本月月度够中关于妇女监护权的

nioni

在网上看到一篇，和狗的内容蛮像的，贴出来，大家可以看看
Recent debates in premodern women's history have focused on women's social and legal position. The greatest contention appears to center on the particular systems or conditions that most consistently determined women's social status and the scope of their activity. Judith Bennett, for example, argues that patriarchy is the defining system, while Bridget Hill maintains that economic factors are at least equally important.(1) Neither, however, questions the assumption that women's status was somehow essentially inferior to that of men.(2) Female inferiority is perhaps most clearly expressed in the automatic guardianship of men over women, and not surprisingly, guardianship over women looms large in most studies of secular women.(3) When a society is deemed patriarchal, there is, in fact, a strong tendency to assume that constraints on women's activities exemplify guardianship, or at least reflect an underlying tendency in that direction. It is nevertheless important to avoid any reflexive equation of patriarchy with guardianship over women.

This assumption may well underlie two of the principal studies of the social history of medieval Flanders, both of which are predicated on the existence of guardianship over women. In The Domestic Life of a Medieval City: Women, Children and the Family in Fourteenth-Century Ghent, David Nicholas states "[m]ost women had legal personalities only through male guardians. The guardian's consent was implied even if he was not present to speak for her. The guardian of a single woman was normally her father or failing him a brother or uncle. Her husband assumed legal responsibility for her when she married."(4) A few pages later he reiterates that "single adult women were normally under the guardianship of their fathers or brothers, with tutelage reverting more generally to the kindred if males of the conjugal family were dead or incompetent."(5)
Nicholas's work, however, is seriously flawed. In the first place, he documents only the sentence ending "through male guardians;" the rest of his statements lack citation. He provides no bibliography, and a search through his notes reveals that he did not look very far beyond the holdings of the city archives in Ghent. Although his introduction provides an overview of the historiography on European women's history in general, it is most notable for the absence of the works of Flemish scholars on this subject. While one can hardly fault him for omitting reference to works of contemporary scholars such as that of Marianne Danneel,(6) his neglect of the work of Philippe Godding, of E. M. Meijers, and particularly of Jean Gilissen, a leading legal historian in the field, is incomprehensible.(7)

In the second place, his one note refers the reader not to legal texts, but instead to W. van Iterson's Vrouwenvoogdij ("Guardianship over Women").(8) Despite its title, however, Iterson's work does not confirm Nicholas's claims. For one thing, the focus of Iterson's work is the northern, not the southern Low Countries.(9) Secondly, a majority of the evidence Iterson cites comes from the fifteenth, not the fourteenth century. Thirdly, Iterson's stated focus is not all women, but only unmarried ones.(10) Finally, Iterson's conclusions are actually contrary to those of Nicholas; he states unequivocally, in fact, that "there are no traces of a general fixed guardianship over an unmarried woman who has attained her majority."(11) He maintains instead that incidences of guardianship over single women in the northern Low Countries are, in fact, ad hoc in nature.(12)

There are reasons for Nicholas's difficulty in finding adequate documentation for his claims. The conditions he outlines echo those associated primarily with Roman law,(13) but Roman law, as Philippe Godding had abundantly demonstrated, had a negligible impact on Flemish social custom before the fifteenth century.(14) Furthermore, no item or provision in any keure (customary law of a community) directly addressed the issue of guardianship over women, and only one so much as implied a belief in womanly weakness that might, by extension, be taken to have necessitated guardianship.(15) Since guardianship over women, married or not, finds no expression in law codes, it must instead be deduced from practice.(16) Godding, the author of Le droit prive dans les Pays-Bas meridionaux du 12e au 18e siecle, readily acknowledges this state of affairs, but he, like Nicholas, assumes that some sort of a system of guardianship over women was in place; Godding does caution, to be sure, that actual practice was far from uniform.(17)

Guardianship is not the principal focus of either work, and neither scholar spends a great deal of time proving its existence. Although much of the rest of his analysis is predicated on guardianship over women, it is enough for Nicholas to have asserted its existence. He may have assumed, in fact, that since Flemish society was patriarchal, women must have been under some form of guardianship. Occasions when men act with women simply serve to confirm such an assumption. Godding is far more judicious, providing one or two examples that might be considered to reflect guardianship within the context of a forthright discussion of the likelihood of its existence. At least upon one occasion, however, his evidence does not bear out his conclusion. He claims, for example, that women in Lille were prohibited from judging men. The basis for this assertion is chapter 43 of the Lillois custumal. Chapter 43 states that men will judge men; it is easy to see how Godding arrived at the conclusion that women will not judge men. But the item also states that women will judge women. If one consistently applies the logic of Godding's own argument, this means that just as women are incapable of judging men, men are incapable of judging women hardly an indication of guardianship over women.(18)

后面还有蛮长的，想看的tx，可以去http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n4_v31/ai_20870392/?tag=content;col1

飞逝孤星

谢谢