Women's movement

So a lot of the things I hear defending the now-toxic women's movement of today seem to revolve around ideas such as:
Women used to not be allowed to own property, women could not have their own bank accounts without having a man co-sign, women were not allowed to file for divorces, husband's beating wives were common and socially acceptable, so on an so forth. I want to know how much of this is true. I know the divorce one is not true, along with the socially accepted abuse, as I know someone who divorced her first husband in the 50's and was encouraged by all her friends and family, including her husband's family, to leave her second husband after they found out he would pinch her if she wriggled in bed too much while he was trying to sleep.

What are your experiences? Ladies, when we're you allowed to own land and get a bank account by yourself?

I dont know about the others but the not being allowed to divorce was more of a catholic church thing than a womens thing.

The Phillipines and the Vatican are the two states that still do not allow divorce. Phillipines is a catholic predominant country.

In nz, we were the first country that allowed women the vote in 1893 before that women had no say in any country (for their govt)

Sometimes I have the honor of really getting to know someone and hearing what has really gone on in their life rather than the polished narrative they are used to giving most people.

One of the tough things about divorce is that for every divorced person, you have to have your "game answer" because everyone and their mother will ask. In other words, you have to be prepared with a public answer as to what caused the divorce, and there are just some answers that are considered more publicly acceptable than others.

Through various situations, I have known more than one Christian woman (I'm picturing their faces right now) whose husband preferred anal sex to normal sex, though these women were not consensual to it, their husbands would regularly force them (as in, pin them down and do what they wanted to them as they said no.) And these were, to the public, "good Christian" men who sat beside their wives at church every Sunday (as well as being leaders in their church.)

From what the wives told me, for whatever reason, their husbands had a preference for this type of sex but considered themselves to be 100% heterosexual because they were doing it with a woman. They also believed they were 100% Godly because they were married and not having sex outside of marriage.

Now I'm not trying to condemn what any Christian married couple decides to do between themselves and God, but my point here is that the women in these cases said they were not consenting and their husbands were forcing them.

I am NOT trying to somehow say in any way, shape, or form that men are evil or to blame.

But what I AM saying is, how exactly would you explain this as a reason for seeking a separation and divorce if the person doing this refused to change?

I understand that many will say this is still no reason for a divorce, but that's not the point here.

The point is that people HAVE gotten divorces over such things and that's not exactly something you share with the public, let alone your church family. I mean, how exactly, when the Mob of Those Who Are Throwing Stones at Others in the Most Perfect Way demands a reason as to why she got divorced, is Sister Sally supposed to say, "Brother Bob continuously raped me, and in a way that a man would have sex with a man"?

I know that some people don't believe in spousal rape and even some who did wouldn't believe it was grounds for divorce, but again, that's not the point of my post.

From the people I have talked to, there are often things going on behind closed doors -- and it's not really anyone's business except for God, the couple, and anyone they are seeking guidance from, such as a pastor or counselor.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to excuse divorces for truly frivolous reasons. And I am certainly no expert, but I have spent many years living around and talking to people who are much older than I am, and many of them will say, "Yeah, the good old days? They weren't very good at all."

One woman in her late 80's was telling me that in her day, there were plenty of pedophiles, but the majority of people back then would say, "Oh no, so-and-so could never be like that." They didn't even believe such a condition existed. She said that she was very thankful that one of her parents knew something was amiss in a particular situation, and as an adult, she later realized that she and her sisters had been saved from sexual abuse. But she said that no one back then ever talked about it, and even in cases when people knew it was going on, they turned their heads and said it wasn't possible.

Likewise, while some people might just come out and say, "I divorced my spouse because our children were being sexually abused," back then, especially -- according to this woman -- other reasons were given because it just wasn't socially acceptable to claim such a thing, and even if they did, no one would have believed them anyway.

I understand that other people's experiences might be much different; these are just the ones I have personally heard.

I think people nowadays say 'irreconciable differences' as a catch all and you dont need to go into detail. I think it would be painful to rehash the trauma everytime someone asked you 'why did you get divorced?'

I dont think it was ever socially acceptable to beat ones wife! Those that didnt or couldnt leave though did so because they would rather be beaten than have their husband beat their CHILDREN. Also they maybe had nowhere to go...plus if they did leave their husband would go after them and stalk them..and many do not call the police because the police often just take the mans side (being predominately male themselves) and think oh if we just tell the guy off, he'll stop beating his wife.

I dont think so.

Yeah, it's really not about that anymore- maybe 200 years ago, but now it's just about communist ideas like "income equality", and they expect society to pay them for having children, and then they want society to raise their children for them. Especially when society tries to "force them" to give birth. In the cases where women are actually raped... sure- compel the man who raped her to perform labor, and give her money to support the child. Beyond that, I'm not really interested in paying a tax to support other people's children because I'm saving and investing for the children I would like to have someday.

Me too. I think it's because I don't pry into people's lives, they want to tell someone their story. I don't really consider it an honor though, because, It's typically their side of the story and not the whole story. It's usually enough to get me to pray for them, though.

No. Sister Sally declines this conversation, and tells leadership that the church is prying so that they can rebuke the church.
A marital issue like that should have been addressed with church leadership immediately, and definitely before it happened "continuously"; and if it was a man she was with before she was in church, then nobody should even be wondering about that.

But if it's a problem in church leadership too, then I'm not sure what Sally has is a church- Keeping in mind rumors about leadership should be disregarded. If it's the spouse of a leader that is going around telling the whole church instead of telling other leadership then it's likely that church is a total mess.

It's downright shameful for random people in church to dig into other people's business trying to find dirt, but especially something like a past divorce. Even for worldly people, it's rude and improper. Not that people have a sense for that anymore.

I don't know why people ever volunteer information about their divorces- every time a person says "My former spouse did X" I am left wondering what the person talking did to their former spouse as well.

EXACTLY!!! Why would you even ask? Why would you do that to someone? There's a huge chance either the person did something wrong in which case you are digging into their past sins- OR- someone did something to them, and you're reminding them of what was done to them! Unless you're already very close to someone there's virtually NO reason to inquire about this sort of thing.

The hard truth about the Christian community is that in most circles, the reasons for a person's divorce are outright demanded as public knowledge, because divorce, like a pregnancy, is something public and not easily hidden. And anything that is seen, especially in the church, gets zeroed in on with laser focus. Everyone wants to take out their magnifying glass to analyze exactly what happened, who did what to cause it, and what terrible thing they did wrong in order to cause it.

In many cases, it's a great distraction for people to direct all their energy to rather than the things going on that they would rather not talk about themselves, such as the images they go home to look at on their computers -- that are not of their own spouses -- and service their desires to. It's just a whole lot easier to slam the pile of rocks over at the divorce person.

I'm not trying to say that there aren't ridiculous components to the modern "women's movement," and I'm not trying to say that people aren't getting divorced for superficial reasons -- after all, even in Jesus's day, the religious leaders asked why, if divorce was wrong, did Moses allow the people to do it. And Jesus told them, "Because your hearts were hard."

But I also think what many people miss is that the public reasons given for a divorce, and dare I say often, do not include the real or complete reasons as to what caused the divorce, but outsiders happily judge anyone who has gone through it with blanket statements about nobody trying at marriage anymore without knowing -- or caring -- what's really going on. This makes it impossible to give an accurate reason, or judgment, as to what is causing so many divorces. I'm not justifying divorce at all -- I'm just saying, the general congregation should not have an assumed automatic right to know those reasons and therefore, cannot accurately judge why they occurred.

I agree with you 100% that no situation is one-sided and obviously, both parties have done wrong -- I know I surely did, as I look back now and regret all the times I failed to be supportive or encouraging -- and no divorce story is ever complete without each side being told. Because this is usually not possible, and so, no one really knows what went on.

I do think there are most definite times and places when one must be honest about what caused their divorce -- such as when considering dating and whether or not they are even eligible to do so. I also personally think that any potential suitor in a case like this would have a right to ask what happened, as this is important for both people, under their pastor's guidance, to decide if they can date.

As for women owning property and having a bank account -- I got a checking account when I started driving and working (in my teens,) and I met with my parents every month to learn how to balance it; I bought my first home, though it was simple and nothing impressive, with my then-husband when I was in my 20's.

When he left for his new girlfriend, I was so grateful to have a bank account in my name and the means to survive on my own, because he left me with no choice, and only the money I had on my own (it was so long ago, I forget how we arranged it but we did have joint and separate money,) but now all of the bills and responsibilities were mine alone.

I'm not sure how well one can relate to the shock of being married, having a spouse who is paying half the bills, then suddenly one day they disappear, announcing they are not coming back (through the means of divorce papers sent through the mail), and then thinking to yourself, "How am I going to pay the bills this month -- I only have half the money," let alone indefinitely.

But plenty of people on the outside are more than happy to judge you for it and tell you what you did wrong.

I understand that the women's movement of today can be utterly crazy, but however it came about, I am extremely grateful that in these times, I as a women CAN own property, buy and own a home, and earn and control my own money, because without these rights (which most assuredly were not available in the past,) I would have never survived.

I think the church should be given very general reasons if someone is being disfellowshipped as a result of something they did that caused a divorce. Not entitled to details though.
Agree. In fact, I'd probably come out and tell the person I wanted to marry about it before they asked.
That is cold. What did you do to this man that he did this to you? (just kidding) I might pull a stunt like this if I had a wife that committed adultery... maybe. That's messed up, I wouldn't want to have to go through that.
I think the women's movement of today is a monster and a misnomer. Planned Parenthood wasn't always a misnomer (or a monster) either. I guess I'm glad for the women's movement of yesterday. I like that if I had a daughter, she could inherit what wealth I had without her getting married off, or some other third party being involved. I like that single women aren't being economically coerced into marriage (usually). Common sense rules that are necessary for a less than holy people. But not the things being proposed today.

I dont think many people can really keep up with all the women moving anymore.

How many movements are there probably depends on your generation. I grew up in the 80s and 90s where it was still trendy to be a 'supermodel', women were encouraged to go into the workforce before they hit that glass ceiling, only to find some of the women above them who'd by then reached then top had become bullies themselves. ?!

I can remember working in engineering department at university that was still predominately male, and they had to actively recruit and encourage more women to study engineering. The medical school, was more advanced they actually had women studying medicine, and people didnt automatically assume a doctor was male anymore.

But I think engineering is a bit behind as if women cant fix things or come up with amazing inventions. Which is why there are now coding for girls and STEM and nanogirl programs.
I also think that being female is now less of a liabilty and cause for ridicule that it once was, maybethe Spice Girls had something to do with that...you could wear silly outifits and still sing about girl power and not get laughed at. (cos you were already poking fun at yourself perhaps?)

I also remember shoulder pads.
Im like why.

But there was the other fashion...leg warmers, I did not get those either!

I am glad that women have options in the 21 century and not stuck to wearing corsets, hobble skirts and bound feet.

If fashion is any indicator of how far women have come, I would say that some women are only now cottoning on to the fact that they dont have to comform their bodies to fashion or starve themselves...to be themselves.

Indeed. But most people don't believe that, as they want to be able to judge for themselves whether or not your divorce was justified and then dish out what they see is their own version of the proper Christian discipline for it (usually criticism and "this is what you should have done, and this is what you should do.")

I know the purpose of this thread was to point out how ridiculous the women's movement can be now, with a focus on petty reasons for divorce.

But I think in order to talk about that, it's important to note that divorces can't be judged solely by public answers, and sometimes the reasons no one can state publicly simply aren't all that petty.


I know you didn't mean it this way but this is a PERFECT example of most people's attitude: "What on earth did you do that was so bad that you brought this upon yourself?" Again, I know you didn't mean it this way, but they also have an expectation that you should tell them all the reasons it didn't work out so that they can judge for themselves whether or not your divorce was justified.

They then helpfully tell you that God hates divorce and in order to obey His perfect will, you must be alone for the rest of your life, and if you have a problem with that, your problem is with God. People have been telling me this since it happened (I was 25 years old.) They very helpfully still tell me this today. Over the years, some here have written me and told me I have no business being in the Singles Forum.

And of course, I am a flawed person who sins, just like everyone else.

I personally believe that this is why we call it a personal relationship with God. God knows what happened from both sides and I agree that God will be the one to decide if a person is able to remarry or not, but that is God's decision and not the people who feel thy can judge. The fact that I've now been single so long might very well be His answer, so I've learned to try to accept things either way.

I'm thankful for any movement that brings us closer to human rights, but thanks to sin and a fallen world, it is unfortunately inevitable that any good intention will eventually mutate into something none of us ever wanted to see happen.

"Irreconcilable differences" leaves the impression they just couldn't get along. That is usually an unfair impression against one person in the divorce, and sometimes unfair to both.

And yes, it was once socially acceptable to beat one's wife. There's actually a lot of history there.

most divorced women I know (and I know quite a few) volunteered that information, it was not something I really asked them about, because there could be all sorts of reasons

most common was guy cheating on wife
or he left without saying why or they had no idea because the guy isnt going to say


if the divorcee is remarried or going with someone new really soon after a breakup then you might put two and two together and realise it was probably adultery. You dont need to spell that out, or judge the wife that was cheated on. She was probably the last to know as is the case in most all cheating breakups.

Just because ONE party is unfaithful doesnt mean the other has a lack of faith or something wrong with them. Jesus was betrayed by Judas it was not as if he knew from the very beginning that Judas was going to turn out to be a traitor. Thats not something anyone truly knows when they marry either, most couples go into it hoping for the best.

for the record, allowed to own land if you had enough money or were the heiress after all you male co-heirs had died (didnt the Queen Of England own the entire British empire?!)
and bank account, I dont know but Ive always had my own bank account from when I started school. I was 5 years old. That was in the 80s.
Im guessing if you have enough money.,.it doesnt matter if you are male or female...the bank will open an account for you. They used to have those plastic elephant money boxes instead of piggy banks for children. Im not sure what they do now for children now its online but I remember saving pocket money in school each week and having the amounts printed in a little bank book.

Yes, that is kind of what I was thinking. Even today we still have such violent cases where women feel trapped in their situation though, so it is always weird to me when people seem to think that such cases were strictly characteristic to back when traditional relationships were prevalent when in reality they still are and always have been an exception.

i am suupposing that if its not that common but its kind of hidden in more refined circles.

Like poorer couples everyone pretty much knows when they being violent because in poor areas people live in close quarters with each other, but in richer areas it more kind of hidden away, some richer people have bigger houses or more land. But it doesnt mean that women cannot also be trapped in their gilded cages.
And its more of a financial control rather than physical abuse in those situations. You can have everything I give you but I TELL YOU what to do and how to think and what to dress kind of thing.