Pecunia non olet? (was: Gender, Race, and Publishing on theLeft)

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at
Thu Jun 18 09:04:11 PDT 1998

At 08:14 PM 6/17/98 -0400, Maggie Coleman wrote:
>1800s. Marriage was traditionally a contract -- a lucrative, MONEY contract
>in almost all countries until well into the twentieth century (money being
>dowry or bride price) with the rights and duties of the husband and wife
>either spelled out or commonly accepted. Women received support for life as
>long as they performed their wifely duties. i.e., they were paid for sex,
>amongst other items (these depended on the class of the family).

I think the main value of wife's services was not sex per se (i.e pleasure), but her serving as the incubator for the labor force whose labour benfited the head of the household (you know who). Since the household was the main unit of production in pre-capitalist economy, children had considerable value as suppliers of labour and, of course, they belonged to the husband.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list