The United States has finally moved forward. Well sort of. I am talking about our dumb laws. I have recently learned of a few laws that were either revised or completely done away with. Unmarried women in Florida do not have to worry about being arrested for parachuting on Sundays. Michigan men can swear all they want in front of women and children now. In Texas a woman will not receive 12 months in prison for adjusting her stockings in public. Yes, they call them stockings still. And in Maine it is okay for women to tickle men under the chin with a feather duster.There are still places in the U.S. where dumb laws still exist. While writing these articles, I learned about a dumb law in Seattle, Washington. Well maybe it is not so dumb, but it was written in 1909 and has not changed yet. To bring a woman’s virtue into question publicly, such as calling her a hussy or a strumpet is still illegal there. I have never heard of prostitutes being called a strumpets, but that is what they called them in 1909. The terminology alone is something to laugh at and is obviously dated.
They call the law the “Slander of a Woman” law. The State Senator of Seattle, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a Democrat and a woman, is trying to overturn this law. The senator claims that this law was created in order to help protect the women of 1909, who were expected to stay home with the kids and take car of the home.
Historians say that in 1909 to call a housewife a strumpet was devastating to her and her family. They took these allegations as great embarrassments.
Senator Welles has introduced the Senate Bill 5148 in order to repeal the law. But she is not trying to erase the law; she is only changing it. This bill would make it a misdemeanor offense to slander any female older than 12, other than prostitutes, by uttering any false or defamatory words or language which shall injure or impair the reputation of any female’s virtue or chastity or which shall expose her to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
Granted, the terminology is more up to date, but the concept is still looking to protect that 1909 housewife ideology that all women are kept in the home to take care of the kids. Ms. Kohl-Welles claims, “The old law was nonetheless a vestige of sexism, a ‘double standard’ and an unconstitutional affront to free speech.”
If this were true, then why is she not looking to completely erase this law? Ms. Welles also says, “Even though one type of treatment can appear on the surface to be positive and complimentary, it’s also being protective and patronizing.”
Other states also have these similar laws still on the books but they have hardly been used since the days of the horse drawn carriage.
In 1996 there was a lawsuit filed in a New York court that stated the author of the book “Primary Colors” and the publisher, Random House, violated the New York State Civil Rights Law, Article 7 Section 77, relating to “action of slander of a woman imputing unchastely conduct to her.”
This book was supposed to be a fictional book about a southern governor who had many sexual relationships with several women. People liked to say it was the story of former President Bill Clinton. The woman that filed this lawsuit claimed that she was the basis for one of the women in the book, and she was not happy with the way she was being portrayed. The suit was dismissed later that year.
These laws may seem funny, but most of them have not been used in decades against anyone. That’s not saying that they cannot be used, but either way we need to modernize our laws so other countries do not laugh at us.