Updated: Sep 4, 2018
Feudalism as an Economic Foundation of Gynocentrism and a Marital Tool to Exploit Men in the Service of God, King and Women!
An excerpt from "The Last Taboo"
Feminists and Marxists usually make use of dismal science that is normally based on a twofold pseudo – scientific methodology to rewrite history in which they claim that women were always exploited and oppressed by men as a class and subordinated to them. This is of course an outright lie, demagogy and simply said an imbecile ignorance. Although in his book "The Privileged Sex", Martin van Creveld" in a kind of a meta-analysis debunks this sort of lunacy,we have the aim here at refuting those feminist claims while our article also aims at dismantling these feminist claims at its root level. So, when feminists talk or mention the "Patriarchy" what they usually mean is the "Roman Family Law" and its derivatives in medieval societies. As in many way the law in the Middle Ages was a continuation of the Roman law we target and aim at uprooting those claims at the very root and the basic level. We will show here that lacking any actual power, both informal AND FORMAL, the vast majority of men, almost all of them, could not oppress or exploit women, even if they wanted to do so, as they lacked the very tools that could make it possible while in fact men never had the desire to do so.
As they lacked the very tools to do so not only this shows that the patriarchy hasn't existed and gave men the tools to oppress women it also refutes another common feminist lie that men benefit from the patriarchy or vice versa that toxic masculinity is the result of such patriarchy, that men's problems or lack of rights are the result of this very same patriarchy and that male suffering or oppression is rooted in toxic masculinity which again is instilled in them by the patriarchy. By the way, the idea and the concurrent claim that men could both simultaneously profit from patriarchy but at the same time also suffer from it as well as its toxic masculinity is a cognitive bias in itself. Feminists say men need more feminism to solve their problems. Basd on a factual analysis we say no, for the benefit of men, women and all humanity feminism as well as gynocentrism must be thrown into the trash can of history. It is the only way left to save humanity from extinction!
Despite the massive lies we've been fed by feminist bureaucrats, governmental officials, the mass media, the schools and universities, the truth is that in a feudal system it was first of all the king/queen who ultimately owned the land and granted it to the noble ones and warriors like knights. More specifically the king or the queen allocated land to their barons in return for their military service. This was the medieval reality due to the political constellation of the Middle Ages as well as various circumstances of that time. Therefore, land ownership in the Middle Ages was closely tied to national security not gender. As we said under the feudal system all land was owned by the king or queen. It was either the queen or king who granted territories to their earls and barons in return for military aid in need. They in turn granted lands to men who agreed to fight often having no other choices and being indoctrinated by the society to die under the banner of God, King and (the benefit) of women. Thus the great benefit for the king was the ability to protect the land and its people without a standing army and the massive costs relating to it at the expense of men and not women of course (that were safely protected at home). It was the medieval root of the gynocentric code of chivalry that granted women the privilege of being protected by men without being expected to any compensation and doing something in return. Only to be later replaced by a more oppressive feminist state apparatus, this specific exploitative system of men broke down in the later Middle Ages as for instance the feudal tenure was finally abolished in England, Ireland and Wales in 1660 which is also the period of time that the lower aristocracy began slow reforms to make an overall change in laws of ownership and inheritance. Till then the basic administrative unit was the manor. Ideally a manor was enough land to support a cavalryman - a knight's fee. He needed not only food and clothing for himself and his family, but weaponry, arms and horses too. The land required varied according to the quality of the land. England for example had about 5,000-6,000 knights' fees.
In English common law for example (as everywhere else) allocating land ownership was basically based on the matrifocal gynocentric feudal system. The emperor, king or ruler who owned all of the land allowed favored individuals to use it as tenants in exchange for service. Those tenancies were called "feuds", "fees", or "fiefs". The tenants in them self would further also convey rights down to others. It went from King to overlords; from overlords to vassals; and from vassals to serfs! The service one extracted in exchange for land 'ownership' could be anything from military service to the King or any other benefit the king or ruler could derive from it on a regular basis. Over time, the giving of service was replaced by something we're all accustomed with today namely the taxation and the tax system! However, the key points of the feudal system were that ultimately the King remained the land owner and that a routine compensation of some kind was made to him. True personal land ownership was impossible because the aristocratic title one held was always acquiescent and subservient to the King. Now, an important issue in this system was whether the tenancy one enjoyed was "heritable", that is, able to be passed to an heir or heirs and if so what was the nature of "inheritance” in a system the "tenant/renter" does not own the land but still the ruler or the king. As a result in ancient times a diversity of numerous types of 'ownerships' came into being to allow for flexibility in this regard. For example, land held in 'fee simple' was heritable, meaning that the heirs would continue to enjoy the tenancy (provided of course they continued to render service). However, as we will see all of those changes occurred within aristocracy and weren't accessible to most people, peasants and others.
In this same feudal society being a combination of sub-categories of matrifocal and patrilineal elements to ensure the exploitation of men, it was natural for a son to "inherit" the father, to follow in his father's footsteps, taking over a manor and the duty to fight. But once it was accepted that fees were inherited then a manor could be held by a disabled man. Or it could be divided between daughters. "So", as we read, "it could be more suitable to exchange military service to money compensation. Over the centuries this increasingly became the norm. Therefore, knighthood was not inherited with the manor. As the code of chivalry developed in the middle Ages, so that the prestige of the knight rose and with it the expense of maintaining armor and accessories. Knighthood became an honor, but one that some manorial lords preferred to avoid. Even today a knighthood remains an honor to an individual person. It is not inherited. The lord or lady of a manor was simply the person who held it. Manorial lordships are not part of the peerage".
Moreover, we find the following explanation and description about the reality in the Middle Ages: "Those holding manors direct from the Crown were called tenants-in-chief. Mainly these were barons and earls. In 1086 they held half of England. However the king kept about a fifth in his own hands. His manors could be granted direct to knights, who would then be tenants-in-chief. The rest of the English manors were held by the Church - mainly by monasteries or cathedrals. The lord of the manor kept some land in demesne - farming it himself. The rest he let, or left as common pasture and wasteland. (For more details and a generic plan, see Wikipedia: Manorialism.) There were two types of manorial tenant: villein and free. The freeman held land by deed and paid a fixed money rent. After centuries in which the rent remained unchanged while its value fell, such rents were nominal. The villein worked on his lord's land for certain days in return for his own"
It continues: "All tenants had to attend the manorial court, held usually in the manor house. (House names like Westbury Court are reminders of those days.) The lord or his representative presided. From the 13th century onwards the business done was recorded on court rolls. That included the lord's decisions on which villein would hold what land. As it became usual for the villein to be given a copy of the entry in the court roll relating to his holding, such a tenure became known as copyhold. In Tudor times copyholds began to be replaced by leaseholds. The 1922 Law of Property Act finally abolished copyhold tenure. Because manorial rolls might be needed as evidence of former copyhold tenure, it was decreed in 1924 that all manorial documents should be under the superintendance of the Master of the Rolls, who set up a Register of Manorial Documents to record their ownership and location.
A further description expands: "Not all manors had a resident lord. A lord who held several manors might chose to live in one, and place a resident bailiff in charge of each of the others. Or the demesne farm could be let on a leasehold. In either case a chief house for the manor would still be needed, but it might be known as the barton, grange or manor farm. The manorial lord not only built the manor house, but frequently founded a church beside it or chapel within it. He could be involved in much other building in the manor too - see villages. Any building expenses would be recorded in the manorial accounts. Sometimes a survey of the lord's land would be made. A medieval survey was not a map, but a written record of property, listing tenants and their acreages, rents and/or services to the lord. Little if any mention of the tenants' houses can be expected, but the manorial mill should be listed. One type of survey - the extent, made on the death of any manorial lord or baron holding land directly from the Crown, did briefly describe the manor house and its surrounding farm buildings. A detailed inventory including contents might be made for special purposes, but medieval examples are very rare".
As we have seen and discussed it above in most European countries, the aristocracy which mainly meant the king and queen, other parts of the nobility as well as the Church owned most of the land, while the peasants were totally dependent on their landlords. But as time went on, and these lords became established in their manors, they grew more confident and more independent. Later, as we will see, they were the link through which in a well ahead development around the 16th century land ownership gradually began to change when they started to set up their own legal system to rival the King's one. Then at the bottom of the pyramid were the peasants yet they not really owned the land. So, to demonstrate in a more easy way let's say that in such a system X granted land to Y. The grant was by way of subinfeudation (as almost all grants in this period were). X remained lord of the land. Y was required to discharge the free external service (liberum forense servicium) for this amount of land. The meaning of the phrase free external service refers to the services that X owed to his lord for the land (while Y continued to pay services to X). So, not only did X (and his lord up to the king) remain the lord of the land, he also remained vitally concerned about who was on the land. When Y died, his son for instance might to ought to have "inherited" the land which in fact means more that he was allowed to stay on the land with his family in a subordination to the lord paying him money, taxes and defending the land in war times yet the land was not his and wasn't granted automatically. So, an "inheritance" does not take place automatically in medieval times, it does not equal land ownership too in the Middle Ages. And this means that the feudal system wasn't patriarchal where the everyday man owned land and property inheriting it to his son but he was allowed to stay on the land to work for his feudal lord giving his sons only the duties, none of which the women had, but without any benefits and rewards coming out of it. And ultimately he had to be slaughtered on the battlefields too so that God, King and women could benefit from it.
Later around 1180 the central royal courts were already intervening in the affairs of the lords’ courts to ensure that lords performed their obligations to their tenants, including accepting the tenants’ heirs. By 1280, such intervention had become routine. However, still the "inheritance" did not equal the possession and ownership of the land especially for the vast majority of peasants. The lord's courts no longer had any option or choice whether to accept the tenant’s heir or not. If the heir met the legal requirements of heir-ship, he or she if there were no "he" must be accepted. Additionally, lords retained the right to extensive payments when the land was transferred from ancestor to heir. In fact, the land lord still remained the land owner and the beneficial interest in the land throughout his lifetime. So, again, not simply that the land didn't equal ownership but it had in a way to be bought or purchased while also having to pay for "inheritance" meaning the land property still remained in the hand of the lord which means that medieval inheritance was not as we understand it today. I would say that medieval "ownership" and especially "inheritance" at least for the poor masses as well as the lower aristocracy beneath the king and queen is not of the actual land, as we might conceive of it today. I think medieval land "ownership and "inheritance" was the right to stay on the land (that you won't own) while working for your lord as a half "semi-slave" paying him money and various fees but without being subjected to the danger of deportation, being disposable or simply thrown out from there. Additionally, although the male "inheritance” was still a myth so at least in legal terms women did have the opportunity to "inherit" the "property" but still with no obligations that in fact would be set to the men only. As we have mentioned above around the 16th century the law began to change as more and more parts of the lower aristocracy began to transform the system so that they could get more land ownership at the expense of Kings, Barons and higher aristocracy.
So, feudalism as in regard to land ownership and property was resting upon a twofold foundation:
a) Based on the Roman law the land was granted by the king/queen on the behalf of what can be called in modern day terminology "Homeland Security". So, the policy was not anti- women or had anything to do with gender but had the aim at preserving and defending the state
b) Additionally, if institution's like the court d'amour as set by queen Eleanor of Aquitaine were the social and societal foundation of Gynocentrism, feudalism was the other side of the coin namely making and serving as the economical foundation of the Gynocentric culture.
Now, here if we combine evidences from the middle ages with the research of Suzanne Carol Rogers that examined the myth of male power in ancient peasant societies (prior to the Middle Ages) we can see that while men were given only some empty titles it were women for the reasons we are going to discuss next that were in the possession of true (informal power). As both the ordinary man and woman lacked the access to formal power including the material means to assert it, especial for the low status women the possession of informal power within those power dynamics became a massive tool for the exploitation of men. The reason for this was that while having lofty titles as householders or head of the house or family but with no actual financial as well as economical (and societal) power to assert it (as they didn't owned anything but the king) men didn't get any reward from the system in return which for them was nothing more than a system of oppression that striped them from everything, from basic human dignity, from money as well as some self-worth, respect and esteem. Men simply got nothing or very little in exchange for building and protecting the western civilization. Moreover, having simultaneously the informal power over family resources it were again women who benefited from the rewards of the system if there was anything for the poor masses to gain. In the bottom line, as it is always with Gynocenteism, those were the men who were more oppressed while the system was sexist against them. Hence, women also controlled the social and gender narrative their grip over the everyday man was almost absolute
Moreover, while men had to do the hard bone breaking labor, additionally paying the taxes as well as going to die in the wars and in the battlefield to safeguard the land, whereas women on the contrary had none of the same responsibilities, this dynamic made in fact men even more disadvantaged in reality. Additionally, women also not only worked and helped men to best of their abilities but in their absence they ran the farms and the financial and economic affairs. This again does not only refutes feminist lies that women were oppressed at home in the Middle Ages by some virtual ghost entity called patriarchy but in fact it is nothing more than another insight into the reality of the massive power and control even the medieval ordinary women had over the everyday men. Moreover, according to Suzanne Carol Roger women in peasant societies sold everything, decided about the prize, collected it and were managing the finances of the family.
Furthermore, it shouled be noted that in peasant society of the Middle Ages where the poor couldn't afford a doctor, women were also the ones who through alternative medical knowledge were responsible, so to say, for public and personal health of the family. This made even in economic terms all the family members even more dependent on them. And last thing is that women could inherit the husband and run the business which alongside with all the other elements shows that women were educated enough as otherwise they couldn't this. If we put this everything together it shows us that the medieval feudal society was a Gynocentric one with sub classification of matrifocal, patrilocal and patrilineal characteristics which heavily favored women at the expense of men. It is the same dynamic as we can see today where the modern economic and legal system has preserved all of those dynamics from the feudal society in which in fact the modern women earns as much or more than their male counterpart yet it is still men that get "divorce raped" and lose up to 70% and even more of their possessions in a divorce (which is the same amount that women control in marriage from the shared income and possessions). In other words, it is the embodiment and the insight into the workings of the gynocentric matrix and the way it functions to exploit men as disposable tool and utility.
Links, references and sources:
History in Deed: Medieval Society & The Law in England, 1100-1600:
Glossary of Medieval Land Holding Terms:
Medieval manors and their records:
Lord of the Manor:
The Feudal Land System
The Myth of the Oppressed and Submissive Medieval Woman: