Gender rolls in the 16th century

            2 Usual gender rolls in the 16th century.
             The gender rolls in the 16th century were "well-established rolls defined by a traditional culture" (Wrightson, 1982, p.90), so that the roll-relationships of each new couple were an unproblematic matter in this period. To the authors of conduct books in these times "conjugal relationships should be conducted according to a pattern which was both natural and divinely ordained" (ebenda). Its most important element was the "supreme male authority of the husband" (ebnda). It seemed to be a clear enough guide to the roles of man and wife within this period. But also problems exists within this period, because of the "public female subordination" (Wrightson, 1982, p. 92). In the next passage I am going to show the differences between both rolls and the resulting problems and disadvantages. .
             2.1 The roll of the man.
             The roll of the man was clear defined in this time. The husband had "hath authority over the wife" (William Perkins, 1590) and he was "God's officer and king in his own house" (Wrightson, 1982 p.90). In his book "English society 1580-1680" Wrightson shows that the man has the overall power: He was the highest in the family and made almost all decision and judgements. The husband's duty was to "mould" his wife in such a way as to bring out the good in her and render her serviceable. He was also charged with the duties of providing his wife, of protecting and maintaining her, and of bearing with her infirmities. When there were problems within the marriage the husband was initially inclined to blame this marital turmoil on his wife to assert his authority. The man was also allowed to beat his wife, undoubtedly it was allowed (in "moderation") by the English law. But conduct books also say that a husband should observe three rules in dealing with his wife's faults: "often to admonish, seldome to reprove, and never to smite her."(Stenton "The English woman", p.