In considering parallel social structures within a culture, many people often assume parallelism necessitates equal social relations, but one does not automatically imply the other by any means, as Kellogg (125, 132) and Burkhart state in their analyses of Mexica society. Both scholars discuss the complementary roles of men and women, with distinctly separately sphere assigned to each, but both Kellogg and Burkhart’s analyses highlight (intentionally or not) men’s higher social position through their direct connection to and therefore glorification through warfare as opposed to women’s indirect connection to warfare, such as supporting the warrior, generally viewed as in connection to the man.

Further, negative qualities in Mexica society are designated feminine traits, more likely to be exhibited by a woman, such as cowardice (Kellogg 132) and immorality (Burkhart 28). This conception of immorality as “associated with a failure to stay home” (Burkhart 28) either is the cause of justification for women’s extremely restricted existences in Mexica society, confined largely to the home to keep domestic order but permitted to further their spiritual education.

As in our society, naturalization began at birth with very specific gender rituals performed by the midwife (Burkhart 45/ Nahuatl speech), continued until death (Burkhart 45), and invaded every person’s every moment of existence, such as through occupational expectations, relational expectations (particularly in marriage), wardrobe, etc. The midwife’s speech from Book VI, particularly the Thirty-first Chapter, of the Florentine Codex (Nahuatl speech) emphasizes this immediate, penetrating naturalization at birth.

The Florentine Codex (named for its current holding place) is an accumulation of written and pictorial records from about 1540 to 1585 (the prehispanic era) in this region, documenting conversations and interviews with indigenous people. This demonstrates the Mexica’s desire to keep a historical record of their way of life, their rituals and practices. The aforementioned chapter records a representative ritual performed by a midwife at a birth, both of a male and of a female.

But why? To preserve the history of their civilization, as countless other civilizations have done before them - simply to remember their way of life, specifically this custom at birth. To legitimize their way of life - with established traditions, described formally in writing and in glyphs, these beliefs and practices are less easily challenged by those belonging to the society or outsiders due to the seemingly long-standing, entrenched quality of the way of life à and thereby perpetuate the practice.

While it is unclear who the author of the additional portions of the codex is and why he or she felt it necessary to make the additions included with the midwife’s direct quotations, the midwife herself (as did the anonymous author) devoted greater attention and energy to discussing the male’s entrance to the world and what awaited him than that of the female. Further, the discussion of the male, while more extensive, was also more glorified: the midwife compares the male to an assortment of strong, noble, fierce animals; the midwife emphasizes the male’s ability to move and grow with little attachment to the domestic sphere but rather the male’s purpose’s for war; lastly, the midwife declares the male’s potential for renown and eternal glory through warfare.

On the other hand, the midwife primarily associates weariness, anguish, and fatigue with the realm of the female, a realm limited strictly to the home. The midwife declares that the female will grow tired, specifically using the phrases drudge and sweat in describing her expected duties. There is no glorification in the life of a woman.

While the parallelism in this ritual is certainly evident, equality is not. It seems to me that equality was not really of any concern - to men or to women; the society functioned in an orderly, efficient fashion as it was established, and people generally respected the nature of things.

The most glaring example of this - parallelism without equality - is demonstrated through Mexica marriage ritual and practice, in contrast to the Andean tradition, particularly in consideration of women‘s relative position in society and in the household; however, I have not the time to go into this now (but I hope you are interested - if so, ask/comment) - see Anderson 60-61, 70, 85.