Difference between revisions of "Patrimalarkey 1: Women on Top"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
It is now almost universally accepted in western countries that all
+
It is now almost universally accepted in western countries that all societies prior to the modern age were patriarchies. It is also often
  +
believed, by both men and women, that modern western countries are still patriarchies.
societies prior to the modern age were patriarchies. It is also often
 
believed, by both men and women, that modern western countries are still
 
patriarchies.
 
   
While this may seem like a reasonable presumption on the surface, after
+
While this may seem like a reasonable presumption on the surface, after all, men did run all societies in the past didn't they? Not so much.
all, men did run all societies in the past didn't they? Not so much.
 
   
This is the first in a series of articles that will deal with different
+
This is the first in a series of articles that will deal with different aspects of claims of patriarchy and detail different societies in
  +
different eras. They will detail how regarding these societies as patriarchies is, at best, a gross over-simplification. In reality
aspects of claims of patriarchy and detail different societies in
 
  +
societies have generally constrained both men and women, forcing them in to certain roles to serve the society itself. The notion that human
different eras. They will detail how regarding these societies as
 
  +
society itself is subject to natural selection is now one that scientists are seriously considering.[1]
patriarchies is, at best, a gross over-simplification. In reality
 
societies have generally constrained both men and women, forcing them in
 
to certain roles to serve the society itself. The notion that human
 
society itself is subject to natural selection is now one that
 
scientists are seriously considering.[1]
 
   
Many people, when discussing history, often speak broadly of Western
+
Many people, when discussing history, often speak broadly of Western European society in the 18th and 19th century and generalise the
  +
characteristics of this era to all of history, all around the world. This is of course an extrordinary generalisation. It is often claimed
European society in the 18th and 19th century and generalise the
 
  +
that women generally did not work outside of the home and were confined to the home. This is largely untrue. Throughout history large
characteristics of this era to all of history, all around the world.
 
  +
proportions of the female population worked outside of the home. In 16th and 17th century western Europe it was quite common for women to
This is of course an extrordinary generalisation. It is often claimed
 
  +
work in trades such as smithery. Husbands and wives trained in the same trade would often work together in a small business. The wife would
that women generally did not work outside of the home and were confined
 
  +
have the opportunity to provide professional assistance to her husband around caring for children.
to the home. This is largely untrue. Throughout history large
 
proportions of the female population worked outside of the home. In
 
16th and 17th century western Europe it was quite common for women to
 
work in trades such as smithery. Husbands and wives trained in the same
 
trade would often work together in a small business. The wife would
 
have the opportunity to provide professional assistance to her husband
 
around caring for children.
 
   
The 16th century was also a time of powerful women rulers in Western
+
The 16th century was also a time of powerful women rulers in Western Europe. Queen Elizabeth ruled for what amounts to the second half of
  +
the 16th century. She was no figurehead either. She was the absolute ruler of England and Ireland (Britain would not arise as a state until
Europe. Queen Elizabeth ruled for what amounts to the second half of
 
  +
generations later). Legally she was a 'Queen Regnant', meaning that she ruled in her own right and was not a 'Queen Consort' who is generally
the 16th century. She was no figurehead either. She was the absolute
 
ruler of England and Ireland (Britain would not arise as a state until
 
generations later). Legally she was a 'Queen Regnant', meaning that she
 
ruled in her own right and was not a 'Queen Consort' who is generally
 
 
the wife of a King.
 
the wife of a King.
   
While it is true that English practiced Male-preference primogeniture
+
While it is true that English practiced Male-preference primogeniture (preferencing inherience by the first born son over other sons and all
  +
daughters) this did not stop many women inheriting and retaining thrones in their own right around this time.
(preferencing inherience by the first born son over other sons and all
 
daughters) this did not stop many women inheriting and retaining thrones
 
in their own right around this time.
 
   
Elizabeth I is well known through the English speaking world and is
+
Elizabeth I is well known through the English speaking world and is generally remembered as an effective leader who reformed the English
  +
state and built up a strong navy in the face of external military threats. Others show that while the early years of her reign were
generally remembered as an effective leader who reformed the English
 
  +
generally properous this was not so later on. What all of these sources agree on was that Elizabeth was the queen in her own right. The
state and built up a strong navy in the face of external military
 
  +
decisions made were made by her. It should be clear from this that she _was_ the leader of the English and Irish states. She was no figure
threats. Others show that while the early years of her reign were
 
generally properous this was not so later on. What all of these sources
 
agree on was that Elizabeth was the queen in her own right. The
 
decisions made were made by her. It should be clear from this that she
 
_was_ the leader of the English and Irish states. She was no figure
 
 
head.
 
head.
   
What is generally not as well known is that there were several
+
What is generally not as well known is that there were several contemperory female monarchs in the British Isles. Immediately
  +
proceeding Elizabeth I as Queen of England and Ireland was Queen Mary I, her half sister. Queen Mary I is also known as 'Bloody Mary' as she had
contemperory female monarchs in the British Isles. Immediately
 
  +
a habit of ordering the death of her subjects (usually by burning at the stake) when they didn't agree with her religious views. Many historians
proceeding Elizabeth I as Queen of England and Ireland was Queen Mary I,
 
  +
believe that the name of a well known cocktail is a reference to Mary I. A more definite reference occurs in a game (particularly popular with
her half sister. Queen Mary I is also known as 'Bloody Mary' as she had
 
  +
teenage girls apparently) in which they try to summon the ghost of Mary I through a mirror. Mary I didn't reign for long (thankfully, given her
a habit of ordering the death of her subjects (usually by burning at the
 
  +
penchant for violence) but was every bit as much in charge of England as Elizabeth would be after her. Each effectively changed the national
stake) when they didn't agree with her religious views. Many historians
 
believe that the name of a well known cocktail is a reference to Mary I.
 
A more definite reference occurs in a game (particularly popular with
 
teenage girls apparently) in which they try to summon the ghost of Mary
 
I through a mirror. Mary I didn't reign for long (thankfully, given her
 
penchant for violence) but was every bit as much in charge of England as
 
Elizabeth would be after her. Each effectively changed the national
 
 
religion (Christian sect) while reigning.
 
religion (Christian sect) while reigning.
   
It is worth noting that Mary I's main competition for control of England
+
It is worth noting that Mary I's main competition for control of England and Ireland was another woman - Lady Jane Grey. In the end Mary made
and Ireland was another woman - Lady Jane Grey. In the end Mary made
 
 
sure that Jane's head ended up in a basket rather than wearing a crown.
 
sure that Jane's head ended up in a basket rather than wearing a crown.
   
To the north of England was Scotland, which was ruled by a Queen Regnant
+
To the north of England was Scotland, which was ruled by a Queen Regnant from 1542 to 1567. She is generally known as Mary Queen of Scots in
  +
English, probably to distinguish her from Mary I who was her contemporary. Her rule of Scotland overlaps that of both Mary I and
from 1542 to 1567. She is generally known as Mary Queen of Scots in
 
  +
Elizabeth I. The entirety of the British Isles was ruled over exclusively by female monarchs from 1553 to 1567. This period would
English, probably to distinguish her from Mary I who was her
 
  +
likely have gone on much longer except that Elizabeth imprisoned and eventually executed Mary Queen of Scots after she fled south seeking
contemporary. Her rule of Scotland overlaps that of both Mary I and
 
  +
Elizabeth's protection. Elizabeth apparently viewed Mary Queen of Scots as a potential rival since they were cousins.
Elizabeth I. The entirety of the British Isles was ruled over
 
exclusively by female monarchs from 1553 to 1567. This period would
 
likely have gone on much longer except that Elizabeth imprisoned and
 
eventually executed Mary Queen of Scots after she fled south seeking
 
Elizabeth's protection. Elizabeth apparently viewed Mary Queen of Scots
 
as a potential rival since they were cousins.
 
   
So during this period we had Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I and
+
So during this period we had Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots vying for power across the British Isles. It should
  +
be clear that this was no patriarchy. These women were no ones puppets - those that were successful ruled over England, Scotland and Ireland as
Mary Queen of Scots vying for power across the British Isles. It should
 
  +
ruthlessly and authoritatively as any male ruler. They also demonstrated that they were quite prepared to order the torture and
be clear that this was no patriarchy. These women were no ones puppets
 
  +
execution of their enemies or those they perceived as enemies. These historical events and others that occured in many other parts of the
- those that were successful ruled over England, Scotland and Ireland as
 
  +
world throughout history demonstrate that these women were not helpless pawns of the patriarchy. They were power monarchs and in a very real
ruthlessly and authoritatively as any male ruler. They also
 
  +
sense, they were the law in their respective countries. Even Lady Jane Grey demonstrated that she wished to remain power for herself by
demonstrated that they were quite prepared to order the torture and
 
execution of their enemies or those they perceived as enemies. These
 
historical events and others that occured in many other parts of the
 
world throughout history demonstrate that these women were not helpless
 
pawns of the patriarchy. They were power monarchs and in a very real
 
sense, they were the law in their respective countries. Even Lady Jane
 
Grey demonstrated that she wished to remain power for herself by
 
 
refusing to name her husband as King, making him a Duke instead.
 
refusing to name her husband as King, making him a Duke instead.
   
*** Find all references to England and change to England and Ireland
+
*** Find all references to England and change to England and Ireland were it related to the crown ***
were it related to the crown
 
   
Patriarchy means literally rule by fathers but it is generally intended
+
Patriarchy means literally rule by fathers but it is generally intended to mean rule by men. Such a society, one in which rule was mandated by
  +
men, would not permit female rulers. Women would simply not find their way in to positions of power. Even a cursory view of history reveals
to mean rule by men. Such a society, one in which rule was mandated by
 
  +
that female rules, while fairly uncommon, feature across a wide variety of societies and eras. The upshot here is that there was no patriarchy
men, would not permit female rulers. Women would simply not find their
 
  +
- it was a myth. The reality is that societies shape social expectations of men and women to fit their own needs. In many cases, as
way in to positions of power. Even a cursory view of history reveals
 
  +
have been noted many times by MHRA advocates, men were considered disposable by the society. In particular those men who were not members
that female rules, while fairly uncommon, feature across a wide variety
 
of societies and eras. The upshot here is that there was no patriarchy
 
- it was a myth. The reality is that societies shape social
 
expectations of men and women to fit their own needs. In many cases, as
 
have been noted many times by MHRA advocates, men were considered
 
disposable by the society. In particular those men who were not members
 
 
of the ruling class were considered disposable.
 
of the ruling class were considered disposable.
   
It is often claimed recently that women could not own property in
+
It is often claimed recently that women could not own property in western Europe in the 18th & 19th centuries. This is simply not true.
  +
When a women married their property normally transferred to their husband but single women can and did retain control of their own assests. While some may argue that women were virtually forced in to marriages by their family, the reality is that many women remained
western Europe in the 18th & 19th centuries. This is simply not true.
 
When a women married their property normally transferred to their
+
single. In addition, then as now, widows normally inherited from their husbands.
husband but single women can and did retain control of their own
 
assests. While some may argue that women were virtually forced in to
 
marriages by their family, the reality is that many women remained
 
single. In addition, then as now, widows normally inherited from their
 
husbands.
 
   
*** Confirm details of last paragraph.
+
*** Confirm details of last paragraph ***
   
It is even sometimes claimed that women were the property of their
+
It is even sometimes claimed that women were the property of their husbands. It is ridiculous to claim this was true in western Europe at
husbands. It is ridiculous to claim this was true in western Europe at
 
 
this time.
 
this time.
   
A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The
+
A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim
  +
that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.
existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim
 
that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human
 
history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.
 
 
   
 
References:
 
References:
   
 
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216175953.htm
 
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216175953.htm
  +
 
[[Category:Draft Articles]]
 
[[Category:Draft Articles]]

Revision as of 14:15, 3 January 2014

It is now almost universally accepted in western countries that all societies prior to the modern age were patriarchies. It is also often believed, by both men and women, that modern western countries are still patriarchies.

While this may seem like a reasonable presumption on the surface, after all, men did run all societies in the past didn't they? Not so much.

This is the first in a series of articles that will deal with different aspects of claims of patriarchy and detail different societies in different eras. They will detail how regarding these societies as patriarchies is, at best, a gross over-simplification. In reality societies have generally constrained both men and women, forcing them in to certain roles to serve the society itself. The notion that human society itself is subject to natural selection is now one that scientists are seriously considering.[1]

Many people, when discussing history, often speak broadly of Western European society in the 18th and 19th century and generalise the characteristics of this era to all of history, all around the world. This is of course an extrordinary generalisation. It is often claimed that women generally did not work outside of the home and were confined to the home. This is largely untrue. Throughout history large proportions of the female population worked outside of the home. In 16th and 17th century western Europe it was quite common for women to work in trades such as smithery. Husbands and wives trained in the same trade would often work together in a small business. The wife would have the opportunity to provide professional assistance to her husband around caring for children.

The 16th century was also a time of powerful women rulers in Western Europe. Queen Elizabeth ruled for what amounts to the second half of the 16th century. She was no figurehead either. She was the absolute ruler of England and Ireland (Britain would not arise as a state until generations later). Legally she was a 'Queen Regnant', meaning that she ruled in her own right and was not a 'Queen Consort' who is generally the wife of a King.

While it is true that English practiced Male-preference primogeniture (preferencing inherience by the first born son over other sons and all daughters) this did not stop many women inheriting and retaining thrones in their own right around this time.

Elizabeth I is well known through the English speaking world and is generally remembered as an effective leader who reformed the English state and built up a strong navy in the face of external military threats. Others show that while the early years of her reign were generally properous this was not so later on. What all of these sources agree on was that Elizabeth was the queen in her own right. The decisions made were made by her. It should be clear from this that she _was_ the leader of the English and Irish states. She was no figure head.

What is generally not as well known is that there were several contemperory female monarchs in the British Isles. Immediately proceeding Elizabeth I as Queen of England and Ireland was Queen Mary I, her half sister. Queen Mary I is also known as 'Bloody Mary' as she had a habit of ordering the death of her subjects (usually by burning at the stake) when they didn't agree with her religious views. Many historians believe that the name of a well known cocktail is a reference to Mary I. A more definite reference occurs in a game (particularly popular with teenage girls apparently) in which they try to summon the ghost of Mary I through a mirror. Mary I didn't reign for long (thankfully, given her penchant for violence) but was every bit as much in charge of England as Elizabeth would be after her. Each effectively changed the national religion (Christian sect) while reigning.

It is worth noting that Mary I's main competition for control of England and Ireland was another woman - Lady Jane Grey. In the end Mary made sure that Jane's head ended up in a basket rather than wearing a crown.

To the north of England was Scotland, which was ruled by a Queen Regnant from 1542 to 1567. She is generally known as Mary Queen of Scots in English, probably to distinguish her from Mary I who was her contemporary. Her rule of Scotland overlaps that of both Mary I and Elizabeth I. The entirety of the British Isles was ruled over exclusively by female monarchs from 1553 to 1567. This period would likely have gone on much longer except that Elizabeth imprisoned and eventually executed Mary Queen of Scots after she fled south seeking Elizabeth's protection. Elizabeth apparently viewed Mary Queen of Scots as a potential rival since they were cousins.

So during this period we had Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots vying for power across the British Isles. It should be clear that this was no patriarchy. These women were no ones puppets - those that were successful ruled over England, Scotland and Ireland as ruthlessly and authoritatively as any male ruler. They also demonstrated that they were quite prepared to order the torture and execution of their enemies or those they perceived as enemies. These historical events and others that occured in many other parts of the world throughout history demonstrate that these women were not helpless pawns of the patriarchy. They were power monarchs and in a very real sense, they were the law in their respective countries. Even Lady Jane Grey demonstrated that she wished to remain power for herself by refusing to name her husband as King, making him a Duke instead.

      • Find all references to England and change to England and Ireland were it related to the crown ***

Patriarchy means literally rule by fathers but it is generally intended to mean rule by men. Such a society, one in which rule was mandated by men, would not permit female rulers. Women would simply not find their way in to positions of power. Even a cursory view of history reveals that female rules, while fairly uncommon, feature across a wide variety of societies and eras. The upshot here is that there was no patriarchy - it was a myth. The reality is that societies shape social expectations of men and women to fit their own needs. In many cases, as have been noted many times by MHRA advocates, men were considered disposable by the society. In particular those men who were not members of the ruling class were considered disposable.

It is often claimed recently that women could not own property in western Europe in the 18th & 19th centuries. This is simply not true. When a women married their property normally transferred to their husband but single women can and did retain control of their own assests. While some may argue that women were virtually forced in to marriages by their family, the reality is that many women remained single. In addition, then as now, widows normally inherited from their husbands.

      • Confirm details of last paragraph ***

It is even sometimes claimed that women were the property of their husbands. It is ridiculous to claim this was true in western Europe at this time.

A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

References:

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216175953.htm