A law that transfers a woman's property rights to her husband after marriage is outrageous and it's good that the women stood up for their rights. Yes, Caroline's behavior seemed a tad out of character but that is because of the one-dimensional way the character was written, which is how Karen Grassle played it. I don't know how good an actress she was because she never got to show much range. Nels and Harriet's co-dependent relationship is quite textured and always eminently watchable. No treacle there.
13 Reviews
Never learns.
drexmaverick14 June 2019
It's amazing how many times Nels left that woman and she never changed. Nellie was the one who grew out of being a snob on account of Percival, who stood up to Harriet, but it still wasn't enough to humble her out.
This episode is really a joke because it pushed a lot of feminism that consequently destroyed the family structure. Certainly they covered issues that were in fact unfair, but thats how they reel you in ...
This episode is really a joke because it pushed a lot of feminism that consequently destroyed the family structure. Certainly they covered issues that were in fact unfair, but thats how they reel you in ...
Disembler!
Hendry212 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The show features a visit to Walnut Grove by an early suffragette, who manages to create chaos in every household by saying each husband should be made to sign a "sharing" petition. In reality, the women who closed their door on Caroline would have been the standard response in the 1880's to such a document, plus Caroline risking the crime of abandonment for refusing to return home until the matter was resolved in her favor.
It was out-of-character even for Caroline, considering she was always at church and knew Scripture well enough to know what becomes of disemblers who enter a town or house bent on causing family disruption.
In some ways it was a funny episode with Mr. and Mrs. O. at it again, but in other ways it was frustrating for the reasons mentioned (in today's world the petition would be called a pre-nuptual agreement).
Surprisingly Revend Alden should have explained very plainly that an outsider causing disruption to family life would not be allowed to enter his congregation, but instead Charles gives in and signs...
It was out-of-character even for Caroline, considering she was always at church and knew Scripture well enough to know what becomes of disemblers who enter a town or house bent on causing family disruption.
In some ways it was a funny episode with Mr. and Mrs. O. at it again, but in other ways it was frustrating for the reasons mentioned (in today's world the petition would be called a pre-nuptual agreement).
Surprisingly Revend Alden should have explained very plainly that an outsider causing disruption to family life would not be allowed to enter his congregation, but instead Charles gives in and signs...
perhaps well-established marriages like his own do not need these laws, but others do.
drfernandogil30 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I don't have as bad an impression of this episode as the rest of the reviewers.
It is true that LHOP is set in a time when feminism was not a social issue as it is now in 2024. But we know that, beyond being a soft western, LHOP tries to address current issues, such as drugs and like unionism.
What I have noticed is an exaggeration of the issue, taken to the extreme of dissolving well-established marriages like that of Charles and Caroline or that of the Olesons, despite the constant fights.-
I really don't believe that the majority of women in the town would rebel against their husbands and congregate in a hotel, and they wouldn't have the money to maintain that lifestyle permanently, nor do I think that women would be so unloving with their own lives. Children from deciding not to see them for an indefinite period of time, leaving them in the hands of husbands who are mostly not qualified to take charge of their upbringing when they are young (like Grace).
What I do agree is that the opposite example should have been done: that all the men stop working and maintaining the home and congregate in a hotel until the women sign a petition.
Ingalls' final reflection is good when he decides to sign: perhaps well-established marriages like his own do not need these laws, but others do. Charles must also have thought that he has 4 daughters and that some of them may need legal protection in the future.
Of course, the picture is exaggerated by the constant cries of children to dramatize and scandalize coexistence with fathers, without mothers. By the way, the girl who plays Grace is a much better actress than Lindsay Sidney Greenbush (such a pompous name for such a small and unremarkable participation).
It is true that LHOP is set in a time when feminism was not a social issue as it is now in 2024. But we know that, beyond being a soft western, LHOP tries to address current issues, such as drugs and like unionism.
What I have noticed is an exaggeration of the issue, taken to the extreme of dissolving well-established marriages like that of Charles and Caroline or that of the Olesons, despite the constant fights.-
I really don't believe that the majority of women in the town would rebel against their husbands and congregate in a hotel, and they wouldn't have the money to maintain that lifestyle permanently, nor do I think that women would be so unloving with their own lives. Children from deciding not to see them for an indefinite period of time, leaving them in the hands of husbands who are mostly not qualified to take charge of their upbringing when they are young (like Grace).
What I do agree is that the opposite example should have been done: that all the men stop working and maintaining the home and congregate in a hotel until the women sign a petition.
Ingalls' final reflection is good when he decides to sign: perhaps well-established marriages like his own do not need these laws, but others do. Charles must also have thought that he has 4 daughters and that some of them may need legal protection in the future.
Of course, the picture is exaggerated by the constant cries of children to dramatize and scandalize coexistence with fathers, without mothers. By the way, the girl who plays Grace is a much better actress than Lindsay Sidney Greenbush (such a pompous name for such a small and unremarkable participation).
One of the best
kellielulu24 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure such a small somewhat cut off community would have been open minded an woman's rights but of course they don't come around easily.
It takes the teaming up of Caroline Ingalls and Harriet Olsen to make it happen. The episode centers on property rights and can they get the men to sign the petition to be considered at the legislature. The women all head for Nellie's to wait it out only then do the men slowly figure out how important it is. It was great to see Caroline and Harriet getting along together.
It takes the teaming up of Caroline Ingalls and Harriet Olsen to make it happen. The episode centers on property rights and can they get the men to sign the petition to be considered at the legislature. The women all head for Nellie's to wait it out only then do the men slowly figure out how important it is. It was great to see Caroline and Harriet getting along together.
Huh?
mitchrmp12 October 2013
Women's lib came to Walnut Grove really early and it was just way too out of character for the show.
Subtle ways about women having more rights have been seen in this show. Caroline's working at the restaurant, Laura's teaching, etc. But this one just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
Caroline is usually very understandable about the way things are for women, but in this episode she seemed to be really out of character as she stand up for what she believes. Caroline is NOT like this. She would never talk women into leaving their husbands or get into a stupid argument with Charles just because he doesn't want to sign some petition. I thought she was a bit spiteful, and was very happy when she finally got her way.
Almanzo really surprised me! Remember the first episode of this season? He was dead set on his wife working outside the home, but I guess he finally accepted the fact though they had an agreement that once she had a baby that would go away. Almanzo expected Laura to do the housework, cooking, and other wifely duties (other duties were hinted in this episode, by the way). But when he tells Laura he doesn't mind signing the petition - I was shocked! I don't think Almanzo's character EVER agreed with equal rights for women! Almanzo just seemed way too indifferent. Instead of Charles and Caroline having the fight, Laura and Almanzo would have beeb a bit more believable.
I am very disappointed in the men letting the women strong-arm them like this. I think it should have ended differently.
Subtle ways about women having more rights have been seen in this show. Caroline's working at the restaurant, Laura's teaching, etc. But this one just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
Caroline is usually very understandable about the way things are for women, but in this episode she seemed to be really out of character as she stand up for what she believes. Caroline is NOT like this. She would never talk women into leaving their husbands or get into a stupid argument with Charles just because he doesn't want to sign some petition. I thought she was a bit spiteful, and was very happy when she finally got her way.
Almanzo really surprised me! Remember the first episode of this season? He was dead set on his wife working outside the home, but I guess he finally accepted the fact though they had an agreement that once she had a baby that would go away. Almanzo expected Laura to do the housework, cooking, and other wifely duties (other duties were hinted in this episode, by the way). But when he tells Laura he doesn't mind signing the petition - I was shocked! I don't think Almanzo's character EVER agreed with equal rights for women! Almanzo just seemed way too indifferent. Instead of Charles and Caroline having the fight, Laura and Almanzo would have beeb a bit more believable.
I am very disappointed in the men letting the women strong-arm them like this. I think it should have ended differently.
Show Title should be "HOME WRECKER"
aschwartz-2063631 January 2022
Other reviewers are better than this review but i had to share my opinion. The Feminism is too in your face; Caroline represents the home and hearth, not equal rights and her portrayal is out of character. Men and Women had rolls back then too same as now. The shows "comedic note" would have been better if Charles had the last laugh at Caroline with their wagon breaking a wheel with him telling her "i signed your petition, we're equal, your turn to fix the wagon". Better yet, Woman across town bickering at Caroline over them shoveling Hay, cleaning the pig sty, hammering shingles on a leaking roof and sowing the fields would have been "equally" comedic for an equal point of view that maybe the woman folk should appreciate their men too for who they are, as they are.
He Said, She Said....
ExplorerDS67895 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
One would say Nels Oleson had three kids. Nellie, Willie, and Harriet. But then Nels himself can act pretty childish at times. In any case, the Olesons were at it again. All day, all night, bitching and bickering at one another constantly. In this instance, it began when Willie left his baseball bat on the stairs and Nels tripped over it in the dark. As punishment, he took Willie's bat away, only for Harriet to undermined him and give it back. A furious Nels started packing his bags and with his tail between his legs, he stormed out of the house and rented a room from his daughter across the street. That's showing her, Nels. That evening there was a town lecture, which primarily concerned the women of Walnut Grove, but they dragged their husbands along anyway. The speaker, Elizabeth Smith, spoke about certain laws that state when a woman gets married, all her property belongs to the husband. Everything, even children are the husband's. She hoped the men of Walnut Grove would sign a petition that would encourage state legislatures to change the law. Hearing about this, Nels immediately moves back home and demands respect, since he owns everything of theirs. Now it was Harriet's turn to move out. Good riddance.
Nels and Harriet always had a peculiar relationship, however this property law would soon begin to affect other marriages, most of them happy. The first being the Ingallses. Charles thought it was hilarious what happened to the Olesons, however Caroline felt Nels was stealing and was worried the same could happen to her. Charles' lack of seriousness only added fuel to the fire. Turns out the only man in Walnut Grove willing to sign the petition was Percival. He may be the only one. Charles believed a marriage was all about share and share alike, what's one partner's is another's and he feels if a law were to dictate this, it would mess up a good thing. So to make up for being a dick the other night, he cooked dinner. Everything was going great, until Caroline brought up the petition, which infuriated Charles and they got back into it. It times like these you have to wonder who the real children of Walnut Grove are. Next, Caroline joined with Harriet in a crusade that would get all of the Grove's wives to go against their husbands to get that law changed! A battle royale of the sexes! Caroline Ingalls actually went door to door to encourage women to join them. Most of them told her to 'f' off, but she stood firm. She next moved out of the little house. Charles was almost considering not signing that petition, especially when Nels started talking about how he missed Harriet, but Charles told him to stand firm. All for one, one for all, he said. Charles and Nels, The Two Schmuckateers! At least this feminist tiff hasn't yet effected Almanzo and Laura...until Caroline asked her daughter to join her on this crazy crusade, and Almanzo would only sign if Charles did. You know, a better title for this episode would have been "Infantile Behavior." So after Charles bumbles and stumbles his way through housework, Nels had to deal with all the irate male customers having to do the shopping in their wives' absences, since all of them are holed up at Nellie's. Yeah, the men folk were pretty miserable, and all over a dumb little piece of paper. Finally, Laura started to see sense and tried to talk some into her bullheaded Pa, but Charles refused to budge. As did her stuck-up mother. I'm getting tired of this crap, so let's get to the big finish. Charles finally agreed to sign after realizing maybe he was wrong, and the other men followed suit. So now everybody was happy again. The women won and would continue to do so throughout eternity.
This episode just screams 1970s. Women's rights. Women want equal rights. Well they got them, and you know what they did? Started taking rights away from men. That's not equal! Michael Landon, Karen Grassle, Melissa Gilbert, Dean Butler, Richard Bull, Katherine MacGregor, Steve Tracy, Alison Arngrim, and Dabbs Greer were all very good in their performances, even if each and every one of them seemed FORCED. Yes, forced. I could not believe how out of character Caroline behaved. Usually she's the sensible voice of reason, but not here. Here she was just a whiny bitch who demanded to have her way. In fact, ALL of Walnut Grove acted like whiny, spoiled little bitches who had to have their way. The only sensible people in this mess were Percival and Nellie. Yes, I just said Nellie was the sensible one. Now aside from the good acting, there is a token of the bad acting, namely Ruth Foster, who is almost as bad an actress as the Greenbush twins. No wonder they never gave Mrs. Foster anything to do. As for this episode... not only a remake of Season 1's "Family Quarrel", but it seems completely out of place. Like it should be for a different show. Oleson vs. Oleson? Why not Ingalls vs. Ingalls, because it was more about Charles and Caroline than Nels and Harriet. In closing, I say skip this one, it's nothing special and all the characters act like idiots. If this were a comedy, that would be okay, but since this is Little House on the Prairie, it's not! Chris Abbot turned in a below-average script and Bill Claxton should have known better. Oh, and to answer Laura's inquiry: yes, women will be allowed to vote in 1920. Everybody in her family except for Charles would live to see it.
Nels and Harriet always had a peculiar relationship, however this property law would soon begin to affect other marriages, most of them happy. The first being the Ingallses. Charles thought it was hilarious what happened to the Olesons, however Caroline felt Nels was stealing and was worried the same could happen to her. Charles' lack of seriousness only added fuel to the fire. Turns out the only man in Walnut Grove willing to sign the petition was Percival. He may be the only one. Charles believed a marriage was all about share and share alike, what's one partner's is another's and he feels if a law were to dictate this, it would mess up a good thing. So to make up for being a dick the other night, he cooked dinner. Everything was going great, until Caroline brought up the petition, which infuriated Charles and they got back into it. It times like these you have to wonder who the real children of Walnut Grove are. Next, Caroline joined with Harriet in a crusade that would get all of the Grove's wives to go against their husbands to get that law changed! A battle royale of the sexes! Caroline Ingalls actually went door to door to encourage women to join them. Most of them told her to 'f' off, but she stood firm. She next moved out of the little house. Charles was almost considering not signing that petition, especially when Nels started talking about how he missed Harriet, but Charles told him to stand firm. All for one, one for all, he said. Charles and Nels, The Two Schmuckateers! At least this feminist tiff hasn't yet effected Almanzo and Laura...until Caroline asked her daughter to join her on this crazy crusade, and Almanzo would only sign if Charles did. You know, a better title for this episode would have been "Infantile Behavior." So after Charles bumbles and stumbles his way through housework, Nels had to deal with all the irate male customers having to do the shopping in their wives' absences, since all of them are holed up at Nellie's. Yeah, the men folk were pretty miserable, and all over a dumb little piece of paper. Finally, Laura started to see sense and tried to talk some into her bullheaded Pa, but Charles refused to budge. As did her stuck-up mother. I'm getting tired of this crap, so let's get to the big finish. Charles finally agreed to sign after realizing maybe he was wrong, and the other men followed suit. So now everybody was happy again. The women won and would continue to do so throughout eternity.
This episode just screams 1970s. Women's rights. Women want equal rights. Well they got them, and you know what they did? Started taking rights away from men. That's not equal! Michael Landon, Karen Grassle, Melissa Gilbert, Dean Butler, Richard Bull, Katherine MacGregor, Steve Tracy, Alison Arngrim, and Dabbs Greer were all very good in their performances, even if each and every one of them seemed FORCED. Yes, forced. I could not believe how out of character Caroline behaved. Usually she's the sensible voice of reason, but not here. Here she was just a whiny bitch who demanded to have her way. In fact, ALL of Walnut Grove acted like whiny, spoiled little bitches who had to have their way. The only sensible people in this mess were Percival and Nellie. Yes, I just said Nellie was the sensible one. Now aside from the good acting, there is a token of the bad acting, namely Ruth Foster, who is almost as bad an actress as the Greenbush twins. No wonder they never gave Mrs. Foster anything to do. As for this episode... not only a remake of Season 1's "Family Quarrel", but it seems completely out of place. Like it should be for a different show. Oleson vs. Oleson? Why not Ingalls vs. Ingalls, because it was more about Charles and Caroline than Nels and Harriet. In closing, I say skip this one, it's nothing special and all the characters act like idiots. If this were a comedy, that would be okay, but since this is Little House on the Prairie, it's not! Chris Abbot turned in a below-average script and Bill Claxton should have known better. Oh, and to answer Laura's inquiry: yes, women will be allowed to vote in 1920. Everybody in her family except for Charles would live to see it.
Feminists stay out of Walnut Grove please.
Alice194015 October 2021
I love Little House on the Prairie so much, and one of those reasons is because it is not a feminist show, it is actually anti feminist since it's main theme in it is that family values and morals are most important of all, it also highlights the differences between men and women, both in biology and the bible and that they were given different roles for a reason and the characters in this are always true to this and usually true to the time, as in most women in the past actually loved being women and knew how important their role was unlike today where women seem to want to be men and a woman's role has been erased from society, so needless to say I hate feminism and the fact that it ended up having a feminist episode has dissapointed me greatly, I should have guessed since there was a few feminist jokes in the end episodes of season 6 so I wasn't suprised in a way and I found those jokes very out of place too since they were obviously modern jokes but it seems there was 2 new writers that liked this angle for whatever reason but they were just jokes so I didn't mind but Chris Abbott wrote this dreaded episode and her other episodes were not good either with the exception of May I Have This Dance, she wasn't with the show long so that's the only reason i could see how she could write the characters so badly, she still should have done better. I would have thought if anything came up like this in an episode it was be Laura and Almanzo as it would have made somewhat more sense since Laura and Almanzo are the ones who fight a lot and Almanzo has made it clear what he wants his wife to be like (which the writers kept changing with this too, the episodes Michael Landon wrote and a few others made it clear he doesn't want his wife working and Laura is okay with this, then the ones wrote by newer writers had Laura not okay with giving up teaching and Almanzo was okay with this so they kept going back and forth which is why I wish Michael Landon was the only writer or at least the main one) but back to the episode at hand, the fact it was mainly Charles and Caroline is so out of character I can't even, Caroline is always the voice of reason and always gives the best advice and not to mention Caroline has always valued her role as a woman, wife and mother, and she is also a bible following woman so to see her turn feminist for an episode is just so out of character. It's kind of ironic Little House on the Prairie having a feminist episode since it was feminism that was the cause of destroying everything Little House In The Prairie is about, Family, God, Romance, Marriage, Children etc. The family unit and the beautiful roles of men and women, feminism butchered that so it is kind of funny making an episode with it. There was other episodes in the series that dealt with women's rights in a more classy and subtle way which was not only way better but more accurate of the time and more in character, women did not walk around demanding "equality" back then and women didn't walk around victimizing themselves like today, these are all modern ideologies pushed onto women back then, women back then took value in their role and knew it was just important as a man's role so they were happy, women did want they wanted, it just isn't want women are told to want today. People ignore the reality, men and women didn't have "equal" rights because they're not equal, in worth yes but not equal we're different, women and men understood this which is why most women did not support the sufferages, the most accurate part of the episode is all the women shutting the door on Caroline as she went around, that is what would have happened then. Anyway Isn't it ironic how women were alot happier when they had less "rights"? The more "equal" society got, the more depressed women got, It's almost as if men and women were meant to be like how they are in Little House on the Prairie. Make men and women great again.
Anyway thanks but no thanks, again one of the reasons I love this show is because of it's strong traditional values and morals and the family and romance, it's bad enough everything today is infected with this filth, I don't need it on the greatest family show of all time, but I will forgive the show, every show has a bad episode now and again, I'd like to pretend it doesn't exist. I'm actually so glad the other reviews here agree with me and that most can see how out of character it is.
Nellie and Percival were the only ones okay in this episode. Caroline is normally so much better, writer what were you thinking? I haven't liked any of the new writers over the last season.
This episode sums up feminism in a nutshell though, all the women in the town were living their lives happily and then a feminist comes to town and fills their head with nonsense they never even thought about to make them feel oppressed so that they start fighting with men and being miserable, pretty accurate description of what the movement did to women.
All the feminists feel free to thumb this review down, it's so much easier to scream "misogyny" and "equality" than actually knowing the real history and the meaning of those words.
Anyway thanks but no thanks, again one of the reasons I love this show is because of it's strong traditional values and morals and the family and romance, it's bad enough everything today is infected with this filth, I don't need it on the greatest family show of all time, but I will forgive the show, every show has a bad episode now and again, I'd like to pretend it doesn't exist. I'm actually so glad the other reviews here agree with me and that most can see how out of character it is.
Nellie and Percival were the only ones okay in this episode. Caroline is normally so much better, writer what were you thinking? I haven't liked any of the new writers over the last season.
This episode sums up feminism in a nutshell though, all the women in the town were living their lives happily and then a feminist comes to town and fills their head with nonsense they never even thought about to make them feel oppressed so that they start fighting with men and being miserable, pretty accurate description of what the movement did to women.
All the feminists feel free to thumb this review down, it's so much easier to scream "misogyny" and "equality" than actually knowing the real history and the meaning of those words.
Worst episode so far
blueninja-8192622 November 2019
I am watching most of these for the first time and find this to be the worst episode so far. Caroline Ingalls has been my favorite character because she's always so reasonable. However, this episode is way out of character for her and most of the others.
Feminism invades Walnut Grove
awarlock-177035 August 2023
During that time, men and women weren't equal. Men carried the brunt of the responsibility. Women's role was to tend to the man's needs, bare children and tend to their needs as well. Men made sure the family had a roof over their heads and food on the table. Most importantly, the man provided protection. Whether it be from wild animals or other men.
As mentioned by others here, they did not show the other side of the coin here as negative aspects go of feminism. Why didn't they show any of the women try fix leaky roofs, broke wheels, shoeing a horse, butchering game... the list goes on. If you can learn anything from this episode, it's that feminism ruined the concept of "family".
As mentioned by others here, they did not show the other side of the coin here as negative aspects go of feminism. Why didn't they show any of the women try fix leaky roofs, broke wheels, shoeing a horse, butchering game... the list goes on. If you can learn anything from this episode, it's that feminism ruined the concept of "family".
Worst episode- feminist claptrap
sorcha-sparrow14 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
In this stomach churning episode, Nell's again attempts to take the leadership role in his family. However, Caroline (usually a peaceable, Christian wife who generally promotes love and unity of the family,) teams up with Harriet (nobody's role model) encouraging the women of Walnut Grove to leave their husbands and abandon their children for their own selfish desires.
Rather then accepting Charle's opinion, cherishing the unity of their marriage she leaves him to carry the load of their family to manipulate his feelings.
With hope of the episode ending with a valuable lesson for the selfish ladies, we powered through much to our disappointment.
May not continue if future episodes follow suit.
Rather then accepting Charle's opinion, cherishing the unity of their marriage she leaves him to carry the load of their family to manipulate his feelings.
With hope of the episode ending with a valuable lesson for the selfish ladies, we powered through much to our disappointment.
May not continue if future episodes follow suit.
One big clich
lrldoit16 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
All of the people in Walnut Grove allow themselves to be manipulated by politics. I guess the writer didn't do research on property rights. The man actually never had the authority to sell his wife's property and some of the clauses were to protect women. It is dangerous for a show to deal with politics. It is more complicated that an hour drama.
In addition, people think that the future of America depends on a petition being signed. No one stands up for people's right to sign or not. No one asks for further details, like how such a thing would work.
It took forty years for women's suffrage. Even so, women are no smarter than men and both sexes fall prey to corrupt politicians.
A little thought, nuance and maturity would have been wonderful.
NOPE.
Just an episode with the values of the time it was filmed.
In addition, people think that the future of America depends on a petition being signed. No one stands up for people's right to sign or not. No one asks for further details, like how such a thing would work.
It took forty years for women's suffrage. Even so, women are no smarter than men and both sexes fall prey to corrupt politicians.
A little thought, nuance and maturity would have been wonderful.
NOPE.
Just an episode with the values of the time it was filmed.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
