Medieval Gynocentrism: The Golden Age of Women and the Myth of Patriarchy!
עודכן: 8 בדצמ׳ 2021
Contrary to feminist propaganda, which asserts that most human societies are, and have always been in the past, patriarchies, human societies are no exception to the rule of gynocentrism. It operates, in fact, covertly behind a myth of the patriarchy within a hidden and clandestine dynamic which also serves as the lifeline of the system. So, indeed, patriarchy is a mythos rather than reality and can be considered or better said described as gyno-patriarchy (a concept discussed in another study of mine), most soothing to the male ego, for wife and female rule. That this is so is confirmed by women from some of the most dissimilar cultures in the world and as a cross-cultural phenomenon. It was an American housewife's proverb saying that "My husband may be the head of the house but I am the neck that turns the head; And it was a Saudi Arabian woman professor who said on the BBC World Service that "The traditional Saudi wife runs her family and runs her husband" (BBC World Service, September 23, 1982). Moreover, from Durkheim's point of view, the founding father of sociology, in the gynocentric culture, the ideal structure of the family, reflecting the joint, identical interests of females and of families, is actually the patriarchy (Durkheim's Response to Feminism, Jennifer Lehmann, page 171)! The following research is a case study of the 14th and 15th century's position of medieval women that will prove these dynamics and will show that patriarchy is a straw man while women are operating behind an artificial appearance or semblance of what can be described or defined as Gynopatriarchy. So, although male patriarchy or male dominance constitutes a myth with no corresponding reality (see S.C. Rogers, "The Myth of Male Dominance and Forms of Female Power), the underlying truth of Durkheim's observation, namely, the concept of what we've defined as gynopatriarchy or matrifocal patrilineal gynocentrism is true. In fact, those terms are synonymous whereas gynopatriarchy or patrilineal matrifocal gynocentrism is not only one and the same but leads us back to the profound social and anthropological truth of reality that humans (as well as primates and mammals) are bound to the gynocentric system of society no matter how it is expressed. Therefore, the assumption that even if patriarchy in this form exists (and it is not) reflecting allegedly male interests destined to oppress women, will be proven false and the famous feminist slogan "the patriarchy hurts men too", when changing only one word, taking the "too" from the equation, describes gynocentric reality as it is, namely, that the (gyno) patriarchy hurts exclusively men while elevating women to the status of Goddesses. Before the middle ages, which are discussed in this discourse, it was most dramatically reflected in the ideal of the Roman Matron! According to Durkheim, in Roman society, women, as wives, enjoyed a "worthy position." Women, as mothers, were the objects of profound "respect (obsequium et reverentia)." This exaltation of wives and mothers was due to the structure of the (gyno)patriarchy, to "the strength with which the marriage bond held firm." The Roman family "brought together, in close unity, husband and wife acting like parents, and their children" (1980, p. 256). Furthermore, the (gyno)patriarchal domestic organization in Rome, reflecting gynocentric patrilineal and matrifocal realties and dynamics, had several distinct features. According to Durkheim "never was the bond of matrimony stronger than in Rome, never was the union of man and wife more fully regarded as an inviolate partnership throughout the whole of life." Consequently, to him, "the Romans had no less high an opinion of the wife than the Germans" (1980, p. 292). In fact, the Roman matron derived from (gyno) patriarchy, reflecting the matrifocal state of gynocentric reality had "a far superior social status" than that of the Greek woman (1980, p. 303). Anyway, back to the topic of our discussion of the late middle ages, so in this period of time women in London were in a privileged position specifically regarding their influence on the city’s increasing economy. In times that London became a top commercial hub in Europe, women not only contributed to the household economy but also to the retail trade. As we will see, the raw data found in the feminist study, I referred blow in the links, based upon a methodologically valid reexamination and new interpretation of the empirical evidence will refute many feminist myths, if not outright lies, regarding history as well as the attempts to rewrite historical events including the famous misandrist claim that women as a collective were chattels at the hands of all men, husbands, and patriarchy. Their influence and extreme privilege, for sure in reference to the overwhelming majority of ordinary men and the minority of the privileged ones, was pervasive. It encompassed family and legal rights, wardship of children (that men didn’t have) vs. male guardianship (tutorship preparing the male child for war), inheritance, finances, social status, career, marriage and many more. Specifically, women also helped to provide the capital, assets, and investment for London’s economic growth in the late 14th and 15th centuries as London was a major contributor in the international trade in raw wool to the weavers of Flanders and Italy and also established itself as a distribution center for goods such as wine, ﬁne cloth imported from the continent, and, increasingly, luxury items produced in London itself. International trade, the existence of the royal government in Westminster, and crafts (particularly in the production of luxury items such as silk weaving and goldsmithing) fueled the city’s growing wealth. The Hundred Years’ War contributed to London’s reputation, perhaps even providing silver and gold looted from France for the goldsmiths of the city to work and for wealthy Londoners to place in their homes. As it is evident from the data that will be provided in this thesis, the middle ages were not marked by gender discrimination against women, medieval society became more and more divided based on status and more and more oligarchic in its governing institution and not patriarchal. Already in this time, London’s laws were generous to women in terms of inheritance, dower, dowry, and wardship of their children and their inheritances. Women had access to courts to preserve their rights. In the bottom line, women were never chattels and the patriarchy has never existed. What is interesting and amazing about the data here is that it now becomes clear that additionally to the traditional approach toward women’s economic contribution in urban centers in medieval England, which has correctly emphasized women’s work as laborers and entrepreneurs as well as acknowledgment of their talent and service, it is now clear that another major source of women's wealth was acquired via the root of marriage where wealth circulated in the favor of women by exploiting the unique characteristics of the gynocentric marriage as business transaction that was based on matrifocal power dynamics balanced through patrilineal and patrilocal elements. Thus, in late medieval London, it paved the way for the development of London as an international player. Thus, the importance of the transmission of wealth through women and particularly through their gynocentric marriages was a crucial link in serving women and discriminating men. It shows that patriarchy is a front man for women operating behind the faced off a few powerful men that helped women as a group by exploiting and oppressing the majority of men. Furthermore, it was already suggested that women survived the plague better than men and that there was a surplus of women in the post-plague era. This “golden age” for women was posited in the period of depopulation following the onset of the plague. It is argued that the loss of population in the late 14th and early 15th centuries opened up even more jobs for women outside the household than previously. This “golden age” gave women opportunities to have now a completely free entry into the workforce, positions as skilled laborers, and opportunities to enter into a business or to continue the occupations of their deceased husbands. A further important dynamic that was observed is the one regarding marriage. Here, it was observed that women increasingly delayed their age of marriage because they could earn good wages or chose to remain single. Late medieval England, these scholars argue, looked demographically more like early modern England, with couples marrying in their late twenties and a large portion not marrying at all. From all of this emerges one very important observation. It is not only the typical feminist rewriting of history and the pseudo-science involved in it but specifically that women were never forced to stay at home, never forced to marry, that it was a female choice normally not reserved for men too but in fact that hey could even decide not to marry while none of the female modern statuses is gained through feminist advocacy but rather were given women much earlier than the feminist hate movement came to birth. Thus, feminism had never a legitimate cause and was always a supremacist movement for the female privilege. Rather than concentrating on women’s work in weaving, brewing, skilled and unskilled trades, as well as being laborers and entrepreneurs, which is true (and even than denied by feminists), I argue that based on female hypergamy women’s largest economic impact on London’s economy, mercantile trade, and the stability of its government and society lay in the transfer of wealth through marriage. The market in real estate, valuable objects, and capital was a ﬂuid one. London followed municipality law which permitted all children, male and female, to inherit equally. The father’s estate was divided in three ways with a third reserved to pay the testator’s debt and for the salvation of his soul, a third was put aside for his children’s inheritance, and a third was reserved for his widow’s life use. The widow could take her inheritance into another marriage, but after she died, the surviving children inherited her portion. These laws kept wealth circulating, and women became conduits of wealth. One of the effects of population decrease that I mentioned above was, as this thesis shows, that widows and their minor children became increasingly wealthy. The accumulated wealth of widows, heirs, and heiresses who survived the plague became concentrated in the hands of fewer people by the late 14th and the first half of the 15th century. The fluidity of capital and women’s access to it had implications for London’s social structure. The city did not evolve gynocentric social structures that were typical to those English –nobles and other freeborn subjects—who were governed by common law but took it to a further step to extremity. The inheritance of the English common law regarding the minority of the wealthy elite following the gynocentric matrifocal, patrilineal and patrilocal principles still favored women as general and discriminated against men. The eldest son may have inherited the father's estate but as standing opposed to daughters who received an inheritance dowry while the widows had a dower and inheritance, all younger sons were lucky if they could get a monetary settlement or a military position. This familial division of wealth in favor of women reflects and mirror also the social myth of patriarchy. A minority of men are standing at the front to help all women at the expense and the discrimination of all men. Hence, even in the case of the eldest son when marrying, the wife standing at the center matrifocal center of attention deciding and controlling about family resources, his inherited finance and estate still reside in the hands of women. So, medieval and specifically London law was clear about the rights of women in terms of property and by all other means. The circulation of wealth through matrifocal marriages suggests another important insight, namely that women played a large role in the consumer economy of London. Regarding modern statistics, this is the same dynamic that helps women to globally control 70% of familial, social and the nation's wealth. We may never know the exact percentage of how many of the family's wealth women controlled in this way but from the above evidence, we can claim with great confidence that it was the majority even back then including the fact the patrilineal aspect of the inheritance as in regard the eldest son left the finances under female not male control. Thus, women helped to furnish houses, bought and received clothing and jewels, and kept the London goldsmiths and silversmiths busy ordering various ewers, bowls, silver spoons, basins, salt cellars, cups, and a host of other things to put on display in their houses. Even poor women might have silver spoons in their dowries. The purchase of food and drink for a household was also a major part of the consumption pattern of women as they seek to supply their households. Women needed a variety of services as well and were in charge of household servants. We will later examine the standard of living of women, from the wealthiest to the poorest, and their participation in the consumer economy which will show us that the root of the modern dynamics of women controlling consumption and thus the husband's earning can be already observed in the middle ages. So, again, nothing to do with feminist advocacy but rather misandrist rewriting of history by feminist ideologues. Regarding laws and women, the enforcement of the laws, and the active role women played in the economy suggest an alternative view of the myth of patriarchy. As standing opposed to this typical feminist attempt to rewrite history medieval women were protected by law and men against abuse and violence perpetrated by men. As I have shown in other researches this was not though vice versa whereas men suffering domestic violence by women were not only denied and protection and treatment by were further abused by such acts of public shaming as Charivari (riding the donkey backward). For instance, London society did not want to see other males take inheritances from their orphans, male and female. It wanted their widows to be protected and provided for so that they could rear their children and be assured of such material comfort as was available. As is shown in Durkheim's research, this was not true regarding men whereas he traced the suicide gender gap as well as it's ration back to medieval times and placed it upon laws favoring women not men in divorce. London’s gynocentric ideology did include concern about women but not so much about men. This society also cared about passing property and wealth to heirs, where it, again, still, favored females but not males. Those gynocentric structures had developed an understanding that keeping capital ﬂuid and allowing widows to remarry was in their best interest for their trade and increasingly for the power of the guilds. Based upon the Chivalric principles of the medieval feudal gynocentric society, the small elite of men serving under the façade of gynopatriarchy, seemed to agree with the civic laws that discriminated men while helping women as it was best for their financial ambitions and aspirations, in other words, greed. Thus, as I have explained in some of my researches, the feudal system in the middle ages served as the economic basis of medieval gynocentrism to economically exploit men. London’s government, guilds, and social conventions ensured that under the myth of the patriarchy and subsequently the head of the household, a man had only responsibilities, zero freedoms as most men haven't anyway had any of them, no means to assert his power or to oppress women, hence, the majority of men lacked them, but he had to obey the laws of London, being accused and prosecuted for his wife's crime, provide for the children and wife. It was the embodiment of the Chivalric ideal of gynocentrism. In a politically incorrect statement, it was men being conditioned to become cannon fodder, free sperm banks, and cash machines. References: 1. The Wealth of Wives, Barbara A. Hanawalt https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Wives-Economy-Me…/…/0195311760 2. Durkheim, Émile. "Suicide: A Study in Sociology. 3. Feudalism as ab Economic Foundation of Modern Gynocentrism, Yoav Levin https://www.yoavlevin.com/…/feudalism-as-an-economic-founda… 4. Medieval Women in Feudal Europe https://www.yoavlevin.com/p…/medieval-women-in-feudal-europe 10 views