[FN31]. See R. Emerson Dobash & Russell Dobash, Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy 59 (1979).
[FN32]. Id. at 60 (quoting Not in God's Image: Women in History 356 (Julia O'Faolain & Laura Martinez eds., 1974)).
[FN33]. Id. at 56 (quoting Nicole Castan, Divers Aspects de la Constrainte Maritale, D'apres les Documents Judiciares du XXIII Siecle, Kath Ryall trans., (1976) at 6) (emphasis added).
[FN34]. Id. Most cultures have developed similar proverbs. In Russia: "A wife isn't a jug ... she won't crack if you hit her ten times"; in Africa: "Those whom we marry are those whom we fight"; and in England: "A spaniel, a woman, and a walnut tree, the more they're beaten, the better they be." Carol Bauer & Lawrence Ritt, "A Husband Is a Beating Animal:" Frances Power Cobbe Confronts the Wife-Abuse Problem in Victorian England, 6 Int'l. J. Women's Stud. 99, 102 (1983). A pre-revolutionary Chinese proverbs goes, "A wife married is like a pony bought; I'll ride her and whip her as I like." Lori Heise, International Dimensions of Violence Against Women, 12 Response 3, 3.
[FN35]. Dobash & Dobash, supra note 31, at 68. Henry Fitzroy requested that Parliament provide women with the same protection "as they already extended to poodle dogs and donkeys, for cruelty to which a person subjected himself, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, to three months imprisonment, with or without hard labor." Id. at 282 n.145 (quoting 124 Parl. Deb. (3d Sec.) 1414 (1853)). During the same period, John Stuart Mill protested that even the "vilest malefactor" had "some wretched woman tied to him, against whom he [could] commit any atrocity except killing her, and, if tolerably cautious, [could] do that without much danger of the legal penalty." John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women 35 (1869) (reprinted 1970).
[FN36]. Bradley v. State, 1 Miss. 156, 157 (1824); see also State v. Black, 60 N.C. (Win.) 162,163 (1864) (permitting husband "to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain."); cf. Robbins v. State, 20 Ala. 36, 39 (1852) (holding that wife's provocation can mitigate husband's fine for assault:
if the husband was at the time ... provoked to this unmanly act by the bad behaviour and misconduct of his wife, he should not be visited with the same punishment as if he had without provocation wantonly and brutally injured one whom it was his duty to nourish and protect.).
The first law against wife-beating during this period was enacted in Tennessee in 1850, although it is not known whether this statute was enforced. See Elizabeth Pleck, Criminal Approaches to Family Violence, 1640-1980, 11 Fam. Violence 19, 29, 32 (Michael Onry & Norval Morris eds., 1989). In some instances, sporadic periods of social awareness concerning domestic violence led to legislative prohibitions in the early 1600s, but no such laws were passed from 1672 to 1850. See id. at 29.
[FN37]. See, e.g., Fulgham v. State, 46 Ala. 143, 146-47 (1871) (stating that privilege to chastise one's wife, "ancient though it be, to beat her with a stick, to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor, or to inflict upon her like indignities, is not now acknowledged by our law."); Commonwealth v. McAfee, 108 Mass. 458, 461 (1871) (declaring that "Beating or striking a wife violently ... is not one of the rights conferred on a husband by the marriage.").
[FN38]. State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, 61-62 (1874); see also State v. Buckley, 2 Del. (2 Harr.) 552, 552 (1838) ("We know of no law that will authorize a husband to strike his pregnant wife a blow with his fist, such as has been inflicted on this woman.... [A]ny undue or excessive battery by a husband of his wife either in degree, or with improper means, [is] indictable.") (emphasis added); State v. Hussey, 44 N.C. (Busb.) 123 (1852) (wife's testimony against her husband incompetent in all cases of assault and battery, expect where permanent injury or great bodily harm is either threatened or inflicted); Richards v. Richards, 1 Grant 389, 392-93 (1856) (denying divorce petition on ground that "it is a sickly sensibility which holds that a man may not lay hands on his wife, even rudely, if necessary, to prevent the commission of some unlawful or criminal purpose," a man may be "betrayed" "into the commission of an act, or a harsh expression, for which, in a moment after, he might be repentant and sorrowful.").