oldshrewsburyian:

bookphile:

wendynerdwrites:

Some of the greatest accomplishments by medieval and renaissance women were accomplished over a banquet table or tea. And there were tons of women warriors (many and most of whom merely ended up casualties of war, as was the case for most warriors of either sex).

Actually making a significant difference as a female warrior a la Joan of Arc was near-impossible. Meanwhile there were numerous Kings’ mistresses who ended wars and created public service programs like hospitals over tea and therefore had far more positive, powerful, and lasting impact upon the world we live in today than most of the warriors in history, male or female. It’s just that most female accomplishments are often written out by historians, dismissed as being nothing but frivolous partying (when in fact said “frivolous partying” did more to shape the medieval and renaissance periods than 90% of the wars fought). It was a Sumerian princess in a tower who essentially invented literature, a Japanese noblewoman attending parties who wrote the first modern novel. 

Women who defied gender roles were awesome, yes. Women who used “feminine” pursuits to assert their strength were JUST AS awesome. 

“Other girls” were almost ALWAYS AMAZING. Just because the dudebros who have held the pens for centuries who reinforce the idea of “traditional masculinity = strength” have written out the importance of the banquet table, chivalry, and legends DOES NOT MEAN THAT MISOGYNISTIC B.S. SHOULD BE REINFORCED NOW.

“Proper ladies” were rarely, if ever shallow or mere baby machines, even if they were treated as such. We should not be perpetuating that. The pens are in our hands now. Use them for good.

Please and thank you.

ALSO *medievalist pushes up glasses* this public/private dichotomy was NOT REALLY A THING during the Middle Ages (and I am sad to say that tea-drinking was very limited.) The banquet table was EXPLICITLY a political space! as well as one for partying! In the heady days of second-wave feminism, Joan Kelly wrote a whole article about how the Renaissance limited noblewomen’s roles more. Also there’s a great book called Gendering the Master Narrative by two of my favorite medievalists and you can read a synopsis of why it’s awesome here.

ALSO ALSO. 90+ percent of women were, obviously, not members of the nobility. Although disadvantaged in law, they often enjoyed a certain degree of equality in practice (until men noticed, in the case of professional regulation.) But you know what the vast, overwhelming majority of people in the Middle Ages were doing? Farming. And farming requires everyone to work. This doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a gendered division of labor, but it meant that everyone cooperated. And according to the “boring,” everyday documents I spend most of my professional life working with (yay?) husbands and wives cooperated and shared initiative in decisions; single women could and did participate in professions and get known as sailors and healers and weavers. I don’t want to get too carried away and proclaim a “golden age” because, y’know, sexism was a huge thing, it was hard to divorce for cruelty, etc. But while official medieval thought often portrayed women as sinks of iniquity (thanks, patristic authors,) some women were writing against that (thanks, Christine de Pizan! thanks, Heloise!) and they weren’t portrayed as delicate flowers. And they were certainly not isolated from active life. I could give you essays on how religious women managed land and founded hospitals and fed and fought with their neighbors.

Tl; dr: medieval women were indeed awesome, for many and varied reasons.