>This may be one reason why legal systems have historically been rather forgiving of men who go on rampages after too much wifely nagging or losing their jobs.
"The rule of thumb" is probably the best-known example in English Common law. The rule held that it was ok for a man to beat his wife with a rod, as long as it was no thicker than his thumb.
(Edit: I'm certain that we can find examples from the legal systems of other countries and cultures, if we bother to look.)
> English common law before the reign of Charles II permitted a man to give his wife "moderate correction", but no "rule of thumb" (whether called by this name or not) has ever been the law in England.[2][8][d]
In other words, beating of wives was historically an acceptable practice under English Common law, notwithstanding my mistakenly using a debunked anecdote.
Thank you for "moderately correcting" me.
(edit: And to further the original point that historically English Common law allowed for wife-beating, from wikipedia:
> Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife.
> In other words, beating of wives was historically an acceptable practice under English Common law
You're assuming "moderate correction" means wife beating. In fact, if you look at the source Wikipedia cites for that phrase, it says:
>Such corrections specifically excluded beatings in favor of temporarily confining the wife to the household (like making a child sit in the corner). In fact, no British law, Common or Parliamentary, ever permitted wife beating under any circumstances.
I took that to include English Common law (the article I quoted doesn't make that clear.) Bully to the English for always providing legal protection to their women!