Woman-power in the past
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 ноя 2024
- Subscribe to my channel: www.youtube.co...
More rambling talk videos here:
• Talk videos
This video was not an easy one to do. The topic is just too huge. I ended up doing a few takes in which I rambled and rambled into all sort of territory for ages. I then decided to cut the topic down even further and start again, which is this take, and even this one goes on for TEN MINUTES (I'm terribly sorry) and, despite this length, I still never get around to saying the main thing that I had to say. That will come in another video, and there will perhaps be a third. Megan, if you win any more competitions of this sort, please pick smaller topics. I also ended up speaking in such sweeping statements that I fear that it will arouse the ire of those less forgiving of man trying to get to grips with a big topic and not go into too much time-consuming detail. When a man talks about the topic of women, he may attract a large and possibly unfair amount of flak. I did not choose the topic. Then again, I see no reason why a man should not be allowed to talk about women, nor why, when trying to encompass a huge topic in short time, he should not be permitted to paint with a very broad brush, and leave aside a myriad ifs and buts.
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Woman-power in the past
/ user "Lindybeige"
"You see, there was an awful lot of past. Years of it." lol
+martthesling
Wise words...
+martthesling And there were an awful lot of places in the past, almost all of them.
+martthesling funniest part of the video
martthesling: and miles of places.
A lot to select from
"You see, there really was an awful lot of past. Really, years of it"
-Lindybeige (2014)
The worse part is that now there is even more past!!
@@facundocadaa9020 Even more now !!
@@pijuka bloody hell
I observed this in a modern upper class family in Spain. The husband ran the family businesses, and the wife ran the 'household'. She held absolute sway in all internal family dealings.
4:15
I heard the Burgundians yelling: "We're not French!" in the distance...
I actually went to 4:15 to try to hear it....
"Networking" might be the better term you are looking for rather than "gossip."
Fair point.
I find everything anyone says 'problematic'. Please cater to my every pet peeve or suffer litigation under the grounds of 'promoting potential offence'.
Clembo You realize Lloyd was looking for a better term than "gossip," right? The word carries stigma and connotations that might cause viewers to get the wrong impression of what he was trying to say. In which case, alternative words do perform better.
Well no. Gossip is a perfectly good word to use. It's a part of daily life. We all gossip, whether we like to admit it or not. When someone at work tells you that your boss has had a baby, you don't immediately question that person's motive and demand a birth certificate. You generally accept this as a fact, unless you have good reasons to suspect otherwise. In fact, most of the information you receive about your immediate surroundings is likely to be gossip. Without gossip societies would not function. Gossip is a very important social tool. People who think they are above gossip are only fooling themselves.
Probus Excogitatoris Gossip still does have the negative connotation on it since most gossip makers have done a lot of damage in the common household of ordinary people that is still happening right now so to speak. Still it is a perfectly fine word to use to describe such actions because politics and information trading is a messy business.
As a french, it always surprise me that feminists use Jeanne d'Arc as a symbol even though she she didn't do anything for the sake of women, while way more important figures of feminism like Christine de Pisan goes unnoticed. You'd expect people to pay more attention to the person who was one of the first real feminist figures in history.
I'm sad no one is commenting on that simply marvelous cake at the end. Now that's dedication, I tell ya!
The green Chek is really what did it for me. Serious commitment to an aesthetic. What a great and mysterious image. Obvs the cake is stone now but, while 99% of me is glad I’m seeing the scene from this view… 1% of me wants to know…
Thank you for presenting a fair and balanced look at women in history instead of (A) doing what John Green of History Crash Course did and submitting a grovelling apology to women for all of the eeevil MEN who unfairly kept them out of the Fun Time Army and Exploration Adventure Club or (B) Giving us a bunch of GRRRRL Power nonsense about women warriors being the rule rather than the exception. I'm a woman and I'd rather hear the truth about the past than an emotionally appealing, ego-smoothing lie. (I also agree that women did have a lot of power in day to day life. It insults me to think there are feminists out there who think these poor women were chained to hot stoves and raped every night by their husbands. Sad...)
Like with slavery, it makes no sense to mistreat your cattle!
Jks Jks
exactly the women had the power in other areas just not in war
a fine lecture on the nature of "hard" or external power and "soft" or internal power. Women exercised far more soft, influential power than we are given credit for. I liked the fact that he pointed out the keys to the treasury were on the queen's girdle, not the king's.
anyone disputing the idea that mom ruled the roost never grew up in a German-Jewish household :)
I really liked that too. Until now I hadn't really thought about it and my feeling was that the decision making power in my family was about 50/50 between my mother and my father.
But after some thinking I realized that it's not exactly the case. Oh sure my dad can buy snack, drinks or a new rowing boat, but he often has to make excuses like "The kids are coming home soon, let's buy these things so they can get a treat!" and then proceeds to enjoy the snacks more than myself and my brother. But then when it came to buying property for rent it was my mother who ultimately decided things.
Granted in modern time a lot of big household purchase decisions are made by men, like cars and computers, because generally men are the ones who know more about them. (But it's still often the woman who makes the final choice between "We've got the money, let's buy it." and "No, we've got more important stuff to buy now.")
theproplady
You did your ideology one good. *respect*
The word History derives from "histoire" - French for "story", Not gendered. Same with " manning the fort" - "main" for hand.
It's more complex than that. www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=history
Way more complicated than a " his-story", though, that's for sure.
History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation")
Kiani Francis are you sure about the second one because in german it's "bemannen" "Mann" meaning man. There is also "man" meaning "one" like in "one does not simply..."?
No reasonable person thinks that "his story" is the etymological origin of the word "history." It's really nothing more than a sarcastic pun on the fact that a) most historians are male and b) tend to focus on what men did. There are always people who don't understand the sarcasm of course.
I believe most people who take the joke literally are men. The punchline is that it's a reference to the experience of belonging to a gender that is marginalized in academic history. Men just don't make this experience directly and it's perfectly normal if some of them don't understand the sarcasm.
Btw, battles, wars and rulers are not the most interesting aspect of history for me. Crafting, linguistics and social roles are far more exciting topics to specialize on.
Ah, feminist humour. Glad that one is sorted out then.
This reminded me of something that one (female) comedian once said. In their household, the husband makes all the "important" decisions: How the Palestine conflict should be resolved and what is their opinnion on the Nato-question and on the funding of the public sector. Then she herself gets to decide, what will they eat, how the house is decorated an what kind of car will they buy.
Hahaha... that was actually a really good one. Never thought about it like that, but damn if it wasn't true in my parents' household.
Fun fact, many car salesmen and real estate agents are trained that in a married couple, pay no attention to the man and immediately focus your patter on the women, because she makes all the decisions here.
+RumRumRum
That's where another one of Lindybeige's points come in.
That man, that husband, isn't *actually* deciding anything at all. He can discuss Palestine, sure, but doesn't have any *actual* say on the matter. Normal men (the great majority of us, that is!) don't decide when to go to war - sure, they can discuss it, but that's irrelevant.
The man may be the head of the family but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.
sounds like a bunch of feminists to me. Stop pretending to be so important and powerful you aren't really lol
It occurred to me as you were talking about how women ruled the households that we have a huge source for this in fairy tales. In fairy tales, whenever a man remarries the first thing the wicked stepmother does is take control over the household and then use that to control to oppress the young hero or heroine. When times are bad it's Jack's mother who decides they have to sell the cow, or that Hansel and Gretel need to be abandoned in the woods
I'd just like to point out: Jack committed home invasion, burglary and murder.
Eleanor of Aquitaine is a very good example of a powerful woman.
Yes, and in an earlier take I mentioned her.
@janis vogel more like medium sized
Also Matilda of Tuscany and Irene of Athens!
i always point Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams. She was arguably his most trusted adviser.
And what a guy he was lol
guys seriously there are no feminists here, go home.
most females watching this (in my perception) would never say what you claim them to be saying
I'm warning you: I have a giant wooden badger.
+Lindybeige Why was your sentence more terrifying than the entirety of the Alien series?
+Obe lion 3rd wave feminism these days focuses a lot on what's called "patriarchy theory", which asserts that women have had little to no power in the past. I'm personally not entirely surprised that there aren't a bunch of feminists here; They tend to pick the things they complain about rather randomly. Besides, why would feminists be watching videos from a guy that mostly comments on ancient weapons and such?
I'm a feminist, and I really enjoyed this video. Feminism is only supposed to be about equality. Picking at an old scab won't help it heal. There are asshole feminists just like assholes in any group. Doesn't mean the whole group is that agro.
+Obe lion
most feminists would have been too braindead to even watch more than 4 seconds to blame their distraction to the patriarchy
"Joan of Arc was tried and executed by the French!!!"
Oh come on Lindybeige; I know that you know that Joan of Arc was captured and tried by the Burgundians, and that the Burgundians were hostile to the French crown and were English allies. Her trial was also overseen by the English. Yes the Burgundians spoke a dialect of French and lived in an area which is now (primarily) controlled by France, but equating the Burgundians with the French is downright dishonest.
So you're saying that Burgundians weren't French? What were they, then... Spaniards?
Greg Cyr Come off it. You don't think it's even a little misleading to refer to the Burgundians as the French? The Duchy of Burgundy and the Kingdom of France were separate political entities that were at war with one another at this time.
Thanks a lot for clearing that out. So yes, as you say, it is very misleading.
Eduard Khil and i would say the normans where french
You guys do realise tag was a joke right?
"There was an awful lot of past...years of it."
I had to stop the video for a few minutes to catch my breath after that bit.
could you all just stop getting upset over a shitstorm that hasn't even happened? it's ridiculous. if a 'butthurt feminazi' writes a comment here that you disagree with, feel free to respond to it, but what's the point in getting worked up preemptively?
Yeah, crazy, I'm just going to give the video a thumbs up and leave quietly.
déaþ óðer æsctír Just like what happened with plebcomics
its that people are fed up with them.
déaþ óðer æsctír Wait... Why is it unlikely that he got feminist fans? I'm a Feminist, And I love this beareded git.
déaþ óðer æsctír There's nothing wrong with feminism, it's a positive attitude to want sexual equality. I assume you refer to militant feminism, which is anti-male, and certainly the minority viewpoint. I would suggest it's also less prevalent than male chauvinism. The reason a lot of people have commented, is because it feels like an un-provoked attack on feminism, which is no better than the behaviour your'e describing of militant feminists.
Japan is an interesting analogy. It's often held up as an iconically male-dominated society, and while that's true in many ways, the reality is far more complex in much the manner described here. Though American, I've seen a couple of Japanese families from the inside, and while the men hold sway in the office that inverts when (actually if, in some cases) they return home.
As an historical aside, it was only a few year ago that they altered their succession law to allow empresses. But digging through the history of their usually convoluted ruling authority, nominal male rulers who were figureheads for their mothers are a recurring theme.
I find it hilarious that so many anti feminists are jumping preemptively attacking feminist for getting upset at this in their normal regressive paranoid way, and yet it seems rather feminist. He isn't saying most kings were men due to the inherent inferority of women or something like that, he is saying that it just is how it was and that behind the scenes (and sadly unrecorded) women, at least upper class women, wielded far more power. He isn't saying that things were better for women back then or that women are magically better suited for house work, just that we tend to underestimate the amount of power women held. From a feminist stand point, I don't see a problem with this.
And that's feminist because?
Actually, feminism isn't the ones that created the concept of patriarchy and "herstory" exactly implying they think women were inferior to men?
Hey look, somebody who hasn't studied feminism but thinks it knows what it means. Thats adorable. Come back when you actually took some classes on the subject.
Gnomelord0 Seriously? How is his video feminist? No patriarchal theory, no duluht model of interpersonal violence, no assumptions over the historical oppression of women, much differently, and quite the opposite.
Well you haven't read anything about feminism and have no idea what feminism is, so how would you even know? You want to come back after you do some reading. But yeah he did talk about the opression of women, the were regulated to the back room of politics and were not allowed to be kings, that is historical oppression dumbass. He just said that they still wielded power but that power was not recorded because the contempory historians were men...again something feminsits have been saying for decades. So how about you shut up, roll over, and let people who actually know this subject do the talking ok?
Gnomelord0 He never said they were "regulated back", actually, he doesn't talk about why women didn't took front roles on politics, much on contrary, he talked about how they had great roles on the everyday life and control over it and how the majority of men didn't even have that, much less political power. And he didn't said "because historians were men", actually he talked about how history tend to be written about new technologies, trade agreements, large conflicts, plagues and such, which didn't concerned the sphere of influence (and interest, since they were the majority and held the most power, mostly because they lived longer and could better accumulate social power than their men with shorter life spam.) of women.
"Households were run by women" well, the degree to which that was true entirely depended on the society. Which does actually support your overall point. Women cared, perhaps more even than most men, who the ruler was and what his ideas were. They would therefore be more likely to use what power they had, whatever that was, to influence events which got written down in history books. Perhaps it was the men who fought or plotted, but in many cases there is strong evidence they were set to it by the women in their lives.
i love this guy, i especially like how he asks if it alright if he talks about this while he talks about this.
I really enjoyed this video! I've done my studying of women throughout history because I'm a (shitty) writer trying to make whatever stories I write seem more authentic, and I've mostly come across information that supports what you're talking about.
For a ten minute video, I think you did an absolutely stupendous job covering the ground of a broad overview of the role many women had back then. A bit of this is easily evidenced in the carryover that women still do more domestic chores than men. (At least in America, I'm not sure if it's still the same in the UK.) And, most often at least in personal experience, women are the ones deciding on furniture and where to move things and all that.
And, though very anecdotal, why my father allows his wife -- who is from Vietnam -- to control his finances and why she was so readily able to do that. And why I control the finances in my own relationship, really.
I really enjoyed this video and thought you did a great job with it, and I'll happily show it to people as a quick explanation whenever they ask what women sort of power women had "back then."
So the answer is basically "men are men and women are women"? Who would have fucking thought.
shit. Now, try to tell that to leftist and feminist.
real leftist and real feminism would mean:
men and women are of equal rights - not that they are one and the same. check out socialism and feminism in history (about 1870 to 1920). not the shit some idiot mary sues make up today. feminism was not a bad thing, i think from the historical point of view most people today can be considered feminists.
bew That's was classical feminism. That doesn't exist anymore.
if i believe in it and you believe in it and pretty much everyone we know believes in it, it might still exist. ;) like i said, from a historical point of view most people can be considered feminists. we are historically accurate feminists. have a nice day, mr o'neal
Vamoo I would take everything a woman "believes" with a grain of salt, since it depends on the company she is in. She's a woman, after all
"The perils of Childbirth in the past are often greatly exaggerated."
I would think so, otherwise I imagine if even just a few of the horror stories people are often told were wholly common we probably wouldn't be here right now lol.
One person I saw (who was talking about why he estimates the population of Earth won't exceed 11 billion) was mentioning how in undeveloped (third world) countries the average couple has 6 children but, on average, less than three live to adulthood. Interestingly as countries develop and childhood survival improves couples have fewer children with modern (first world) nations' couples averaging 2 children as childhood survival to adulthood rounds to 100%. It's like societies know how many children they need to have to ensure a next generation without a statistical analysis to tell them.
I don't think Elizabeth Tudor left England in a great shape. She was a great monarch and did give the country stability but then again Mary Tudor was nowhere near the monster of myth either. The throne inherited by James was not only in economic dire straits but many political problems had been kicked into the long grass too. This was why the county needed a monarch of great skill but unfortunately then got Charles Stuart.
The tudors erased english culture and religion and made the first steps to the disintegration we see today.
@@LTPottenger would you care to elaborate?
While it is true that historians in the past have concentrated on the big developments, the large-scale stuff and the power play, this has been changing. Attention is increasingly directed towards the small stuff which will tell us more about how the environment people lived in worked and how they adapted. This, in turn, oftentimes will shed new light on the power politics that the historians of yore were so fond of. My history professor was very good at that - she connected the dots between seemingly lowly everyday stuff to the grand, pompous developments very aptly.
It depends on time and place though. During the very early medieval period, there's a record of a female merchant in the city of Utrecht (back when it was the tiny replacement of Dorestad). Its dating is unsure, 10th or 11th century, but it's remarkable that someone among the richer common classes was female. There's no mention of her being 'the widow of' either.
Then again, the church didn't have all that much control yet in those times, A century later the count of Holland could still go up against the church and win. And pagan traditions also still lived. Later on as Christianity gained a true chokehold on society, women were banished from public life and history that shaped our stereotypical ideas about history, played out.
I guess the rest is explained by the simple harshness of life in those ages. Very few men actually made a mark on history. Millions lived and died without ever doing anything of importance. The mere work needed to sustain yourself, meant that only a tiny percentage of people ever meant anything. Women faced that same burden, but simply because their life took up all their time, they could never aspire to make a mark on history.
It's for a reason the first feminist wave was carried by women from rich households who didn't need to work, and the second wave only came about when machines had become widely available enough that doing a household did no longer consume your entire day.
It's often overlooked that brewers in the middelages were almost exclusively woman. A covenant could be seen as an economic, social, and cultural powerhouse, those were run by woman. some pilgramages were headed by woman. Leading the defence of a castle was often done by woman too. In nomadic trade cultures woman ruled the tribe for longer stretches of time than the absent men.
Guard: Who goes there?
King Arthur: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England!
Guard: Who's the other one?
King Arthur: I am, and this is my trusty servant Patsy. We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights who will join me in my court at Camelot. I must speak with your lord and master.
Guard: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Guard: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Guard: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.
King Arthur: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercia, through...
Guard: Where'd you get the coconuts?
King Arthur: We found them.
Guard: Found them? In Mercia?! The coconut's tropical!
King Arthur: What do you mean?
Guard: Well, this is a temperate zone.
King Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
Guard: Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?
King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
Guard: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Guard: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
King Arthur: Please!
Guard: Am I right?
ARTHUR: I'm not interested!
GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow, that's my point.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah.
GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway... [clop clop]
GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?
GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
GUARD #2: Well, why not?
Pull the other one*
Old man: stop! What is your name?
Arthur: it is I Arthur king of the Britons
Old man: what is your quest?
Arthur: I seek the holy grail
Old man: what... Is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Arthur: what do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Old man: well I don't know that
It's "Pull the other one." Not "Who's the other one." But good otherwise. And thank you for the effort and the smile.
" behind every great man there is a great woman"
"behind" that is . !
dang lol
Take all the most influential, important and famous men. oh look, from Hammurabi to Obama they're all surrounded by strong and influential women.
It should be noted by the scholar however that "behind" in that case is a position of *greater* importance, not lesser. The misunderstanding comes due to an overly literal translation from the original Greek. The preposition in question has more the sense of "before" than "behind". Remember that this is a seafaring culture, ships are steered from the back. Naturally, the metaphor was extended to people too ;)
Sophie Jones
I shouldve been clearer .
"behind" as in the driving force
But also their closest advisor , who wouldnt get their head chopped off for criticising them.
Also the only one who could mock them (that is until the court fool became fashionable )
But some of the women behind great men were just wives .
Some of the great men were just husbands
------------------------------------------------------
Never knew about the literal translation.
Thanks for that .
Theres another one thats often mis-quoted .
"ignorance is bliss" (it certainly is not)
The full line (as ye probably know) is ;
"Ignorance is bliss where tis folly to be wise"
Has a completely different meaning .
See no evil , hear no evil ~(maybe)
I figured you didn't mean that the way it sounded;) I just thought I'd provide a little more background.
Sophie Jones
then again those women wouldnt have been behind the throne if their fathers hadnt arranged their marriages :P
I think it'd be helpful to open a by-case look into the life of a medieval family in general, to round out the subject. Describe the man's daily life and chores in more detail, to accompany the woman's daily life, to further illustrate the power the woman held.
Of course, it is a time-consuming and rather dull task. Chores, chores, chores, chority-chores and then some more chores. Occasional festival, occasional crisis, and then some more chores.
jone of arc came to a "sticky" end- lindybeige very well worded
I'm sorry for not letting this die, but I'm so used to scrolling down into the comments of any youtube video and seeing all the "I watch every clip of feminists doing something stupid to feel righteous outrage"-types dominating the comment section. I'm genuinely happy the people on this comment section have a higher level of self awareness.
I think it has to do with the content of the video as well. Some of the videos you are referring to go out of their way to push some kind of agenda which tends to tick people off. His was just plain informative.
Pierre C While audience plays a major factor, it really is pretty much any video that references the existence of gender dynamics. I know from the amount of time I've wasted scrolling through comments while I wait for the video to buffer lol. Sometimes just the presence of a woman making one good point about gender in a video largely unrelated to gender will warrant an essay about how many feminists would use their youtube platform to be bitches, but commend the good person-woman for not acting like feminists do.
Seriously, they are more vocal than the far left and far right combined.
In the Middle Ages, around a quarter of babies born alive died within their first year. Around half died as children. In antiquity (at least in classical Rome and Greece), it seems it was much the same. Averaging over the entire sample of prehistoric mortality, infant mortality was still around 25% in the first year and 50% by puberty (or adulthood in some sources). That's pretty severe.
Today, worldwide, infant mortality has dropped well below 5%. So I don't know that the subject has really been exaggerated. If anything, it is frequently understated. I still hear people citing ancient life expectancies from birth as implying that people rarely lived very long. But that's not correct--long lives were fairly common, but so were extremely short ones, and these childhood deaths, largely from illness and malnutrition, brought down the entire average.
So, I'm a feminist. One thing that always irks me about modern perceptions of gender rolls is this idea that men and woman are absolutely, 100% the same in every way, without exception. I find that idea completely absurd. (I can just look down and give you two good reasons why that's false.) yes, all things considered, men and women are equal but that doesn't mean they're the same.
We evolved to be a sexually dimorphic species, so it naturally follows that men and woman tend to take on separate rolls in society. Was a good portion of those rolls in history due to the fact that people would express dominance over others? Absolutely, but to say that's the only reason shows ignorance about the facts of our species. Like how it's just a fact that men tend to be stronger than woman, and it's just a fact that women tend to be more nurturing than men. And yes, there can be overlap but those are exceptions to the rules.
These differences don't show some inherent superiority between the genders either. It just shows that we evolved to fill different niches in our society, and I don't think that's a bad thing. As long as people treat other's with the same respect as everyone else and acknowledge their value as a human being than what ever differences people have don't matter in the end.
+Dori C
The problem you describe is based on the common mistake of not differentiating between the empirical, scientific perspective and the normative perspective, which governs legal and moral questions. That men and women are equal is a moral, and therefore normative, statement. It looks as humans from a normative perspective, in which a human being is simply a free actor without any physical characteristics. That men and women are physically and psychologically different simply doesn't factor into the statement at all.
The difficult parts is finding out what kind measures you have to take in the empirical world to fulfill the intended norm, but that question isn't one of equality but one of effectiveness. You don't need to factually treat men and women in the exact same way in order to fulfill the norm of equality. Technically everyone knows that - it's common sense with children, or people with disabilities. Yet in the gender debate people, perhaps intentionally, seem to blur the line
+Dori C Fuck you and fuck feminism.
+Rick Grimes You don't know what you're talking about
***** Cause you're just trolling
men and women are on equal ground we evolved different skills from are genders male are of course better fighter there talls and more mousal
Women are kinda smarter in some ways
Idk I'm a guy lol
I hate this one guy I show online saying if women could have baby's without men we would just be killed off and I'm just there like what are you talking about he thinks all women would prefer girl over men and he always says how perfect you girls are
and at the same time there women bitching about guys cheating and saying women never cheat on guys when that's complet bull shit
A personal favorite historical figure of mine is Black Agnes. You have to appreciate someone who can face a siege with a no-fucks-given attitude. And to go with what you were saying, she wasn't an exceptionally powerful ruler, it was expected of women to keep the castle safe when men were away at war, she just happened to hold out in a spectacular fashion.
Expected of women, yes, but ordinary or regular life? No.
Sieges weren't regular, so not something to mention in this video.
lloydgush are you sugesting that since sieges werent regular women had no say in the household, only in a castlehold?
86Corvus No, that since sieges weren't regular, and he was talking about the everyday woman, this isn't the place to talk about sieges.
Wow...This comment section is a bit toxic isn't it. I have no problem with an accurate portrayal of female roles in history, as long as people don't act like that's the role all women are somehow supposed to fill in the modern world. There will always be women like me: ones who don't really want kids, quite like bashing stuff with swords, and are seeking to be a professor of mathematics. It stings a little to read so many claims that women belong 'behind' in supporting roles, as though that's the only useful thing they're capable of in any given society.
Sorry for that but honestly women made this things. Like the story of boy who call wolf.they repeatedly cried over spilled milk.
awangtashi326 ??????? If you aren't a bot I fear you have problems.
I liked the video especially the part about the estates agents, I didn't even know I was buying the house I'm living in now until my wife told to go and sign the papers. My wife and I have been married for 35 years and we each have our own domains when it comes to the household. This was true with my grand parents as well. Sure at times in history the lot of some women was bad, but then so was the lot of men. Households operated by co-operation of the heads of household. Besides when men were off fighting those wars who did it fall on to protect the home?
Can I interject for a moment and pull away from the debates about ideologies and talk about the debate/discussions themselves?
I just like to debate and discuss things and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's a long standing art that has recently become associated, for some oblique reason, with internet trolls and people with too much time on their hands on the internet in general.
Me, I just like getting people riled up and talking. For example, the current top rated comment from Joao Vitor Junglut is a fine example of that.
Some would have you believe that he's a vile ne'er-do-well hellbent on hurting the feelings of special internet snowflakes but he's really just getting people to talk. And with (currently) 81 replies, he's doing pretty damn well.
Godspeed you magnificent bastards and damn the brittle-skinned _slang-for-pansies_.
I think its sad you can't tell the difference between 'trolling' and intelligent debate.
Your point about female historians is spot-on, given that the one major lady historian of the Middle Ages, Anna Komnena, does indeed focus on exactly the same sorts of things as her male counterparts
HBO's Rome is my alltime favourite show. I'd love to see a full video on the inaccuracies and correct portrayal of Roman life as portrayed by Rome. Polly Walker's Atia started as a hated antagonist but overtime became my favourite character in any media. Her smackdown of the dreaded Livia (from I Claudius) is oh so satisfying.
Polly Walker is excellent in Rome. I think she is at her absolute best when there's a big close up of her face, and she has nothing to say while she witnesses something big happening. Not easy for an actress to show us the inner turmoil while also showing a proud haughty face. I'd LOVE to do a critique of it, but clearing the copyright is proving impossible. I would point out mistakes, but spend far more time heaping praise on it.
One of my all-time favourites, too. Even though it didn't deal with battles _at all_, I can see why they simply skipped them. I was disappointed when there was a build-up to the Battle of Pharsalus and then Cæsar was simply told he won (and Pompeius gave a brief account of it later), but drawn-out battle-scenes would have distracted from the main focus of the series, which was the characters themselves. I still had hoped for some brief visual splash to redeem the build-up, though. But overall, an excellent series without any dud episodes.
I've read some interesting stuff about women in the middle ages. Most women helped in the fields to provide for one. While men did tend to do the more physically demanding jobs like plowing, reaping, threshing, etc. women would be out there bundling the wheat, sowing seeds, etc. (Biological differences are still a thing.) Also, women could have apprenticeships and run businesses on their own which is pretty sweet. Try treating women like property and you're liable to get your ass (pronounce it however the hell you want Lindybeige ) kicked. Check out Talhoffer for that one. He's got a chapter on fighting for domestic disputes, which often ended in the wife clobbering her husband over the head
If it's "herstory", besides war and nation building. They will also record the daily fluctuating prices of the groceries. Maybe it would be a "good read", who knows. Right?
Alex I would actually read that.
A lot more important than you think, trade, economics, social pressures and movements. War is just the costly grandstanding of some ego maniacs in comparison.
I’ve noticed in my travels that most people everywhere are usually thinking about what they’re going to have for dinner.
You know that head-shaking bewilderment Lindy's acquaintance got when the film crew mistook a cavalry standard for an infantry banner and asked him to place it? That's more or less the feeling I get reading this comment thread.
If you're wondering why the raging feminist outcry everyone apparently predicted didn't happen, it's because this video is actually precisely the sort of thing most of them want. It's an accurate, if broad, account that normalizes the idea that women have and will continue to be capable of wielding authority--something any woman in business can tell you is not a popular idea.
Two goals of feminist scholarship and education are: informing people that women can and have held major responsibilities, and acknowledging that society has rarely been particularly keen to give them over. Yes, women held full-time jobs as factory workers in World War II! That's a great positive example! But the context is that society didn't actually *want* that to happen, it just saw no other practical choice, and that is also pertinent and important to establish! Similarly, there were powerful women in history, but many of them inherited power through systems that would never have let them if there was a man of equal birth status in the running.
Because, really. What rational person is going to take the very excellent examples in this video as some sign human societies have handed out power equally? It's great to focus on the times women DID have power, but come on--in the United States, women didn't even have the power to help *choose* a leader until last century. Only someone with a very poor understanding of statistics would look at all the blue dots on the map, plus the handful of pink dots, and conclude something wasn't going on there.
Future racial historians aren't going to get angry when somebody points out that a black man was president of America in 2014. Of course they won't! They'll be eager for somebody to point that out and normalize the idea of a black leader. But that doesn't compromise the equally accurate narrative of economic and social inequalities facing black Americans that exact same year.
If you don't believe me, perhaps you're getting your idea of a rather vast social movement from a handful of fringe posts cherry-picked as amusing by unsympathetic outside communities, rather than credible, respected, and educated sources prized WITHIN the movement? Like conflating conservatives with fascist propagandists, or liberals with cryptocommunist deviants, or gamers with the twelve-year-old in line at the shop throwing a tantrum over a six-pack of Gamer Fuel?
The reason the feminist avalanche hasn't happened is because this video has some 400 views and are mostly his male subscribers. If you honestly think that the idea that women held a great deal of social power through history isn't antithetical to feminism then you have no concept of feminism. Patriarchy theory is the number 1 thread that ties all breeds of feminism and Lindybeige's video is a direct argument against it. The rallying cry of the first feminists were that women had no social power while men had complete social power and indeed the arguments of the first anti-feminists were much akin to what Lindybeige is saying.
alliminator2 To be fair, patriarchy theory isn't subscribed to by all feminists.
Rutskarn, if I don't believe you, perhaps belittling my sources is not very conductive to a rational discussion and you deserve any knee-jerk reactions thrown your way? Unless this is your method of venting and you were never really interested in a discussion to begin with.
So it's the age old "but those aren't the REAL Christians [feminists]" argument...
I made this point that women wielded quite a bit of everyday power and they were not that oppressed in university entry exam and did not get any points at all for it. The question was about the difference of power between men and women in the middle ages.
There were a lot of women who ended up in combat situations, especially at the end of a successful violent capture of a city or town. It's just that the females would usually end up either being raped and/or killed and/or carried off as a result. In fact, the potential for grabbing some comely wench for your new wife (or at least, your newest unwilling concubine of the moment) was an important incentive for joining armies that were about to storm some residential area. That, and of course the inevitable loot.
I agree that in the past neither men or women had it worse. Men died a lot from diseases and war. Women on the other hand got to live and got to have domestic power. Men didn't have much choice in their profession, probably end up doing their father's work. If they were a second son they may not inherit anything. But if they were well off enough they could go anywhere they pleased without an escort. Women could choose their husbands sometimes and they had a lot of power within their home but they were stuck there until their husbands died and many widows would not be able to support themselves unless they had other family willing to take care of them. Sexual assault was very common and if you were raped you might be made to marry your rapists. Which may or may not be preferable then going to war. There was an adage I heard which was "Better to be a woman in Sparta or a man in Athens, not the other way around!"
I am a history buff not a historian so maybe my source is bad or I'm making some sort of elementary mistake. I'm very open to correction (with an explanation of course). However, when you mentioned the relative lifespans of men and women I remembered browsing through my Oxford Classical Dictionary (Third Edition Revised) and reading the "age" entry. It seems to contradict what you were saying about the relative lifespans of men and women. I looked it up again to be sure and here's the relevant excerpt:
"Sepulchral inscriptions, no doubt biased in favour of the upper classes, suggest that in the Roman world the median age of death was 34 years for wives and 46.5 for husbands. The study of skeletal remains from Classical Athens has produced comparable results, viz. 35 for women and 44 for men. Life expectancy was appreciably lower for women at all social levels, largely because of the debilitating and often lethal effects of childbirth." pg. 38
The author of the entry is an R. S. J. Garland. I'm always wary of ideological motives but I can't see one here. After all an earlier death due to complications from pregnancy would be due to biology not culture. It also seems like the sort of phenomenon you would find repeated around the world historically although I lack the references to back up that supposition.
There are many conflicting stats on deaths in childbirth. I researched some while working on a book about the bronze age many years ago. I recall how surprised I was that deaths at birth were so rare. Tombs and their inscriptions have a strong bias towards successful men. In late medieval England, it is thought that the death rate might have been one in fifty. However, once a woman has had children, she has proven herself able to give birth and that her reproductive systems work. The chance that she will die during a subsequent birth will be far lower. The biggest danger is to first-time mothers.
I did exaggerate the importance of deaths in war, perhaps. Most men did not die in wars. On the other hand, murder rates were far higher in most of the past, and the murder rate amongst hunter-gatherers puts New Orleans to shame.
It's also good to note that Christian missionaries to pagan Europe would focus on converting the wives of the pagan rulers. That way even if the wife was not able to convert her husband she would still raise her children-the next generation of rulers- in the Christian faith.
I'm ok with your videos being long and rambly, they're just so interesting!
Just wanted to say with regards to warrior women there's Mai Bhago and Rani Sada Kaur who were both extremely skilled in warfare. And I wanted to point out that most heads of state positions passed to the eldest son and skipped any daughters. Thus it was extremely unlikely for a woman to be the head of state of a nation or empire. So those women who did achieve that usually were tremendously cunning and powerful because they had to work to that level. And those who were successful should be given even more praise because usually there were bodies of nobles made up mostly of men who were trying to get them out of power or block their actions. Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria are two great examples of that. Then there are many instances like Hatshepsut where the men following her reign tried to have her removed from their history books so she would be forgotten.
Joan was tried by Burgundy, not France... Two different countries. Two VERY different countries.
She was captured by Burgundy, but not tried by it. She was tried by the Church, theoretically its own authority into which temporal things like nation-states had no business poking-- practically, by a priest in Rouen, Normandy, the capital of the King of England's holdings in France. The priest was quite partial to English (perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Angevin") interests.
Burgundy minus the netherlands area is the heart and origin of france. 90% of france is not french at all lol
I listened to this talk many times over the years. It has been very enlightening to me. Your points have helped me realize my potential.
I looked at my hands and couldn't figure out how to "hold on to power."
Yes, you made a brillianr presentation here, which applies to the past and the present. There are a lot of misconceptions about male dominance in other societies, which simply aren't true Women are always the head of the household and well respected/protected, too. I have seen a microsociety (and had to suffer the consequences as a single male!), originally set up by Males, totally turn around after a couple of years, when their Wives joined them. It was an eye opener to me.
Found the exact moment i need to acess youtube to watch new british speaking about history. 2 AM at Brazil, i need serious sleeping control.
PS: About women and power, what you said reminded me what my mother always said to me: "Behind every big man, there is a big woman."
So, 100% true. Considering both slaves and kings do always get home crying after serious problems at the life, they go talk with theyr wives, so...
(Not sure if it is "wives" or "wifes", had no formal english education, pardon me)
also brazilian, it's wives. hue hue br br
JOAO VITOR Jungblut Thank you bro
Bah, em Portugal são 5 AM. Saudações do outro lado do Atlântico ;)
S2MH, ja ouviu uma piada de portugues?
People forget the primary source of woman-power in the past - they were left to run things while the men folk were away.
Throughout history the men folk were always marching, riding or sailing off to war, or heading off to market, or driving livestock, or going to court. That meant that a woman - wife or mother - would be left in charge of that man's estate while he was away if no son was old enough to take the role. Many women also inherited great wealth and history is full of stories of men trying to win the hand of a widow with a large estate. Some women via their marriage choices effectively became king makers and could add or remove huge areas from a kingdom.
Women also had a large economic role, producing cloth and ale and other goods.
The problem with the historical sources that have survived long enough to make it to the modern age is that they are all focused on the big things like wars, dynastic struggles, the rise and fall of empires and religions. In the background are millions of ordinary people going about their lives just like today.
I belive Empress Wu Ze Tian of China is also worth mentioning on this topic. I guess people who play CiV5 would have a bit of an idea who she is already, but she was really famous among the Chinese.
+MariusThePaladin Its also quite interesting that at the time of Elizabeth the I its was not unusual to be a British female monarch, the Scots also had a Queen and Elizabeth had been preceded by her sister. These three were the first three reigning female monarchs in Britain since the Roman times at least, well apart from maybe Matilda. The Maid of Norway btw doesn't count, she never made it to Scotland :).
I think you mischaracterized Boudica as well. Yes, she was totally manipulated by men--but really just one man, her husband, and the rest of the men didn't "manipulate" her, they terrorized her, and they more than got their comeuppance. And even then, you could argue that her husband, and the men of the Iceni, were far more manipulated by other men (e.g. Seneca's real estate investments) than she was by men.
And while she very quickly came to a sticky end, this elides the fact that she was within a hair's breath of liberating Britannia, and would almost certainly have done so if she'd stuck to her guerrilla warfare tactics. By the time of the Battle of Watling Street, she'd already completely destroyed London, Colchester, and St. Albans--and she must have been good at siege warfare, too, since she decimated the 9th Legion who attacked her forces during her own siege of Colchester--meaning not only did she hold the city in mid-sack, but she actually, as the besieged party and with far less military technology, turned the tables on her besiegers. Who else can say they've done that? And she hadn't even been in charge for more than couple years! She actually basically destroyed TWO Roman Legions, something I don't believe ever happened during the entire Gallic Wars (correct me if I'm wrong). My point here is that she didn't just try her hand at something the men do and then failed almost immediately--she turned her hand at something the men do and was highly successful at it! Even in defeat, Nero was so scared of further rebellions that he overturned Suetonius' appointments for leadership in the era and nearly abandoned the island anyways.
Just from this video's title I knew it would be a depressing mistake merely even to glance down at the comments, but Goddamnit, I couldn't help myself!
Women managing the household was common in Europe and later America up until the 20th century, I think. There's an English etiquette/relationship book from the 1920s that describes how a husband and wife should treat each other for a happier relationship, and it essentially says "leave the household management to the wife and trust her decisions." There is a lot to be said for the tendency of women to take less risks in an era where there is no or little public education.
From reading the comments:
Pro: Not many radfem spotted,
Con: A disturbing amount of commenters are preemptively arming themselves and checking under their bed for a radfem boogeyman.
That's what happens when you live under oppressive rule, common folk being paranoid about something they didn't do but might be accused to do simply because "they" don't like you.
@@enterwind97living under oppressive rule? You sound like a beta bitch
The book of Proverbs in the Bible closes with an acrostic poem that presents an ideal of a woman (Ch 31:10 - 13 if anyone's interested). She is described as both physically strong & capable in addition to being wise, kind and honorable. The poem talks about her providing for her family, managing the household staff, being skilled in various crafts, conducting business, shrewdly investing in land with money she earned, aiding the poor, and just overall being a self-sufficient powerhouse who is well-known and respected in the city for who she is and what she's accomplished - not who she's married to. Her husband is barely mentioned in the poem; only thing he's really described doing is praising his badass wife for being so awesome.
If "gossip" is a pejorative term then I suggest replacing it with "social reconnaissance" or "social intelligence gathering". Those would support your premise for this video.
I think the point of people talking about the "his-story/history" thing isn't so much about the fact that men are the predominant players but that women were historically _left out_ of the stuff of history, so women wouldn't have been able to become leaders in great conflicts, etc. I don't know, maybe I'm reading that wrong, but that's usually what I get from the people making that argument.
Many thanks, nice to see the positive impacts women had on life in antiquity. :-)
One my favorite female historic figures is Sappho, she was such a talented poet that a lot of greek philosophers and poets with very harsh ideas about the female role in society recognize her as one of the best poets of her time.
Yeah I think Queen Matilda and female to male cross dressers who fought in front lines disguised as men are better examples of female warriors than Jeanne D'Arc and Boudicca.
Exceptions they may be but I personally find exceptional people lot more interesting than others in general, male or female.
The true story of Mulan is a good example!
@@xLiveFreeDieFreex Except Mulan is more of a fictional character and is highly unlikely that she was real
Its amazing that despite all the advances in medicine, the death rate is still running at 100%.
Of course there's not going to be a bunch of radical feminists here, do you really think they watch Lindy's channel.
+Feminism is for nobody i think little green men from mars watch his channel, so its not such a stretch to imagine some other make believe ~organisation (loosely used phrase)~ does.
Ooh this is so gross. Not you or your comment, just the 100+ likes under it. Is this channel a MRA hotspot?
Some of us do.
I LOVE Lindybeige, and I'm a radical feminist! The only parts I tend to take issue with are when he goes off on some political tangent. But his knowledge of Moghul armor, or Sir Sidney Smith? Amazing! And even his political tangents aren't so much sexist and horrible as they are misguided, muddled, and outside of his area of expertise.
D. M. Collins I describe many feminists similarly, although I think radical anything is shite.
Very well-said, LindyBeige. I am not sure why there is so much brouhaha about Joan of Arc (just one woman), when you have stated a near universal truth about many women in history: they're the ones indirectly influencing everything behind the men's official positions. I remember how my grandmother was a master manipulator and got my grandfather to spend a fortune on anything she wanted for herself and her favorites. Though my grandfather was the traditional breadwinner, he didn't know what hit him if my grandmother wasn't there.
I know this video tries to paint a broad view of women throughout history, but I do have a problem with this vision of women as being solely in the taking care of the household business and nothing else. There have been many wars and as pointed out in another video, it is the men who went to war because they were "expendable" and the women stayed at home. Let's say it was a short war, and it only lasted 2 years, how were people supposed to eat if women only took care of the linen, the cooking and the gossiping? Did no one plough the earth or tend to the crops or animals of the domains at the time because there were no men? Even if you only take half of the male farm workers to go to war, aren't the proprietors still looking to sell and to eat sufficiently?
And what about disease? If a little town looses half of its population (and let's pretend it was equally distributed between men and women) wouldn't some women have to take care of the farm work, just like men did?
Finally women and war. Is it really an exception to think that women could have participated in battles in any way shape or form? If you look at the history of the Crusades, and read what arab historians wrote (NOT what historians from european countries wrote) then indeed, you will start to notice that women did participate, they were archers, they worked on catapultes and some even battled in armor. A great book, though written in French is "Chevaleresses" by Sophie Cassagnes-Brouquet even talks about chivalry tournaments for women and there were even real women who were knights, or chevalières (like Claude, the fake Jeanne d'Arc though I grant you, those women were exceptions).
So this imagery that women in history have all come out of Jane Austen novel is quite inaccurate. Women helped the men in the fields, they took on men's jobs when there weren't enough men do to so because of a war, or a disease and in addition to this, they also took care of the household and the children.
there is also a big difference in roles between elite women and commoners. An elite woman would never work in the fields because she'd have slaves or servants to do that. But then, neither would her husband. she would run household matters. however poor women worked all the time - they would sow seeds, and tend garden, and milk animals, etc. They were not only inside the home all day. Wives of merchants would often take on tasks relating to the trade, or take on the business if the husband died - these were often a family affair that everyone old enough would take part in. This idea that women ONLY did household stuff is left over myth from our image of the 50s (which is also only accurate for middle class white people - poor women often worked outside the home in the 50s).
taina, the people who plowed the fields were probably oxen and the young men who weren't of fighting age yet.
we see that even today.
well.....Hatshepsut.... But I can't make up my mind exactly what she's an example of. And it's pretty clear that she's an exception and not a typical case.
This is a big subject indeed! I understand you're more archaeologist than sociologist (right?) - There are so many specific areas I'd like to hear you elaborate on. For example, I'd like to understand what maintained this gendered arrangement, over such a period of time. Why is it so stable, especially in the presence of such large culture-reorganising events?
Mmm, maybe because of the inherent difference between men and women in general?
Amazing suggestion!
***** this
Biology? Women are the ones who must bear and rear children, which means they will inevitably have to spend a lot of time at home. It's only natural that they would be responsible for household matters.
wait so being able to push a baby out of your vagina makes you better at chores? Yeah that makes sense.
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's famous "well-behaved women rarely make history" is not about how women have to be the exception to the rule in order to be respected and remember. It's about respecting the average women throughout history who held society together.
The his in history has nothing to do with the English masculine possessive 'his'. It derives from French via Latin via Greek and was ultimately historia. It was coincidence that it contains his- as the start syllable. In fact in English, the word story derived from history, not the other way round.
Leode Siefast It is now used without regard to etymology, people in general have never heard of etymology. They don't think where a word comes from, just what it sounds like and it most certainly sounds like his story.
A bought a house with my sister. We viewed a lot of houses together and I'm telling you now that pretty much all of the estate agents basically ignored me and just focused on my sister. And before you say that could be because I was taking a back seat and just following along, I wasn't. Firstly, I'm 6'4 so hiding away and going unnoticed doesn't come naturally to me. Secondly, I recall many times where I was first into the house and that, then after a while all the focus shifted onto my sister.
Unsurprisingly, the comments to this video are an excellent round-up of common anti-feminist misconceptions.
Unsurprisingly, a feminist shows up and makes a drive by generalistion before fleeing like a pussy.
rymcmanus ohh returns to spit more generalisations. You Sir/Madam/It are clearly one of the mental giants of your generation.
@@dakkanTMmaybe its time you stopped playing pocket billiards, gave your head a shake and went to bed. Who knows, you may wake up tomorrow and have grown a brain.
@@janwilson9485 wow 9 year old comment, how about that. Still thats the best comeback hey? ''NERR YOU INCEL'. I am deeply impressed and wish to subscribe to your newsletter and/or substack
this is the most reasonable explaination of this topic that I have ever seen, and that's saying a lot.
There were several times when history was written by women. In several eras of Japanese history, we have volumes of work about the complex web of court politics and the very many tiered caste system that existed, most of which were written by the noble women.
But, the majority of historical documents were penned by male hands.
This reminds me of a spanish guy called Francisco i heard about once. He was never ambitious in his job, but her wife insisted so much for him getting promoted that now Spain is a monarchy.
Just a quick note to all those criticizing Lindybeige's use of the word "History": I find it self evident that Lindybeige does not subscribe to that stupid and ignorant breakdown of the word ("His Story"), but was merely addressing those that do use it in that way.
I also happen to have met several people through the 90s and up until this point that continue to insist that this is what it means and like to refer to history as "Herstory".
Man, the pre-emptive bracing for feminist attack is pretty funny in this comment thread. Yo, folks, who don't quite understand feminist theory or patriarchy theories: We're well aware (well, most of us) that women were capable of having power in the ancient world, and are even aware of matriarchal and egalitarian cultures. The fact that cultures have operated in this fashion gives credence to the idea that many of the separations between male and female gender roles is socially constructed, and thus the usual division of labor that we still see in say, the USA, where men take on higher earning jobs and women take on lower earning jobs and more part-time work due to motherly duties or societal expectations isn't a paradigm that is determined strictly by natural causes.
this is an amazing channel!
Funny he mentions Attia from HBOs Rome. That character is a composite and acts more like the historical Fulvia than Octavians mother. Fuliva was one of those crazy powerful and exceptional women, even leading a civil war on Anthony s behalf. Missed opportunity on the shows part.
"Gossip" you might call it "intrigue"
It was always mentioned that women ruled the household and stuff but didn't really think so deeply into it for the overall importance that would have. Good video.
All these anti-feminists ranting about something that actually hasn't even happened.
Oh well, they're used to coming prematurely
Can we see an episode on "clemency/mercy" in war?
We already had the one on how most soldiers used to not shoot to kill and I liked that one so much I read into people acting as people should even in war.
There's the story of Saladin stopping an attack and sparing the wedding couple from inside a fortress he besieged and even sending in his cooks to prepare the best meals for the party. Guess he killed everyone else so it's kind of a bad example but you get the point ;)
I knew this comment section was going to be awkward..
+Zen Masta Killa in some way or the other, inevitably
One 12th century Duke of Brittany chose his daughter to be his heir, ahead of his son.
I'm a male, and a feminist, and I agree with every word Lloyd said. It wasn't sexist at all. And feminism does not disagree with it in the slightest - it is about adding opportunity, not about changing opportunity. However, the anti-feminists have gone nuts. This is evidence of something rather pronounced.
Considering that feminists agree with this video, and anti-feminists think that feminists will not, it is quite clear that anti-feminists are against something that feminism is not - anti-feminists are arguing with people that don't actually exist, and misrepresenting feminism as something it isn't.
Great video. I would love for this to be a series on the average household throughout medieval (and other periods') history. As a man who is also a feminist (pro-feminism, actually), I am very glad to see someone tackling the subject with such care. Thanks.
I think you generalize too much here.
It would depend on the time and the culture and to the personalities involved.
There is also a biological aspect.
For example: feminists argue that men ruled by virtue of physical strenght. If that were true, you would expect to see the strongest, younger men rule. Instead, it is the older men.
And if we compare that to our closest relative, the apes, the same thing happens. The male that is best able to form a coalition of other males and females is the one to rule.
With apes not always, sometimes its the strongest and most aggressive male which doesnt seem to work out well for rest of the apes.
@@janwilson9485 That's incorrect.
I'm interested to see what you think of the case of the Fraumünster in Zürich. The popular story goes that the Abbess, and thus the women of the monastery, ruled the city for a few hundred years until the guilds took over in 1336. This was pretty consistent over a long period.
Still waiting on these angry feminists, guys...
It's a question on demographics. I doubt that his viewership is largely composed of females. Also in the nerd area, people tend to be a bit less freakout, explosion shitstorm stupid than in mass media topics, so the youtube comments in those sections are usually much more calm than under a video of ... say Rihanna.
But having viewed other videos by more popular and mass media you tubers I'd say people were not totally off expecting a shitstorm. But the video is not old yet. There is still time, sometimes it takes a bit until videos spread through the feminist channels and the hordes come. Not kidding here.. seen it happen time and again. Scary shit.
We were given a series of classes at school titled 'history, or herstory' which involved us looking at major historical events such as the first world war and the peasants revolt, and then completely ignoring the actual events and discussing the lives of women in the general time period. fairly bland stuff especially when compared to the actual history that we could have been learning, but were only ever given the general jist of.
'History' stems from the greek word 'historia' meaning 'narrative', not 'his story'. Of all people I thought you'd know better, Lloyd.
I was not talking about the word's derivation, I was talking about a modern pun on the word used by certain (possibly feminist) people to complain about the male bias of history.
Lindybeige Ah, I misunderstood you then
What are we talking about when we talk about power? Opportunities to enforce ones will despite there being a resistance against it (according to Max Weber). This leads me to a question: what happened when the husband disagrees with his wife? Did the wife keep her responsibilities or did she just have them as long as men didn't care? I also would like to question that there being more women meant that they helt more power since it's not unknown that minorities (like nobility) hold more power than the minority. After all, men had weapons and the training to use it and therefore stronger means to execute their power.
While this kind of conflict seems to be the exception instead of the rule, mainly because it was a very shameful thing to become public. When it happens, I am not aware of a single case the women won this power struggle. There is a long history of demonizing ambitious women which helps to maintain the stability of that arrangement. I also wouldn't want to forget the case of Henry VIII. He got into such a conflict and even though the catholic church was against him, he won. He even executed his second wife and still, his legitimacy and the legitimacy of his line was unscattered.
Another interesting aspect is that powerful men tended to have several women to be with - in some cultures, some were called mistresses, in others, all were called wifes. However, this possibility doesn't seem to apply to women. While those women were quite powerful in court due to their access to their benefactors ear, their power still was completely dependant on him.
About the "it's natural that women stay at home" line of thought some people in the comments express: history disagrees. It fits your cognitive bias to think so, but the first thing you need to ask his how the relationship between work and life was before the Industrialization. One of the many differences of the Industrial Revolution was that the place people lived in and the place they worked in was seperated. The "social question" did get a gender dimension because of that which started the first wave of feminism which was bourgois women being concerned about the destruction of families among the proletariate.
Let's look about the medieval era: most peasants did have very small huts to live in and they shared them with some caddle. Their life was dominated by the necessities of farming which means a lot of work. Children were expected to help out as soon as they could and the same was true for women when they weren't pregnant or looking after very young children. After all, there wasn't much to do in the house. Among nobility, the idea of a queen looking after her children, cooking meals and cleaning the castle was absurd. Even breastfeeding was done by servants.
I do not question that there are biological differences between men and women. However, it is disturbing how easily the conclusion is drawn that women should stay in her "natural" roles. We know that there are biological differences among "races" and we used to draw the conclusion that certain races should stay in their "natural" roles. However, we did learn that most "differences" we saw were just flights of fancy which we accepted because they supported our racial prejudices. (Okay, still don't know that, but that's another issue)