Marianne Weber Oppression

Subsequently, women inherently participated in this patriarchal society. A residual effect was women were often subjected to emotion, physical, and/or mental abuse. Morally, divorce was not an option as “a good wife acts not for herself only…and not for her own gratification.” Errington argues “publicly being a wife and sustaining the marriage was women’s work.” (52). Under these circumstances, how successful a women was in fulfilling her role as a wife would prepare her for arguably the most important role for women; being a

A woman’s greatest time of independence was before she married. When a woman married all of her property, any wages, and rents and profits from real estate went to her husband. Post-Revolution reform made divorce a little easier, but it was still rare. “… although women won greater freedom to divorce, married women still could not sue or be sued, make wills or contracts, or buy and sell property.” Some newly educated women (above the laboring class) were even able to work and make their own money prior to marriage. A common occupation for the post-Revolution woman was teaching. Even as some American women were enjoying their newly found economic freedom, most women still felt their proper place was in the home tending to their family.

As this essay has shown so far, there is inequality in who does what in the home but there is also inequality in decision-making; in deciding who gets what and how the family resources are shared out between them. Barrett and McIntosh note that mean usually make the most important decisions, the financial support from men is often unpredictable and they usually gain more from women’s domestic labour than they give back in return. Feminist sociologists Pahl and Vogler suggest that because of men’s higher earnings women have more financial dependence on their husbands and this is why men take more control over major decisions. Edgell agrees with this view and states that women only exert some control on less important decisions such as home décor. Finch argues that wives’ lives are generally structured around the husbands’, such as if the husband had to move for work, the wives would pick up and go with them, whereas it is unlikely that the husband would follow their wife for work.

Beginning with the college front Dorment brings to light that “nearly 60 percent of the bachelor’s degrees in this country today go to women. Same number for graduate degrees.” (Dorment, 698). Then transitioning into the corporate workplace Dorment claims that, “women earn only seventy-seven pennies for every dollar made by the average man” (Dorment 698). Dorment later states in the article that “60 percent of two-parent homes with kids under the age of eighteen are made up of dual-earning couples.”(Dorment, 702). Dorment then comments on Anne-Marie Slaughters’ article (Why Women Can’t Have It All). “Men have oppressed their wives and sisters and daughters for pretty much all of recorded history, and now women are supposed to trust us to share everything

For example, “ women could not vote or sign contracts. And under the law the husband usually controlled their wives’ property,if they owned any, and wages , if they they earned any.” the quote tells us that husband controlled women lives giving them less option to do much of anything without the husband's consent or approval before he allows his wives to own any property in his household not to mention that she can’t even vote to choose the next president or sign a contract with the any company which

The Progressive Era of the 1890’s was a period of immense political debate and economic struggle with the movement of various women seeking reform. The excerpt from Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s essay,“women must free themselves from the home to achieve genuine freedom,” presented the argument that an essential piece to the improvement of marriage, motherhood, and individual freedom was independence. Further, the argument Gilman presents supports the transformation of marriage, family, and home by exercising economic interdependence.

In “I Want a Wife” by Judy Brady, the author argues that the roles of a wife are unfair and more demanding than a husband's, thereby they are treated as lesser than a man. Brady supports her claim by first, introducing herself as a wife, showing her empirical knowledge; secondly, cataloging the unreasonable expectations of a wife; finally ending the essay with an emotional and thought-provoking statement, “My God, who wouldn’t want a wife?” Brady’s purpose is to expose the inequality between the roles of a husband and of a wife in order to show that women do not belong to men and to persuade women to take action and stand up for themselves. Based on when this essay was written and since it is about the impossible expectations of a wife, Brady was writing to feminists in the 1960s in order to rally them to create a change in the way people thought.

Due to a woman’s legal status as a minor, she could not own or control much of what was essential in life, such as a house or land. Even when a woman was associated with a man, “married women's lives throughout much of the nineteenth century were limited to staying home and caring for the children, tending to household chores, and working at menial jobs” (“Women’s Movement”). There were not many opportunities outside of housework for women; moreover, education was very limited until around the 1840’s (“Women’s Movement”). The funds a woman had were also attached to her husband. Families often paid men a dowry when they married off their daughters (Marshall).

David Farber’s in his book The Age of Great Dreams, the realm of women in America was restricted every aspect, from domestic life to the workplace. Women were anticipated to tail one path (Farber 62). That was, to get married in her 20s, have a family rapidly, and commit her life to domestic chores. As one woman at the time pointed out, women did not really anticipate much from life. That was because she was there as a keeper to both her husband and her children. Therefore, spouses held full responsibilities of child care and housekeeping thus, spending up to 50 hours a week on home errands. They were legitimately subjects to their spouses thru head and ace edicts, and lawful they were not entitled to any of their husbands ' finances or property, beside a constrained ideal to appropriate support. Husbands, on the contrary, were allowed to keep an eye on their wives’ income and property. If in any case the marriage failed, a break up was hard to acquire, as no fault separation was impossible, hence, coercing women to demonstrate wrongdoing with respect to their partners in order to get a divorce.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, an influential feminist and social critic, encouraged women to be involved in the public sphere, and not be house servants who work for their husbands. In her 1898 work Women and Economics, she discusses the importance of financial equality and writes that “When women stand free as economic agents, they will… [... better fulfil their duties as wives and mothers and contribute] to the vast improvement in health and happiness of the human race.” Her writing projected that women were economically independent raise their children and fulfil their roles as wives better than those who were economically dependent on their husbands. At a time when there were “high rents and high costs of living,” additional income would help mothers ensure that their family had proper housing and the necessities they needed to live. Charlotte Perkins Gilman conveys that women who are economically independent will further humans by contributing more to their families.

Also, since women were not the breadwinners they would have to ask their husbands for funds in order to spend money. We see this in the film Iron-Jawed Angels where the senator takes away his wife’s money when she starts investing to help women’s rights. She had become unhappy when she was dependent on her husband who had taken her kids away, so she left and joined the women’s rights movement. When the senator’s wife was in jail he grew unhappy and realized his mistake of controlling her. Therefore, by not being independent and relying on their husbands, women became helpless and unhappy. By working, women would not be dependent on their husbands for money; they would be able to stand on their own two feet.

It was a common understanding prior to this time period, that a family was only successful if each member fulfilled their independent and significant role. Men were expected to work outside of the home, their support for their family came from their labor and toil. Women were expected to work inside of the home, and their support for their family came from doing things such as housework, raising children, and fulfilling their wifely duties. Women’s work was often considered less valuable than a man’s, but it would not be until now, that women and men’s work and their skills both become trivial. The traditional customs that have been followed and practiced for so long have abruptly come to a halt since capitalism has been incorporated into American

This economic contribution, argues Baxter (2002:406) essentially translates to an increase in bargaining power within the household, which is actualised by decreased involvement in domestic duties. Curtis (1986:180, as cited in Brines, 1994:657) suggests that the power differential occurs because women are expecting an ‘unspecified benefaction’ to be decided, and provided by their partners at a future date. This use of housework as a ‘social exchange’ (Brines, 1994:657) is problematic, in that the amount of accumulated housework performed by a wife outweighs the monetary benefit provided to the household by the husband (Sullivan, 2000:442).

The economics of intimate partner relationships play a role in patriarchy and the reinforcement of women abuse. Martin (1981) states that meritocracy is a discourse that everyone has equal opportunity in the workforce. It fails to recognize the barriers that prevent people from having the same opportunities as others. For instance, women face many social pressures that prevent them from working in the public sphere such as discrimination, sexism, being pushed down to apply for certain jobs because it dominated by males and may not have the physical requirement like body mass. Martin (1981) argues that capitalism supports patriarchal families and the idea that a woman's place is considered to be in the private sphere, the home, while a man is to be in the public sphere. Martin (1981) states that capitalism is about competition and succeeds when barring disadvantage or vulnerable populations including women from advancing to the top of the hierarchy so that people, predominantly white males, would remain in power. One strategy to prevent women from advancing in their career is to receive minimum wage and less income than men which therefore makes them easily replaceable in the work force. This defines women as temporary workers (p. 41). This leaves women economically dependent on men and gives a reason

If one were to look in to the trend of working women in America, it would be flabbergasting to see how far they have come since the 19th century. Working women have become a dominant force in the workplace. According to recent analysts, women now control 50 percent of the paid workforce (Pollitt). It is no surprise then that divorce rates have been steadily increasing directly proportional to the divorce rate. There is a clear relationship between the success of women in America and their ability to live independently. Due to this newfound independence, many women no longer feel trapped in marriages that they are not happy in or that they are being either physically or verbally abused. With nearly “80 percent [of women] contributing a major chunk of family income” (Pollitt), it is clear that women have now set the benchmark in equality. They are no longer