The Construction of „Male Capability“ and „Female Inability” to assume Guardianship of Children in the Austrian “Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetz-buch” (ABGB) in the 19th Century”
{"title":"The Construction of „Male Capability“ and „Female Inability” to assume Guardianship of Children in the Austrian “Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetz-buch” (ABGB) in the 19th Century”","authors":"E. Forster","doi":"10.7146/fof.v44i3.132993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When the ABGB was published in 1811 it contained the provision that women were not allowed to take over guardianship of children except mothers or grandmothers.1 If the father had not appointed a guardian in his last will, first the paternal grandfather, then the mother and after the paternal grandmother all other male relatives were considered as guar-dians.2 In contrast to male guardians the mother and grandmother had the possibility to refuse. This can be seen as a reflection of old female “protective” measures to pretend them from acting against their advantage. It fits into the picture that whenever mothers or grandmothers took over guardianship they needed a so-called Mitvormund (co-guardian).3The argumentation for prohibiting women other than mothers and grandmothers to take over guardianship was that they were thought not to have enough knowledge of business affairs. Franz von Zeiller, the person mainly responsible for the final formulation of the civil code, wrote in his law commentary: „Der Grund der Vorschrift ist offenbar, weil es diesen Personen gewöhnlich … an den nothwendigen Kenntnissen … mangelt.“4 He saw the care of their own children as the mothers’ and grandmothers’ primary duty, but a co-guardian was needed, „um das vorzüglich in Rechtsgeschäften minder erfahrene Geschlecht in Führung derselben zu unterstützen.“5 Both the father and the mother had the right to propose a co-guardian, but the court was not bound by this proposal.Before I interpret these assumptions I want to take a look on the process leading up to this provision because looking at the history of the work on the codification, another outcome was also possible. After that I trace the development throughout the 19th century, take a look at the efforts of the women’s movement at the turn of the century and finally sketch the change of law right before the outbreak of World War I in 1914. At the center of my considerations are always the arguments used for explaining the different prohibitions or demands because they throw a light on the representations of gender roles among different social groups and during different periods.","PeriodicalId":219437,"journal":{"name":"Fund og Forskning i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fund og Forskning i Det Kongelige Biblioteks Samlinger","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/fof.v44i3.132993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
When the ABGB was published in 1811 it contained the provision that women were not allowed to take over guardianship of children except mothers or grandmothers.1 If the father had not appointed a guardian in his last will, first the paternal grandfather, then the mother and after the paternal grandmother all other male relatives were considered as guar-dians.2 In contrast to male guardians the mother and grandmother had the possibility to refuse. This can be seen as a reflection of old female “protective” measures to pretend them from acting against their advantage. It fits into the picture that whenever mothers or grandmothers took over guardianship they needed a so-called Mitvormund (co-guardian).3The argumentation for prohibiting women other than mothers and grandmothers to take over guardianship was that they were thought not to have enough knowledge of business affairs. Franz von Zeiller, the person mainly responsible for the final formulation of the civil code, wrote in his law commentary: „Der Grund der Vorschrift ist offenbar, weil es diesen Personen gewöhnlich … an den nothwendigen Kenntnissen … mangelt.“4 He saw the care of their own children as the mothers’ and grandmothers’ primary duty, but a co-guardian was needed, „um das vorzüglich in Rechtsgeschäften minder erfahrene Geschlecht in Führung derselben zu unterstützen.“5 Both the father and the mother had the right to propose a co-guardian, but the court was not bound by this proposal.Before I interpret these assumptions I want to take a look on the process leading up to this provision because looking at the history of the work on the codification, another outcome was also possible. After that I trace the development throughout the 19th century, take a look at the efforts of the women’s movement at the turn of the century and finally sketch the change of law right before the outbreak of World War I in 1914. At the center of my considerations are always the arguments used for explaining the different prohibitions or demands because they throw a light on the representations of gender roles among different social groups and during different periods.
1811年公布的ABGB载有规定,除母亲或祖母外,妇女不得接管儿童的监护权如果父亲在最后遗嘱中没有指定监护人,则首先是祖父,然后是母亲,然后是祖母,所有其他男性亲属都被视为监护人与男性监护人相比,母亲和祖母有可能拒绝。这可以看作是老年女性“保护”措施的反映,假装她们的行为不利于她们的优势。每当母亲或祖母接管监护权时,她们就需要一个所谓的Mitvormund(共同监护人)。禁止母亲和祖母以外的女性接管监护权的理由是,她们被认为没有足够的商业知识。主要负责最终制定民法典的弗朗茨·冯·泽勒(Franz von Zeiller)在他的法律评论中写道:“Der Grund Der Vorschrift ist offenbar, weil es diesen Personen gewöhnlich……and den nothwendigen Kenntnissen……mangelt。”“他认为照顾自己的孩子是母亲和祖母的首要职责,但需要一个共同监护人,”他说,“我们需要一个共同监护人。”父亲和母亲都有权提议共同监护人,但法院不受这一提议的约束。在我解释这些假设之前,我想看看导致这一规定的过程,因为看看编纂工作的历史,另一种结果也是可能的。之后,我追溯了整个19世纪的发展,看看世纪之交妇女运动的努力,最后概述了1914年第一次世界大战爆发前法律的变化。我考虑的中心总是用来解释不同禁令或要求的论据,因为它们揭示了不同社会群体和不同时期性别角色的表现。