.
.
.
The Inalienable Rights of Women – DENIED
As people from all races and religions remember the past and slavery or their relegation to the bottom of society in America whether they be Irish, Germans, Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Mexicans, American Indians and African Americans know this – For the last 9,950 years HALF (1/2) of the people in the greatest societies of the world have been relegated to absolute slavery.
They have been, sold, beaten, raped, murdered, unable to own property, relegated to status as property, unable to vote and anything else you can think of that can be heaped on the backs of the disenfranchised. And then like animals in the field they were then expected to be the breeding machines that produce the next generation of cannon fodder.
Definition of Women for 9,950 years – setting the date of civilized society at 10,000 years ago:
Man’s assets – divorce by sale -negotiable property – servant – slave – chattels of men – sex slave – object of legal rape – whipping post – breeding machine – cook and maid.
Women have been at the bottom of society for the last 9,950 years out of the last 10,000 years of the supposed rise of civilized “MANkind.” And this continues today in many countries and including to some extent in America too!
A woman could not open her own bank account in the USA until the 1960s. France, 1881: France grants women the right to own bank accounts; five years later, the right is extended to married women, who are allowed to open accounts without their husbands’ permission. The US does not follow suit until the 196os, and the UK lags until 1975.
Women came in second on Affirmative Action!
US, 1967: Lyndon B Johnson’s 1965 affirmative action benefits are expanded to cover women.
SLAVERY
The position of a married woman … is, in many respects, precisely similar to that of the negro slave. She can make no contract and hold no property; whatever she inherits or earns becomes at that moment the property of her husband. … Though he acquired a fortune through her, or though she earn a fortune through her talents, he is the sole master of it, and she cannot draw a penny. … In the English common law a married woman is nothing at all.
She passes out of legal existence.
For the Negro slave in America the system existed for hundreds of years but for women, black and white, it has been 9,950 years.
1822 England
A man named Brooks advertised the sale of his “young and handsome wife of two years” at a Plymouth cattle market.
Mid 19th century
Prices paid for wives varied considerably, from a high of $100 plus $25 each for her two children in a sale of 1865 (equivalent to about $13,200 in 2019) to a low of a glass of beer, or even free.
China
The Chinese custom of wife selling or selling a divorce has a long history, spanning both the Imperial and Modern eras.
Africa today
In Africa generally, according to Parker Shipton in 1990, husbands sometimes sell wives during famines or food shortages, but not vice versa.
Rape Your Wife in the USA
The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.
Beating Your Wife
In 1895, London passed a bylaw setting a curfew on wife beating. However, this was more a noise pollution issue than any concern for the rights of the beaten wife – They disallowed beating your wife in London because her screaming disturbed everyone.
Finally in 1976, some 50 years after women got the vote, a law was passed against domestic violence in the USA.
Women’s Rights in Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt, 3100 BCE : Women hold equal financial rights with men. As scholar Janet Johnson writes , “Egyptian women were able to
acquire, to own, and to dispose of property (both real and personal) in their own name. They could enter into contracts in their own name; they could initiate civil court cases and could, likewise, be sued; they could serve as witnesses in court cases; they could serve on juries; and they could witness legal documents.”
Rape was punished by death. In the case of foreigners this punishment was sometimes commuted to exile. The violation of a free woman was punished by mutilation of the male offender. The first man ever to be fired for sexual assault – 3,000 YEARS ago: Astonishing rape charges against a powerful Egyptian are found on ancient papyrus.
STOP
The extreme abuse of women is still the case in many countries in the world and we must take a stand!
The Brain Trust
But this is not just about slavery or the relegation of fully ½ of society to servitude, cruelty, rape and isolation for thousands of years – but about a brain trust. This is about the past, present and future of society, the world as a whole, the planet earth and its inhabitants. Fully ½ of society has been left out of the advancements of mankind leading into the new era.
Imagine if you will where we would be if women, fully 50% of the entire world had input into the ideas, concepts, societal values and industrial advancements made in the last several thousand years?
Do the “Rights” Thing
Gay rights affect 4.5% of the people in the USA. Black American rights affect 12.3% of the population. 17% of Mexican Americans are affected by civil rights. But fully 50% of the world – women – have been and are still relegated to an inferior position, whether they are white, black, Mexican, Catholic or Jew they lack, and are consistently denied, the rights of men.
The future of MANkind is in question and in flux. It is time to set the women free for the full potential, the fully realized future of this great planet – this third rock from the sun – this incredible anomaly of the universe, called earth.
Michael J Robbins
Person on this fine planet
“A woman could not open her own bank account in the USA until the 1960s.”
Please cite source.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history
Alas, the article provides no authority for this preposterous statement.
It will be interesting to know what our local police reform advocates think about Kalama Harris’ positions:
“On the campaign trail in 2019, Harris has been recast as an insurgent reformer who spent her entire career fighting against draconian criminal justice enforcement. At her presidential campaign announcement rally, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf opened the event by declaring, “When it was still popular to be ‘tough on crime,’ she was smart on crime.” The crowd cheered and clapped. The history, however, is a little more complicated.”
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/07/kamala-harris-san-francisco-district-attorney-crime/
Addition to the above comment: I learned that police reform advocates dislike Harris’ record. Another interesting article about her:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/10/how-convincing-is-kamala-harris-leftward-shift
Many of them do dislike her record — and most of the critique is bullshit.
Harris has put people — including people of color! — in prison for offenses that her critics do not like! (We of course don’t know how much overcharging she helped avoid; those instances don’t come labeled.) There are times when an AG may just have to refuse to enforce a law they consider unjust, but they are few and far between — and that’s a GOOD thing, because otherwise conservative AGs would not be called onto the carpet for failing to enforce the sorts of crimes that leftists want to see enforced — the sorts that don’t get enforced in many conservative states and counties.
If there are criminal laws that we don’t want the AG to enforce, enhancements we don’t want to see applied, reductions we think should exist, alternatives to incarceration we’d like to see in place, then we should be seeing pressure put on the legislature to pass those provisions. We shouldn’t be leaning on the Attorney General as a primary means of reshaping the law to his or her liking.
Oh, and you’ll hear that she “favors slavery.” That’s because she is not opposed to programs allowing inmates to work for less than minimum wage while in prison — an arrangement that they depict as “slavery.” Guess who really likes that arrangement? Yes, industries who employ them do, but do you know who else does? THE PRISONERS! So why should we look kindly on eliminating what THEY would like to see happen, just to comport with a bogus reading of the Thirteenth Amendment?
What the supposedly leftist reform attacks on Harris’s record tell me most clearly is that she has made a lot of enemies in her career — many of them right here among some of the worst parts of our own Democratic Party — and those enemies are as good as the Russians in seeding plausible-sounding false narratives where their targets will see them. That, sadly, includes the Intercept, whence came the Guardian’s article on Harris.
Read the article and you’ll see that the first attack on Harris is that she didn’t support Bernie in 2016. (Neither did she support Hillary in the primary.) That’s pretty weak — while I supported Bernie from the moment he first appeared to be viable (which was NOT at the absolute beginning), lots of good people made other choices, and some not-that impressive people supported him. The real argument against Harris from the Bernie camp is that she is RUNNING AGAINST Bernie, and so needs to be torn down lest she beat him.
Bernie is my top choice for President, but I’m just not interested in that sort of game. There are good reasons to hesitate to support Bernie — age and relatively high intraparty negatives being two — although I don’t think that they outweigh the positive reasons to support him. Nevertheless, they may prevail, and while there’s some logic in saying “Bernie or we don’t vote” — just as there were good tactical reasons to say “Hillary or we don’t vote” in 2008, although seeing it happen made me sick — I think that it’s both unnecessary and counterproductive. We can and should distinguish among non-Bernie candidates as well. I have three favorites in the race — Bernie, Kamala, and Warren — and while each has their negatives they are all among the best we have. (So, though to my eye a lesser extent, are others such as Senators Merkeley, Brown, Gillibrand, and some others — none of whom I want to drag down.) Then there are those who I think would be weak on policy and/or politics — and those I will criticize.
Kamala Harris gets criticized so much largely because she is the tallest poppy, the one who supporters of other candidates think need to be cut down. Don’t read intrinsic justice into political calculation.
This NYT article presents a similar critique to the one mentioned in the other publications. It mentions her role in the OC jail informant scandal.
“… she developed a reputation for caution, protecting the status quo and shrinking from decisions on contentious issues.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/us/kamala-harris-progressive-prosecutor.html
Up until last November, OC’s DA’s office was the Wild West. If she had wanted to dislodge Rackauckas and the Sheriff (though Barnes was hands-on responsible) for wrongdoing, she might have had a chance in hell — but probably not. Most Republicans were afraid to take Rackauckas on and certainly would have resented a San Francisco liberal coming in to mess with our gummint. And, as I expect she knew, OC’s Democratic political establishment has hated (and feared her ascendancy) her for at least one decade that I’ve seen and possibly more — enough so to have pushed Loretta Sanchez into a foolhardy Senate race to try to derail her. (Much of this same Democratic establishment was treated solicitously, to use a gentle term, by the DA.)
She could have used all of her political capital and administrative energy on OC — and still lost. Some portions of a politician’s jurisdiction can be too corrupt to even try to clean up — as was true of OC until voters (bypassing both parties’ establishments) went with Spitzer over Rackauckas and his prospective successor Michael Gates.
Yes, challenged Judge Goethals’s order to take the OCDA’s office off of murder prosecutions. That’s OK. It was not a precedent that should have been taking lightly, and taking it to court helped to clarify the bounds of what a judge can and cannot order in this vein. There’s nothing wrong with that. She was not shilling for Rackauckas; she was protecting her own office.
The notion that she had a “role in the OC jail informant scandal” at all is being vended by people who want to take down one of the current front runners. It fails to recognize the power that OC exercised, like a gargantuan porcupine, to stave off oversight from Sacramento. Never forget that, for years and years, Rackauckas’s endorsement was critical to getting an elected judgeship here. He had tremendous clout within the judiciary. The NYT’s assumption that she could have sashayed in and cleaned it all up is simple ignorance, an example of a reporter getting played by political operatives.
*Harris will make a perfectly good VP behind Biden or McAuliffe.
No, she won’t. No dim will make a good anything.
*Think so eh?….watch the Trumpster dump your favorite son Mike “Slippery Hand Shake” Pence. He will probably pick one of the Kardashians to be his new VP! The Republicants…..are great picking powerful VP’s aren’t they?
*Our Great Grandma Minnie marched for 19th Amendment. She was also a member of Women’s Christian Temperance Union. Uncle Bob…..who was her only son danced on her grave drunker than a skunk when she was 99 saying: “Thank God the Witch is Dead!”. That was in 1953! Great Grandma Minnie was aso a Cowboy Pulp Fiction writer and had to write under her Son’s name to get published. She was third cousin to Jesse Wilson James and 2nd cousin to Woodrow Wilson. She finally was the niece of Rutherford B. Hayes..
Just thought you otta know Saudi Arabia just allowed women to drive and the accident rate increased by 50%
See I told you…
Afraid of women like Harris yes! As president remember, women represent 50% of the traffic deaths in the USA. You wanna woman Pres that represents 50% of the traffic accidents/deaths in America? Statistically Harris has a 50% chance of being worse than a male president of any party. Or even worse only a 50% chance of being better than the last one and can we take that chance!!??
Representing ½ the population of the world is a hard thing to do. Will she be up to it even ½ the way? We need someone that represents the whole country male and female and you know what that means.
The first and best would be a Hermaphrodite president!
But then she/he would be 100% culpable statistically in all traffic deaths in the USA and would that be a good choice for president?
Men are 89% responsible for all the troubles in the world and women 11% – according to Cosmopolitan magazine – but a hermaphrodite would statistically be 100% responsible for all the troubles everywhere!
So simply enough, no to Harris
We should just vote again for the man from another dimension Trump we deserve him! Pay back is a bitch.
I know that you think this is funny, but I don’t know why you think this is funny.
The article gives us much to think about. We do need to fight for our daughters and granddaughters. Another source of unfair treatment to women is the church—seen more in the conservative churches and less in the moderate and progressive churches. I am working slowly to change that in my own church, while many young women are just leaving the church.