Feminecronomicon
New member
- Mar 18, 2009
- 8
- 0
- 1
that women couldn't in years past? Feminists distort the fact that all marital property in years past was communal by saying that "women couldn't own property". For example, they complain that a married woman could not sign a mortgage without her husband's consent (ignoring the fact that a husband couldn't sign a mortgage without his wife's consent).
But when it comes to my trespassing question, women unequivocally said that I do not own my own home. This despite the fact that I bought it before I was married, it is completely in my name, and it is specified as mine in our prenuptial agreement. So why do feminists complain that married women in years past could not "own property", but they believe that I, as a man, cannot individually own property today?
Interestingly, in the joyriding question, Old's Uncool referred to my TV by putting "your" in quotes, as though a TV couldn't be "mine" simply because I'm married. So do feminists think that married women should be able to own distinct property but men cannot?
Primordial Chaos: Yes I did. Re-read them. But when property enters a marriage in a non-community property state, a pre-nup is irrelevant to my questions, anyway. A prenuptial agreement only clarifies the situation in a community property state.
ProfessorC: Incorrect. Women could own property. Once married, property was communal. That is, it belonged to BOTH husband and wife. A man could not enter into a mortgage contract without his wife's written consent because he would be adding a liability against their net assets that would directly affect the value and risk of her property. But GS feminists seem to think that women should be able to own independently property within a marriage, but that have a claim on all of their husband's property. A bit peculiar, don't you think?
But when it comes to my trespassing question, women unequivocally said that I do not own my own home. This despite the fact that I bought it before I was married, it is completely in my name, and it is specified as mine in our prenuptial agreement. So why do feminists complain that married women in years past could not "own property", but they believe that I, as a man, cannot individually own property today?
Interestingly, in the joyriding question, Old's Uncool referred to my TV by putting "your" in quotes, as though a TV couldn't be "mine" simply because I'm married. So do feminists think that married women should be able to own distinct property but men cannot?
Primordial Chaos: Yes I did. Re-read them. But when property enters a marriage in a non-community property state, a pre-nup is irrelevant to my questions, anyway. A prenuptial agreement only clarifies the situation in a community property state.
ProfessorC: Incorrect. Women could own property. Once married, property was communal. That is, it belonged to BOTH husband and wife. A man could not enter into a mortgage contract without his wife's written consent because he would be adding a liability against their net assets that would directly affect the value and risk of her property. But GS feminists seem to think that women should be able to own independently property within a marriage, but that have a claim on all of their husband's property. A bit peculiar, don't you think?