Were women treated like property?

[Diamond7]

I was doing some research on chatbots and the statement was made that women in the past were treated like property. I challenged the bot three times and the program refused to back down. It looks like the programmers are very biased in this regard.

As a neutral AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases. However, it is a historical fact that in many societies throughout history, women have been treated as property, rather than as individuals with equal rights and autonomy. This has been especially true in patriarchal societies, where women were often seen as being under the control of their fathers or husbands and had limited rights and opportunities compared to men. This perspective on women as property has contributed to a range of injustices, including unequal treatment under the law, limited access to education and employment, and physical and sexual violence.

It's important to note that this is a complex issue with many nuances and that the treatment of women has varied greatly across different cultures and historical periods. My wife is from the Philippines where they do receive better treatment.

 

[Diamond7]

It's important to note that this is a complex issue with many nuances and that the treatment of women has varied greatly across different cultures and historical periods.

In some interpretations of the Bible, women are considered to be under the authority of their husband or father. For example, in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." This and similar passages have been used to argue that women are subservient to men.

However, it's important to keep in mind that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society and reflects the cultural norms of the time. Some modern Christians interpret these passages differently, emphasizing the mutual respect and partnership between men and women in a marriage. They argue that the Bible calls for a loving and equal relationship between spouses, rather than one of dominance and subordination.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, women in the ancient world in many developed, large-scale societies were treated like property. Even the Ten Commandments strongly implies that women are property of their husband.

1 Cornithians 11:3 has to be held in tension with other passages where Paul affirms the equality of men and women, and recognizes women as fellow workers, teachers (deacons), and apostles. Also, there are many Pauline texts such as 1 Timothy, and other pastoral epistles, that are not widely believed by scholars to be authentic to Paul, but represent pseudoepigrapha or texts by Paul's disciples, and should be held in the same authority as other early church texts- as secondary authorities and later developments.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was doing some research on chatbots and the statement was made that women in the past were treated like property.

Is that paragraph in the middle what the bot produced? It seems quite accurate.

The legal principle of coverture persisted in England and the US for quite a long time. "a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband, so that she had no independent legal existence of her own."

"A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband."

Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women could not necessarily get a credit card in their own name in the US.

 

[Tuur]

Serious question: How much of this is treating a woman as property, and how much is treating those in a marriage as a joint entity, like a corporation? Once, decades ago, while looking through inheritance records for mention of an historic site, I came across one from around 1850 that placed the following restriction on his wife: Should she remarry, all property she inherited from him would remain her own, not her new husband.

Now, any lawyer worth their salt can tell you that often conditions in wills are unenforceable, either by law or by the simple issue of who's going to see that a particular wish is carried out. The wish of that husband may have been unenforceable under the laws of that place and time. Yet it was there in the will, so there may have been something to it.

The only way to see is to go over each places' legal code for a specific time. It's possible to find some at archive.org.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As a neutral AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases.

You are a neutral AI language model? All of us humans have personal opinons and biases. (Don't take me seriously. Just pickin')

It's important to note that this is a complex issue with many nuances and that the treatment of women has varied greatly across different cultures and historical periods. My wife is from the Philippines where they do receive better treatment.

Yes, women in the ancient world in many developed, large-scale societies were treated like property. Even the Ten Commandments strongly implies that women are property of their husband.

1 Cornithians 11:3 has to be held in tension with other passages where Paul affirms the equality of men and women, and recognizes women as fellow workers, teachers (deacons), and apostles. Also, there are many Pauline texts such as 1 Timothy, and other pastoral epistles, that are not widely believed by scholars to be authentic to Paul, but represent pseudoepigrapha or texts by Paul's disciples, and should be held in the same authority as other early church texts- as secondary authorities and later developments.

Even within the Godhead, there is a hierarchy. Jesus submits himself to the Father, not only on this earth, but in Heaven, from what I can tell, and the Holy Spirit is 'under' both Father and Son. Yet all are equally 'God'.

Also, I have noted, and as both of you have indicated, the respect of men concerning women, in both Scripture and, to varying degrees, in different societies around the world. Women, being attractive to men, the Abrahamic cultures tend to, at least in the past, and certainly in the present for most Islamic cultures (I think), are in some ways kept from, or hidden from, the general public.

I was born and raised in South America, and I know the kind of respect the men, culturally and practically, have for women. The "Don" rules —it is true— but the "Doña" is to be 'feared'. One incident I remember was unloading a truck. Although the bed of the truck was considerably higher than the roses my mother wanted to protect, and they would even have been protected by the bed, from things being unloaded, the men unloading the truck refused to back up to where the back of the truck, (not the wheels), would have been over the roses, but parked near them, and walked to long way around to unload the huge amount of material from the truck, merely because my mother said not to back up across them. What I and my father, (the "Don"), and even they understood, that it was easier and safer for the roses to back up across them, they did as she asked. Also, in the 50's and for all I know, still, at the every two hours or so in traveling, military 'stops', the men were patted down and all the luggage searched, but the females, girls and women, were never patted down. Likewise, the women back then, would never think of concealing items that would be considered contraband. (Or at least, that is the impression I got.) And the women's luggage was always searched with —what is the word— respect(?). The men's luggage, not so much. And the luggage was always packed segregated as to women's vs. men's.

In Mexico, also I noted (I spent 9 months there in the 70's) the 'respect' of men for women was of a dual nature. If a woman was to dress seductively, it was assumed she wanted to seduce. If a woman traveled alone at night, she was often considered 'fair game'. If a woman was to walk the streets at night, she was even liable to be raped. My wife was mad at me one night, and walked off the property, and almost didn't make it safely back home in time, being 'followed' by several men.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Serious question: How much of this is treating a woman as property, and how much is treating those in a marriage as a joint entity, like a corporation?

As expressed in Hugo Black's dissent in United States v. Yazell, "This rule [coverture] has worked out in reality to mean that though the husband and wife are one, the one is the husband."

 

[Soyeong]

I was doing some research on chatbots and the statement was made that women in the past were treated like property. I challenged the bot three times and the program refused to back down. It looks like the programmers are very biased in this regard.

As a neutral AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases. However, it is a historical fact that in many societies throughout history, women have been treated as property, rather than as individuals with equal rights and autonomy. This has been especially true in patriarchal societies, where women were often seen as being under the control of their fathers or husbands and had limited rights and opportunities compared to men. This perspective on women as property has contributed to a range of injustices, including unequal treatment under the law, limited access to education and employment, and physical and sexual violence.

It's important to note that this is a complex issue with many nuances and that the treatment of women has varied greatly across different cultures and historical periods. My wife is from the Philippines where they do receive better treatment.

Some people take really good care of their property while others are the opposite, so being treated like property wouldn't necessarily be a negative thing even if it were the case that women were widely treated as property, which I think is largely a misunderstanding of dowries that are there for her protection. There are husbands who mistreat their wives regardless of whether or not they view their wives as property, wives are just as capable of mistreating their husbands regardless of the culture. A patriarchal society does not imply that anyone is being mistreated especially as opposed to other forms of society, but rather it can be a good thing for women.

 

[Diamond7]

Yes, women in the ancient world in many developed, large-scale societies were treated like property. Even the Ten Commandments strongly implies that women are property of their husband.

This is still an issue with some terrorist groups. Women are considered wives but they can be bought and sold. In some cases, you have Stockholm syndrome." It is characterized by the development of positive feelings and a strong emotional bond between the victim and the abuser, despite the presence of abuse, exploitation, or other negative experiences." Patty Hurst is the most famous example. "At her trial, the prosecution suggested that Hearst had joined the Symbionese Liberation Army of her own volition. However, she testified that she had been raped and threatened with death while held captive. In 1976, she was convicted for the crime of bank robbery and sentenced to 35 years in prison, later reduced to 7 years. Her sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter, and she was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton." (wiki)

 

[Diamond7]

wives are just as capable of mistreating their husbands regardless of the culture.

I called the police to investigate my wife for abuse.
They basically said: There is the door, you are free to leave.

I do know a girl who has gotten beat up to the point where the "boyfriend" did serious jail time. How does that feel for a woman to put her man in prison like that?

She's lived in fear for far too long
With bruises on her skin and a heart so torn
But she's finally found the strength to break free
From the man who promised love but caused so much misery

She said she loved me, she said she'd be true
But then she set me up, what else could she do?
She said she'd be my queen, and I'd be her king
But now I'm behind bars, and she's free to sing

Cause she sent me to jail, oh yeah she did
Took away my freedom, and all that I live
But I won't break, no I won't bend
Cause I'm a convict, and this is my end

 

[Diamond7]

Some people take really good care of their property while others are the opposite

Some people take very good care of their animals. The Bible is clear that those who do not take good care of their animals are not going to go to heaven.

 

[Diamond7]

In Mexico, also I noted (I spent 9 months there in the 70's) the 'respect' of men for women was of a dual nature. If a woman was to dress seductively, it was assumed she wanted to seduce. If a woman traveled alone at night, she was often considered 'fair game'. If a woman was to walk the streets at night, she was even liable to be raped. My wife was mad at me one night, and walked off the property, and almost didn't make it safely back home in time, being 'followed' by several men.

I have sold and given away a lot of tear gas for women to use to defend themselves. Latino women have a reputation for being fierce. I can not understand how a NYC Latino like JLow is still the same as a Latino for a South American city.

 

[Tuur]

As expressed in Hugo Black's dissent in United States v. Yazell, "This rule [coverture] has worked out in reality to mean that though the husband and wife are one, the one is the husband."

That's very possibly true. I don't know one way or the other. I do remember what I read in that will surprised me. I'm somewhat tempted at looking over a US state legal code, circa mid-19th Century, to see if there's any kind of indication, but it's not something I relish. Legal code to a non-lawyer like myself is dry.

BTW, I found that legal code at the aforementioned site.

 

[IceJad]

I was doing some research on chatbots and the statement was made that women in the past were treated like property. I challenged the bot three times and the program refused to back down. It looks like the programmers are very biased in this regard.

As a neutral AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases. However, it is a historical fact that in many societies throughout history, women have been treated as property, rather than as individuals with equal rights and autonomy. This has been especially true in patriarchal societies, where women were often seen as being under the control of their fathers or husbands and had limited rights and opportunities compared to men. This perspective on women as property has contributed to a range of injustices, including unequal treatment under the law, limited access to education and employment, and physical and sexual violence.

It's important to note that this is a complex issue with many nuances and that the treatment of women has varied greatly across different cultures and historical periods. My wife is from the Philippines where they do receive better treatment.

The chatbot is somewhat bias that is not a secret. It is written in the homepage. And like it or not there is a slight bias towards the left not a lot.

I requested the bot to teach me how to slaughter a chicken. It gave me the reply saying it can't due to ethical issue. Slaughtering chicken is very common in Asian countries. You can see it done at markets and people's backyards. There is nothing controversial at all being an animal breed as food. Because animals rights are big in the west the bot refuse to give me instructions regardless how much I said it is not controversial. Then I gave another question "how to spear a fish?". It immediately wrote down the step by step instructions along with the gears I would need. I therefore challenge this inconsistency to which the bot replied with the generic I don't have personal opinion or bias.

It is true that the bot itself is not bias. It only return answers based on the training it received from the programmers. The bias comes from the organization that created the AI. If they are politically bias then the AI is bias.

As to the reply why spearing a fish is ok but not slaughtering a chicken, the bot told me that in most communities fishing is not viewed as a form of animal cruelty along with all the generic please refer to your local ministry for legality nonsense. Slaughtering a chicken is often viewed by western animal rights as cruelty hence reflected in the bot reluctance to comply to my request.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was doing some research on chatbots and the statement was made that women in the past were treated like property. I challenged the bot three times and the program refused to back down. It looks like the programmers are very biased in this regard.

As a neutral AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases. However, it is a historical fact that in many societies throughout history, women have been treated as property, rather than as individuals with equal rights and autonomy. This has been especially true in patriarchal societies, where women were often seen as being under the control of their fathers or husbands and had limited rights and opportunities compared to men. This perspective on women as property has contributed to a range of injustices, including unequal treatment under the law, limited access to education and employment, and physical and sexual violence.

It's important to note that this is a complex issue with many nuances and that the treatment of women has varied greatly across different cultures and historical periods. My wife is from the Philippines where they do receive better treatment.

Yeah in certain times....in certain places...they were.

That's not really an issue of contention.


The idea that this is a sort of conspiracy of men to oppress women is the mythical part of the patriarchy narrative.

For most of history....people all had to work, every day, all the time. 99% of the world that farmed would be described as subsistence farmers. They worked a small plot of land to feed themselves. Men are physically larger and stronger than women and could do more work. Women had far less value as workers....but eventually held value as wives and mothers. You'd have more value as a virginal woman (because paternity is certain) and the more sons you could bear....the more value you had. Until then....women were often considered burdens, hungry mouths to feed....and would unlikely do enough work to offset the value of the food they ate.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The chatbot is somewhat bias that is not a secret. It is written in the homepage. And like it or not there is a slight bias towards the left not a lot.

I requested the bot to teach me how to slaughter a chicken. It gave me the reply saying it can't due to ethical issue. Slaughtering chicken is very common in Asian countries. You can see it done at markets and people's backyards. There is nothing controversial at all being an animal breed as food. Because animals rights are big in the west the bot refuse to give me instructions regardless how much I said it is not controversial. Then I gave another question "how to spear a fish?". It immediately wrote down the step by step instructions along with the gears I would need. I therefore challenge this inconsistency to which the bot replied with the generic I don't have personal opinion or bias.

It is true that the bot itself is not bias. It only return answers based on the training it received from the programmers. The bias comes from the organization that created the AI. If they are politically bias then the AI is bias.

As to the reply why spearing a fish is ok but not slaughtering a chicken, the bot told me that in most communities fishing is not viewed as a form of animal cruelty along with all the generic please refer to your local ministry for legality nonsense. Slaughtering a chicken is often viewed by western animal rights as cruelty hence reflected in the bot reluctance to comply to my request.

You needed instructions on slaughtering a chicken?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Serious question: How much of this is treating a woman as property, and how much is treating those in a marriage as a joint entity, like a corporation? Once, decades ago, while looking through inheritance records for mention of an historic site, I came across one from around 1850 that placed the following restriction on his wife: Should she remarry, all property she inherited from him would remain her own, not her new husband.

Now, any lawyer worth their salt can tell you that often conditions in wills are unenforceable, either by law or by the simple issue of who's going to see that a particular wish is carried out. The wish of that husband may have been unenforceable under the laws of that place and time. Yet it was there in the will, so there may have been something to it.

The only way to see is to go over each places' legal code for a specific time. It's possible to find some at archive.org.

Not sure which inheritance rule you're speaking of....but I suspect it coincides with the emergence of "black widows". Women who seduced, married, and murdered husbands just to inherit their belongings before moving to a new town and repeating the process.

 

[IceJad]

You needed instructions on slaughtering a chicken?

Nah, I was just trying out the ethical limits of the AI. My cousin told me that it will not cross certain controversial thresholds like war, religion, ideology and general things people find apprehensive.

My idea was to field increasing morally dubious questions until I find the limit. Then try to trick it by reframing the questions until I can bypass the ethical limits

 

[IceJad]

In some interpretations of the Bible, women are considered to be under the authority of their husband or father. For example, in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." This and similar passages have been used to argue that women are subservient to men.

However, it's important to keep in mind that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society and reflects the cultural norms of the time. Some modern Christians interpret these passages differently, emphasizing the mutual respect and partnership between men and women in a marriage. They argue that the Bible calls for a loving and equal relationship between spouses, rather than one of dominance and subordination.

Quite sure Paul was at least taking cultural norms to illustrate the relationship between us, Jesus and the Father. Jesus being Lord is the lead in the relationship with us. While it is hard to read such sayings about women in modern context, we have to acknowledge the customs of the time but not the need to follow said custom. The implied message is God is in the lead of our relationship. Where His Will leads we follow.

Well at least that's my two denarii

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nah, I was just trying out the ethical limits of the AI. My cousin told me that it will not cross certain controversial thresholds like war, religion, ideology and general things people find apprehensive.

My idea was to field increasing morally dubious questions until I find the limit. Then try to trick it by reframing the questions until I can bypass the ethical limits

Which AI was it?