Yes, but that's not relevant. The point is that the existence of female monarchs is consistent with high levels of misogyny in a society. So you can't point to the existence of female monarchs in the Byzantine empire and conclude just from that that it was not a misogynistic society. That would be the case even if there were many female monarchs in the Byzantine empire, which there were not.
Female-dominant cultures?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Surely the non existence of female monarchs isn't exactly neutral in this sense, either. Besides, the point i made was (a rather non controversial one, as far as i know) that, compared to concurrent states, the Byzantine Empire was more civilized and less of a ffa barbaricum.
But other places had female rulers too, during the same period. Even if we discount those after 1453, Sicily had three queens regnant, León had three, and Sardinia had five. Auxerre and Burgundy both had eight female counts. I don't think that the Byzantine empire was particularly unusual in having three (especially when you consider that of those three, only one ever actually did anything!).
Still, it is by far the most popular medieval empire ^_^
It needs an anime to be made, as in yesterday.
Then it wouldn't have varangians, Anna Komnene, or latins (or "the filthy dung-named", which definitely doesn't refer to the emperor nicknamed thus
).Alexios Komnenos is a better choice ^_^
Basil II or Romanos IV also would work.
Last edited:
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
Because of the amount American doctors get paid.
Uhm, having a few female heads of institutions does not female domination make.... especially since such periods were almost always historically speaking more blips on the radar than shows of female power. Britain and it's scuttling of "male power" in preference for blood power also holds to this, the caveat though is the switch actually helped dilute the bloodline because the resulting inbreeding excludes strong new male bloodlines trading stronger genetics for superior political stability.... britain's aristocracy is still male dominated as far as I can tell though I'm no expert.
The one ancient female dominated society I remember was large religiously radical sections of Celtic society... though probably that describes all of em. Strong emphasis was put on "female power" with men living with their mothers, these mothers being the "head of the house", marriage being non-permanent, female religious (mother goddess) leadership trumping male martial leadership, etc..... then the "real men" people groups like the Italians and Scandinavians came and relatively easily swiped them aside where needed. You could actually say modern effeminate society (including its "girl power" religiosity) is a resurgence of these ancient Celtic ideals, though no one remembers the long term result of the total male population being reduced to violent momma's boys.
The one ancient female dominated society I remember was large religiously radical sections of Celtic society... though probably that describes all of em. Strong emphasis was put on "female power" with men living with their mothers, these mothers being the "head of the house", marriage being non-permanent, female religious (mother goddess) leadership trumping male martial leadership, etc..... then the "real men" people groups like the Italians and Scandinavians came and relatively easily swiped them aside where needed. You could actually say modern effeminate society (including its "girl power" religiosity) is a resurgence of these ancient Celtic ideals, though no one remembers the long term result of the total male population being reduced to violent momma's boys.
Olleus
Deity
I've never heard of this. Is it from archaeological evidence or from classical writers? I can't help but think that it sounds like some 60s, hippie, "noble savage" thinking about the Celts as if they lived an idyllic life before the civilised world ruined them.
The most I've heard is that a few well decorated tombs of females have been found in some of Celtic Europe, which implies that they had high status. But medieval queens had high status and you yourself said that doesn't make it female dominated society. To the extent that generalisations about the Celts can be made (which is to say, barely, contemporary historians aren't even sure its a meaningful grouping), they appear to be male dominated. Political power was held by two groups. Firstly the druids, who were exclusively male by law. Secondly by warrior-chieftains, who appear to have been exclusively male from what classical writers say. Considering how male exclusively greeco-roman thinking was, they would have definitely mentioned it if a female dominated society was nearby.
TBH I can't remember clearly since I learnt this years ago somewhere. I think it was partly from a anthropology TTC series I got somewhere but not sure. It might very well be that it was actually only few radical groupings of priestesses more focused on the feminine than the masculine or that the lecturer was ideologically influenced. That said though the Romans were hardly meticulously accurate with their histories of others, too much politics and snobbery.
Also remember that the Celts were not completely homogeneous and that each area of tribes had a slightly different structure. A religious structure based on reincarnation (daughter>mother>crone>repeat) tends to involve cremation which means no tombs for individuals. Such a revolving religious leader structure would mean that no individual would be differentiated since the "Spirit of the Goddess" would rest equally on each vessel and it would not be the vessel itself holding authority.
Personally I find the vision more terrifying than idyllic, nvm that everyone had such a more intimate relationship with the muddy outdoors and no toilet paper... hippies are weird though.
Also remember that the Celts were not completely homogeneous and that each area of tribes had a slightly different structure. A religious structure based on reincarnation (daughter>mother>crone>repeat) tends to involve cremation which means no tombs for individuals. Such a revolving religious leader structure would mean that no individual would be differentiated since the "Spirit of the Goddess" would rest equally on each vessel and it would not be the vessel itself holding authority.
Personally I find the vision more terrifying than idyllic, nvm that everyone had such a more intimate relationship with the muddy outdoors and no toilet paper... hippies are weird though.
Zardnaar
Deity
I don't think you will find many. Without modern laws the fundamental problem is one gender can beat the other one to death.
Women of course could have high status even in patriarchal societies often depending on who her father was.
Women of course could have high status even in patriarchal societies often depending on who her father was.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't know who far "who can beat who to death" is sustainable as the organising principle of a society.
Lexicus
Deity
Right-wingers believe that is the only real principle for organizing society.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think it's more true to say that right-wingers believe that who can beat up who is an expression of the natural order.
Until they're the one getting beaten up, of course, then it's an abomination against God and nature.
Lexicus
Deity
That's probably a better way to put it.
Fascists: nature is a grim Darwinian struggle for survival, the weak die out and the strong prosper
Also fascists: white people are being replaced in their own countries! men are being OPPRESSED by a cabal of feminists who control everything! *sobs*
...which is why we have modern laws?
Does not make the original observation wrong in any way.
Zardnaar
Deity
Put it this way a few liberal countries did not have laws on their books protecting wives from rape and physical violence into the 1970's and 1980's. Even with the laws what goes on behind closed doors as well.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't think rules about not beating each other to death are a recent innovation.
Not to step up to bat for The Patriarchy, but the existence of abuse, even pervasive abuse, does not indicate that this abuse is the organising principle of a society. If men were in the habit of regularly beating women to death, the household as a social unit would be rendered clearly unsustainable and would rapidly disintegrate.
Male power over women has historically functioned through their ability to control women's access to the world outside of the household, and this control was possible in large part because that world consisted mostly of other men, exercising similar control over the female members of their own households. Law in practice served to regulate and re-enforce this control as often as limit it.
Lexicus
Deity
It's the bourgeois "public sphere" that is constituted by the fact that men can beat women to death, not society itself.
