fbpx
01 / 05
Our Ancestors Thought Domestic Violence Was Hilarious… and Necessary

Blog Post | Violence

Our Ancestors Thought Domestic Violence Was Hilarious… and Necessary

An old folk song provides a window into how attitudes on wife beating have evolved.

Summary: Attitudes toward domestic violence have changed over time and across cultures. Practices that were once considered normal and even humorous are now condemned as abhorrent and criminal. This moral progress is a result of growing prosperity.


Music can act as a window into humanity’s far more brutal past. Consider “The Cooper of Fife,” or “Wee Cooper o’ Fife,” a traditional Scottish folk song that inspired a country dance and similar English and American folk ballads. The contrast between the lyrics (which tell a tale of domestic violence) and the song’s cheerful tune is jarring to a modern listener. (Listen here). As with most old folk songs, there are many variations of the lyrics, but this is a typical version:

There was a wee cooper [barrel maker] who lived in Fife,
Knickety, knackety, no no no.
And he has gotten a gentle [noble-born] wife [. . . .]
She would not card [untangle wool] and she would not spin,
For the shaming of her gentle [noble] kin.
So the cooper went to his wool shack
And laid a sheepskin on his wife’s back.
“I would not thrash you for your gentle kin,
Knickety, knackety, no no no.
But I will thrash my own sheepskin!”

The lyrics go on to relate how as a result of the beating, the highborn wife resigns herself to doing housework. The message of the song is clear: the singer believes that the Cooper of Fife is fully justified in thrashing his wife, and the audience is meant to sympathize with the husband and howl with laughter at the uppity wife being beaten into submission. The song ends by advising, “So ye who has gotten a gentle wife [. . .] Just send for the wee cooper of Fife!”

While “The Cooper of Fife” is merely a song, it captured beliefs that affected actual women’s lives. In 1939, a Chicago woman named Mary Kuhar petitioned for divorce on the grounds that her husband often slapped her. The presiding judge, Philip J. Finnegan, opined that wife slapping was perfectly legal as long as the wife survived, and he suggested that such violence was good for marital harmony. A newspaper reported on the ruling this way:

“Under the law”, said Judge Finnegan, “cruelty must consist of violence great enough to endanger life. A slap does not endanger life. A man may slap his wife as hard as he wants to if he doesn’t kill her. If more wives were slapped there would be fewer divorces.”

Such attitudes remained common for decades. The late Scottish actor Sean Connery, best known for portraying James Bond, spoke for many of his contemporaries when he told Playboy in 1965, “I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman.” He added that he’d be willing to hit a woman under various conditions, such as “if a woman is a b****, or hysterical” (please pardon the language, as the choice of words was his, not mine). The idea that slapping a frantic woman was often necessary to calm her down was a well-known trope, lampooned in a memorable scene in the 1980 comedy film Airplane.

In 1968, nearly 17 percent of men in the United States approved of a husband slapping his wife. By 1994, that figure had mercifully fallen, but was still too high – just over 6 percent of U.S. men.

The fable of the noble-born Cooper of Fife’s wife notwithstanding, much research suggests that higher socioeconomic status tends to decrease women’s risk of suffering “intimate partner violence,” the term researchers use for a woman’s husband or romantic partner beating her. It is perhaps unsurprising that as Europe and the United States have grown wealthier and many of their people—including women—have escaped poverty, the social status, bargaining power in society, and general treatment of women have improved alongside their material conditions.

In many poorer countries, acceptance of wife beating remains far higher to this day than in rich countries. The latest wave of the World Values Survey (2017–2022) found that even in wealthy and highly developed Germany, nearly 4 percent of respondents answered that a husband beating his wife is justified at times, while in impoverished Tajikistan, a dismayingly large majority—over 77 percent—voiced approval of domestic violence. In fact, a majority of respondents in Iraq, Kenya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, the Philippines, and Vietnam also indicated that a husband is sometimes justified in beating his wife. Note that each of those countries is relatively poor.

Rwanda, also poor, was not surveyed in the latest wave of World Values Survey data, but in 2015 a shocking, near-unanimous 96 percent of Rwandans answered that wife beating is occasionally justified.

Songs like “The Cooper of Fife” can help us understand the extent of moral progress, but it is important to remember that progress is often uneven, and in many places the abhorrent attitude at the heart of the song is still tragically widespread.

Scoop | Women's Employment

Gender Gap Closes at Fastest Rate Since Pandemic

“The global gender gap has closed to 68.8%, marking the strongest annual advancement since the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet full parity remains 123 years away at current rates, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2025, released today. Iceland leads the rankings for the 16th year running, followed by Finland, Norway, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

The 19th edition of the report, which covers 148 economies, reveals both encouraging momentum and persistent structural barriers facing women worldwide. The progress made in this edition was driven primarily by significant strides in political empowerment and economic participation, while educational attainment and health and survival maintained near-parity levels above 95%. However, despite women representing 41.2% of the global workforce, a stark leadership gap persists with women holding only 28.8% of top leadership positions.”

From Scoop.

Girls Not Brides | Women's Empowerment

Kuwait Raises Minimum Legal Age for Marriage to 18 Years Old

“Kuwait has taken a major step to protect the rights of adolescent girls and boys by raising the minimum legal age for marriage to 18 years. The new law, enacted under Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025, came into effect on 16 March 2025.

The law amends Article 26 of Law No. 51/1984 (Personal Status Law), now prohibiting the documentation or ratification of marriage contracts for anyone under 18. It also modifies Article 15 of the Jaafari Personal Status Law No. 124/2019, thus extending the same minimum age across this religious legal framework.

Previously, girls could marry at 15 and boys at 17 with parental or judicial consent.”

From Girls Not Brides.

Girls Not Brides | Child Abuse & Bullying

Portugal Raises Minimum Legal Age for Marriage to 18 Years Old

“Portugal has taken a significant step in protecting the rights of adolescent girls and boys by raising the minimum legal age for marriage to 18 years old with no exceptions. Previously, individuals aged 16 and 17 could marry with parental consent. This legislative change aims to eliminate child, early, and forced marriages (CEFM), ensuring that all individuals enter marriage as consenting adults.”

From Girls Not Brides.

Blog Post | Happiness & Satisfaction

Marriage Wasn’t Always Happily Ever After

Preindustrial marriage was not the fairy tale that many people imagine.

Summary: While many assume that preindustrial marriage was simpler and more fulfilling, historical reality paints a much darker picture. Limited partner choices, high rates of unhappy unions, domestic abuse, and frequent early deaths made marriage fraught with challenges, while remaining single often meant a life of servitude. Though modern romance has its struggles, contemporary relationships are far preferable to those of the past.


Happy Valentine’s Day! This romantic day’s namesake was a priest who was said to have performed secret marriages in defiance of a Roman emperor. Much ink has been spilled on the declining rate of marriage and which people are more or less likely to marry. Statistics showing a long-term decrease in marriage are concerning for many reasons: Fewer marriages may mean fewer people finding love, fewer children being born, and perhaps a lonelier and more fragmented society. Amid this decline in marriage it might be tempting to imagine that modern society is hopeless, while our ancestors had it made when it came to romance. Perhaps in the villages of yore, life was simpler, love and marriage came easily, and most of our ancestors lived happily ever after in contented, wedded bliss.

But the truth is that people in the preindustrial past faced few possibilities when it came to marriage. The number of potential partners in one’s tiny village was low, and the few available choices might all be one’s cousins, increasing the risk of birth defects in any resulting children. Peasants “married fellow villagers and were so insular that local dialects were often incomprehensible to men living only a few miles away,” according to the historian William Manchester. Travel was rarer, and communities were more secluded than a modern person could easily imagine. By the 18th century, little had changed: “Most villagers married people from within 10 miles of home,” as the historian Kirstin Olsen noted.

The tiny pool of possible marriage partners often produced matches that might raise eyebrows today, such as consanguineous pairings (including plenty of first cousins) and couples with huge age gaps. Even in the 18th century, in England, grooms could legally be as young as 14 and brides as young as 12, although that was rare in practice, thankfully.

Given the highly limited pool of marriage partner choices, perhaps it is unsurprising that many people seemingly settled for spouses ill-suited to them and that “much of the satirical literature of the 18th century,” in Olsen’s words, “lampooned marriage as a hell or prison sentence for one or both partners. The poem Wedlock by the Englishwoman Mehetabel “Hetty” Wright (1697–1750), herself pressured into a loveless marriage with a plumber, paints a typical picture: “Thou source of discord, pain and care, / Thou sure forerunner of despair, / Thou scorpion with a double face, / Thou lawful plague of human race, / Thou bane of freedom, ease and mirth, / Thou serpent which the angels fly, / Thou monster whom the beasts defy” . . . you get the idea.

Wives like Hetty weren’t the only miserable ones. Men were also often unhappy in marriage. An illustration from the mid-1600s depicts an alleged Dutch invention to help unhappy husbands: a windmill to transform ugly wives into beautiful ones. An accompanying description claims that the mill can transform “all sorts of women, as the old, decreped, [sic] wrinkled, blear-ey’d, long-nosed, blind, lame, scolds, jealous, angry, poor, drunkerds, [sic] whores, sluts; or all others whatsoever. They shall come out of [the] mill, young, active, pleasant, handsome, wise, loving, vertuous [sic] and rich.”

Husbands bringing their ugly wives to a windmill, to be transformed into beautiful ones. Engraving, ca 1650.

Widespread antipathy towards one’s spouse also found expression in distasteful jokes such as the following from The Spirit of English Wit: to “a gentleman in the country, whose wife had the misfortune to hang herself on an apple-tree, a neighbour came in, and begged he would give him a cyon [scion] of that tree, that he might graft it upon one in his own orchard; ‘for who knows,’ said he, ‘but it may bear the same fruit?’”

Many unhappy marriages turned abusive. Courts tolerated physical abuse in most cases, and men often had the legal authority to commit their wives to insane asylums. Domestic violence was celebrated in songs such as the upbeat wife-beater’s anthem The Cooper of Fife, which I have written about previously. An abused woman’s best hope was often not legal recourse but the possibility that a male relative, neighbor, or sympathetic passerby might notice her plight and act on her behalf. Olsen notes that sometimes “neighbors intervened when men beat their wives … as a saddler did in 1703, telling the abusive husband, ‘you shall not beat your wife.’”

Women, for their part, were also known to engage in criminal cruelty toward their husbands, such as by lethally poisoning them. Sometimes these murders were committed in retaliation for domestic abuse. Aqua Tofana was a poison discovered in 17th-century Sicily that was notoriously sold through much of Italy by women to other women seeking to discreetly end their husbands’ lives. Hundreds of victims (mainly men murdered by their wives) are estimated to have perished from the colorless, odorless poison, the precise ingredients of which are today unknown. The poison has been called the “bottled revenge of the 17th-century wife.”

With so many difficulties accompanying marriage in the premodern age, it may seem a wonder that anyone married. But remaining single in the preindustrial world brought its own challenges. At the time, marriage was often the only way that women could avoid the fate of becoming unpaid live-in housekeepers to a relative. “Even before she had reached her teens, a girl knew that unless she married before she was twenty-one, society would consider her useless, fit only for the nunnery, or, in England, the spinning wheel (a ‘spinster’),” as Manchester relates.

Marriages were not only frequently unhappy but often short, ending with the untimely death of the husband or wife. In the 17th century, A History of Old Age reminds us that “disease, war, and accident all played a role in ensuring that most marriages ended with the early death of a spouse. Remarriage and blended families were much more common then, despite popular ideas to the contrary today.”

Perhaps our ancestors didn’t have it so good after all. If preindustrial marriage was, to borrow Hetty’s phrase, a “sure forerunner of despair,” today, the data suggest marriage usually makes people happy. Modern-day romance has its challenges, to be sure, but the dating pool is at least bigger than a remote village where the only options are your cousin or someone 15 years older than you. While current dysfunctional dating dynamics are worth examining, keeping a historical perspective reminds us that it could be so much worse.