Khasty And Women : Development Of The Law On Property

Reviews the amendments of the 1868 Indian Act, highlighting the conflicts of superiority of rights to Indian men over women. Discusses the avoidance of violence and discrimination against women within communities and the need for an equal relationship between genders

The property rights of women during most of the nineteenth century were dependent upon their marital status. Once women married, their property rights were governed by English common law, which required that the property women took into a marriage, or acquired subsequently, be legally absorbed by their husbands. Furthermore, married women could not make wills or dispose of any property without their husbands' consent. Marital separation, whether initiated by the husband or wife, usually left the women economically destitute, as the law offered them no rights to marital property. Once married, the only legal avenue through which women could reclaim property was widowhood.

Throughout our experience, we have encountered so many challenges when it comes to gender in the society. Gender is being used as a basis for stratifying people in the society. In this article, the racial caste system that used to exist in the United State is depicted. In that the black women were denied the access to justice because of their status. They were perceived to be people who do not have any right within the society and no one could believed them when they were raped by the white men because all the court judges were white men according to this article. The women were classified to be from poor background and they should remain at a low class in the society.

For most of United States history, people considered property a man’s game. Upon marriage, the majority of property owned by colonial women transferred from the control of their father, or other male relative, to that of their new husband. With the exception

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

The most adequate of women are being scared away from the political race because of the sexist attacks against women in government. The most suitable women look at past candidates and witness the attacks on them and choose to avoid the political

Attaching great importance to individuality is the third characteristic of market society. For people living in market society, economic advantages are superior to other advantages; the first thing to protect is their individual wealth. This ideological change results from the material condition in market society that people all become single individuals in the factories producing goods for making more money for themselves. In this case, the economic relations rule the social relations (Rinehart 71). Under the structure of the previous social organization, however, “man’s economy... is submerged in his social relationships” (Polanyi 46). People were always concerned about their social relations within their communities (Polanyi 46). They acted so as to maintain their social values (Polanyi 46). The reason for this when it comes to the case of tribal society is that there is no need for people to care much about “individual’s economic interest” because working for the communities enables

As a result of these reviews, the ongoing reconstruction of the social status and roles of Hindu women has brought about many new changes in Hinduism. Some of these changes include changes in education, health measures, problems of early marriages, the positions of widows, and the representation of women in governing bodies (Desai, et al., 1995). For example, within Hinduism now,

Nozick asserts that the state should not be able to prohibit capitalist transfers between consenting adults. In this paper I will argue that this claim is true in all circumstances regardless of the resulting inequality. I will begin my analysis by explaining why it is that Nozick makes this claim. This explanation will focus on articulating his detailed description of just acquisition and transfer of holdings. I will then move on to describe how Nozick’s conclusion regarding just transfers results in him forbidding state intervention restricting capitalist acts. The focus here will be on detailing how Nozick’s notion of historical entitlement combats the competing theories of justice in holdings, namely theories composed of end-state principles and patterned principles. Finally, I will address common concerns and anticipate rebuttals to Nozick’s claim and show how they are unsuccessful in their attempts.

Assessment of the Statement that Property is a Power Relationship Between People Property is the right to possess, enjoy or use a determinant thing, and includes the right of excluding others from doing the same. The concept of ownership or property has no single or widely accepted definition. Like any other concept it has great weight in public discourse and the popular usage varies broadly. Property is frequently conceived as a 'bundle of rights and obligations.' Property is stressed as not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things.

This joint family, like any social organization, must face problems such as acceptable division of work, relationships and specific family roles. These familial relationships are managed on the basis of a secular hierarchical principle. In fact, all Indians owe respect and obedience to the head of the family, who usually is the father or the oldest man of the family community. In The Gift of a Bride: A Tale of Anthropology, Matrimony and Murder by Nanda and Gregg, it is explained that, “females [are] placed under the perpetual guardianship of first their fathers and elder brothers, then their husbands.” (Nanda & Gregg 22) Thus, all the spending decisions, studies and profession, or marriage, are exclusively the responsibility of the father after the possible discussions with the other men of the family. Age and sex are the basic principles of this hierarchical system. The eldest sons enjoy greater unchallenged authority than their cadets. Of course men have more authority than women, but older married women have an important role within the family. In fact, the authority of a woman depends on the rank of her husband inside the group. Traditionally, the wife of the patriarch rules over domestic affairs and has considerable power over the other women in the community, especially her daughters- in-law.

Traditionally, an Indian woman had only four roles and those were; Her role as a daughter, wife, sister, and lastly, a mother. The women in today’s time however are experiencing far reaching changes and are entering into new fields that were unknown to them. They are actively participating in social, economic and political activities. Unlike the older times, women today have received higher education.

An analysis of example can be derived from the aforementioned discriminatory sexist roles in India that prior to globalization highly favored the male population verses the female population. The female population in India has previously been less than second class citizens. Indian women's cultural roles have been previously defined by traditional customs that are centuries old and no longer apply in this day and age. Previous to globalization, Indian women were to take total domestic responsibility. They were not allowed formal education as the majority of teachers and pupils were male, and the chances of a female remaining chaste was slim in those settings, and related to tradition, females

New Zealand was the first country to give women the right to vote in 1893, however, since then we have dropped to 27th when it comes to gender representation in government, out of 188 countries. One of the many reasons as to why women are under represented in parliament can be linked to the issue of the political obstacles that face women. This is when they want to be in parliament, women whom are in parliament, and the many women who this is not an option for due to lack of opportunity. Women have to face this “masculine model” of politics and government. Men are dominant in parliament, meaning that political life revolves around male norms and values (Shvedova). This can be extended, politics is very much about competition and confrontation. Rather than politics being

And so it helps the Government in formulating suitable laws. In pursue its economic and social policies for e.g. law and legal propositions are not find or absolute. They are in the state of becoming. Accepted norms or principles whether statutory or as principle of justice, equity and good conscience are applied again and again to test its voracity or