It's a terrible article. A rant and nothing more. She's right, but her ramblings do little to further her case. Unsubstantiated claim follows wild assertion: targeted girly drinks follows "there are no books". Appeals to prehistoric goddesses and engravings of fertility symbols. No reference to beerwives no reference to a burgeoning profitable industry being monopolised by male entrepreneurs and beer-making being taken away from the hearth and into the factory. One wonders at the point of her article until the last few paragraphs where she makes it clear that women were "protected" against alcohol in case, in losing their inhibitions, they become wantonly pregnant or at least deflowered and lose their value to either husband or father. This "property" issue is the wasp she's really chewing on and she's right, you only have to look at the traditional form of the marriage vows to see that it's explicitly a legal contract for transfer of property. The injustice being that a man sowing his wild oats is not devalued while a "second hand" woman is. Of course, how much this actually mattered in "peasant" society, though, is a matter for speculation.
Our magnificently tattooed goth would have done better to have come straight out with it instead of befuddling the issue with her beery thoughts. Or at least she should have done her homework before accepting the chatter that "there are no such books". Shame on the Guardian (an otherwise excellent paper) for publishing such a poorly researched and ill-conceived article. I'm not surprised some readers lost the will to live after the opening sentences.
. 
