“Your honor, this man told me he loved me, promised to marry me, so we hooked up, then I got pregnant and he didn’t want me no more. He “deflowered” me and left me for fill in the blank. I think he needs to support his baby and pay me for taking my virginity. Yes, your honor, two donkeys and a sack of beans will do…” No this is not a scene from Divorce Court with Judge Mablean, rather it is the social, religious and judicial system described by Allyson Poska in diocese of Ourense in northwest Spain from the mid sixteenth through eighteenth century. Poska examines the contradiction between the sovereign rules and edicts introduced by the Catholic Church to legislate the institution of marriage and the cultural adaption of said rules by the local clergy.
Poska has a couple of main goals. First, she wants to explain how the act of pablas de presente, the promise of marriage, was actually beneficial to females during this time compared to the church’s view of palabras del future, the actual act of marriage preformed by a priest, took away females rights as the woman simply passed from her father’s hands to her husband; thereby passing her legal rights as well, so she had no hand in the matter. Second, Poska empathizes that the marriage reforms passed by the church actual caused illegitimacy rates to explode in the region, since father’s who had claimed children born out of wedlock faced severe financial punishment by the church itself. Lastly, she explains how the church’s edicts actually created a legal nightmare for both parties; in essence, it punished them if they wanted to break up the relationship.
I found both her articles entirely gripping. She used the church’s own records to prove their edicts were ineffective and essentially took away women’s rights. Since legally, they were either represented by their father or their husband, the pablas de presente actually gave them financial compensation, similar to alimony in modern divorce, thus allowing them to provide for themselves until they found another mate. The male partner had no reason to not claim children from the relationship, thereby giving the child legitimate birth rights and support. Their mutual agreement to dissolve the relationship and support provisions mirror modern mediated agreements. Women and their families also gained familial honor, and my personal favorite, the restoration of the woman’s virginity, through financial restitution; which gave her and the child cultural acceptance rather than shame. However, the church though too much hanky-panky was going on and laid down the law. No more engagement were acceptable, the young couples had to marry, with little to no chances of divorce being granted, and no financial compensation if it was allowed. Then again, what do you expect out of an institution that went on murderous ethnic cleansing sprees in the name of God? Illegitimacy rates skyrocketed as a result and marriage rates plummeted.
I also found it rather interesting that the local priests, some of which had illegitimate children too, continued to practice the pablas de presente rather than the church official policies. Either they were not worried about punishment by the church itself, or they worried more about the welfare and stability of their local parish. Maybe they simply worried about their own chances of having sex, if they enforce the edicts. Either way, their ignoring of the policy, was financially beneficial to women, thereby creating a financial independence outside of inheritance laws that liberated women and was culturally accepted.
The main idea I took away from her essays was that once again, the Catholic Church itself was a biased institution that took away women’s legal rights as well as enforcing stigma’s that did not exist among lower classes prior to its involvement. I also hope that teenagers do not find out about the whole “restoration of virginity through payment”, since there are enough issues with just Facebook pages...
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Angela Bastallas es mi heroe!
First imagine a young single parent, with an infant, having to depend on an impetuous momma’s boy who turns his back on her, rather than acknowledge either the young woman or the child. Now when the child is first born, the young man signs the baby’s birth certificate and provides a home and financial support to the mother and their baby. Suddenly, the young man’s family finds out that he has fathered a child with a woman they consider both racially and socially inferior and he then turns his back on his child and the young mother. Outraged by the young man’s denials and failure to follow through on his promises, she takes what little money she has and hires and attorney to plead her case.
The image above resonates throughout the halls of child support courts every day. Yet, hers is unique. Why? This modern day narrative actually took place one hundred and eight six years ago. The young woman, a slave named Angela Bastallas, began a sexual relationship with her owner, Ildefonso Coronel, only after he promised her freedom in exchange. Soon after she become pregnant and bore him a daughter; a daughter for which he willingly signed what would be considered today as her birth certificate. He failed to mention to the mid-wife caring for Angela that the baby was born to a slave mother. He provided both financial support and for a home for the two, along with providing for a servant. However, when the affair became too humiliating for his well- too –do family, Coronel began denying Angela and their child. Furious, Angela defied not only social norms, but also attacked legally against the institution of slavery (and irresponsible fathers). She was able to hire her own attorney, again upsetting the status quo, and even pleaded her case before Simon Bolivar for his support publically.
I find this case interesting for many reasons. First, that she was able to win her case, and as a direct result, her freedom and support. Though Camilla Townsend does not directly tie this to any one reason, she does give a few important factors; Coronel signing the baptismal certificate for example. Angela was not only able to have one witness, but rather, she had five, all of whom the court found credible; this too was unheard of during the time, especially for a female slave. It too should be noted that because Coronel had signed the certificate, his daughter was automatically free and did not have to wait until her eighteenth birthday as the designated by law.
Secondly, Angela gained her rights because she used the law against itself, and therefore, against Coronel. Her argument that because she and Coronel had created a child together, they were joined in union and thereby took on the status of the other; whether that meant she was free or he was part slave. That argument was combined with the issue of enlightenment socially with regards to slavery and Coronel own beliefs, which had been the basis for the consummation of their sexual relationship, and therefore, the basis for her “earned” freedom.
I find it ironic that Angela was able to gain her freedom and support for her child nearly two hundred years ago against a male that even the Public Defender called a “miserable man without principles” . A slave, promised her freedom, was able to gain it, and today single mother like myself, have to still fight against irresponsible, insolent fathers, who can control the lives of both their children and the mother, legally; otherwise known as modern day “marital” slavery. This might also be one of the first modern day child support cases in the Americas. Angela Basllatas is my new hero!
The image above resonates throughout the halls of child support courts every day. Yet, hers is unique. Why? This modern day narrative actually took place one hundred and eight six years ago. The young woman, a slave named Angela Bastallas, began a sexual relationship with her owner, Ildefonso Coronel, only after he promised her freedom in exchange. Soon after she become pregnant and bore him a daughter; a daughter for which he willingly signed what would be considered today as her birth certificate. He failed to mention to the mid-wife caring for Angela that the baby was born to a slave mother. He provided both financial support and for a home for the two, along with providing for a servant. However, when the affair became too humiliating for his well- too –do family, Coronel began denying Angela and their child. Furious, Angela defied not only social norms, but also attacked legally against the institution of slavery (and irresponsible fathers). She was able to hire her own attorney, again upsetting the status quo, and even pleaded her case before Simon Bolivar for his support publically.
I find this case interesting for many reasons. First, that she was able to win her case, and as a direct result, her freedom and support. Though Camilla Townsend does not directly tie this to any one reason, she does give a few important factors; Coronel signing the baptismal certificate for example. Angela was not only able to have one witness, but rather, she had five, all of whom the court found credible; this too was unheard of during the time, especially for a female slave. It too should be noted that because Coronel had signed the certificate, his daughter was automatically free and did not have to wait until her eighteenth birthday as the designated by law.
Secondly, Angela gained her rights because she used the law against itself, and therefore, against Coronel. Her argument that because she and Coronel had created a child together, they were joined in union and thereby took on the status of the other; whether that meant she was free or he was part slave. That argument was combined with the issue of enlightenment socially with regards to slavery and Coronel own beliefs, which had been the basis for the consummation of their sexual relationship, and therefore, the basis for her “earned” freedom.
I find it ironic that Angela was able to gain her freedom and support for her child nearly two hundred years ago against a male that even the Public Defender called a “miserable man without principles” . A slave, promised her freedom, was able to gain it, and today single mother like myself, have to still fight against irresponsible, insolent fathers, who can control the lives of both their children and the mother, legally; otherwise known as modern day “marital” slavery. This might also be one of the first modern day child support cases in the Americas. Angela Basllatas is my new hero!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Week Three
Though the Nahuatl writings found transcribed in volume five of the Florentine Codex is viewed as a primary source based on when it was written and who was credited as the narrator, I feel that it should also be viewed as a secondary source; or at the very least a skewed and biased primary source. From the onset, the reader is told that this collection of moral narratives were written down by nobles and translated by Fray Bernardino de Sahagun. What does this mean? Simply, this accounting was written by the upper echelon of the remaining conquered Aztecs and further translated by a Spanish missionary, whose own culture and predisposition influenced how the material was written down. Women were not taught to read or write by the conquering Spaniards, rather, they were relegated to the role of mother, maid and inamorata. The selections we read ranged from marriage blessings to manners and childbirth. The advice to the male was simple; work hard, stay sober, and procreate to ensure their lineage. The advice to females was to wait for your parents to marry you off, procreate, have and raise children while tending to the home, and to anticipate death at any of these stages. I also felt that a “blessed” married woman would have male offspring if she and her husband were obedient to God. I also noticed numerous references to life that were precluded their colonization by the Spanish. In the vague conversation between the grandmother and her daughter and grandsons, the conversation alludes to former aspects of their native customs. In the line, “that you took from your secret cases and chests, the precious feathers and plumes…” the author is talking about former symbols of noble birth and lineage that had to be hidden once their people had been conquered. A few paragraphs later the grandmother talks of how many relatives their family and community once had and then questions their deaths;
“But now everywhere our Lord is destroying and reducing the land, we are coming to an end and disappearing. Why? For what reason?”
This seems to directly relate the deaths of the natives, from warfare and disease, at the hands of the Spanish Christians. It is curious that Sahagun printed this statement considering the implications that would accompany it. The next references she makes are with regards to the native’s former pagan and uncivilized ways. She asserts that they too were raised in temples and yet, someone, either the narrator or the translator, chose to refer to these as “demon temples”, thus making a further reference to the carvings and statues outside the temple; which were obviously that of as demonic by the missionary.
There was also great pride taken in describing the “education” of the male children, while the females received only a few sentences, describing their lessons in housekeeping. The older female goes on to describe the downfall of her people of their civilization through adulterous females and their sexual escapades. This seems closer to Christian references to the Garden of Eden, and the fall of Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah rather than actions the native population would have taken given the similarities to the defiling of virgins. Once again it also obscurely places blame on females for the ruin of lives, both past and present.
Though Sahagun should be praised for his collection, even if he did only use male perspectives on his narratives, caution should be noted to the reader for the amount of sexism and bigotry was also penned within the volumes of the Florentine Codex.
“But now everywhere our Lord is destroying and reducing the land, we are coming to an end and disappearing. Why? For what reason?”
This seems to directly relate the deaths of the natives, from warfare and disease, at the hands of the Spanish Christians. It is curious that Sahagun printed this statement considering the implications that would accompany it. The next references she makes are with regards to the native’s former pagan and uncivilized ways. She asserts that they too were raised in temples and yet, someone, either the narrator or the translator, chose to refer to these as “demon temples”, thus making a further reference to the carvings and statues outside the temple; which were obviously that of as demonic by the missionary.
There was also great pride taken in describing the “education” of the male children, while the females received only a few sentences, describing their lessons in housekeeping. The older female goes on to describe the downfall of her people of their civilization through adulterous females and their sexual escapades. This seems closer to Christian references to the Garden of Eden, and the fall of Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah rather than actions the native population would have taken given the similarities to the defiling of virgins. Once again it also obscurely places blame on females for the ruin of lives, both past and present.
Though Sahagun should be praised for his collection, even if he did only use male perspectives on his narratives, caution should be noted to the reader for the amount of sexism and bigotry was also penned within the volumes of the Florentine Codex.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
In our class discussions this week, we have been trying to define and understand gender, gender roles and sex. Sex, best explained by the character Joseph in the movie Kindergarten Cop as “Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina”; by the way, someone of you may not have been born when that movie came out…but I digress.
Unfortunately, gender and gender roles are not that easy to explain. For example, a few months ago on group email from my church a problem arose about a “women’s group”. I attend the Tennessee Valley Universalist Unitarian Church and our congregation has member who are openly transgendered. The problem arose when a “female” gendered member wanted to participate in a female (biological based) group and was told by the leader that since she has been born male, she could not participate; the focus of the meeting had something to do with menstruation. “She” could not participate because “she” did not have a uterus. This brought up an interesting issue for me; did a uterus make one female?
After suffering for nearly twenty years with severe and chronic endometriosis, I had to have a complete hysterectomy shortly after my thirtieth birthday. Now, by all biological aspects prior to my surgery, I was female. I am a heterosexual female, who married my (eventual ex) husband, had given birth to our three children, breastfeed them (until I figured out there is nothing wrong with making daddy bottle-feed at night) who stayed at home until they were all old enough to begin preschool. Though I hate the color pink (if you see me wear it, it is only because my children or parents bought it for me), I wear dresses and skirts, enjoy pedicures (there really are health and well-being reasons to caring for your toes), and must get my hair cut and styled every four weeks; I also have naturally curly hair, so if it gets too thick, I have really bad migraines. My favorite place to shop is Talbot’s and I love taking a nice, hot bath after my children go to sleep. All “girly” things, right? So just because I no longer have reproductive organs and take hormones, does not mean I am any less of a female, or does it?
Then there’s the “male” attributes that I also seem to demonstrate too. For example, in my divorce, I have been called a frigid, relentless bitch that has to be in charge of everything; I am fairly certain though that since my (ex) husband is mentally ill, I can ignore most of that. I do agree with me having more balls that any grown-up male member of my husband’s family, but that too is not a physical attribute, only a values one. I also am the one who scoops up the dead sacrifices that our cats leave as an offering on our door mat, even though I have three boys whose arms work perfectly fine. When my youngest son wants worms or bugs, I am the one helping scoop them up into cool-whip containers for show and tell. As a teenager and young adult, I was expected to work right with the male employees for my parents painting company (and did) and the only exceptions made for me were with regards to using the bathroom; obviously I cannot pee behind a bush. I prefer to wear pants and played sports in middle and high school. I also was on the rifle, skeet and pistols teams and can fire a weapon, though I think hunting animals will only be a sport when they give deer and quails their own guns. I was (and still am) a complete tomboy, and apparently better equipped to handle three rambunctious male children than their father was/is. Actually I thank God most days for giving me male children; the only exception, having to deal with the tween who will not wear deodorant. Does that make me any less of a woman?
What about gender roles themselves. When I was growing up, both my parents required me and my brother to fold clothes, sweep and mop, etc. Both of us had to change our own oil, clean gutters, and I preferred (and still do) to mow the grass, while my brother would chase butterflies. My husband had a maid and nanny; this explains his attitude towards cleaning, it woman’s work and beneath him. However, our children have been and will continue to be raised to clean, cook and care for themselves; I truly believe their wives will thank me. Oops. That too was a gendered comment…
I still have not figured out whether or not having female reproductive organs defines me as a female. I still feel like I did before, before I got married, before I bore three children, a fact that physically widen my hips for the rest of my life, and before I had my hysterectomy. I even still have the stretch marks that helped defined my rite of passage into “motherhood”. I am also definitely still heterosexual; even after all being drug through this painful over two year long divorce, I still have to say I am totally into men, just not *#!holes. I think being male or female with regards to gender, is simply one’s own choice and their ability to maneuver their choice within the confines of their society and culture.
And with that, I am off to wash out my pantyhose to wear tomorrow…
Unfortunately, gender and gender roles are not that easy to explain. For example, a few months ago on group email from my church a problem arose about a “women’s group”. I attend the Tennessee Valley Universalist Unitarian Church and our congregation has member who are openly transgendered. The problem arose when a “female” gendered member wanted to participate in a female (biological based) group and was told by the leader that since she has been born male, she could not participate; the focus of the meeting had something to do with menstruation. “She” could not participate because “she” did not have a uterus. This brought up an interesting issue for me; did a uterus make one female?
After suffering for nearly twenty years with severe and chronic endometriosis, I had to have a complete hysterectomy shortly after my thirtieth birthday. Now, by all biological aspects prior to my surgery, I was female. I am a heterosexual female, who married my (eventual ex) husband, had given birth to our three children, breastfeed them (until I figured out there is nothing wrong with making daddy bottle-feed at night) who stayed at home until they were all old enough to begin preschool. Though I hate the color pink (if you see me wear it, it is only because my children or parents bought it for me), I wear dresses and skirts, enjoy pedicures (there really are health and well-being reasons to caring for your toes), and must get my hair cut and styled every four weeks; I also have naturally curly hair, so if it gets too thick, I have really bad migraines. My favorite place to shop is Talbot’s and I love taking a nice, hot bath after my children go to sleep. All “girly” things, right? So just because I no longer have reproductive organs and take hormones, does not mean I am any less of a female, or does it?
Then there’s the “male” attributes that I also seem to demonstrate too. For example, in my divorce, I have been called a frigid, relentless bitch that has to be in charge of everything; I am fairly certain though that since my (ex) husband is mentally ill, I can ignore most of that. I do agree with me having more balls that any grown-up male member of my husband’s family, but that too is not a physical attribute, only a values one. I also am the one who scoops up the dead sacrifices that our cats leave as an offering on our door mat, even though I have three boys whose arms work perfectly fine. When my youngest son wants worms or bugs, I am the one helping scoop them up into cool-whip containers for show and tell. As a teenager and young adult, I was expected to work right with the male employees for my parents painting company (and did) and the only exceptions made for me were with regards to using the bathroom; obviously I cannot pee behind a bush. I prefer to wear pants and played sports in middle and high school. I also was on the rifle, skeet and pistols teams and can fire a weapon, though I think hunting animals will only be a sport when they give deer and quails their own guns. I was (and still am) a complete tomboy, and apparently better equipped to handle three rambunctious male children than their father was/is. Actually I thank God most days for giving me male children; the only exception, having to deal with the tween who will not wear deodorant. Does that make me any less of a woman?
What about gender roles themselves. When I was growing up, both my parents required me and my brother to fold clothes, sweep and mop, etc. Both of us had to change our own oil, clean gutters, and I preferred (and still do) to mow the grass, while my brother would chase butterflies. My husband had a maid and nanny; this explains his attitude towards cleaning, it woman’s work and beneath him. However, our children have been and will continue to be raised to clean, cook and care for themselves; I truly believe their wives will thank me. Oops. That too was a gendered comment…
I still have not figured out whether or not having female reproductive organs defines me as a female. I still feel like I did before, before I got married, before I bore three children, a fact that physically widen my hips for the rest of my life, and before I had my hysterectomy. I even still have the stretch marks that helped defined my rite of passage into “motherhood”. I am also definitely still heterosexual; even after all being drug through this painful over two year long divorce, I still have to say I am totally into men, just not *#!holes. I think being male or female with regards to gender, is simply one’s own choice and their ability to maneuver their choice within the confines of their society and culture.
And with that, I am off to wash out my pantyhose to wear tomorrow…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)