Gender and Rights

Maior dignitas est in sexu virilis - the male sex has more dignity: this aphorism from Justinian’s Digest seems to be the reason why ‘in many parts of our law the condition of women is worse than that of men’, as we can read in a different passage. Affirming the inferior position of women in the law, these passages are often taken as the ‘official, generally consented stance’ of early modern gendered rights discourse. They seem to show that the respective legal conditions of men and women relate to the specific, innate characters of the sexes or, perhaps, their nature. It then might seem to us today that for early modern legal thinkers justifying sexual differentiations of rights was a straightforward undertaking; we might assume that early modern law and rights worked as male instruments of female subjugation that asserted and cemented a ‘natural’ hierarchisation of the sexes, which modernity slowly came to equalise.