"Rule of Thumb"

[minstrel]

I'm in the process of reviewing a forthcoming book on forensic psychology, in the process of which I came across this tidbit:


Historically, laws have condoned domestic violence by a man against his wife. For example, the term "rule of thumb" comes from British common law, which at one time allowed men to legally beat their wives with sticks so long as the stick was no thicker than their thumb.
I didn't realize that this was the origin of the term. Makes me want to make sure I don't use it again, now that I understand what it means... Yikes!

[paulhiles]

As an Englishman, you can understand that I was rather appalled to read that the origin of the phrase came from an English judge (Sir Francis Buller, 1782). However, I did some digging of my own, and it seems as though this topic has been discussed on several occasions, in forums, newsgroups and other publications.

The consensus reached seems to point to this story being an 'urban legend' or common folklore that has been passed down through the years. There's certainly no doubting that women were treated poorly for centuries, often brutally, but this practice didn't actually give rise to the "rule of thumb" phrase.

The phrase "rule of thumb" was in common usage long before 1782 and would have most likely had a similar meaning as the one still in use today.... i.e. a rough guide, or an approximation based on experience. The origins are likely to have been the craftsmen such as carpenters and tailors who would often use a thumb or fingers as a guide for measurement.

See the following two articles for further reading:
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-rul1.htm
http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology/rule_of_thumb.html

Paul

[minstrel]

Thanks, Paul... that makes more sense, actually, since in archaic terminology "rule" probably would have been associated more with measurement than laws anyway.

The UK still considers me a native Englishman, by the way - born in London and therefore always a Briton no matter how long I may live elsewhere or what other citizenships I may be awarded - I think the logic is, "why would any Briton ever want to give up that elevated rank to be a citizen of one of the colonies?"...

[paulhiles]

The UK still considers me a native Englishman, by the way - born in London and therefore always a Briton no matter how long I may live elsewhere or what other citizenships I may be awarded
I remember now (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=34603#34603)... you mentioned that you were in actual fact a real cockney! that is, if you accept the definition being anyone born within the sound of Bow Bells! However long you've been away.. you can probably still do a better cockney accent than Dick Van Dyck... who owes the British nation some sort of apology!! LOL!! :c)


I think the logic is, "why would any Briton ever want to give up that elevated rank to be a citizen of one of the colonies?"...
That's quite correct! we like to keep tabs on folk... just in case they happen to spawn any likely champions.. we'll even adopt if it comes to it! Lennox Lewis being a prime example! Doesn't always pay off mind you... look at poor old Greg Rusedski... we're still waiting for him to produce the 'goods' !! :c)

Paul

[matauri]

That's quite correct! we like to keep tabs on folk...

You like to think you do ;-)


just in case they happen to spawn any likely champions

Now thats just plain funny! ;-)


I think the logic is, "why would any Briton ever want to give up that elevated rank to be a citizen of one of the colonies?"

I'd like to put that on a sign at arrivals at the airport. It would save on noise pollution ;-)


Cindy

[minstrel]

Remember, Cindy -

Australia as we know it today exists because England sent all those citizens they felt were beyond redemption or civilization as far away from Brittania as they could manage, hoping to protect the remainder or the world from the "moral imbecility" they believed existed in the exiles (that, by the way, is an actual term used as late as the early 1900s to refer to the criminal mind).

"Not that there's anything wrong with that." - Jerry Seinfeld

[matauri]

Australia as we know it today exists because England sent all those citizens they felt were beyond redemption or civilization as far away from Brittania as they could manage, hoping to protect the remainder or the world from the "moral imbecility" they believed existed in the exiles (that, by the way, is an actual term used as late as the early 1900s to refer to the criminal mind).

The Brits may have sent their 'undesirables' here in the first place, BUT, it was those same 'undesirables' that England had no use for that forged the great nation it is today. Most weren't even convicts in the true sense of the word. They were simply 'undesirable' (i.e Scots, Irish, etc who got in Englands way). It was these 'undesirables' that revolted against the English & forged what is the backbone of Australia today (one of the top 3 places on earth to live).

Makes one wonder, if those 'rejects' were so bad...how did they accomplish so much good? Who were the 'real' imbeciles? ;-)

Lets look at the history books >>>

1. The english came forth & 'took' the continent from the natives with guns blaring & no treaty. (BTW...only place they overtook & didnt offer some form of treaty...even though they broke others treaties anyway). They hearded natives from Tasmania into the oceans to drown. They took babies & children (right up until the mid 70's) from native parents & forced them to assimilate into a 'white' society.

2. The 'undesriables' toughened from the treatment afforded them at the hands of the english & used it to become part of the continent & work with it. They squatted in far reach places which are now the most profitable places in Australia. They overcame adversities to build an unknown land into one of the most profitable countries in the world in a span half the time it took when they occupied other lands.

Yet...the english will still brag it is 'their' continent. If it was left in 'their' hands, it wouldnt be the place it is now.

If I was english I wouldn't be bragging too much about the settling of Australia. I would actually hang my head in shame :-)


Cindy

[minstrel]

Shame?

I'm sorry... the British don't believe in shame... that's just for colonists.

And in other news...

Scientists have now conclusively determined that the kangaroo does not actually exist. It seems that all along it has been Rowan Atkinson in an old pair of back-door pyjamas, hopping about the countryside trying to scare the natives. Rowan himself referred all questions on the matter to PeeWee Herman, who remarked, "Something you can share with the rest of us, Amazing Rowan?".

Meanwhile, Ozzie Osbourne, who has repeatedly denied that he has anything to do with Australia, is recovering from injuries sustained while running over one of his cats and a chauffeur while racing around on an ATV under the influence of a bucket of prescription medications given to him by Danny De Vito's physician, who is apparently still treating Elvis after all these years.