Married Women and Property Law - Essay Example

? Marriage In the late 19th and early 20th century marriage was not something that women really looked forward to. In fact, initially marriage had been a largely patriarchal institution although feminist group did try to bring about reforms for the women to be able to have certain rights after their marriage. For instance, after marriage all the property and inheritance of the woman went to her husband and she used to be completely dependent and vulnerable to him. There were reforms that took place in the 1960s, for instance the women started being able to work and participate in the household income. Single mothers were not frowned upon and neither were spinsters. Child support was assured and property was divided equally. It was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when major social and legal changes occurred, and therefore we will talk about this period in relation to marriage and matrimony laws and rights. Before the 20th century marriage had deep roots in religion, law as well as interdependence between men and women. Although marriage was not a platform where both men and women stood equally, they were dependent on each other. They could not live without each other without having to face problems. For instance, women needed men to get them the basic necessities to survive, while men needed women to bear and rear their children, take care of the household and family. Often a widower could be found looking for a new wife right after his former one died. This interdependence definitely did not mean equality of men and women. In fact, it was the other way round and marriage was based on patriarchal laws where, at the time of their marriage ceremony, women had to vow to always obey their husbands. The property laws stated that a wife’s “legal identity was obliterated at marriage and she was entirely under the power and control of her husband” (Chambers 3). There was no way that a married woman could have any kind of property or even have control of the salary she might be getting if allowed to work. Therefore, marriage meant “civil death” for women (Chambers 3), and they were absolutely dependent on their husbands for everything. The cruel part was that the husbands could spend their wives’ inheritance and money on anything at all, which included keeping mistresses and hiring prostitutes. It was in the late 19th century that in some parts of the world, for instance in Canada, laws were passed that allowed women to own their property as well as the personal savings or earnings they got from any work they did. However, considering that most women, especially of middle and lower class, did not have much of property these laws did not really make much difference, and the judges were reluctant to apply them anyway. In fact, it was not just the women’s property and inheritance that the husbands got control over. The men also controlled their wives’ bodies after marriage. They could force them into sex or childbirth against their wishes, and the women had to oblige them. This also meant that in case there was some kind of an offence against a woman it was only her husband that could prosecute, if he wished to. Women were always at the mercy of their husbands. Apart from their money and bodies, women also did not have any right over their children. Their husbands could take their children anywhere at all and the women could not say or do anything about it. Their ownership lay with their fathers who could keep and raise them wherever they wanted, without giving any reason. In fact, they could practically do anything with them; sell them, trade them, make them work and take the money. Such was the case during the late 19th century. The early 20th century saw feminist groups rising up against this practice too like they were protesting against the property, suffrage and other rights. Birth rate started to decline due to maternal instincts. Due to this and the feminist groups’ work, the women succeeded as later on laws did change and mothers were given the automatic rights to their children. The law makers decided that it was a mother’s caring environment that a child needs while growing up and therefore that helped in the change of laws. Initially it was only for children under the age of seven; later on, the age limit extended up to twelve, and then the fathers and mothers got the equal right to custody of their children. Regarding the situation of women Florence Fenwick Miller rightly said that: Under exclusively man-made laws women have been reduced to the most abject condition of legal slavery in which it is possible for human beings to be held...under the arbitrary domination of another's will, and dependent for decent treatment exclusively on the goodness of heart of the individual master (Wykes and Welsh 93) Another law was that women could not get a divorce in any circumstance and they had to deal with their husbands themselves no matter whether they hit them or cheated on them. In fact, until 1891 if a woman ran away from her husband the police caught her and returned her to him who then could imprison her or do anything whatsoever. Rebellion was greatly punished, by husbands, fathers and brother; practically all male members. Susannah Palmer is one brave example of a woman who actually tried to run away from her husband as he was cheating on her continuously and beating her. She started a new life from scratch for herself and her children. Ultimately her husband found her and took away everything from her. In a fit of madness and fury Palmer killed him, resulting in the law prosecuting her (Horstman 159). Although 1857 did see the passage of the Divorce Act in British colonies, such was not the case throughout the world. Even this Act had certain restrictions, more so toward the women. Such as a woman could not divorce her husband on the “mere” grounds of adultery, while that reason was considered perfectly lawful for a man to divorce his wife. And though there was this concept of Divorce, it was not until mid-20th century that it actually became common. Although life after marriage was so difficult for women they did not really have any choice in this case. Spinsters were frowned upon and heavily criticized by the society and they did not have any source of income anyway, since the paid jobs were all given to men. It was only later on that the women could work and keep their earnings but still their salaries were pretty low and insufficient. Also, unless a woman married, she could not live with any man neither could she have children. Any child out of wedlock was considered illegitimate and both the child and the mother were social stigma, disapproved by the society. Works Cited Chambers, Lori. Married Women and Property Law in Victorian Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Finlay, Henry Alan. To have but not to hold: a history of attitudes to marriage and divorce in Australia 1858-1975. Federation Press, 2005. Horstman, Allen. Victorian divorce. Taylor & Francis, 1985. Probert, Rebecca. Family Law in England and Wales. Kluwer Law International, 2011. Wykes, Maggie and Kirsty Welsh. Violence, gender and justice. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009. Read More