Re: Visitation rights

From: donald_at_...
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:39:40 GMT


In message <200412291907.09078.geard_at_...> Jennifer Geard writes:

>To start with, let's figure out what the situation would be if the clans were
>still close together. It makes a good baseline, and I'd like to know. I hear
>a lot about how divorce shouldn't happen, but relatively little about what
>it's like when it does happen (except that it's really bad for the woman, who
>is seen as a failure). "Divorce is available to husband or wife. The woman
>always recovers her dowry and the man his brideprice, except in cases of
>marriage breach." (TR, p. 20)

Which puts the couple (and their clans) in the same position they were before the marriage except for any children. Unless there is a reason to punish someone for a breach when that can be done.

>The children belong to the father's clan in the
>most common forms of marriage, although whether they're actually raised in
>the father's clan is a matter for the worthies of the concerned clans to sort
>out.

I doubt if the clan worthies get involved unless the children are in some way important. More commonly it'll be who's willing and able to take responsibilty for them. This in fact may well be why few mothers take their children back to their birth clan - that clan won't feel any obligation towards the children and may well look to get the woman married off again quickly.

>> I think this is one of the reasons the resettlement was such a big deal,
>> it sundered family relationships.
>
>There's also a theory that it's more likely to have led to divorces. Wives
>from the clans that left don't have the weight of their birth clan behind
>them, which makes them both less politically useful to their marriage clan
>and particularly vulnerable if things do go wrong.

Conversely that's going to make a woman less likely to divorce as the option of returning to her birth clan is more difficult. In any case I think the importance of working together will mean the women will stick together - women's magic is going to be crucial to survival in the early years of the resettlement so no one's going to want to weaken that.

>Ashgora's birth clan actually split, with half the clan staying behind. I'm
>currently spinning a couple of possible ideas: that Ashgora was put aside so
>her husband could marry a well-connected woman from one of the bloodlines of
>her own clan that stayed in Heortland (with some unpleasant bloodline
>politics within the clan); that the divorce was considered better than having
>one of them kill the other one; or even that Ashgora's recently been widowed
>and it's the stead politics that've driven her out.

All good roleplaying fun.

>> In the more normal situation clanspeople marry into neighbouring clans
>> so quite a bit of contact is likely unless the divorced wife has fallen
>> out with the women of the clan she married into. Even then there are
>> ways and means.
>
>Do you have any suggestions about what that contact might be? I'm imagining
>"Right, you'll be off to stay with your mother's folk for sea season, then."

Assuming she's on good terms with the other women I think she would visit them fairly frequently and see her children then. Probably several times a year for anything between a few days and a few weeks. Then there are market days and other festivals where clans get together. I think extended visits by the children are unusual, something only done for a reason.

If she's on bad terms with the other women I think it's going to be a case of sneaked meetings at festivals and in secret places away from the stead.

>> >(How on earth did Heortlings become patrilineal?
>>
>> Orlanth made a great fuss about them being *his* children although
>> I'm not convinced they all are.
>
>But Ernalda _knows_ they're her children. And I still find it strange that
>she'd consider giving them up unless she had her own reasons for doing so.

But Ernalda doesn't, she stays married and her children remain with her. At least until adulthood.

>> >And how did Ernaldans let it happen?)
>>
>> Ernalda is an example of a successful wife, part of that is she
>> doesn't get divorced.
>
>So she's still married to all her husband-protectors?

I think some of her marriages were year marriages but other than that yes. However you need to remember there are many aspects of Ernalda and it's probable that an individual aspect is only married to one husband-protector.

>My impression was that she parted from them, but on her own terms.
>
>My other impression was that the mythology showed signs of, er, cultural
>change.

Yes, and it all happened before time which enormously complicates understanding whether the different marriages were simultaneous or sequential. I'm going off the absence of any myth in which Ernalda divorces a husband - I just don't think the goddess understands the concept, it's a human practice which exists because humans aren't gods.

>> She gives her followers quite a bit of magic
>> for manipulating husbands so a Heortling woman who does get divorced
>> is seen as a failure by the other women of both her birth clan and
>> the one she married into.
>
>We had this discussion back in April, when you said "In a legal sense divorce
>is easy but socially it's going to be much more difficult. Both for the
>reasons you mention and also that both parties will be seen to have failed.
>Conversly if one partner treats the other unreasonably everyone in the clan
>will know about it."
>
>[About Wind Lords:] "They may be married, but few women will put up with a
>Wind Lord's constant absences and affairs, and a man's attainment of this
>status is grounds for divorce." (ST, p. 14)
>
>My impression is that if one party can cite cause for divorce, that party gets
>off considerably lighter in the consequent social fallout. If that's not the
>case, I'm definitely thinking of moving somewhere less repressive.

I'd agree, subject to the politics of the matter.

>> Remember the laws on custody and divorce
>> aren't absolute - there will be cases where women remain in the clan
>> they married into or take the children with them when they return to
>> their birth clans. Whatever the people involved agree to and I think
>> it's the relationship between the woman and the other clan women
>> that's more significant in the matter than the one with her ex-husband.
>
>Ideally, everyone else can be rational and sort things out. In the real world,
>this encourages the stock Heortling figure of the mother-in-law who doesn't
>want to let go of her grandchildren.

I think you're looking at this too indivualistically, the children don't belong to the parents or grandparents. They belong to the bloodline/stead and are usually brought up communally. So you'll have maybe 10-20 children with four to six mothers and the children will tend not to distinguish much between mother and aunt. In that context one mother taking her children away and introducing them into another existing group would cause enormous problems.

>I can see that getting a divorce -- and on favourable terms -- might be
>something that you plan well in advance. The sagas have some good examples.

I suspect there's going to be a lot of pressure put on a couple who decide to divorce. Not necessarily to stay together but more to get a good deal for the bloodlines and clans involved. Only the poorest will get away with making all the decisions themselves.

>> One of the things I've noticed about women is that generally they are
>> a lot less forgiving of other women breaking unwritten social rules
>> than they are of men. Or than men are of either men or women who break
>> the rules.
>
>Do you think this would be the same in Esrolia as it is in Heortland/Sartar?

I've not really been able to get a grip on Esrolia's culture, sometimes it's written about as an oppressive matriachy - the mirror image of the more oppressive patriachies in the RW. Other times it's regarded as an idealistic place, all sweetness and light. I don't believe it's either but I'm not sure where precisely in the middle it is.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

Powered by hypermail