Even 400 years ago guys would pay any price to get rid of an angry heifer

I feel that women were psychologically trapped. They didn't want divorces because how could they survive? They were raised to be married and cared for and considered burdons on their family if they couldn't succeed in that or became widowed.

I was under the impression that neither parties could divorce initially.

Once it became a thing it was still ostracized to greatly that men and women who did it received great shame.

I feel that women were psychologically trapped. They didn't want divorces because how could they survive? They were raised to be married and cared for and considered burdons on their family if they couldn't succeed in that or became widowed.

So they were better off in their sham than on their own.

Men on the other hand had an easier access to infidelity (if they were discreet about it) so they felt LESS trapped since they could just bounce and go hang with the friends and f**k a widower, mistress, youngin', or a married woman bold enough to even engage in an affair.

Eventually men were shamed but could live on, women were marked for being divorced because eventually it became consensual that it was up to the woman to hold a successful marriage. If you divorce you failed, not your husband. Men just bring home the bacon and work to the bone, meanwhile women are in charge of the household, the family, and the matrimony.

This is all of course generally speaking. That case is as rare as cases of black females being lynched in Jim Crow days.

So I'm not saying women couldn't but they had an entire institution ingrained in them that prevented them from even conceiving such a thing.

It was even carried into religions. You can find endless cases of men talking about how their fathers abused their mothers and their mothers would cover for them and not get divorces because of being raised Catholic or whatever.

If you want to know the ACTUAL history of anything to do with human rights and how life was and was not, and you don't want to be taken in by the all-too- common hostility driven propaganda versions of the past, the thing to do is to look NOT at what the declared overall RULES were, rather look at the detailed MECHANISMS of actually following the rules.

After all, in places such as the Soviet Union, it was the RULES that everyone
"voted." The translated name of their dictatorships always included the word "democratic."

However, because of the exact mechanisms of the "voting," wherein they were not allowed to have a say in who was available to vote FOR, and because neither opposition parties nor functional free speech were allowed to exist, the so-called "democratic republics" were neither.

Just because people are officially ALLOWED to "divorce," doesn't mean that they have FUNCTIONAL equality under the law.

After all, we didn't even allow most women to have equal voting rights in this country, until after the 19th Amendment was passed, and even after that, local areas had to be forced to comply.

Even today, there are people who are actively trying to take rights AWAY from other people, usually in the guise of "defending the rights" of some other subgroup.

Oh sorry. My sense of humor isn't always funny.

Your sense of freedom is a little awkward too.

You have the freedom to divorce but all it costs is eternity in hell?