False. Queen Maude, Isabella of France, Matilda of Flanders, Eleanor of Provence, Mary De Bohun, Elizabeth Woodville, Eleanor of Castile, Joann of Arc, Lady Godiva, Julian of Norwich, Jane Shore, Katherine Swynford, Mrs. runtinger, Rose of Burford, Margery Kemp, Aethelflaed (female general), Sichelgaita, Dame Nicolaa de la Haye, Countess of Pembroke (wife of william valence), Black Agnes Countess of Dunbar, Maria (female Italian soldier mentioned by Pertrarch), Tortula of Salerno, Felicie de Almenia, Perette Perone, Perrennelle Flammel, Francisca Romano, Anna Comnena, Hrostsvitha of Gandersheim (Nun who was germanys first poet, Europes first playwright, first female writer), Marie De France, Thomasse, Christine de Pisan, Anastasia (illuminator). >those were women from medieval Europe A few more honorable mentions... >boudicea >artmesia >gorgo of Sparta >cleopatra >florence nightingale >Leni ReifenStahl >Hannah Reistch >Hannah Duston
The first playwright in Europe was a woman. The first poet in Germany was a woman. Women frequently studied in schools to read and write. Many other women were travelling merchants who became very famous. Some women owned their own businesses. Women made much of European art and even some music which has survived. Aethelflaed was a fighting woman, Joann of arc another, sichelgaita, black agnes of dunbar.... There were many female doctors, some of which made their own discoveries and contributions to medicine. >women were slaves! Is a feminist lie, and so far from the truth.
That picture is from a medieval manuscript and was painted by Thomasse I believe, who was a female scribe from France. >this pic also related
Jose Ward
Aethelflaed was the daughter of Alfred the Great of England. During her father's reign, she led troops against Viking attacks and was responsible for the construction of numerous fortifications. By expanding her family's influence -- i.e., conquering most of England -- she helped her brother Edward the Elder become England's mightiest monarch.
Sichelgaita (?-1090)
A princess of Lombardy, Sichelgaita was the wife of a Norman mercenary. Tall, imposing, and muscular, she was a soldier herself and rode into battle at her husband's side. She tolerated no insubordination from the other soldiers and threatened potential deserters with death.
Trotula of Salerno (11th?-13th? Century)
Salerno, in Italy, was famous for its medical school. Trotula headed a group called the "Ladies of Salerno", who studied medicine. Because male physicians, though they dominated the medical scene, knew little about women's health issues, her two written works were important in educating them. Her major work, actually referred to as Trotula Major, is Passionibus Mulierum Curandorum (The Diseases of Women); it contains information on many subjects, including some daring inferences and prescriptions about impotence and childbirth.
Eli Williams
Just because well breed and wealthy women had fulfilling lives didn't mean all women did. Would you seriously post a picture of Henry the VIII and use it as proof that most men in Renascence England weren't poor farmers?
Mason Sanchez
18+ posters only. Even the smallest child should know that a woman's place is on her knees.
John Howard
And yet if you wrote a list of important male figures throughout history or important achievements made by men, it would be 100x as large as the list you just provided. Obviously women have "a place in history" but given that they make up 50% of the population, their contribution is quite dismal really.
That's nothing to be ashamed of, though - every great male figure can probably attribute some of his success to a great mother. Because after all, the vast majority of women throughout history have found their calling in the home, as nature intended.
Luke Moore
My argument isnt that most women are doctors or soldiers etc... Obviously nost women were hoiusewives and mothers. But in these times, most women knew how to make tapestries and mosaics (which is no small statement), and could make their own clothes. They made virtually every kind of cloth for men to wear, they made their shoes, dinners, and put their armor on them. They did everything and had a wide variety of talents and knowledge. People today tend to undermine even the role of a "simple" housewife, to downplay it as unfulfilling. Saying men have held women back for centuries and womens liberation is so great yada yada yada. However, I would argue that women COULD be doctors, surgeons, judges, generals, nobles, queens, landowners, business owners, writers, historians, poets, princesses, soldiers, roofers, chimney sweepers, nuns etc... It just wasnt the norm. Many women studied in schools as men did even in the early middle ages. Its not that women COULDNT do these things, its that we CHOSE not to, because we understood then that the society needs to reproducs to compete in battle and production with other nations and peoples. Largely it was understood that motherhood was vital for a healthy society. And that neglect creates murderers and rapists and freaks. The stability of family is the stability of society and the community.
James Reyes
>look at me, I'm not a feminist! Girl you must be uglier than a bucket of fish if you have to play at being a little /pol/ack to get men to want to fuck you. Stay thirsty.
Carson Wright
Yes. Just as motherhood should be blamed for bad men (80% of rapists and 76% od murderers come from single mother households where the mother is neglectful of them in favour of work), so to should they also be credited for the actions and achievements of good men. Mothers mould the generation. We can attribute all the problems today with bad neglectful single mothers. That is why it is important to teach women how vital, good, important, and absolutely neccesary it is to be a mother. And that
Jose Gutierrez
You must have a terrible mother for example. No father I assume? Let us be cultured individuals and not use emotional drivel ok user? :) I thought you were the logical gender? Maybe r9k is the place for you
Tyler Gutierrez
the nuclear family structure made the most sense for women and men, the feminist idea that men were forcing women to clean, cook and knit is a myth, men are just more naturally suited to pushing a plow, digging a well, hunting etc..
Jacob Lee
Yes because men arephysically stronger on average. Its not that women cant do these things, as my original post shows that there were many famous women of the sort. Its that we recognized our role in society was more important. It is better to have 5 kids as a woman, than it is to be a merchant for example. Its more fulfilling, brings happiness, and does more benefit to your people and country. It was a choice, not enforced.
Samuel Brown
Two parents, happily married. I could make up something Freudian about why you've been railing against single mothers in the last three posts you've made, but that would be a waste of my time. So sweetie, don't come into Veeky Forums to post a shallow historical analysis that exist only to back up your personal views on the family and to attract mindless "I just want a traditional gf ;_;" neckbeards. You're wasting everyone's time and it won't make you feel any better about being uglier than a 16th century scullery maid with tuberculous.
Justin Taylor
assuming that women can't have a traditionalist ideology without trawling for dick on an anonymous image board truly you are the enlightened feminist #ImWithHer
Anthony Hughes
There you go again with the incel emotions. You're triggered over something, yet cant provide any argument. The only thing you have opposed thus far is my gender and the fact thar I made a post. Which tells me exactly what you are. A bitter Ugly Virgin. Classic case of projection. The slightest hint of an user being of the opposite gender is enough to make you froth at the moment and button mash like a big overgrown baby! Well baby, I havent even told you my gender, for all you know I could be a man. Secondly, I am not interested in your childish rants against women, but interested in actual conversation about history dealing with evidence, facts, and logical argumentation. Therefore, I think you do not belong on Veeky Forums and should go to /r9k/ where you clearly belong. Good day
Samuel Taylor
Acting against your own self-interest is stupid and I have no time for stupid people.
>Its not that women COULDNT do these things, its that we CHOSE not to So riddle me this, are you a transtesticle or just schizo?
Kevin Edwards
>continues to not address any argument or talk about history, but still crying about gender. Lookout, logically oriented superior male brain is dominating me!
James Morris
yes truly reducing the birth rate below replacement levels and women having to juggle a career, kids and a love life is absolutely great
t. son of single parents
Dylan Sullivan
I've already addressed the fact that your argument is built around false equivalence in my first post, you were the one who made it about politics and how superior you are to other women. But look, here's a historical reaction image. Now I'm also completely on topic!
Blake Martinez
False equivalency of what? What was your dfirst post? Where did I say I was superior to other women? And no you still arent even remotely on topic ;)
Dylan Fisher
The false equivalency of saying "wow, look at all these famous women in history, this proves that women could've been poets, doctors and generals but they chose not to." Not only is that putting aside all the historical evidence showing that for centuries men believed women shouldn't and couldn't do any of those things, but it's ridiculous to say that because the upper classes were afforded the opportunities to "make history" that means the lower classes were equally capable of being doctors and generals but chose not to because they thought their role in "preserving society" was more important. Even Florence Nightingale belonged to the British nobility and whose family had regular holidays in Italy, something out of reach for around 80% of the British population at the time. Your evidence proves nothing about how gender influenced a person's opportunities across different social strata, just what the aristocratic women (with a few exceptions that usually ended in tragedy) could do with the wealth and power afforded to them at birth.
Easton Hernandez
>to say famous women of x professions are famous women of x professions is a false equivalency False equivalence: False equivalence is a logical fallacy where there appears to be a logical equivalence (usually in quantity and quality of evidence) between two opposing arguments, but when in fact there is one side has substantially higher quality and quantity of evidence.
See I am not equivalating one subject to another. Saying a female poet was a female poet is not an argument from equivalence you fucking retard. Am I talking to a child?
>Not only is that putting aside all the historical evidence showing that for centuries men believed women shouldn't and couldn't do any of those things, I just named over 40 examples (some of whom were lower class) showing that they did "do all those things".... Once again are you a kid? >but it's ridiculous to say that because the upper classes were afforded the opportunities to "make history" that means the lower classes were equally capable of being doctors and generals but chose not to because they thought their role in "preserving society" was more important. You could be a mother and still be a member of nobility lol... Not an argument >Even Florence Nightingale belonged to the British nobility and whose family had regular holidays in Italy, something out of reach for around 80% of the British population at the time. Something out of reach for 80% of the female and MALE population. Where did I deny the existence of feudalism? William wallace was a commoner who was knighted. There are many other cases of the peasantry gaining titles and land and rising up. These are outliers, but that was my argument to begin with kiddo! >Your evidence proves nothing about how gender influenced a person's opportunities across different social strata, just what the aristocratic women (with a few exceptions that usually ended in tragedy) could do with the wealth and power afforded to them at birth. Cont...
Mason Rogers
The majority of the women presented were not "aristocrats" but commoners. Its not even up for debate that men AND women even lowly born, could rise above if they had the talents or made certain connections... And I just gave you a huge list (a fraction of what I could have displayed) to literally prove that it has happened, could happen, and that wasnt even the point of my thread you total spastic!
Christopher Turner
WE
Nicholas Murphy
Were the first European playwright n sheeeit
Eli Robinson
Again, like I said sprinkling in a few (more than half? Your definition of a commoner is worrying) commoners doesn't make you argument any less leaky. You kind of get it when you get to the part about Florence Nightingale. Men and women were equally deprived of opportunities by the system they were a part of, but your argument takes the outliers and holds it as a norm that could have been achieved, yet for some reason they consciously decided not to, and not because they had been indoctrinated by the church into believing that women were lesser beings who a responsible for all sin and had to atone for it by being "simple," but because women, with a depth and foresight that they've obviously lost (according to you) in the modern age, knew that >the society needs to reproducs to compete in battle and production with other nations and peoples Let me say it one more time. This is just you projecting your personal views of how women should act onto millions of people from different nations, sects and cultures. You're attributing a motivation which has no basis in history onto these people because it supports your belief that modern women (except you presumably) are shit mothers that breed psychopaths. You're ignoring the divides of class and wealth that were far more important in deciding a person's opportunity in pre-modern Europe than gender alone. Sure, of course men and women had different roles, but they were still equally confined by their social circumstances.
Colton Reed
>the society needs to reproducs to compete in battle and production with other nations and peoples >let me say it one more time. This is just you projecting your personal views of how women should act onto millions of people from different nations, sects and cultures
Imagine this. One tribe has 7 million healthy warriors. The other tribe has 500. Who would win in a conflict? The answer is obvious. Do you think tribe #2 should have... A) had more bards B) built more cheese shops C) had more children The answer should be obvious, but since youre a delusional child Im not so sure it is. >You're attributing a motivation which has no basis in history onto these people because it supports your belief that modern women (except you presumably) are shit mothers that breed psychopaths. Having children and core family values wasnt a priority to historical peoples from the middle ages? Excuse me while I chuckle. >saying historic peoples valued motherhood implies that modern women are shit mothers No.... Modern women are shit mothers because they are shit mothers.... Thats another can of worms, want to get into that? Theres mountains of evidence for it. >yet for some reason they consciously decided not to, and not because they had been indoctrinated by the church into believing that women were lesser beings who a responsible for all sin and had to atone for it by being "simple," but because women, with a depth and foresight that they've obviously lost (according to you) in the modern age, knew that What even is this total mess of words? I literally said none of those things lol..... You are clearly triggered because I called modern mothers shit (maybe you are one?) And are projecting your own feelings onto me. This is totally absurd and childish.
Owen Miller
>your people and your country
Sure is spooky in here.
Ryan Myers
I come from /pol/. This is my first post here. Is this generally a bluepilled board?
Brayden Ross
>cuckpill
lol
Henry Edwards
You're clearly just a broken record that doesn't understand no matter how many times I reiterate my point, so I'll just bring the discourse down to your level Wow, you're clearly focused on how "childish" my arguments are compared to your cutting insights into the human condition. Maybe you're fixated on your childhood, tell me, did daddy touch you down there?
We've advanced past 2012 levels of humor, so labeling things "redpilled" and "bluepilled" is frowned upon here.
Ian Butler
Oh, maybe I should become an historically illiterate emotionally-driven jew loving pansexual demiqueer who's most interesting hobby is watching game of thrones and who works at a groccery store and doesnt workout.
But I cant see what good that would do me.
Thomas Peterson
>a /pol/fag >calling other posters historically illiterate. Oh I am laughing.
Ian Wood
...
Juan Jenkins
You havent presented a single fact or argument yet lol... Crying about gender isnt an argument. Saying im projecting the regard held for family (Just google family crests, the tradition of medieval surnames and why they used them, the carefully cultivated marital traditions and/or the daily tasks of a father and son or mother and daughter) onto them. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_household history.ac.uk/reviews/review/227 Maybe read a book sometime. You have provided not one thing of value, only emotional garbage which I have no interest in sweetie :)
Jose Morris
And yet not pone ounce of historical rebuttal was presented this day. rosaliegilbert.com/education.html Go to sleep bluepill numale. Leave the discussions to adults
Robert Myers
The nuclear family only became a thing when the real heavy labor started getting replaced by machines.
Asher Gomez
>no mention of catherine d'medici
Zachary Walker
>Freud
So user thinks the way he does because he didn't get to fuck his own mother?
Wyatt Nguyen
>society needs to reproducs to compete in battle and production with other nations and peoples. Largely it was understood that motherhood was vital for a healthy society. >And that neglect creates murderers and rapists and freaks. The stability of family is the stability of society and the community
Dont agree here in the last, you often had parents pumping out kids for labour yes, but many parents didn give two fucks about them other than labour, you had a practice were babies were rapped around clothes like a mummy so they wouldnt even move and as a consequence they were born with bones and posture issues
