Men really are the civilization builders.  Here is an interesting article:

Camille Paglia once wrote, “If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.”

A provocative statement to be sure, but was it true? How could we ever know? Enter reality TV.
During a season of Dutch Survivor, they put men on one island, women on another. Both groups were dropped off with a bag of rice and otherwise left to fend for themselves.

The experiment was on.

In episode one, the men built a shelter. The women formed a group hug and told each other how brave and special they were.

At the end of the episode, it rained.

The men were under their crappy, hastily built shelter – but off the ground and out of the rain. Meanwhile, the women were getting drenched, until they were given yellow plastic raincoats by the production crew.

Next day, the men set about doing whatever each one thought was needed – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting went hunting. Men who felt like fishing went fishing. One guy improved the shelter. Another foraged for berries and roots.

It was in a word: anarchy. No government, no agreement, no rules, no group hugs.

But within days a small civilization was growing. With the division of labor and free trade, the men were growing more prosperous. Their lives were improving.

The women also settled into a routine. After drying their towels, they proceeded to lay in the sun and argue. Unlike the men, the women proved unable to do anything without the agreement of the whole group. And since the dozen women could never agree on anything, nothing was ever done.

Over the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, were eaten alive by sand fleas, and were generally miserable.

Sensing that the show was not going in a sustainable direction, the producers sent three men to the women’s island and vice versa.

The men selected to go to the women’s island were initially excited by the prospect of joining a dozen women on a deserted island. But that delight soon gave way to despair.

The first man was greeted with a “to-do” list. Even after explaining to the women how to get things done, the women continued to sunbathe and chat, while the man went about doing the hard work.

Meanwhile, the first woman sent to the men’s island was amazed. The men by now had individual shelters, plenty of food, firewood, and even a dining table.

And that, is what the “patriarchy” looks like.

Now it could just be a fluke, but that season of Dutch survivor is not unique. CBS also ran a few seasons with groups dividing men and women into separate groups. In both those series, the men got food, fire, and shelter while the women wasted time in petty squabbles, eating their initial supplies, and generally being pathetic.

The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.

So it appears that Camille Paglia’s prediction may have been too optimistic.
If women had been left in charge, we might not even have grass huts yet.

http://mccluresmagazine.com/articles/women-ruled-world

So, are you selling these?  Is that why you came on this thread?

Jayne, what do you think of the idea that a wife is a man's "property"?

I do not think there is any basis in Church teaching for claiming that a wife is her husband's property.  This is not compatible with the relationship described in Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae:

They [husband and wife] are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. 

Yes
A Woman takes on Her Husbands Name.  I really hope youre not that dense.
In most culture, some still today, a man buys his bride, or pays a dowry.
She is his property for all intents and purposes. Feminists of course take issue with that fact.
It is the natural order, and his job is to love, honor, respect and protect her.

Still refusing to call this guy out for the misogynist that he is?  You have no problem judging the intentions and motivations of the Flat Earthers ... because you disagree with them.

Still refusing to call this guy out for the misogynist that he is?  You have no problem judging the intentions and motivations of the Flat Earthers ... because you disagree with them.

I do not recall judging the intentions and motives of the Flat Earthers.  I am not sure what you are referring to.  I really try to avoid doing that to people, whether or not I agree with them. 

Still refusing to call this guy out for the misogynist that he is?  

I'm the one who asked Jayne: 

Jayne, what do you think of the idea that a wife is a man's "property"?

But what I was really getting at, and should have asked, was if his point-blank saying that he thinks a wife is a man's "property" finally convinced her that he is a misogynist.  

So Jayne, maybe we need to ask you point-blank, do you think the [thankfully now-banned] poster who said that is a misogynist? 

For reference:  
Quote from: Anonymous on November 26, 2017, 06:40:08 PM

Marriage today is a secular contract.
The Church priests should not ever ask for nor condone a marriage license, which is a secular instrument used to enforce and usurp an Mans right to his property, including his wife.
There are little benefits to marriage today for any man.  I believe in a Church sacrament but no license, or common law with witnesses and a priest presiding. 
No Fault divorce states mean you work and if she tires of you or finds another, yes it happens to Trads too, she takes hald + Your monthly income, whatever Judge Goldstein thinks is fair that day, + Child Support.   Lose/Lose.

Be Smart, men.

Quote from: budDude on November 28, 2017, 01:40:23 PM

The state controls every aspect of a man today and his property, including His wife.
Yes, I said it.  
Property defined-  That which is proper to a man.  Wife falls into that category.

Yes
A Woman takes on Her Husbands Name.  ...
In most culture, some still today, a man buys his bride, or pays a dowry.
She is his property for all intents and purposes. Feminists of course take issue with that fact.
It is the natural order...

 
 So Jayne, maybe we need to ask you point-blank, do you think the [thankfully now-banned] poster who said that is a misogynist? 

I'm the one who asked Jayne:
But what I was really getting at, and should have asked, was if his point-blank saying that he thinks a wife is a man's "property" finally convinced her that he is a misogynist.  

So Jayne, maybe we need to ask you point-blank, do you think the [thankfully now-banned] poster who said that is a misogynist?

For reference:  
Quote from: Anonymous on November 26, 2017, 06:40:08 PM
Quote from: budDude on November 28, 2017, 01:40:23 PM
 So Jayne, maybe we need to ask you point-blank, do you think the [thankfully now-banned] poster who said that is a misogynist?

The historical secular institution of marriage in Western society often involved transfers of property and forming alliances between families. And there are/have been cultures in which a man pays a "bride price." (see link) It is possible that a person speaking of a wife as property is not a misogynist, but is speaking of social structures.  He might not mean that he personally sees a woman as an object to be owned.

In this particular instance, I think the poster was a troll and I have no idea if his posts represented his actual beliefs or were merely intended to provoke reactions from people.

I have also been asked whether I think the main anonymous proponent for corporal punishment for wives is a misogynist.  If I am categorizing the posts correctly, then I do not think so.

His position does not seem based on negative feelings or attitudes toward women. He seems to be an admirer of historical social organization that included corporal punishment at all levels. I think he would restore all of it if it were in his power and I can't say I blame him. It appears to have been a more functional society than our own in many ways.

 you're completely hopeless.