I want to examine the case of dona Maria Pino Argote. First, let me start by saying she symbolizes every white trash trailer mom out there. Now, so you all won’t bitch at me, my own mother is a small town, close minded individual. I was raised in a one red light town with very little to talk about other than local sports or politics. But….I personally think that owning a dowry should not give a woman the right to economic independence as it gave her (Maria Pino Argote).  Come one, the only reason she was able to support her children is because of what her husband gave her.

It is clearly stated in the reading that she had no obvious grounds to sue.  So why did she?  she sued because she knew the laws and knew she could benefit from them.  The father had given her everything she had and I would bet that the children wanted to be with the father but no…she had the dowry…she had the right…and she got the children.

I know it didn’t always work out like this and I know that a dowry was a great thing to have. If you were a woman. Especially a poor woman with no social background.  Dona Maria’s husband wanted his children just as bad as she did, most likely, but because of the dowry, he had no way of getting them.  So this dowry, which her husband gave her, gave her complete power over him.  I’m sorry but this is bullshit, and if it were the reverse situation I would say it is bullshit too!.  The female should not get economical independence simply from a dowry.  What did she put into the relationship to deserve all of the power…..Nothing

To be continued….

Maybe this phenomenon has carried over.  Other than The tradition of classes among the nuns (black veils and white veils)Maybe this is why when I am back home I feel overwhelmed in church merely because of the number of old women breathing down my neck.  I am a very religious person but I feel that females, being more emotional beings, have different feelings for church and religion than men. Could it be a comfort thing? Possibly. Are women just more religious? Could be that too.  Either way you look at it, the domination of women in the Catholic church was very ordinary and evangelism  spread like a wild fire.

The whole dominance of there church in general truly makes me feel lucky that I do not live in a time like this.  I can’t imagine an environment where the church rules everything.

Now that I think about it this might actually show the stereotypical differences in women and men.  Women, usually considered very emotional beings were obsessed with the idea of potions for love and submissiveness. the female witches want to catch men cheating of keep them from cheating. I cannot help to think that If there were more wizards around that the spells would be physical (as mentioned above)

I think I am on the same page with everyone else when it comes to punishment of witchcraft practice. Other than thinking of a cauldron and big green nose, when I hear the word witch I think of Salem witch trials and burning at the stakes. As Behar pointed out though, It was not taken this seriously in Colonial Spain.  Yes the church did take sexuality seriously and yes, these witch were incorporating sexuality into their “spells” but the fact is that they were just not taken seriously at all. In colonial Spain, witchcraft practice was punished with a slap on the wrist and some good old down home bible study.

Next I put my place in the shoes of the parents.  Okay, I will be the first to admit that if I had a daughter and she married a complete tool I would be pissed and try my best to let her know that I don’t approve.  Let’s get real though, I would never threaten to kill over it or lock her up like an animal.  Of course time and trends were different then than they are now but I think they acted too extreme.  Obviously changes in customs and social norms make it hard for us to understand why parents acted the way they did.

During the reading I felt like each story was so similar that I was reading the same thing over and over.  Although it seems redundant it is amazing that she personally researched and documented each case to effectively prove her points.  I really feel like I gained a better understanding of the marriage processes and parental influence of this era simply from reading Seed’s well written book.

The indigenous woman, upon dying actually had a decent amount of land and other material things to pass down to daughters and grandsons.  I am a bit confused as to why the actual sons were looked over in testament and will of women until the Spanish tradition slowly changed that.Regardless of this, the main point is to try to understand why the indigenous women did adapt to the Spanish form of will and testament.

This is easy to understand. It was simply to preserve their own culture.  By following the Spanish form of testament, the Nahuatl people passed down pieces of their culture that could stay within family and other indigenous people.  It seems that most of the accounts of testament and will were recorded in Nahuatl language with further proves this idea of cultural preservation.

I have a couple thoughts on the  naming patterns of the indigenous Nahautl.  First, it almost seems that they were trying to keep any away any chance that their history could be traced.  I say this because the the common switches between first and last names among the people.  As if this was not confusing enough, they decided on middle names too, that would often be changed.  I realize that much of this was based on marriage and the idea of status level based on having a good solid Spanish last name but the continual name changes throughout life seems to me, a little bit excessive.

The Motives of this piece are fairly obvious.  First, be holy and do not live in sin. there is a straight and narrow path that the Lord has set for the new couple and their livelihood relies on them following it.  Then, in a nutshell stick to your roles that society has placed on you but say believe it is for the Lord.  Since this couple is recently married it seems as if this piece is one last attempt to make sure that they follow their gender roles and conform to the ideal view of matrimony.

The perspective of this dialogue, although written by a noble, seems to me like a parent speaking to the new couple.  The speaker’s tone suggest that he or she has, at some point in his or her life, conformed and performed these roles and assigned tasks to maintain functionality of the family.

This is a relatively short text and is straight to the point that it is trying to declare.  It does give the information that is needed by the intended reader. At this time in history and from this piece it seems that the institution of marriage was primarily based on the work to be done for the Lord and household rather than on the foundation of love.  I may have interpreted this wrong but if this is the case than I would be surprised simply because of the overwhelming Christian influence in the writing.

Does this sound similar to the idea of the battle against war for the men and the battle against chaos for the women?  As for the content of this particular passage, I think it is strongly influenced by the gender roles but the actual dialogue and writing is surprisingly clear and easy to read.  I notice the conviction of their religion and how often they speak of the health from the Lord.  The writing is extremely religious and polite while maintaining the ideas of “do this because you are a man, and do this because you are a woman”. Sometimes I feel like the people knew they had to do things just because they had to do them rather than having to be told it was for the Lord or to battle chaos (concerning the woman keeping the house neat and orderly).  But like today, its about conforming to an idea and this culture stuck to its ideas firmly.