Should women be allowed to inherit money?  If they do, should they give it to their husbands to manage?  

Should women be allowed to inherit money?  If they do, should they give it to their husbands to manage?  

I don't think so. I'm not leaving my daughters anything and I told them this so that they will marry wisely. Your second question is a good question even though my in-laws are poor and have heirs other than my wife. I live in what's called a "community property state", which is based on the Spanish legal custom that whatever is earned or bought by the married couple, belongs to the married couple. For instance: I have rental property that I acquired before marriage which has $300K in equity and has positive cash flow. That is MY "sole and separate" property/money and I can legally do as I please. My wife if she were to divorce me (God forbid) would not be able to touch it with the best lawyers in the world. Anyway, community property states treat gifts and inheritances the same way. So IF my wife were to inherit anything, it would remain hers, "sole and separate" unless and she gives it to me or makes it "community property". My parents kept theirs community property and I think it was a good thing because my father blew his on stupid "fun" distractions that ended up costing more money in the long run while my mother kept her assets invested.

Being that Spain and her former colonies have used this system for over 500 years, I think it is safe to say that the Church hasn't condemned it.

Why not exactly?  There’s no Church teaching that would prevent women from holding property, so why couldn’t they inherit it?

Now, if a married woman inherited something, it would be subject to her husband and not her own exclusively.  But that is not because she has no right to it, but due to her role in the marriage.

Why not exactly?  There’s no Church teaching that would prevent women from holding property, so why couldn’t they inherit it?

Now, if a married woman inherited something, it would be subject to her husband and not her own exclusively.  But that is not because she has no right to it, but due to her role in the marriage.

This thread smells like the worldly misogyny (aka "MGTOW") of Croix. Someone who's been neck deep in worldly forums for way too long.
Why wouldn't women be able to inherit property? Because they *are* property, perhaps?  Is that the insinuation?

This thread smells like the worldly misogyny (aka "MGTOW") of Croix. Someone who's been neck deep in worldly forums for way too long.
Why wouldn't women be able to inherit property? Because they *are* property, perhaps?  Is that the insinuation?

Exactly.  I called him out with a “That you, Croix?” on one of his other threads.  He started three Anonymous threads on the subject of women yesterday.  It’s gotten to the point that women are an obsession for him.

This thread smells like the worldly misogyny (aka "MGTOW") of Croix. Someone who's been neck deep in worldly forums for way too long.
Why wouldn't women be able to inherit property? Because they *are* property, perhaps?  Is that the insinuation?

Lardislaus says: Exactly.  I called him out with a “That you, Croix?” on one of his other threads.  He started three Anonymous threads on the subject of women yesterday.  It’s gotten to the point that women are an obsession for him.

None of those threads were started by Croix. As long as you keep spreading calumny against a former member who isn't the person starting these threads or making ridiculous posts, and whom you've prevented from defending himself because of bannings, that same person will continue to bypass your bans and post here in other ways that troll but always contain truth in the trolling.  I challenge you to quote one objective misogynistic comment by Croix from the past. Merely challenging simps and feminists and using some abrasive language against them doesn't quantify as misogynistic. You two are simply tools. You use the enemy's cognitive manipulation tactics to shut down the debate by accusing him of being some type of bigot (against women in this case).  Go ahead and ban me, again ... but I'll never really be banned. LOL. You know it and I know it. I'll always be here as long as you keep scapegoating and using calumny.

None of those threads were started by Croix. As long as you keep spreading calumny against a former member who isn't the person starting these threads or making ridiculous posts, and whom you've prevented from defending himself because of bannings, that same person will continue to bypass your bans and post here in other ways that troll but always contain truth in the trolling.  I challenge you to quote one objective misogynistic comment by Croix from the past. Merely challenging simps and feminists and using some abrasive language against them doesn't quantify as misogynistic. You two are simply tools. You use the enemy's cognitive manipulation tactics to shut down the debate by accusing him of being some type of bigot (against women in this case).  Go ahead and ban me, again ... but I'll never really be banned. LOL. You know it and I know it. I'll always be here as long as you keep scapegoating and using calumny.

"him"
"him"
"him"
"him"
... "me"
You really aren't the brightest one, are you? 
Besides forgetting to keep up the 3rd person stuff, "Lardislaus" gave it away.

You aren't the brightest, are you? The post you mentioned isn't a categorical denial or admission of same person.

Yes it is. Besides not being able to resist using the same insult only you use(on every single account), and the borderline worship of totally-not-you, you switched instantly from talking about his bans to daring Matthew to ban you again. You slipped up and forgot you were supposed to be speaking in third person. And easy mistake for someone of such incredibly low IQ as you've shown yourself to be.