Gender Over Race?

In class on Thursday, my group discussed the introduction and first chapter of Kimberly Gauderman’s book, Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito. Right away she mentions that racial status was more important than gender or marital status in the lives of these people. She claims that people defined themselves on the basis of Indians and non-Indians more so than on gender. I found this to be a bold, sweeping statement, and I am not quite sure whether or not I believe her.

Reading Gauderman’s perspective, it seems as if women had fewer rights in the colonial period over time, specifically involving controlling their own property and other financial decisions. These women were looked at as minors, and consequently, being controlled sexually, financially, and in their labor powers. One speculation as to why women’s rights seemed to decrease from the 17th to the 18th century may involve the example Queen Isabella set during the rule of her and her husband, Ferdinand, in which she was the dominant ruler of the two in that she acquired more lands and governing powers. Gauderman explains this reasoning when she wrote, “ the growing power of the father in the family during the latter part of the colonial period, in fact, coincides with changes in the structure of crown authority.” (p. 27)

Further emphasizing her point that women obtained lesser power during the 18th century in Latin America, she describes one of the roles of women as tokens exchanged among men to create a sort of bond or agreement. Some societies gave women, specifically their own daughters, to signal alliances and hope of future favors or gifts. She even boldly declares that women underwent a “civil death” when they were given to men as tokens. I think this is a little extreme and sort of an exaggeration because in previous centuries, fathers that gave their daughters to a husband usually expected some sort of dowry. This was nothing new. Another sweeping claim Gauderman makes is that, once women married, they disappeared from society and the husbands became their wife’s voice in legal processes and all public life.

Gauderman goes on to discuss the political sphere and the power of the king. From what I read, it seems as if the king had no power over many issues, especially taxes. It is somewhat amusing to read that if the people did not want to pay the taxes the king issued, they would raise a revolt and refuse to pay. This shows how much power the people had in relation to the king.

Back to Gauderman’s introductory statement that racial status was more important than gender or marital status in the lives of these Latin America peoples. The evidence she provides does not necessarily back up this statement. Placing the title of women undergoing a “civil death” upon marriage seems like it would weigh pretty heavy regarding the importance of marital status over racial status. Likewise, her claims of the derogatory ways women’s importance was lessened, it seemed as if she placed the importance of gender over racial status in the lives of women. From my initial reaction of the opinions of Gauderman, and only reading a part of her writings, I would believe that she definitely places gender over racial status, as well as marital status as the most important factor affecting the lives of colonial Latin Americans.