Sunday, January 16, 2011

Sends Husband to Jail to Aid Suffrage Cause

 Lesson 34

"Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is credited with discovering a new and formidable weapon for the suffragettes. The suffragettes are generally women of property and they will follow Mrs. Wilks example immediately, it is said. 

The plan will work only in cases of husbands whose wives have individual income. Nor will it work in cases where the husband pays taxes on their wives' income. Some husbands, like Wilks, haven't enough money to pay their wives' taxes. Suffragette husbands who can pay are counted on to refuse to do so. Thus will a large proportion of the Englishmen with suffragette wives be in jail shortly. 

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes--$185--and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton."
Further down the rabbit hole we go. Silly me to have made the assumption that if a woman was owning property that she alone was also directly responsible for that property. The income tax law implications are a whole other can of worms and how those work in relation to women property laws is where it really gets interesting.  When a woman is mad at her husband or is demanding something, how easy it is for her to threaten him or to directly go ahead and not pay the taxes on her property, if he won't comply with her wishes. What does she have to loose? Nothing. 

I suspect letting women own property but not holding her responsible for associated taxes (and probably even maintenance) was a result of chivalry. The men, knowing that owning property is not always what's its cracked up to be, thought they would make it easier on  women. Give women the title of being property owners to make them feel better, but don't burden her with the actual responsibilities. That just isn't going to work. If women want to hold property solely in their name, then they also need to be solely responsible for taxes and upkeep.  Mrs. Wilks should go to jail for not paying taxes on her property; that sounds like equality with men. Must be pretty sweet to own property when a man is the one paying the taxes and maintaining the property.

So, here is the beginning of the crafty way women discovered weapons against men. Laws were beginning to be set up and continue to grow in size everyday for women to easily extort of intimidate their husband into getting what they want. This is one way feminism harms society. It turns wife against husband and husband against wife. The two can no longer work together in a complementary and beneficial way for themselves and society. Feminists learned early on that equality only has to be surface deep for their cause to catch on. Woo women with the idea they will be property owners and equal with men, all the while sticking men with the grunt work (of course the chivalrous men who created the income tax laws bare blame as well).

As an aside, I found it curious that the wife was always referred to as "Mrs. Wilks" and the husband as just "Wilks". He does not get the title of "Mr.". Perhaps an innocent typo, but you can never be to sure.

31 comments:

By The Sword said...

Thank you for pointing this little tidbit out to us I'll wager that there are still laws on the books that make a husband pay for his wife's (or ex-wife's) misdeeds.

Jennifer said...

Unbelievable, out of control wickedness.

Dr. Deezee said...

I always appreciate your historical analyses, Laura. Thanks for this!

Anonymous said...

An innocent typo?

That was the custom of the day, my dear.

Men referred to each other by their last name.

Anonymous said...

I see what you are saying.

I am grateful, also, to the feminists who changed the laws to make women responsible for their own indebtedness.

And they didn't change the laws to make women the property owners to "make them feel better." They change the laws because women were the property owners.

Though I'm sure a property owner always feels better when he actually holds title to the property he owns!

Just like the Proverbs 31 woman, who bought and sold property -- there's no mention that she bought property and then let her husband own it.

Laura Grace Robins said...

If you say so, although I have come across many old articles where "Mr." is commonly used.

Anonymous said...

Did you think that customs of speech are going to be exactly the same everywhere in the country?

I think you may benefit from reading older literature (not "articles") so you will stop taking offense on behalf of men for things that were simply custom.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Golly. I apologize for not being better 'educated'. I said it could have been a typo, but also thought it was something interesting to point out. If it really is as you say, end of story. I was wrong. Please send me some of this older literature and I will take a look.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Here is an NY TIMES article on the same topic that everyone should check out. It gives more info.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50B15F83A5E13738DDDA80A94D1405B828DF1D3

Anon,
The NY times article refers interchangeably to "Mark Wilks" and "Mr. Mark Wilks". Are customs of speech supposed to be exactly the same in the same article, presumably written in NY? What was the custom of speech for NY? I'm just curious to know. I will still check out your older literature.

Anonymous said...

When I counseled divorced men in the 80's and early 90's there were several cases of morally superior women, sarcasm intended, who committed fraud, or decided to write bad checks.

When the cops contacted the husband, soon to be ex-husband, they used shaming language, implying a real man would not let the mother of his children go to jail.

Bad mistake.

But, most of them paid.

Anonymous age 68

Elusive Wapiti said...

Hmm. Whodathunkit that we'd still be holding men responsible for women's actions today, in 2011?

Jennifer said...

True EW, hence the truth of Hestia's post and the importance of indenpendent women acting responsibly. If you're a woman, you're an adult, and adults don't get to mess up and blame someone else.

A Light Shines In The Darkness said...

This goes right along with my comment on your other post about having individuals responsible for their own actions. If women were given the responsibility of owning land, then they should also have accepted the responsibility of paying taxes on it. Period. When people start trying to transpose blame/guilt/duties/responsibilities on others, things always get messy.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Light,
I agree with you and your other comment. It is my belief that feminism has become the master of deflecting responsibility.

Goblue said...

"Thank you for pointing this little tidbit out to us I'll wager that there are still laws on the books that make a husband pay for his wife's (or ex-wife's) misdeeds."

You cheat on your wife : You pay
Your wife cheats on you : You pay
You father a child with your mistress : You pay
Your wife has a bastard kid by her lover : You pay

Anonymous said...

"Your wife has a bastard kid by her lover : You pay"

I thought children were a blessing?

Oh, only some kids, I guess.

Jennifer said...

Anon, are you trying to mock the belief that kids are blessings? You know darn well a man wouldn't be happy if his wife had a kid with another man.

Anonymous said...

I'm asking if you think a "bastard kid" is the same as God's blessing.

I'm asking if using a term like "bastard kid" is compatible with Jesus' teaching of unconditional love.


Sounds like you think so.

Goblue said...

@Anon

How about this? Let's mix all the babies up in maternity wards from now on and assign a baby at random to the new moms?

Anonymous said...

That would be funny.

And it would also teach something to those dads who think they "can't love a kid whose not my own."

It would help them understand Jesus' teaching, that's for sure!

Goblue said...

@Anon

I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you.

Are you saying men who have been cuckolded should suck it up and raise the kid as their own?

"Bastard" is a word in the English language referring to children born out of wedlock. I don't care if it doesn't sound PC.

If I were a man whose wife got knocked up by her lover, I am under no obligation (morally or ethically) to accept the kid as my own. You are perverting the very foundation of marriage and have a warped sense of reality if you are shaming men who have been cuckolded.

The difference between an adopted child and a child born of an illicit affair is that in the former, the husband has volunteered willingly to take on the role of the father.

By the way, Jesus did say that adultery is a legitimate reason for divorce.

Anonymous said...

You seem quite concerned about money. I am not speaking of money. Or about adultery. Or about how awful ! it might be to love a child who was not biologically yours. I'm not talking about those thing at all.

I am speaking of using a term like "bastard" to describe one of the most beautiful things in the world, a young innocent child.

Anonymous said...

"Bastard" is a word in the English language referring to children born out of wedlock.

Too bad if it doesn't sound PC.

Anonymous said...

Here is yet another reason for men to Go Their Own Way and avoid modern Western women.

A Happy Bicycle

Anonymous said...

Actually, it sounds child-hating and ugly.

But if you can call a five-year old a "bastards" to her face, good for you for being non-PC!

Just remind the child that it's in the dictionary, so it's A-OK.

Goblue said...

I'm not American and I don't have the "anything for the children" mentality. Your shaming language does not work on me and I do not feel an ounce of guilt. I'm not especially fond of children, nor do I hate them.

The state enforcing child support on a cuckolded man to a cheating wife with a bastard kid is far worse than referring to a child as a "bastard".

For you to be hung up over the term "bastard" while ignoring that the state carries out travesties of justice everyday, you are far worse than child-hating and ugly. You are pure evil.

Anonymous said...

"The state enforcing child support on a cuckolded man to a cheating wife with a bastard kid is far worse than referring to a child as a "bastard". "

Can't the paternity, or non-paternity, of a child be established with DNA testing today? If it can be shown through such a test that a particular man did not father a particular child, can the state still force that man to support that child who is not his own?

Perhaps the real father should be identified with DNA testing and made to support the child.

Goblue said...

"Can't the paternity, or non-paternity, of a child be established with DNA testing today? If it can be shown through such a test that a particular man did not father a particular child, can the state still force that man to support that child who is not his own?

Perhaps the real father should be identified with DNA testing and made to support the child."

The courts presume that any child born into a marriage belongs to the husband.

If you do a google search, some states do allow an indefinite challenge to paternity. For some states, they have a ridiculously short window period (I think it's 60 days) after which you are stuck with child support whether or not you turn out to be the real dad.

In other states, you are stuck with child support as long as the child is born into the marriage, i.e. your wife cheats, gets knocked up and you are still married to her ==> You pay.

http://www.menshealth.com/best-life/lawyers-advice-paternity-fraud

Anonymous said...

Yes, many women and manginas insist a man should not be hung up on his own biological children. Just take that sweet child and raise it as your own. What is the difference?

Our society has always had a real problem with slavery, even in 2011.

Yet, look around and see the lawsuits we have had when two babies are accidentally swapped in the hospital. In some cases, many years later.

The same women who tell men to man up and not worry about whose child it is, have nightmares thinking about being sent home from the hospital with the wrong baby.

Go to a hospital where they have a lot of babies, and you will see the minute that baby is born there is a wrist band put on it so it doesn't get confused. Why? If it doesn't matter to men, it doesn't matter to women, right?

To Anonymous who is so doggone willing to force men into bondage to support a child they did not father, I suggest you find women who aren't receiving child support, and turn over most of your pay check to them. Talk is really cheap when you are telling someone else what to do. Show us how it's done. It should not matter, a sweet kid is a sweet kid.

(I suspect you are a woman and have no intention of ever supporting any other woman's kid. You just like to see your men three steps behind, billfold in hand to comply with your monetary demands.)

Let me tell you my story. My step-daughter is the best thing that happened to me in my entire life, bar none. The difference is I fell in love with that little girl nearly 40 years ago. No smart-alecky anonymous person, nor stupid judge, nor vicious, cuckolding wife, nor stupid law, forced me to take her into my life and make her my daughter. She is in my life because I agreed to accept her.

I am trying to be civil out of respect for Laura, but anyone who can't see the difference between voluntarily accepting a much loved child, and being forced into it, should, to quote a certain extremist blogger, go pound sand.

Anonymous age 68

Anonymous said...

Lol, the same old "But but but, anything for the children!" card. It's almost as bad as the race card.

You've heard of the story about the boy crying wolf?

One day, just one day, if this country decends into anarchy and civil disorder, we'll see what the mobs will do to empowered and independent women like you and the children.

Anonymous said...

I will never get married.
I will never get married.
I will never get married.

Sad. I do believe in the ancient Jewish teaching that great spiritual growth occurs for the husband and wife from the life experience of marrying and having children. The probable consequences of a potential nightmare divorce scenario that can go on for life has motivated me to ghost, MGTOW, be the eternal bachelor, and be a zeta male.

Aharon