Difference between revisions of "Sexual feudalism"
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
===In men's rights discourse=== |
===In men's rights discourse=== |
||
| − | Peter Wright has expanded on the phrase as relevant for use in men's human rights discourse, describing the practice of 'sexual feudalism' as rooted in chivalry and courtly love; practices which structured relations between men and women along the lines of a feudal relationship between a Lord and his vassals and peasants.<ref>Peter Wright, ''The Sexual Relations Contract'', published at Gynocentrism And Its Cultural Origins (2013).</ref> |
+ | Peter Wright has expanded on the phrase as relevant for use in men's human rights discourse, describing the practice of 'sexual feudalism' as rooted in chivalry and courtly love; practices which structured relations between men and women along the lines of a feudal relationship between a Lord and his attendant vassals and peasants.<ref>Peter Wright, ''The Sexual Relations Contract'', published at Gynocentrism And Its Cultural Origins (2013).</ref> |
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 22:36, 30 August 2019
Sexual feudalism refers to the sex-relations model inherent to gynocentric culture, whereby men are expected to serve women who in turn are viewed as men's moral and social superiors. The model of sexual feudalism is based on the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of their produce.
Historical antecedents
Historical antecedents of the phrase 'sexual feudalism' appear in literature, each referring to a power imbalance between the sexes:
Camille Paglia (1990):
“…a sexual feudalism of master-slave relationships.”[1]
Marjolijn Februari (2011):
“Actually it’s arguing for a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the vagina, a kind of sexual feudalism which you wouldn’t want our international relations to be governed by in the future… those women aren’t the least concerned about war and peace as a matter of principle; all they’re concerned about is securing their own interests.”[2]
Adam Kostakis (2011):
“It would not be inappropriate to call such a system sexual feudalism, and every time I read a feminist article, this is the impression that I get: that they aim to construct a new aristocracy, comprised only of women, while men stand at the gate, till in the fields, fight in their armies, and grovel at their feet for starvation wages. All feminist innovation and legislation creates new rights for women and new duties for men; thus it tends towards the creation of a male underclass, the accomplishment of which will be the first step towards the extermination of men.” “But what are the women’s rights advocated today? The right to confiscate men’s money, the right to commit parental alienation, the right to commit paternity fraud, the right to equal pay for less work, the right to pay a lower tax rate, the right to mutilate men, the right to confiscate sperm, the right to murder children, the right to not be disagreed with, the right to reproductive choice and the right to make that choice for men as well. In an interesting legal paradox, some have advocated – with success – that women should have the right to not be punished for crimes at all. The eventual outcome of this is a kind of sexual feudalism, where women rule arbitrarily, and men are held in bondage, with fewer rights and far more obligations.”[3]
In men's rights discourse
Peter Wright has expanded on the phrase as relevant for use in men's human rights discourse, describing the practice of 'sexual feudalism' as rooted in chivalry and courtly love; practices which structured relations between men and women along the lines of a feudal relationship between a Lord and his attendant vassals and peasants.[4]