Per a discussion in chat re women's suffrage, I drafted up the following idea to address the somewhat unclear degree of sexism in Anaxi politics. It is established that there is a good deal of sexism, but the notion of suffrage has been a bit murky from time to time. This proposal was thought up as a way of having the best/worst of both worlds. The narrative motivation here is help facilitate maximum shenanigans.
Suffrage and Political Rights in Anaxas
Background
The matter of suffrage in Anaxas is a complex one, being an interplay of laws, customs, privileges and social mores that, when taken together, create a bewildering set of suffrage statuses. In the main, the elements that combine to delimit one’s suffrage are: age, gender, property, and marriage laws.
The Age of Majority
The Anaxi age of majority is generally stated to be twenty, and for students who graduate from one of the great universities this is the case. However, for those who do not attend such institutions, they require the issuance of a writ of majority. This document, attained from a magistrate, attests that the subject is at least twenty years of age, and no more than twenty three, has completed their education, and has the approval of their legal guardian.
In general, issuance of these writs is quite routine and uncontested.
In general, issuance of these writs is quite routine and uncontested.
Gender
It can be said with a straight face that the galdori women of Anaxas both have the vote, and do not have the vote. By law and custom, daughters are their fathers’ (or other male head of household’s) legal charges and their political rights flow from this guardian. At the age of majority (no less than twenty years of age and upon graduation, or issuance of a writ of majority), a head of household may legally emancipate any of his female legal charges. By this release, they acquire full political rights and protections.
Among many, this release is customary and may indeed be handled though long-standing legal arrangements.
Men, by contrast, are considered to automatically be released at the age of majority, unless their head of household places them back into guardianship for some reason or other. This requires a guardianship hearing before a magistrate, and the presentation of evidence and documentation that the release of the said male personage, would be deleterious to the guardian, the personage, and to any property transference either contemplated or intended.
Among many, this release is customary and may indeed be handled though long-standing legal arrangements.
Men, by contrast, are considered to automatically be released at the age of majority, unless their head of household places them back into guardianship for some reason or other. This requires a guardianship hearing before a magistrate, and the presentation of evidence and documentation that the release of the said male personage, would be deleterious to the guardian, the personage, and to any property transference either contemplated or intended.
Property
The chief reason for either refusing to emancipate daughters, or retaining sons in perpetual guardianship has to do with complex property inheritance laws, entailments, and the maintenance of estates. Long-standing entailments created by the owners of many estates both great and small, require that the property be handed down in controlled fashion from one head of household to another in an unbroken line. Due to the often small number of children within a galdori family, it has become customary to keep daughters under guardianship so that the line of household remains unbroken and thus preserved the property within the family.
Further, some great estates are entailed in such a way that they function as a single legal entity and only the head of the estate has independent legal and political status. The rest of the household and the estate is considered dependent. Breaking this monopoly opens the estate to legal challenges by way of ownership, and more than one great estate has been lost to this.
Finally, guardianship may be maintained over adult children as a form of tax dodge. By keeping adult children under the legal control of their head of household, they are considered full dependents which both reduces their own openness to taxation, but gives tax advantages to the head of household
Further, some great estates are entailed in such a way that they function as a single legal entity and only the head of the estate has independent legal and political status. The rest of the household and the estate is considered dependent. Breaking this monopoly opens the estate to legal challenges by way of ownership, and more than one great estate has been lost to this.
Finally, guardianship may be maintained over adult children as a form of tax dodge. By keeping adult children under the legal control of their head of household, they are considered full dependents which both reduces their own openness to taxation, but gives tax advantages to the head of household
Marriage
There is a curious custom that has developed, especially among the more liberal-minded fathers of spirited young ladies, whereby the daughter is kept in guardianship beyond the date of her marriage. This prevents her from transferring her guardianship from her former head of household to her husband. The result of this is that any property she brings to marriage, any dowries, are de-facto her own and cannot be seized by her husband in the event of divorce or annulment.
