RSS

Elizabeth Hobson on ‘proto-feminism’

08 Mar
Elizabeth Hobson on ‘proto-feminism’

Gynocentrism and its cultural origins

The following is an excerpt from Elizabeth Hobson’s latest article in PoliQuads Magazine.

Poly

Feminists Do Not Get To Define Feminism

By Elizabeth Hobson  

Proto-feminism arose in the late Middle Ages. Queen consort of France and England, Eleanor of Acquitaine spearheaded a movement within her court to subvert the chivalric code (which had traditionally governed relations between knights and lords) to regulate the behaviour of men towards women. These women initiated a system of romantic feudalism wherein noble men were under irresistible pressure to identify a lady as midons (my lord) and to submit to her will and delicately accept any scorn that her midons saw fit to extend to him. Eleanor established “Courts of Love” in which she and her noble women would administer “justice” in romantic disputes. Not only may many men in particular recognise this state of gender relations, but the modus operandi that Eleanor and company used…

View original post 71 more words

Advertisements
 
20 Comments

Posted by on March 8, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

20 responses to “Elizabeth Hobson on ‘proto-feminism’

  1. Roman Lance

    March 8, 2019 at 9:26 pm

    I always chuckle a little inside when some man says to me, “Men die for women and children”.

    My first thought is, “Yeah really, but given all the present opportunities for a man to do just that, you stand alive and well feeding me your BS.”

    Personally, I don’t care if a man wants to die for women and children, but don’t tell my boys they need to look for an opportunity to die for the fairer sex while you’re still breathing air. Get out their and throw your life away already.

    It makes me think of a my fellow Catholics who like to posture about how they will die for the faith. Yet refuse to risk anything to even try to convert their neighbor because, “they might yell at me”.

    Now I’ve got Terrance Popp going “Waah” in my ear.

     
  2. Sanne

    March 9, 2019 at 5:11 am

    I think European proto-feminism started when the Catholic Church forbade divorcing your wife for any reason, including adultery. It gave women an unnatural strong hand and was one of the causes on the Reformation. It also happened rather late, around 11th century, about the same time they forbade their clergy to marry. Catholics are proud of it, though.

     
    • Will S.

      March 9, 2019 at 5:53 am

      I hadn’t considered that, but it certainly makes sense.

       
  3. Sanne

    March 9, 2019 at 3:23 pm

    They refused to prosecute adultery as a crime, either, so the husband had no recourse. The below quote is from Calvin’s commentary:

    “Adultery is punished no less severely by the Julian law 69 than by that of God; whilst those who boast themselves of the Christian name are so tender and remiss, that they visit this execrable offense with a very light reproof. And lest they should abrogate God’s law without a pretext, they allege the example of Christ, who dismissed the woman taken in adultery…”

    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom05.ii.iii.iv.v.html

     
    • Will S.

      March 9, 2019 at 6:14 pm

      Ah. So that’s why Latin American countries, France, etc. ended up with honour killings…

       
  4. Sanne

    March 9, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    And before I’m accused of being a fundie:) I don’t think adultery should be punishable by death, but the husband should have the option to divorce his unfaithful wife, which the Catholic Church took away from him. In Southern Europe and South America it led to honour killings, in more civilised countries to Reformation:)

     
    • Will S.

      March 9, 2019 at 6:16 pm

      I don’t think it should be punishable by death, either, but I’d be fine with the law looking the other way as in Latin America IF a man resorts to it, AND allowing divorce for infidelity. Together, both would severely disincentivize adultery. 🙂

       
      • feeriker

        March 10, 2019 at 7:18 pm

        Or, let a man sue his wife for the monetary value of all that he has invested in her since Day One of their courtship. It would be an immense sum even for a marriage of short duration and the man would stand to collect very little actual money. However, a standing judgment of such nature against a woman would be financially and socially crippling, making it very unlikely that she could pull off the scam twice.

         
      • Will S.

        March 10, 2019 at 10:35 pm

        I like it. 🙂

        I also like the idea of, if a woman has be kept “in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed”, by the man in the form of alimony, then she should, in turn, required to continue to provide him with, ahem, the “creature comforts” to which he had “become accustomed”. Being forced to put out in exchange for money like the whore she was would quickly disincentivize frivorce, surely. 😉

         
    • info

      March 10, 2019 at 12:07 am

      The aggreived party should be paid damagers by the adulterers though.

       
      • Will S.

        March 10, 2019 at 8:30 am

        Yes.

         
  5. Sanne

    March 10, 2019 at 5:46 am

    There is a 1960s Italian movie about honour killings in Sicily, apparently it was still going on till that time? I just wrote a post about it on my blog. It’s quite interesting. Women also would honour kill for abandonment, btw.

     
    • Will S.

      March 10, 2019 at 8:30 am

      Hey, why not? Turnabout is fair play. 🙂

       
  6. Sanne

    March 10, 2019 at 5:47 am

    Agree about damages!

     
  7. Sanne

    March 11, 2019 at 7:00 am

    What if a poor man married a wealthy woman, would it make adultery on her side OK? You can’t reduce everything to the monetary loss only, it’s merchant mentality.

     
    • Will S.

      March 11, 2019 at 12:56 pm

      Agreed, it isn’t just about the money, of course. Adultery is never okay, according to God’s Word.

       
  8. Sanne

    March 11, 2019 at 7:05 am

    That was meant for the comment above, sorry I wasn’t clear enough.

     
  9. Sanne

    March 11, 2019 at 2:22 pm

    You may find this interesting, especially the fact that he is a pastor:)

     
    • Will S.

      March 11, 2019 at 6:43 pm

      What a pathetic POS.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s