Couverture Laws: What the Modern Woman Does Not Know: Part One

 Part two of "Why Men and Women Are At War," gives a brief history of the origins of patriarchy. 

Couverture Laws-was a common-law doctrine in England and the United States where a woman's legal identity was subsumed by her husband's upon marriage, suspending her rights to own, or sue in her own name. Known as feme covert, married women were considered on entity with their husbands. These laws were gradually abolished in the U. S. through 19th-century Married Women's Property Acts, starting in 1839."  

The way Couverture Laws impacted women's lives were by abolishing their legal identies. Once a woman got married, she was considered covered by her husband meaning she was rendered not responsible for any act that required legalities. She could not own, sell or manage real estate. Check this out; she could not have money or own clothing without her husband's agreement. Married women could not sue anyone nor could they be sued. There were exceptions if there was a prenuptial agreement or if the husband gave permission.

It has been documented that the end of Couverture in the United States started in Mississippi in1839 through the 1880's. Although coverture is not an active law, these laws have had a significant impact historically and created the gender inequality legally, economically which spawned women fighting for their right to be considered independent of their husbands. Yet, the women's movement from it's inception has been vilified due to lack of knowledge. Both men and women have accepted the status quo which is patriarchy and the remnants of coverture. I experienced couverture in 2006 when I tried to buy a house. My husband was in prison at the time. The real estate agent called me one day and said, "I didn't know you are married. In the State of Kentucky, a married woman cannot buy a house without her husband's approval."

Needless to say, I was blown away. He had to have a messenger drive to the prison to get my husband to sign the papers. I talked to my mother about my situation and she disclosed to me she went through the same thing in 1966. She found the house I grew up in, did all the leg work etc., only to be told she could not buy the house that my father had to be involved. If you've read my previous blogs, you already know my mother gave the agent the "what for and what to do with it." Still, at the end of the day, she had to fight with my father who didn't want to move off Goose Hill in East St. Louis, IL where he had spent most of his life. She told me they argued for days. She won the argument. Just the fact that women have literally had to fight to be considered the agent of themselves is disheartening. Everytime I see one of these stupid memes, videos and podcasts of women talking about they want, "The Soft Life," it not only pisses me off, but it makes me sad because they do it our of ignorance. No woman in her right mind would want to give up her independence and autonomy and the divorce rate proves it. 

Women get married and lose who they are and it's not because they truly want to. It is because they have been socialized to believe they should. Whether consciously or unconsciously women along with men have absorbed the remnants of the ideas of couverture and patriarchy. For instance, how many of you know that a woman could not file for divorce from her husband legally until 1969. The State of California took the lead when it came to recognizing women's rights. Governor Ronald Reagan took on the challenge to change the divorce laws making California the first state to introduce the "no-fault divorce." Before this, women had to prove who was at fault to divorce her husband. The "no-fault" divorce eleviated some of the stigma of getting a divorce. 

These women who are out here talking about the, "Soft Life," does not realize how hard that life really is because to the men providing the soft life for these expect and even softer life for themselves. They believe in the Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules. These young men actually spout rheteric proclaiming they believe they should make the money and the wife should stay home, They, too, are misinformed about what this truly means. No one born after 1980 has any true reference regarding what it looks like to have a man in total control of a woman. Most of these folk have been reared by working mothers no matter how much control their husbands tried to wield. The men in these marriages are trying to live lives they truly know nothing about.

If these women who want the "Soft life," would actually research what it truly means, they would make better choices. When dating, they would ask the correct questions and don't stop until they get answers that are in line with the lives they truly desire. 

To be contiinued.....