centre of the universe - the dreaming: The real Thanksgiving

10/18/2008: "The real Thanksgiving" 70 years ago today, a Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (which is not, surprisingly, a meeting held in a privy) overturned the Canadian Supreme Court's decision to not define women as 'persons' in Canadian Law. Nellie McLung, Emily Murphy, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards, and Louise McKinney petitioned then Prime Minister MacKenzie King to provide clarification for the word 'persons', to ensure it explicitly stated that women in particular were considered persons. Prior to this case, lawyers and defendants in Emily Murphy's courtroom (she was the first female judge in the Commonwealth) protested her presiding over their cases, since women were not defined as "persons" in the British North America Act.

In 1916, Nellie McLung spearheaded the movement in Manitoba to allow women to vote and to hold office. In 1918, women all over Canada were given the right to vote in Canadian Federal elections. Women were not permitted to vote in provincial elections in Quebec until 1940...although they were permitted to vote and to hold office in Federal Elections, so the west has always been progressive. It wasn't until 1960 Canada afforded its own Aboriginal peoples the right to vote. For Asian and East Indian Canadians, they got the privilege in 1947.

Husbands and wives had been working together (and, usually, fairly equally) for years on the western prairies; a homesteader wife was often an equal work partner out of necessity on the farm. However, in the eyes of the country they now called home, women had no social or political rights. Their work, whether it was shared equally with their husbands or primarily within the home with children, was not recognised as being as important as their husbands' work. Women faced isolation, marginalisation, and were second-class citizens, it was considered unnecessary to provide legal protection for women, and women were thought unworthy of equal consideration under the law (or, indeed, socially).

Women's roles were very clear: they were to be married young (between 14 and 18, usually; a woman reaching the age of 20 before being married was a 'spinster'), and their primary duties were, with the rare exception of farm and ranch wives in some cases, to become pregnant, manage the household (in some cases this meant 'supervise the help'; and in other cases, this meant 'do everything from emptying the chamber pots to cleaning the chimneys'), and ensure their husbands were kept clean, neat, pressed, and pleased. Women's responsibilities included looking good at all times, shooing the children away from adults, cooking all meals, cleaning and doing laundry from dawn til dusk, and mantaining a demure and socially responsible attitude, ensuring their husband's continuing social position. Farm and ranch wives often balanced the books, took care of the farm animals, and were afforded some small measure of financial security - they sold eggs, milk, cream, and butter (and sometimes honey), and were allowed to keep that money (or at least some of it) rather than to turn it over immediately to their husbands to manage. It wasn't uncommon to see sodbuster families and pioneer women out in the field behind the plough, working the field alongside their husbands. Large families were a necessity, not only because of a lack of easily accessible methods of birth control, but also because the children all worked, too, and infant mortality was high - the older children cared for the younger ones and managed the house while mum and dad worked in the field...but I'm getting away from my point, here.

The Famous Five championed equal pay for equal work (which women still do not have today); the right for all women to vote and to hold political/public office; and divorce and inheritance laws (when a woman married, all her property and financial liquidity became the property of her husband; the husband could then sell all of her property (including her home) out from under her, and abandon her and their children, and there would be no recourse, no legal means for a woman to claim what was rightfully her own. Also, regardless of the reason, if a woman left her husband, she automatically forfeited any claim to all marital property. ALL marital property. Abuse, while technically illegal at the time, was difficult to prove, particularly when women were considered less intelligent than men (who argued in court and who presided over the cases) and prone to fits of hysteria which would then be summarily dismissed.). The women's suffrage movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was also responsible for prohibition and the counsel toward temperance.

Had it not been for the work of these five women, it's impossible to know how much longer Canadian women would have had to wait to be granted the same rights and privileges as men. These women broke the ground in arguing for equality and opportunity, and their example led in future legal arguments for allowing Asian and Indo-Canadian, as well as Aboriginal peoples the same rights as every other Canadian. It took five women to change Canada for the better in 1929. This is one thing I am deeply, *deeply* thankful for.

I am a person under Canadian Law. I am permitted to own property before, during, and after marriage (and, in fact, don't have to be married if I don't want to be) which no one, man or woman, can take from me. I can vote. I can hold public office, or have any job for which I am qualified (even though I still wouldn't get paid the same as would a man in the same position). I do not need a man, or anyone else, to speak for me. I have the right to stand up for what I believe in, and, as a woman, I can (and do) have my own opinions. I speak my mind. My voice will not be silenced or dismissed because of my gender. My gonads do not dictate my social standing and political rights. I am a person under Canadian Law.

"This is ridiculous" "Today is Tuesday"

3 Comments

Coyote , on Sunday, 19th October:

I would LOVE to hear what prompted this. I'm sure the story behind the story would be greatly illuminating as to the current state of equality and gender bias.

And Ceno, DAMN STRAIGHT! You are a person under Canadian Law. I want this post framed and placed in the bedroom of every single woman out there because it is truly a magnificent piece of prose. I plan on making my Little Bear read it.

Why, you ask, do I want it so every woman can read it before they start their day? Let me tell you a story.

I have a favorite professor. He's the awesomestest evar! I know I'm truly a big nerd when academics are my heros. And this guy rocks. Anyways one of the reasons for him being my favorite is this little scenario. You see, the subject of equality and sexism comes up a lot in literature classes.

At this point the professor pauses, and curiously asks, "How many of you in this class are feminists?" Me, another male, and about three females out of 34 students raise their hands. He nods knowingly. "Ok, so how many of you believe women want equal rights?" Well everyone raises their hands. He smiles. He then goes into a very well laid out explination of this phenomenon that were I to attempt to copy it would fail. I will however go right to the point.

Equality hasn't come as far as we'd like, nor as far as we think it has. Women still are placed into a 'failed man' space because there are benefits and most of us, men and women both, are willing to live with this arrangement. There's a pay off, we think. And there is, there really is a pay off, however the price we pay is a lot higher than the return. The above example is one of those comprimises, it is bad to be a feminist, but ok to work towards equality.

Now before everyone takes a side and squares off on this wonderful issue, I also point this out: it is the small comprimises that make a bigger difference. There is a wonderful article I'd recomend if anyone is interested.

So the score stands: True equality - 0, Hegemonic Power - 2, Comprise on the way to True equality - 1.

I could explain a lot more of why this is this way but instead I stay with this. Thank you Ceno, you again show me not just your incredible wit, intellect and wisdom, but your passion as well. It takes all of those things to make the incredible, such as the post I am commenting on, happen. Thank you.

(Yeah yeah, it's a long winded thank you, did any of you expect any less?)

cenobyte , on Sunday, 19th October:

What prompted this: the 79th anniversary of the decision of the British Privy Council to overturn the Canadian Supreme Court's refusal to define women as 'persons' under the law.

turk182 , on Sunday, 19th October:

Sanity?

distractions