women in the middle ages - Page 2 - Historum

**Belisarius** · November 9th, 2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikd

The place of the women in middle ages was very low, i can say maybe next to the mule, a mule sometimes was more useful than a woman. Examples like Joan of Arc were very rare. If we think that wars in that time were a part of daily life, hunger was not uncommon, then to have boys instead of girls was for a family more useful, you see working hands that could do harder jobs than a woman and warriors.
And most important girls when married must have dowry.

Sexist! :lol:

Nikd · November 9th, 2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikd

The place of the women in middle ages was very low, i can say maybe next to the mule, a mule sometimes was more useful than a woman. Examples like Joan of Arc were very rare. If we think that wars in that time were a part of daily life, hunger was not uncommon, then to have boys instead of girls was for a family more useful, you see working hands that could do harder jobs than a woman and warriors.
And most important girls when married must have dowry.

Sexist! :lol:

Maybe in west europe the things were better for women, and i mean better for the women that were not burned in the stake as witches. In east europe that was and believe till today is in some places the position of a woman.
Just reffering facts. :twisted:
If you are intresting a have a short story about that.

Nikd · November 10th, 2006, 11:43 PM

Because i know that you want, Belisarius, that story here it is :

Before WWII a US journalist went in Greece for a story, he went in a village in Epirus (prefecture of Greece), there he saw one day a man aride in his mule and his woman behind the mule carrying wood, of course he objected saying : "Guys this is not fair", of course he get no answer. After WWII he go to the same village and saw this time the woman carrying wood in front of the mule, he said "Well here we have a progress, not much, but iti is a good start", the answer : "You know we had war, and the germans left many ... mines" :a2

**Belisarius** · November 12th, 2006, 01:01 AM

:lol:

Nikd · November 13th, 2006, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belisarius

:lol:

Nice that you can see with British humor this topic. :wink:

Caliadria · December 12th, 2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikd

The place of the women in middle ages was very low, i can say maybe next to the mule, a mule sometimes was more useful than a woman. Examples like Joan of Arc were very rare. If we think that wars in that time were a part of daily life, hunger was not uncommon, then to have boys instead of girls was for a family more useful, you see working hands that could do harder jobs than a woman and warriors.
And most important girls when married must have dowry.

While your comments are pretty much true, I disagree with the way you describe women's status. Our place was higher than a mule - the men needed us to have sex, make babies, etc. However, our value was often less than that of a mule, especially if we'd been raped before marriage, or if our husband didn't like us very much... we could be beaten into service just like a mule, or killed with no compunction or punishment if we outlived our usefulness.

Nikd · December 12th, 2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caliadria

[

While your comments are pretty much true, I disagree with the way you describe women's status. Our place was higher than a mule - the men needed us to have sex, make babies, etc. However, our value was often less than that of a mule, especially if we'd been raped before marriage, or if our husband didn't like us very much... we could be beaten into service just like a mule, or killed with no compunction or punishment if we outlived our usefulness.

I tell simply facts. In no way i agree with the treatment that woman had, especially in middle age, and believe me that even today many older people in my place think that kind of nonsense.
But in east the position in woman was strictly in house and babies without no right to participate in politics.
Of course they were some exceptions like Theodora or Irene (who was overthrown from her throne from military simply because he was a woman.

mxolny · January 26th, 2007, 01:28 PM

In all times in all places, treatments of individuals are based on the actions of other individuals. And, in all times in all places, there will always be the "enlightened", those far from it and those in-between. Women, children, minorities of any kind have always dealt with the "enlightened", those far from it and those in-between or the present time would never have been arrived at, which it still has not in some cases in some places, even though it is the present time.

Eyza · January 26th, 2007, 02:36 PM

mxolny and all:

I really don't think you can make generalizations about "the status of women in the Middle Ages". It varied from time to time and place to place. And from situation to situation. Of course, women weren't considered exactly "equal" to men anywhere, but, especially in NOrthern Europe and Scandinavia, women could and did own property in their own right and run businesses. For example, in England nobody thought it odd that a woman would run a brewery or a bakery. True, they were often widows or daughters of the man who "originally" ran it. But still, nobody thought this was odd. On higher levels, women ran castles in thier husbands'(often frequent) absence, and witnessed documents, and things of that nature. Nobody thought that was odd, either. I think you have to do a l ot of qualifying here.
Anne G

mxolny · January 27th, 2007, 09:00 AM

I did not mean it as a generalization, though perhaps it is. I agree that rights varied, both according to location, circumstance and actual year.