What these people mean by “strong men” is men that uphold misogynistic values. But a real strong man is a man who is not threatened by a strong woman or women in general. A man who is not misogynistic. But men like that are “weak” for these people... 🙄🤦♀️
This piece is probably my favourite out of all your pieces. As said from another comment I love the way you connect the past to the present. It really shows how very little progress we have actually made when it comes to this subject matter. Keep up the amazing work
Thank you, thank you, thank you! It really is so astounding how parallel so many of our modern day experiences are to the humans who walked this world 550 years ago. We say we've progressed, but have we? I really appreciate the support, I hope you know that! Thank you!!!
I think there were pockets of chivalry during The Hundred Years war but mostly practiced by those that actively romanticized their blood-ties to Edward III. Bedford is the obvious example in my mind, but I think much like the idea of today's modern "good guy" 15th century chivalry was more something you spoke about having instead of consciously practicing. I agree with you that it was completely void during the WOR. I highlight it here because much about Richard's person, from motto and legislation in the north to manuscripts owned, indicates he too was a Plantagenet hung up on the chivalry of Edward's heyday.
I recently read a piece that outlined the tactics used by the trained mercenaries that Henry hired for his campaign that implied the squaring-up-around-Henry strategy was something they utilized often against strong cavalry men (such as Richard was known to be.) Thought it was an interesting read, though it seems not interesting enough to save because I can't seem to find the link. I wonder how much of that account was cloaked by Tudor propaganda though. So much is.
It's nice to see someone call out Elizabeth's colonization. She was so passive about decision making to appear moderate and so many gloss over the immense harm she perpetuated (and continues to!) to glorify her femininity and position.
Oh, do you mind if I ask you to elaborate on the sentimental bit? Is it sentimental because of a romanticized image of the knight in shining armour vs the reality, or have I misunderstood? (Sometimes my neurospiciness makes expressed feelings hard to frame, so I find asking for clarity always helps.)
Diet-misogyny made me giggle, but I personally see it through a different paradigm. The implication in patriarchal societies is inherent male superiority, thus implied female inferiority. Framing an entire subset of humans as inherently inferior allows for dehumanization to occur, much like we are seeing in the genocides of today in the name of protecting populations. I see the behavior as repetitive outcomes of the patriarchy, not (un)happy coincidences of two distinctly separate times. I do agree with you that chivalric codes did limit male violence, but they also simultaneously encouraged it, implying it's inevitability. Male violence is only inevitable in patriarchies because it's promoted as a canon trait of masculinity. Recorded matriarchal societies don't see the same outcomes of male violence.
Makes me think of this passage from Women in Frankish Society, Marriage and the Cloister: 500 to 900, by Suzanne Fonay Wemple: “Although a woman was not expected to defend herself, and was in fact discouraged from doing so, she was not valued less than a man. On the contrary, the Altman and Bavarian Codes set her wergeld, the compensation her family would receive if she were killed, at a sum twice that for a man of the same statues. Moreover, for any bodily injury inflicted upon her, a woman was entitled to twice the compensation allowed for a man. Indeed should a woman choose to fight like a man, she forfeited this special right. The Burgundian law, which had been codified much earlier, did not yet assume that women were defenseless. On the contrary, it tried to prevent feminine belligerence by denying any compensation to a woman who had gone fort from her courtyard to fight... The emphasis in the codes on women’s reproductive function and defenselessness fostered acceptance of the concept of feminine passivity and dependence, particularly in the upper classes, where women were not expected to perform physical labor.” I think some would call this benevolent sexism, but of course that is a modern framework.
Still giggling at diet-misogyny. The thought of too artificially sweet diet coke comes to mind.😅
Thanks for sharing your very obvious passion on this, I appreciate engaging on this topic so much! Looking forward to hearing more about your book when the time comes. Sounds very interesting!
I too am writing a book (nonfiction,) but instead on a medieval matriarch that has been erased from the historical account. I can completely relate to your sentiment of how terrifyingly similar things are. Much like us humans: so different, but also the same.
I would go as for to say that capital is purely a patriarchal system as well, since matriarchal societies are collaborative based versus competitive. The exchange of capital for services rendered/goods wouldn’t function in the same way, or at all, because of the communal aspects of matriarchies. Matriarchal societies are more than just communities led by women, but an entirely different set of social values and norms.
I do disagree, however, that sexual oppressions and human rights oppressions should be seen as individual occurrences rather than symptoms of a common system, and then investigated as such. The presence of both throughout history is indicative of the social norms imposed along the timeline. Social norms that include the othering and applying secondary status to any particular group is a symptom of a system that is hierarchal in nature. Only that system benefits when we see its brutalities as individual occurrences instead of common outcomes.
I absolutely love the way you connect the past to the present. People aren’t studying history and connecting those dots the way you and I do. 🙏
Thank you!!!! It means so much to me you spend your time with my words. The work we do is so important. No more erasure.
What these people mean by “strong men” is men that uphold misogynistic values. But a real strong man is a man who is not threatened by a strong woman or women in general. A man who is not misogynistic. But men like that are “weak” for these people... 🙄🤦♀️
100% hit the nail on the head here.
This piece is probably my favourite out of all your pieces. As said from another comment I love the way you connect the past to the present. It really shows how very little progress we have actually made when it comes to this subject matter. Keep up the amazing work
Thank you, thank you, thank you! It really is so astounding how parallel so many of our modern day experiences are to the humans who walked this world 550 years ago. We say we've progressed, but have we? I really appreciate the support, I hope you know that! Thank you!!!
I think there were pockets of chivalry during The Hundred Years war but mostly practiced by those that actively romanticized their blood-ties to Edward III. Bedford is the obvious example in my mind, but I think much like the idea of today's modern "good guy" 15th century chivalry was more something you spoke about having instead of consciously practicing. I agree with you that it was completely void during the WOR. I highlight it here because much about Richard's person, from motto and legislation in the north to manuscripts owned, indicates he too was a Plantagenet hung up on the chivalry of Edward's heyday.
I recently read a piece that outlined the tactics used by the trained mercenaries that Henry hired for his campaign that implied the squaring-up-around-Henry strategy was something they utilized often against strong cavalry men (such as Richard was known to be.) Thought it was an interesting read, though it seems not interesting enough to save because I can't seem to find the link. I wonder how much of that account was cloaked by Tudor propaganda though. So much is.
It's nice to see someone call out Elizabeth's colonization. She was so passive about decision making to appear moderate and so many gloss over the immense harm she perpetuated (and continues to!) to glorify her femininity and position.
Really appreciate you engaging, C.J.!
Oh, do you mind if I ask you to elaborate on the sentimental bit? Is it sentimental because of a romanticized image of the knight in shining armour vs the reality, or have I misunderstood? (Sometimes my neurospiciness makes expressed feelings hard to frame, so I find asking for clarity always helps.)
Diet-misogyny made me giggle, but I personally see it through a different paradigm. The implication in patriarchal societies is inherent male superiority, thus implied female inferiority. Framing an entire subset of humans as inherently inferior allows for dehumanization to occur, much like we are seeing in the genocides of today in the name of protecting populations. I see the behavior as repetitive outcomes of the patriarchy, not (un)happy coincidences of two distinctly separate times. I do agree with you that chivalric codes did limit male violence, but they also simultaneously encouraged it, implying it's inevitability. Male violence is only inevitable in patriarchies because it's promoted as a canon trait of masculinity. Recorded matriarchal societies don't see the same outcomes of male violence.
Makes me think of this passage from Women in Frankish Society, Marriage and the Cloister: 500 to 900, by Suzanne Fonay Wemple: “Although a woman was not expected to defend herself, and was in fact discouraged from doing so, she was not valued less than a man. On the contrary, the Altman and Bavarian Codes set her wergeld, the compensation her family would receive if she were killed, at a sum twice that for a man of the same statues. Moreover, for any bodily injury inflicted upon her, a woman was entitled to twice the compensation allowed for a man. Indeed should a woman choose to fight like a man, she forfeited this special right. The Burgundian law, which had been codified much earlier, did not yet assume that women were defenseless. On the contrary, it tried to prevent feminine belligerence by denying any compensation to a woman who had gone fort from her courtyard to fight... The emphasis in the codes on women’s reproductive function and defenselessness fostered acceptance of the concept of feminine passivity and dependence, particularly in the upper classes, where women were not expected to perform physical labor.” I think some would call this benevolent sexism, but of course that is a modern framework.
Still giggling at diet-misogyny. The thought of too artificially sweet diet coke comes to mind.😅
Ah, thanks for the clarification, that helped!
Thanks for sharing your very obvious passion on this, I appreciate engaging on this topic so much! Looking forward to hearing more about your book when the time comes. Sounds very interesting!
I too am writing a book (nonfiction,) but instead on a medieval matriarch that has been erased from the historical account. I can completely relate to your sentiment of how terrifyingly similar things are. Much like us humans: so different, but also the same.
I would go as for to say that capital is purely a patriarchal system as well, since matriarchal societies are collaborative based versus competitive. The exchange of capital for services rendered/goods wouldn’t function in the same way, or at all, because of the communal aspects of matriarchies. Matriarchal societies are more than just communities led by women, but an entirely different set of social values and norms.
I do disagree, however, that sexual oppressions and human rights oppressions should be seen as individual occurrences rather than symptoms of a common system, and then investigated as such. The presence of both throughout history is indicative of the social norms imposed along the timeline. Social norms that include the othering and applying secondary status to any particular group is a symptom of a system that is hierarchal in nature. Only that system benefits when we see its brutalities as individual occurrences instead of common outcomes.