JFL Behold the female "oppression" before feminism boyos

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Beatrice Moring, the volume’s editor, draws upon a broad array of sources to examine women, family and family property in Stockholm in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. She demonstrates that while women enjoyed fewer individual rights than their male counterparts, they were regularly integral to family strategies of survival and success, whether on farms or running businesses. In some areas daughters inherited businesses more often than sons, many of them sharing control with their husbands. In these and other ways, married women were not passive appendages to their husbands, but active economic agents. Listings of innkeepers, for example, reveal dozens of married women whose husbands worked in completely different trades and occupations.

By contrast, Lloyd Bonfield limits himself to a few decades after 1796, mining the extraordinary records resulting from the introduction in Britain of the Legacy Duty, a precursor of the Inheritance Tax. Unlike taxes on the consumption of goods, which were common at the time, this tax on capital at death required the recording in registers of detailed information about the deceased and their property. Bonfield uses them to examine the wealth at the death of a sample of women from Canterbury, Chester, Norwich and Exeter and compares them with a select group of men. Overall, he finds that the mean wealth of spinsters was greater than widows, and that while men as a group were wealthier, the margins were not excessive (averaging 10%). In fact, in Chester, women’s personal wealth exceeded men’s by 27%.

That's some comfy oppression if you end up 27% richer than the average member of the "priviledged" class.

Beatrice Moring (ed), Women and Family Property. New York and Londo...

The goal of this volume of essays about women and family property – as it is expressed in the editor’s introduction – is to uncover the economic significance of women in the past that has tradition...

journals.openedition.org

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

It’s almost like women have always been strategically provided for while men were the ones expected to work and sacrifice. They only think they are oppressed because they compare themselves to the top percentage of men.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

It’s almost like women have always been strategically provided for while men were the ones expected to work and sacrifice. They only think they are oppressed because they compare themselves to the top percentage of men.

Previously, this was due to the fact that foids gave birth and one foid could give birth to three boys, that is, three potential soldiers, so it made sense, since a woman was a means of production for the state of future soldiers and workers.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

It’s almost like women have always been strategically provided for while men were the ones expected to work and sacrifice. They only think they are oppressed because they compare themselves to the top percentage of men.

Today, the foids have become so lazy that developed countries are forced to import foreign populations in order not to die out.

 

[GeckoBus]

That's some comfy oppression if you end up 27% richer than the average member of the "priviledged" class.

Beatrice Moring (ed), Women and Family Property. New York and Londo...

The goal of this volume of essays about women and family property – as it is expressed in the editor’s introduction – is to uncover the economic significance of women in the past that has tradition...

journals.openedition.org

another fat fucking nail in the tradcope coffin