Talk:Married Women's Property Act 1870

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Kirjatoukka in topic Seems to misread contemporary criticism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignmentEdit

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dodger Denise.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It should be noted that in certain areas of the country, local customs provided protection for married women. Consider the following transaction recorded in a Deed of Title for a property in Belper, Derbyshire: At a small court, Duffield 3rd April 1788 before John Bower . . . . And surrender into the hands of the Lord of the Manor (the said Ann being first examined by the Steward in open court in the absence of her husband, and saith she is not compelled, but of her own free will consenteth to this surrender)

This was to transfer the property, which had been inherited by Ann, to the Lord of the Manor (since it was copyhold before its transfer to Jedediah Strutt.

The relevant URL is Belper Research

This was the normal practice at the turn of the century, since another property was transferred in the same way on 3rd. January 1839 in which AT A COURT held for the Manors within the Duffield Fee . . . . Richard Statham of Handley in the Parish of Duffield in the Coy of Derby Farmer & Sarah his wife in their proper persons . . . .for the abslte pchse of the tenemts . . . Surrd into the hands of the Lord of the sd Manors by the Rod accdg to the custom there used (she the sd Sarah having been first examd by the said Steward in open Court in the absence of her sd husband & hvg ackned that she was not thto compelled by her sd husbd but of her own free will did consent to that Surrender.

(Deeds in my posession) Chevin (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Another criticism that came about was that there was not much discussion of equality between men and women. "Edit

In the 21st century in certain countries (but not all, to be sure), discussion of equality between men and women is a contemporary issue. No support is given in this article that in 1870 the absence of a discussion means it was a contemporary (19th C) subject of criticism.

For a 21st century Wikipedia writer to say "Another criticism that came about was that there was not much discussion..." is not a criticism but a point of view that reflects contemporary bias. "Came about" by who?

If we can work our way through the ambiguous language, it appears the author is trying to suggest they have a 21st century criticism of another time, another era when values were different. If the matter was not much discussed back then, it is because it was not something people felt a need to discuss. In fact at the time, women were not considered equal to men, and this was considered the norm. So why would the absence of a discussion about the norm be criticism?

The whole paragraph is a rambling mess and probably should be deleted as it fails to communicate any information worthy of an encyclopedia. Or someone more talented should rewrite it. CDT1997 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to misread contemporary criticismEdit

The idea that each spouse would be equal to one another was one that some men of that time found completely absurd: "Arthur Rackham Cleveland, J. E. G. de Montmorency, and Dicey all condemned the common law doctrine of spousal unity as 'barbarous' or 'semi-civilized'."

The quoted text does not, I think, support the claim being made about it by the preceding sentence: the quotation refers to spousal unity in negative terms; but this has been interpreted as the quoted authors criticising the idea of spousal equality, a very different (and perhaps completely opposite!) criticism. Agree with CDT1997 above that this paragraph needs serious work or simply deletion (not sure if any improvement has been done to it in the intervening 5 years but it hasn't gone far enough). kirjatoukka (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]