothers and, umm, "non-traditional" gender roles, probably more so if you didn't have the "luck" of growing up a major metropolitan area I'd imagine.
Please don't take what I'm saying as a personal attack but merely as an opposing viewpoint because I know these subjects get kind of touchy these days.
The problem is that women still get pregnant, women still lactate and men do not (people looking for BS excuses to attack me can spare me their rant about how that statement makes me transphobic, thanks -- there are far better ways to advocate for trans rights than randomly pissing on people). This is further compounded by a raft load of social norms that I see as ultimately rooted in that fundamental reality.
I'm not interested in fighting with you, but when you outright dismiss my assertion that women remain oppressed, it's really not fertile ground for having a good discussion on the topic. I'm not having a good day to begin with and your comment just reminds me of comments on HN where people try to dismiss the idea that my gender is a serious barrier to financial connections on HN and my rebuttal to that is that I appear to be the only woman to have ever been on the leaderboard and then that gets attacked as irrelevant and it's a really crazy making thing for me.
A lot of men on the leaderboard are quite well heeled. Some of that money clearly comes from their connections here on HN. These conversations make fire coming shooting out my ears and that's not a good place from which to try to engage in civil discourse in accordance with HN guidelines.
> women have 100% the same rights as men in this day and age
No, they don't. For one example, there are several hoops that women have to jump through when getting some medical procedures. Men do not have to jump through those same hoops.
I'm currently 53. When I was 19 or 20, I had a college classmate in her 70s iirc who talked about legally needing her husband's written permission to even get a job when she was in her twenties. This was the degree to which women were treated as property. So, yes, around 80 years ago, marrying well was just about the only hope of financial solvency a woman had.
I'm a former homemaker. I raised two special needs kids and followed my husband's military career around the world. Between that and a serious medical crisis, I've been really dirt poor for years and spent some years homeless.
So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own.
But policies are always two edged swords. Given how incredibly poor I have been, I am incredibly leery of the existence of actual laws still on the books that are rooted in the historical artifact of treating women literally as property of their husbands, even if that law is supposedly in the interest of the woman who is otherwise expected to accept being treated as a man's possession.
I have worked hard to try to find my voice in a world that is often openly hostile towards a former homemaker and her views being treated like a real person. I get crapped on a lot by self-proclaimed feminists who are often childless career women who seem to not actually be happy with their lives and are taking it out on me for various reasons.
The world needs very much to find a way to help people both stay home to care for children when that is the right answer for the family and also help them get a real career afterwards when that time has passed. The law in question is part of the manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken.
Please note I was careful to not attack the GGP. I just commented that it made me feel better about a detail of my life that I occasionally lament as evidence of a lack of "romance" in my life. I had something better than romance. I had a husband who genuinely cared about my welfare, something that is typically lacking in marriages based on the idea that he basically bought her because he has money, even if it isn't as explicit as such arrangements once commonly were.
The engagement ring laws cited are part of a polite form of selling oneself into slavery. It should be ancient history, but in 49 states, it is still the law.