I find it fascinating that moids would prefer this system:
>This sounds bad, and it was. But one rule worked to mitigate some of the worst
effects of coverture. A married woman had the right to be maintained in a manner
commensurate with her husband’s social status. If he refused to provide for her
appropriately, she could sue and win support from the courts. While waiting for the court’s
judgment, she was permitted to run up charges at local stores and taverns—and her
husband had to pay for them. Judges consistently applied this rule, called thedoctrine of
necessities, in order to prevent men from neglecting their wives. But the courts could not
stop husbands from gambling or making bad investments. Women had no protection when
their husbands proved irresponsible. If creditors pursued a husband for debts, his wife was
entitled to keep only the bare necessities of life. This was usually defined as two dresses (so
she would have one to wear while the other was being washed), cooking utensils, and a
bed.
