WHM 2003 Discussion Archives

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Welcome

Posted by: domhd 02 Mar - 05:47 pm

Welcome to all. This topic takes its name from Ada Evans who was the first woman to graduate in law in 1902. The first woman to enter the legal profession in Australia was Flos Grieg who was admitted as a barrister in Victoria in 1905. Marie Beuzeville Byles became the first female solicitor in NSW in 1924. In 1925 in Adelaide, Mary Kitson and Dorothy Sommerville established the first female legal partnership.

In 2002, the NSW Law Society published a report - After Ada3 - on women and partnership. The paper critically evaluates the role and experience of women in the legal profession and provides an agenda for change. The number of women in the legal profession throughout Australia has grown rapidly - at least at entry level - during the last ten years - but women still make up only a small percentage of management and leadership positions. Many are finding difficulty juggling work/life/family responsibilities and winning acceptance for the choices they make. These are some of the issues you might like to discuss during the month - so please join in.

The discussion is being moderated by Dominique Hogan-Doran, a barrister from Sydney, who is the President of Australian Women Lawyers, and mother of three young children.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Statistical Profile

Posted by: domhd 02 Mar - 05:42 pm

Women at the NSW Bar

In February 2003, of the 1929 barristers holding NSW practising certificates and practising in NSW, only 269 were women (a ratio of men to women of approximately 9:1). Of the 264 senior counsel practising in NSW, only 8 are women. Only 1 woman was appointed in the last round of 28 new silk appointments (by contrast, 6 women were appointed in Victoria in December 2001). To look at it from another perspective, there are only 13 more female barristers in total than there are male silks practising at the NSW Bar.

The largest group of women - 108 of the 251 women practising members of the NSW Bar Association � is the 0-4 years practice group; the next largest is 57 women in the 5-9 years practice group. By contrast, the largest group of men � 326 of the 1600 men practising members � is the 10- 14 years practice group; the next largest is 303 men in the 0-4 years practice group.

Posted by: MarySexton 26 Mar - 08:30 pm

I assume the situation is much the same in other States/Territories. Silk ceilings no less

Introduction - Posted on behalf of Susan Hawthorne

Posted by: Gillian Polack 28 Feb - 05:30 am

Lesbians have existed as long as humanity has. But to most people this is an unbelievable proposition. Certainly, lesbian culture exists cross culturally and the written records of Sappho suggest a much longer history

So why is it that lesbians are considered to have no culture of their own. Just as the colonists return to the empire saying "the natives have no culture", those who favour patriarchy say "lesbians have no culture". Included among them are lesbians who deny their own reality.

What can we as lesbians do to develop the recognition of lesbian culture?

Posted by: sybils 28 Feb - 10:09 pm

Thanks for that introduction Susan. :)

For me lesbian culture is at its best when we come together as lesbians, speaking as lesbians for lesbians, sharing our stories, our lives, the struggles and celebrations, the foods we prepare and share, the crafts and arts we practise, the songs we sing the music we play.

My own personal experience of lesbian culture has been totally enriched by attending national lebian festivals. These gatherings provide affordable accessable meeting spaces which have networked me with a rich tapestry of lesbians Australia wide.

It is the combination of lesbian & feminst politics that led to my involvement with the Coalition of Activist Lesbians-Australia. COAL is a lesbian feminist human rights lobby & advocay group with United Nations accreditation and formed in 1994 for the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995.

It is important to me that lesbians have a voice of their own and not only be heard when included with the voices of gay men or heterosexual women.

There is a uniqueness of experience when one is in the sole company of lesbians which is a celebration of being a woman.

Posted by: sybils 28 Feb - 10:12 pm

woops

I didnt introduce myself or sign in. My name is Jack Draper. I work in the Illawarra in NSW as a Lesbian Community Development Worker & am currently the CoConvenor for the Coalition of Activist Lesbians Australia.

Posted by: sand 28 Feb - 11:06 pm

This is fun!

Hi I'm Sand Hall

I live near the sea, near Wollongong and hour south of Sydney.

Jack and I are partners - in many senses of the word, including with our creative and political involvement of lesbian culture.

Originally from Aotearoa (New Zealand) I first came to Australia 1977 and lived on Women's Land in NSW for most of 1978. That was it! There I found lesbian culture (a sister culture of my life in Aotearoa) in a form that combined big nature, freedom unlike anything I'd ever experienced, and amazing opportunity. And of course there were the interpersonal dynamics of dozens of women, each with powerful and personal associations with that particular piece of land with all its possibilities, experiences and opportunities.

Twenty five years later I still have an active and significant relationship with that Women's Land.

In 1992 I commited to working on the Lesbian Space Project (LSP) in Sydney. We (Georgina Abrahams and myself initially) set out to fundraise $250,000 by the end of 1993 with which to buy and help set up a lesbian cultural and community centre in inner Sydney.

December 10 (International Human Rights Day) 1993, by the end of a dramatic concert at the Sydney Town Hall we (the 100s of lesbians who participated in LSP) thought we had raised that $250,000. The final pledge of $50,000 was later withdrawn and we were urged to continue with $200,000 - after having said, from the beginning, that if we didn't raise the full $250,000 by the end of the Town Hall concert we would give all the money back. We weren't prepared to muck around for ages trying to raise enough money - it all an all or nothing type commitment.

Then the huge issue of transgender membership of LSP emerged and the project basically split down the middle into a kind of evolutionary branching, thus dividing the good will and physical involvement of Australian (and some international) lesbians.

A building was bought and then sold a couple of years later (increasing the pot of gold the project had generated by about $100,000) due to lack of community involvement and the ongoing conflict about membership.

LSP transformed into LINC (Lesbians Incorporated) which primarily exists to manage the invested funds (generated by LSP) and administer an Australian-wide lesbian grants project, with income from that investment.

I'm also, since 1994, connected with the Coalition of Activist Lesbians Australia (COAL), went as a COAL delegate to the '95 Beijing UN 4th World Conference of Women. There I represented the Asia Pacific Region on the co-ordinating committee for the Lesbian Tent set up at the NGO Forum - first time of lesbian space in China, and first lesbian space created within UN territory.

These days I'm a Fear of Crime Worker with Wollongong City Council's Safe Community Action Team. There, as one of the things I do, I convene a Lesbian Issues Interagency primarily made up of reps from local agencies.

So, whilst I feel emersed in lesbian culture I experience internalised lesbophobia, to varying degrees, that constantly informs the form my lesbian culture takes.

Posted by: Susan Hawthorne 02 Mar - 11:38 pm

Susan here. I live in Melbourne and am a member of the Performing Older Women's Circus - you have to be over 40 to join. It's the only circus in Australia which has as one of its aims to foster lesbian visibility. I'm also a writer and have been thinking a lot about how to make sense of the world as a lesbian. For me a lesbian is a political decision rather than a lifestyle.

I am really thrilled to be a part of this discussion. What I am interested in is how other lesbians and posters on this discussion recognise something that we call lesbian culture. I'm not suggesting that we over define it or make it rigid, but as someone who has lived in lesbian culture for around 30 years I know how it feels to be a part of it. For me, it means that I feel at home in a world where I so rarely feel at home.

Some of this is based in the arts and creativity and some in politics. Moslty it's a blending of these elements.

Posted by: Veronica 03 Mar - 05:04 am

Hi

My name is Veronica Wensing and I am in the Canberra Gay and lesbian Qwire. Although not entirley lesbians of course, being in the qwire has helped me feel very much a part of something. Although not all of our songs are about being a lesbian, I have noticed that when they are I am extremely proud to sing them. i love the visibility we have and have gained a strong sense of belonging through being a member.

for me, being a lesbian is also a political decision rather than a lifestyle. I came out quite late in life and was firmly femimist and women identified before I did. part of what gave me the courage to leave my husband at the time was being surrounded by lots of lesbians.

I have been fairly fortunate in that my work environments over the last 15 years have always had a large lesbian presence. Even whilst I was living a straight life though, I did not feel like I was one of them. It was however that experience of lesbian culture that firmed my conviction to come out. I knew I would not be alone, although I had no real idea of the day to day experience.

that to me is what lesbian culture is about - that day to day experience of life, where you have to choose whether you come out , where you get used to living with less rights and inequality and where you can share that with others who understand and experience that too.

just by the way i have noticed as I logged on tonight that this disciussion has drawn the most viewers, many of whom have not contributed yet.

I am really excited that this topic is being covered in the discussions as I think that already contributes to a greater awareness of us, our issues and our culture. thanks to Susan and Jack

veronica

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 04:48 am

Hi,

I am Jenny and am responding to a comment made by Veronica. Veronica made a point (which I am paraphrasing)that this thread had many viewers who had not posted.

I'll ask this question on my own behalf (although it may apply to others): I am not a lesbian but I am interested in many of the thoughts I've read here. Is it okay for me to join in?

Jenny in Canberra

Posted by: sybils 12 Mar - 02:28 am

Dear Jenny,

Its fine for you to join in tonight wed is the live chat. Any woman can be a lesbian and its fine to just want to talk with some lesbians to get to know what being a lesbian can be like. I personally feel uncomfortable with men being a part of this conversation because the bulk of my experience is that they use my sexuality as some sort of turn on and its not available for that. Many women come out as older women, at all ages really, its never too late. In my job as a Lesbian Community Development Worker just as many women over 40 and even in their 60's & 70s come out as do young women under 25. cheers Jack

Posted by: Jennifer 12 Mar - 03:22 am

Dear Jack,

thanks for your reply. I didn't want to seem disrespectful by jumping into a conversation, and I didn't want to just 'watch'.

I can appreciate your view about being uncomfortable with men participating. Being comfortable is really important, in any forum.

I struggle with what it means to be a woman and I guess I live within the broadly accepted stereotype. I have seen, though, some of the discrimination directed at lesbians (although I can't judge whether it is specific or general) and I wonder how that impacts on you? Or on anyone else who might like to comment?

Cheers,
Jenny

Posted by: Virginia 13 Mar - 06:15 pm

Hello all and thanks Jack and Sand for starting the thread and Susan for the intro. My name is Virginia and I live in country Victoria these days having lived in many different places around Australia.

Lesbian culture is very important to me and one of the things that I struggle with is the lack of 'it' these days unless one has access to capital cities. It seems that there is not the same openess that there was previously where the circle just kept getting larger as new lesbians entered (metaphorically speaking) - these days if you look different or there is something about you (and who knows what that is) it is harder to join the circle. This is in direct contrast to when I come back to the city where I meet up with people that I have known in the past and we pick up where we left off.

I wonder what has changed and whether the ideals we had as feminists seem to have been so diluted that the embracing of difference and change have all but left us?

In many ways I feel starved in an era where my access to all things lesbian is more than it has been ever before - more movies - more music - more plays etc. but the womyn to womyn contact with friends seems to be much harder to engage in and in the area where I now live I could be anybody any place and in any space in time.

This is not to say that there are not lesbians living in this town - they are - but there is a hesitation to meet up with new people and expand your friendship network.

Anyway just a few thoughts for now
Cheers - Virginia

Kate Parr & The Working Class

Posted by: Wendy Z 21 Feb - 09:47 am

My name is Wendy Zollo, and I'm the listowner of the penmanreview. The list is made up of people of diverse backgrounds and a range of distictive knowledge. Obviously , this is our chosen subject this year.

I'd like to open this thread by comparing a well known historical figure (Katherine Parr) with some lesser known medieval women and assesses the contrast between the two as the thread continues.

What is generally recalled about Katherine Parr is her marriage to King Henry VIII and her survival of said marriage. What 'may' not be known is she was a learned woman who followed (secretly until her fourth marriage to Thomas Seymour, uncle to King Edward VII) the 'new' religion (Protestantism).

What is most worthy about noting about Queen Katherine is she married four times in her young life, twice to eradicate her father's debts, once to a man (Henry) who would not suffer a denial or rebuff and only once for love. In Katherine's case marriage was a duty and virtually an occupation. She was born to splendor and a 'good name' and was expected to make the best of it; therefore (even if she so desired) she would not have the 'benefit' of partaking in a trade like the other women I shall discuss.

Naturally, there were women of the medieval period (especially widows) who kept and ran businesses of their own. Yet, they are often overlooked by the glamour of the nobility.

Rose of Burford was working alongside her husband in the wool trade, even before he was ailing with the disease that would eventually take his life. After his death, Rose became even more enthusiastic, spirited and forceful in 'her' trade. She allowed no one's debts to go unpaid, not even those of King Edward II himself!

Then there are the women of the Fine Arts (of only one I will share with you now), in the vien of Christine de Pisan, an Italian daughter of a clairvoyant, who was determined to see her educated, (and she was), yet, still she married, had children and was widowed young, so she used her aptitude as an essayist to produce an income.

Would Katherine Parr have switched places with the likes of a Christine de Pisan?

Each class of the medieval woman holds its owns cage and its own key.

Posted by: Wendy Z 24 Feb - 09:14 am

I'd like to add some additional thoughts on Katherine Parr prior to the continuation of the thread.

Katherine Parr enters into the very end of the medieval period, almost bordering on the Renaissance. Nevertheless, she was still restricted by the decrees that 'restricted' medieval women.

1. She was educated from the start of her life to believe she was of a substandard grade of gender to men.

2. It is a known fact that the teaching of both medieval and (early) Renaissance women was drastically fashioned by The Church who obviously gave preferential dealings to men.

3. Women were taught by The Church that they were apparatur' of demons, a notion that surrounded their daily lives, therefore, likely makeing 'much' sense to them.

4.The majority of girls/women were taught the arts of needlework, herbs to guide them in medicinal skills, and their obligation to their future spouses. 'But foremost was their strong religious training.'

(www.questia.comPageManagetHTMLmediator.qst?action=openPageViewer&docid=9694584)

So, though Katherine Parr may be considered a subject of the late medieval period (and the advancement of the English Renaissance), I believe she makes an attractive and fascinating subject of both debate/arguement <g> on the topic of Medieval Women.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 28 Feb - 06:39 am

My big question is which medieval women *do* we know. Wendy has named two: Katherine Parr and Christine de Pisan. I am going to add Marie de France (because I love her poetry) and the various queens Eleanor and Marie de Champagne. There is Margery Kempe, and Julian of Norwich.

If we move beyond the court circles and religious notables we are getting to women who we know because they appear in trials records and guilds. Or coronial inquiries - like the London woman and her maid who died fighting in the kitchen - they fell into a pot of mash.

Maybe people can tell us about their favourite Mediveal women, to start the ball rolling?

Gillian

Posted by: Susan 28 Feb - 02:55 pm

The lives of Medieval women in history, apart from the great and good, are not often reported and to gain a glimpse into the way they lived often means trawling for snippets through obscure records, reading between and looking under the lines, and examining the artefacts and archaeology of the period. When an interesting snippet or artefact does turn up, then it's a pleasure and leads the discoverer to want to run out and share with all and sundry!

Gillian's detail concerning the woman and her maid who had a fight in the kitchen and fell into a pot of mash, reminds me of a case in the crown pleas of the Warwickshire Eyres in 1285. One Agnes le Wolf struck Matilda de Folkeshull on the arm with a scythe and killed her. Agnes then ran for it and at the date of the Eyre had not been caught! Meanwhile the sisters Alina, Matilda and Margery were accused of doing away with Alina's husband. However the jury found them not guilty and that one William de Aneslye had accused them of the crime out of spite.

Glancing through these records which are part of a book dealing with the early records of Medieval Coventry, I notice that many women (mainly widows) speak for themselves in grants and charters. They are owners of property and they arrange gifts and services concerned

with these properties. Interestingly enough, wives are often mentioned in cahoots with their husbands in these charters too. And there are examples of women passing property on through the female line. e.g. (late 1270's)

'Charter of Beatrice, widow of Richard le Mastlingbeter giving to Maria her daughter (in free marriage) for her service, a certain messuage in Gosford St. Coventry between the land of William de Kenylworth on the one hand and the land of Henry de le Mor on the other with an adjacent curtilage and all appurtenances according to the metes and bounds made there; to be held to her and the heirs issuing from her freely, by rendering annually to the lords of that fee the service due and accustomed, namely at the four fixed terms in Coventry. Should Maria die without heir of her body the entire aforesaid land will descend to Margery, daughter of Alice the grantor's sister...so not a man in sight

A female character who interested me (well actually it was her father who was my interest) is Mabel FitzWarin, daughter of the 13thC outlaw Fulke FitzWarin. If women are hard to find in history, then disabled women are very rarely mentioned indeed and their existence only turns up by pure chance. There is no overt reference to the fact that Mabel had a disability, but during her lifetime she neither married nor entered a nunnery - either of which would have been de rigeur for a baronial daughter in the 13thC. Also, her father, in his will, gave the revenue of his wealthiest manor (Lambourn) for her upkeep and made his son and heir swear an oath that he would uphold the terms of that will. What eventually happened to Mabel I don't know. All that exists is a tantalising glimpse behind the curtain and a touching glimpse of paternal concern.

I know I'm rambling here, but since it's the way I write and I wanted to contribute something at least, I thought folk wouldn't mind, and might be able to pick something out for further discussion.

Susan - Penman list member and author of historical fiction in the day job.

Posted by: Wendy Z 28 Feb - 05:06 pm

(From Susan's reply)

"However the jury found them not guilty and that one William de Aneslye had accused them of the crime out of spite".

It's remarkable what one mere sentence out of many triggers your mind to shift in another direction.

Power, what were 'their' rights, how few or how many did medieval women have? The sway of the nobility is obvious, (yet, still they were restricted by their gender and one has only to look at Queen Mary Tudor to see most of the possibility's of those restrictions, a good number of which she heartily believed in.)

Persuasion and influence cooperated greatly when bearing in mind the affairs of medieval women.

The medieval period generally saw a deterioration in the liberties of the female's clout. Marriage and the begetting of heirs granted a 'sort' of unceremonious power, any ownership of land or coin bestowed, authorized rights which vanished with the mariage and sometimes during the state of widowhood, (I'm sure examples of exceptions of these could be found, one of which I made mention in my intro), unless they were the exception to the rule and made their mark by leaving behind the 'traditional' traits/characteristics of their gender.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 28 Feb - 05:40 pm

Wendy said in her latest post:

Power, what were 'their' rights, how few or how many did medieval women have? The sway of the nobility is obvious, (yet, still they were restricted by their gender and one has only to look at Queen Mary Tudor to see most of the possibility's of those restrictions, a good number of which she heartily believed in.)

I'd have to leave the above subject to the academics - I could only answer it in the vaguest of terms and the 'rights' of women changed as the Middle Ages progressed. I would suspect though, that life became mopre restrictive as the MA advanced.

However many women, I suspect, had 'unwritten' power that depended on their characters and the circumstances of their upbringing. Thinking of my own family background for e.g. I am a fairly confident, forthright person and have always perceived myself as equal to men - not in a competitive way, but in a 'we are all human beings' type of scenario. I think no small part of my attitude is due to the fact that my father was an only child brought up mainly by 2 strong women (his own father died young, leaving him in the charge of his mother - my gran - and her spinster sister). They in their turn had been born to a mother who ran her own business, and the family tree goes back to 1785, showing a preponderance of girls in the family and girls knowing their own minds. My mother is one of 2 sisters and her father also died young. Family support came from 5 maternal aunties. When my parents married, my mother immediately donned the trousers so to speak. Yes, she stayed at home to raise a family, but my father tipped over his wages to her and she gave HIM spending money. He might have the final say, but it was usually based on her opinion!

What I'm saying is that while women down the ages got a raw deal where legislation and rights were concerned and there was a hell of a lot of exploitation, there were also women who had the power of personality or upbringing to be able to hold their own or even dominate.

Again, we don't see these in the record unless they are of high status, but I am positive that they existed. Of course, given the wrong circumstances they could wind up wearing a scold's bridle

Susan

Posted by: Wendy Z 01 Mar - 02:42 pm

Susan - "I would suspect though, that life became more restrictive as the MA advanced."

The above statement seems to be quite true from what I have been able to delve into: without being intensely wordy, I'll share a very small bit of *the lot* I looked up.

Men did impart more distiction to the female gender in the Early Middle Ages. Women were justified to hold the legal rights to land and to trade or sell that land themselves. They were also allowed to stand up for themselves in a court of law and to bear witness upon others.

"She was in short, very much more independent than were women after the Norman Conquest."

Whitelock - '94

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 10 Mar - 10:26 am

So, though Katherine Parr may be considered a subject of the late medieval period (and the advancement of the English Renaissance), I believe she makes an attractive and fascinating subject of both debate/arguement <g> on the topic of Medieval Women.

Wendy Z

I was just wondering if people thought there was a huge difference in women of the later medieval period and the early Renaissance; especially in the classes of women?

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:18 am

What I'm saying is that while women down the ages got a raw deal where legislation and rights were concerned and there was a hell of a lot of exploitation, there were also women who had the power of personality or upbringing to be able to hold their own or even dominate.

Susan H

Better later than never - Medieval females faced inequity as laborers AND as humans which was purely centered on their gender. They were regarded as the assets and property of first their father's (or the eldest male {usually} in the household) and then their husbands. I can't say if they lived through personal humiliation, in spite of that, I think that human emotions (while they obviously evovle with the centuries) still reflect a quantity of what we feel today?

Wendy Z

Medieval Women's Rights - because we really want to sort them out

Posted by: Gillian Polack 28 Feb - 08:14 pm

Uitz says that women had more rights in the thirteenth century than later on. And I tend to agree with her (it just depends on what woman we are talking about - town women were less constricted in movement than many peasant women, for instance.

I love telling my students that the early 19th century had lower levels of women's rights than the twelfth century.

But this talk has got me thinking - what rights do we assume that women *should* have had. It is no use saying "Women had no voting rights" - because basically no-one had much of them. Right to inherit or to leave possessions to someone? Right to govern self? Right to full hearings during trials? Right not to be beaten or raped or otherwise abused? What else is there? And who (what regions) ahd what levels of rights? There are such *ranges* in Medieval women's lifestyles - everything from businesswomen through to nuns, from dominant potically to technically servile, and even the members of different religious groups had different rights and power. Jewish women could divcorce, for instance, Christian women could not.

And if we really want to have a fun argument we could talk about sexual rights and the development of notions of chastity .

Gillian

Posted by: Wendy Z 28 Feb - 09:09 pm

"What I'm saying is that while women down the ages got a raw deal where legislation and rights were concerned and there was a hell of a lot of exploitation, there were also women who had the power of personality or upbringing to be able to hold their own or even dominate."

(Susan's post in K. Parr & the working class)

Makes sense to me and if it wasn't so late I'd be banging the books looking for some examples!

Hopefully, we can expect some tomorrow.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 02 Mar - 06:44 am

Wendy: Power, what were 'their' rights, how few or how many did medieval women have? The sway of the nobility is obvious, (yet, still they were restricted by their gender and one has only to look at Queen Mary Tudor to see most of the possibility's of those restrictions, a good number of which she heartily believed in.)

I think the concept of rights is difficult to apply to medieval (and even later) women because it's so very rare to find women in historical works dealing with the development of rights. I can't even count the times in which I've read a statement that 'women didn't do this' and then found an obvious exception of a woman (or many!) who did something that 'women didn't do'. Whenever I read these sorts of conclusions now, I wonder how many exceptions were skipped over.

Susan: ...I could only answer it in the vaguest of terms and the 'rights' of women changed as the Middle Ages progressed. I would suspect though, that life became mopre restrictive as the MA advanced. However many women, I suspect, had 'unwritten' power that depended on their characters and the circumstances of their upbringing.

I think this 'unwritten' power is a very important consideration when looking at medieval women. Some had more than others, but nothing tells us how they got it. One of my favorite examples of this is Nicholaa de la Haye. She was the eldest daughter of a baron in 12th century England. She inherited her father's English estates and she kept them. Always. She defended Lincoln castle many times in her life, and she held the castle for John during the rebellion, even after the town of Lincoln itself had fallen. John made her the sheriff of Lincoln just before he died. A lady sheriff? Women didn't do that. But Nicholaa did. And she wasn't the only one.

Gillian: There are such *ranges* in Medieval women's lifestyles - everything from businesswomen through to nuns, from dominant potically to technically servile, and even the members of different religious groups had different rights and power. Jewish women could divcorce, for instance, Christian women could not.

Gillian mentions lifestyle ranges and that immediately brings to mind the many times I've seen statements about women only rarely being involved in business. Yet Jewish women engaged in business and paid tallages just as men did. And not only as widows or wives, but in their own right. According to Jacobs, around 10% of the tax paying Jews in the 12th century were women paying on their own behalf. To name just a few:

In the mid-1100s, Richard of Anesty fought for possession of the estates of his deceased uncle, William de Sackville, from William's daughter, Mabel de Francheville. Richard had to borrow to pay the costs of his suit. He recorded 21 loans from 8 different lenders, two of whom, Comitissa of Cambridge and Mirabella of Newport, were women. Nothing about these loans from women differentiated them from loans from men except for the names of the lenders. In other words, it wasn't strange; it wasn't an exception!

Richard I Pipe Roll 10 (1199) notes that Avigay the Jewess and other Jews of London owe £3,122 7s. 2d. This suggests that Avigay owed more, and had to pay more, than anyone else.

And then there was Licoricia of Winchester, whose clients included Simon de Montfort and Winchester Cathedral. Licoricia was a big-time financier. When Henry III was building Westminster Abbey he taxed the Jews to pay for it. Licoricia's contribution of over £2,500 represented nearly 1.5% of the total £170,000 collected. There is a lot more that could be said about Licoricia (e.g., she and her Christian maid were murdered), but I'll leave that for another time.

Tamara

Sexuality and the Church

Posted by: mnewton56 01 Mar - 09:45 am

Jumping from Wendy's comment about the begetting of heirs, and Gillian's about reproductive rights (I think)! We have all probably read of primitive contraceptive methods such as placing a vinegar-soaked sponge into the vagina prior to intercourse, and the use of abortifacient herbs to try to induce a miscarriage (can't think of names off the top of my head).

During the MA, life could be short as well as unpredictable and dangerous. I wonder how widespread any contraceptive measures may have been -- haven't researched the issue, but I have some thoughts.

For the nobility, marriages were often arranged in the cradle, although consummation was deferred in most cases until both parties were physically mature enough. In order to assure succession it seems that the couple would try to have quite a few children. With wet nurses to feed the children, the natural contraceptive effect of breastfeeding would not be available to space pregnancies at intervals to preserve the woman's health. We see one example of this with Mary de Bohun, first wife of Henry IV of England. Mary was also married to Henry at a young age, became pregnant very young (a case in which consummation was not delayed); her family then separated her from Henry until she was physically mature enough to bear a child more safely. When they were reunited, she had 5-6 children in swift succession, and died in her very early 20's worn out from childbearing (I did read this in a novel, so some facts may be shaky :-)).

Edward I's wife, Eleanor, had 10-12 or more children, a number of whom died in early childhood. Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV's consort, bore him 10 children, of whom 5 were dead before adulthood. Eleanor of Aquitaine bore Henry II at least 8 children over a twenty-year period in spite of frequent separations and the fact that she was already about 30 when they married; she had borne her first husband Louis of France, 2 daughters.

It wuld seem that for the nobility, numerous children were necessary and desirable, due to the risk of losing them. At the same time, each pregnancy posed a greater risk thatn women face today, due to the chance of infection. This would be especially true with difficult births, as there was no surgical option -- the combination of lack of knowledge and infection risk meant that any woman who underwent a Caesarean procedure would be dead in a short time.

For the lower orders of the social scale, it would seem more likely that some contraceptve measures would be used. More children meant not only more help in the fields, but more mouths to feed and more bodies to clothe. The need for the woman to rise from childbed to continue her normal duties would be such that she would probably not want to be incapacitated too often. However, these women were also more likely to benefit from the natural contraceptive effect of breastfeeding with its suppressio of ovulation. At the same time, the lactating woman needs better nutrition and sufficient rest.

On another list recently there was quite a discussion of how the Rh factor could have been related to pregnancy loss with Anne Boleyn. Of course the Rh factor was unknown until the 20th century. I am not sure that after 500 years we could ever find out the blood types of Anne and Henry VIII, to begin to see if this was a possible explanation. However, it seems logical that this factor could have affected reproduction in the MA just as it does today.

And what about cases where a woman bore one child and never delivered another (that we know about)? Anne Neville, wife of Richard III, and Margaret Beauort, mother to Henry VII, are two well-known cases. Although Margaret is known to have been of small stature, we don't know about Anne's build. A narrow pelvis, for example, wouldn't necessarily prevent pregnancy, but an injury to the uterus during a difficult delivery could have resulted in an incompetent cervix (where the woman would be unable to carry a pregnancy to term, because the cervix would open too early (often in the second trimester). This is my own pet theory about Anne.

Most of these thoughts involve the nobility/royalty because those are the ones with whom I have the most familiarity. I'd love to see the thoughts of others who really have more background in the period.

Best regards,
Mary

Posted by: Wendy Z 01 Mar - 02:51 pm

Fantastic topic, Mary!

Naturally the mind starts spinning, so I have a sort of theory/question (up for grabs!):

Due to the astounding trouncing a woman's body took because of numerous pregnancies, do you think women of the lower class *may* have ever denied their bodies on the ground of religious beliefs? My thought being since The Church loomed so largely in thier lives *would* they have some inspiration (overflowing with some natural intelligence <g>) by rejecting sex on the grounds they could be denying the 'evil spirits/demons' that were theoretically occupying their bodies?

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 01 Mar - 02:58 pm

In the previous post, Mary said:

'For the nobility, marriages were often arranged in the cradle, although consummation was deferred in most cases until both parties were physically mature enough. '

I have often thought that this is the reason why King John and Isobella of Angouleme didn't have children for approx the first 6 yrs of their marriage. She was only about 12yrs old when they married and given that in the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation was later than it is today, I think (although without concrete provenance) that John abstained from intercourse with Isobella until she was sufficiently mature for child-bearing.

Mary also said:

In order to assure succession it seems that the couple would try to have quite a few children. With wet nurses to feed the children, the natural contraceptive effect of breastfeeding would not be available to space pregnancies at intervals to preserve the woman's health.

The presence or non-presence of wet nurses is interesting. I have read that wet nurses were an integral part of a baronial household. However there is a popular tale of a highborn lady insisting that only her own milk was of a high enoughs standard (meaning morally and status wise) to feed her offspring. Catching a nurse feeding the baby, the mother made the child vomit back up the 'inferior' milk it had swallowed.

Even with the protection of breastfeeding, as the child moves onto a more varied diet, the protective hormone level (is it progesterone?) will drop and pregnancy becomes more likely.

Re Mary's interesting comments concerning contraception: We've recently been discussing contraception on another list. There were lots of remedies around, some that were actually efficacious and others that probably wouldn't do much good. But since many of these remedies are written down by learned men (and occasionally women) one wonders how far they were disseminated into the population as a whole.

Apparently putting vervain under your male partner's pillow was supposed to wilt his erection for seven days...so jolly useful for the fertile period Casanova was aware that half a lemon, inserted high in the vagina was a preventative. Sheep's wool or moss soaked in sour milk or vinegar was also thought to do the trick - and would indeed have killed off a lot of sperm. The plant called Queen Anne's Lace was a known contraceptive in the Medieval period. It contains progesterones which might have inhibited the implantation of a fertilised egg in the wall of the womb. Many remedies were written down 'to promote the menses.' As such they were taken in the early stages of pregnancy to effect an early termination. Tea made from tansy, for example, would bring on a miscarriage.

I would like to write more, particularly about the contradictory attitudes and perception of attitudes towards sex, but I'm afraid I've got to go. I'll try and come back to the subject later.

Best
Susan

Posted by: Gillian Polack 02 Mar - 06:51 am

Quite a few herbals have vague references to the equivalent of night after medications (they claim it is to bring on early menstruation). I have a list of herbs that were supposed to help with this. If anyone is interested, I can post them.

Gillian

Posted by: mnewton56 02 Mar - 11:21 am

Thanks, Wendy, Susan, and Gillian, for your replies to my post. Re: Wendy's question about lower-class women possibly denying sex due to instinct re: evil spirits related to pregnancy (If I understood you correctly :-)).

Although the church (Christian) was a strong and everpresent force in the lives of many people, I believe the upper classes probably had more access to actual teaching; learned more about their religious beliefs, and were more influenced by Church rules (being around more learned churchmen more often). The influence of the Church on the ordinary villager/peasant, may have been less, as they would have been more directly concerned with meeting their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Of course, the church believed in demons, but pregnancy being related to evil spirits -- I don't know about that.

As we know, sexual intercourse wa prohibited by the Christian Church on certain days of the week as well as during the woman's menstrual period and during pregnancy. While I question how widely this proscription was obeyed, the woman would have a basis for denying sex due to the risk to their souls. Of course, if she did, the man may have gone elsewhere for satisfaction (altho sex outside marriage was also sinful and we know that didn't stop a lot of people!)

I forgot to mention withdrawal as a contraceptive method. Susan's comment about the use of a lemon half in the vagina was interesting. The juice would have an acidifying effect, just as vinegar or buttermilk; while if the reference is to placing an inverted half of a rind up into the vagina, it could serve the purpose of a diaphragm (but seems rather uncomfortable for both parties).

Again, as I understand it, all contraceptive methods were considered sinful(among Christians) as blocking God's purpose of creating new life. But one may assume that as there is quite a bit of writing devoted to such methods which has come down to us, spacing pregnancies (at least) was important then to couples, as it is now.

Certainly the level of actual medical knowledge about reproduction was very low. Superstitious practices such as unbinding hair, opening doors, untying ribbons, etc., during a woman's labor to prevent the baby getting stuck, have no basis in effectiveness. Sexual intercourse was known to cause pregnancy, but fetal development was not understood too well.

Church rules limiting intercourse, if followed, would have provided a certain natural level of contraception, but whether these rules had any physiological basis is unknown to me. Some of the rules undoubtedly came down by way of ancient Jewish teachings, such as a woman's churching after a birth, and not allowing sex during the menstrual period.

Best,
Mary

Posted by: Wendy Z 02 Mar - 05:27 pm

Sorry Gillian, I was getting *techie* there. I'd love to see the list of herbs if you don't mind posting them.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 02 Mar - 06:26 pm

Although the church (Christian) was a strong and everpresent force in the lives of many people, I believe the upper classes probably had more access to actual teaching; learned more about their religious beliefs, and were more influenced by Church rules (being around more learned churchmen more often). The influence of the Church on the ordinary villager/peasant, may have been less, as they would have been more directly concerned with meeting their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Quote - Mary

The Church did loom large over the lower class of medieval women. From some of what I've been reading, I'm genuinely beginning to cement *these* opinions that the local clergy found this as a way to bolster their image and control.

We know the church was profoundly guarded when dealing with sexuality. It's already been mentioned that they forbided sex on certain days and during Lent, and even the enjoyment of sex was considered a sin (though I'm not positive if anyone has mentioned that w/o scrolling up and down <g>). Though it is cited often that mutual organisms would enhance procreation, making it the only desirable time for a woman to find pleasure without sin.

Notwithstanding, we still have to recall the enviromment, they lived in, 'dirt' shelters/huts (depending on what period of the MA), endured persistent illnesses (for the most part, exceptions noted), a pitiable pattern of eating and a harsh workload. None, of which (if you *really* <g> think about it) would increase 'anyone's 'sexual pleasure, putting aside the thought conception!

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 03 Mar - 03:39 am

OK Wendy, here is my list. It is not complete - it is the best -attested stuff, and even then peple didn't actually say directly that abortion is what they did - and if anyone wants to discuss how we get at and interpret stuff like this, I suggest my Writing Women Into History discussion is a nice place to talk about it <shameless plug>. It comes from early (pre 15th century) herbals. I have not tested any of these for the purpose described <g>. And let me start off on a virtuous note - if you want to promote chaste dreams and prevent any need for dire remdies, agnus castus (chaste tree) is the way to go.

And can I give another warning - there is a lot of popular and entirely unattested ideas floating around on Medieval sexuality. Most of the interesting stuff has yet to be proven! (well, except the really monkish or medical interesting stuff - we have evidence for what the priesthood thought their charges might get up to, and also a rather nice theory of mobile wombs).

Basil (possibly - I am not happy with the evidence)
Blackberry (used internally for menstruation - whether to induce or reduce, I am not certain)
Cabbage
Wild celery
Centaury
Elecampane (also useful for coughs <g>)
Ginger
Hellebore
Nasturtium
Pennyroyal
Queen Anne's Lace (as Susan has already pointed out - but what I wonder is if this ancestral carrot having such potential properties means that carrots also have interesting properties)
Rue
Sage
Tansy
Wormwood

In my government days working on these things I came across warnings for pregnant women for several of these herbs and spices. But I would really like to see a thorough examination of them all. Did they work separately or together? Did any of them not work at all? Are we misreading the texts and just *wanting* to see evidence of them used in this fashion?

So many questions..

Gillian

Posted by: Wendy Z 04 Mar - 07:21 am

Just found this (Lord, what AM I doing at this hour? <vbg>

(www.dfx.com/medieval_cult.html)

Days when a woman was forbidded to engage in sex:
When one's wife is menustrating, pregnant or nursing
During Lent, Advent, Whitsun Week, of Easter week
During Daylight (love that one!)
If you are naked....huh?
If you are in a church....seems reasonable
Unless you are trying to produce a child

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 07:43 am

There were more restrictions than that even Wendy. James Brundage lists them somewhere. He has basically drawn them from canon law - whihc just goes to show how far removed Medieval canon law can be from most people's dream lives.

And this is where I say very proudly I am Jewish. Cos Jewish women had much more sexual freedom than Christian women. Yes, we could even have sex naked. And on Wednesdays.

Gillian

Posted by: Wendy Z 04 Mar - 10:42 am

[Gillian Polack, 04 Mar 03 - 07:43 am] There were more restrictions than that even Wendy. James Brundage lists them somewhere. He has basically drawn them from canon law - whihc just goes to show how far removed Medieval canon law can be from most people's dream lives.

And this is where I say very proudly I am Jewish. Cos Jewish women had much more sexual freedom than Christian women. Yes, we could even have sex naked. And on Wednesdays.

Gillian

Naked, makes sense, (so kill me!) Now, we just happen to know where all the Jewish people were on Wednesdays.

(I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist ~lol~)

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 04 Mar - 05:03 pm

QUOTE

Wendy: If you are naked....huh?

So what's with all these drawings in illuminated manuscripts where couples are shown in the nuddy and just about to enjoy each other.

Or are they not considered 'naked' because they've (usually) still got their hats/wimples on?

Susan

Posted by: Susan 04 Mar - 05:29 pm

It occurs to me that side by side with the church's view of women and the entire vexatious matter of sex - from which the impression is often received that Medieval priests would like to ban it altogether - runs a powerful thread of joyous bawdiness (the notorious Millers, Reeves and Merchants Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer for e.g. or some of the troubadour literature) and the belief in calling a spade a spade. e.g. Today's Rue de Pelican in Paris was, in the Middle Ages Rue de Poile-Con or Cunt Trimming Street.

Alongside the saintly badges garnered from holy shrines, the Medieval pilgrim could also sport astonishingly graphic good luck tokens in lead and tin e.g. a brooch in the shape of an erect phallus on little legs with a bird pecking at the head? Or how about three of them carrying a vulva on an open litter? Or what about the brothel keeper who was fined before the ecclesiastical court in Essex charged with 'giving her clients to drink from a glass like unto a pintle and a pair of ballocks.'

The 11thC English midwife Trotula excelled at the medical school of Salerno and wrote one of the earliest surviving health manuals written by a woman. In it she gives detailed advice of how a woman should prepare herself to lie with someone. This includes washing the genitalia thoroughly. 'then let her take some powder in her mouth and chew, and rub her hands, chest and nipples; let her sprinkle rose water on her pubis genitals and face. Thus nicely made up, let her approach the man.'

So, despite all these church rules, I wonder how much was actually observed and how much was ignored...I don't know the answer, I just find it interesting that amid all the rules of 'You can't do this, that and the other' (especially the other <vbg>!) there should be this contrasting swamp of bawdiness.

Best
Susan

Posted by: Wendy Z 05 Mar - 08:47 am

The 11thC English midwife Trotula excelled at the medical school of Salerno and wrote one of the earliest surviving health manuals written by a woman - Susan

Didn't she also have men study under/with her which I'm assuming would be a rarity at that time?

Wendy Z

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 09:27 am

Susan mentioned that the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding (related to suppression of ovulation) goes down as the infant begins to eat a more varied diet and hormone levels in the mother's body change.

True. A mother who is exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months should be safe from pregnancy for that time, but at any time that reduced lactation allows the drop in progesterone enough to allow release of an egg, she can become pregnant even before the first menstrual period. So, it is true that as the child begins to eat a more varied diet, the ovulation-supressing effect is less and less. As Wendy mentioned, women were supposed to refrain from sex while breastfeeding anyway, so couples who wanted to space pregnancies, and obey the rule of the Church had a difficult time! Sexual needs are considered pretty high on the hierarchy of needs, after all.

Susan's comment about the highborn lady who wouldn't allow her child to be fed "inferior" milk by a wet nurse was interesting. I've also read that the wetnurse was standard in baronial houses, so one wonders if we can really speak with certainty on this issue, i.e., there may have been more variety in attitudes than we have realized.

I loved Susan's examples of the bawdy, sensual aspects of writing and teaching about sex which went alongside the strict religious rules and regulations!

In defense (maybe) of the Christian Church, in the Christian/Catholic tradition, worship has always involved the senses in enhancing the experience. In turn, this comes down from Jewish tradition with the use of incense, oils for anointing, even music and dancing. I'm not sure about Jewish beliefs regarding art (tho I know images of the Deity were/are forbidden) but from earliest times, Christians used art to again, involve the senses in their worship. From Byzantium to wall paintings in medieval England, to statues and magnificent buildings such as York Minster and the cathedral of Notre Dame, and stained glass windows, images were filled with symbolism for those who viewed them.

So I'd say that the body and its function as a temple for the Holy Spirit were celebrated. Sex was known as a mysterious part of life-creation, holy because it was created by God, which was at the same time highly pleasurable as it involved the senses. The power of sense experience was well-appreciated, which caused those in authority to feel it must be controlled. Attempts to control this powerful urge resulted in the many rules and regulations, some of which have been discussed. Self-discipline has always been highly valued by religious as well as secular authorities. And people, who could very well appreciate the enjoyment of sex but felt they had good reasons for avoiding the consequences, were in a dilemma just as we still see today, with fewer options available to them.

Best,
Mary

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 11:51 am

QUOTE (Wendy Z @ 02 Mar 03 - 06:26 pm)
The Church did loom large over the lower class of medieval women.  From some of what I've been reading, I'm genuinely beginning to cement *these* opinions that the local clergy found this as a way to bolster their image and control.

I agree that local clergy had a lot of influence on the lower classes, and were supposed (at least) to make sure the people obeyed Church law. But there were many instances in which the local clergy were nearly as illiterate and ignorant as their parishioners. Some could just get by saying the Mass in Latin and performing the sacraments. Many had only the barest amount of theological training. And of course, there were those, like Chaucer's clerk, who indulged in illicit sexual relationships despite vows of chastity. Of course, when pregnancy was the result, I'm sure the woman usually received the blame.

Some of the grassroots reformers (before Henry VIII in England) both those who tried to reform the Church from inside, and those who went outside, recognized the hypocrisy of these situations. They spoke up either for stricter attention to the celibacy rule (or for abolishing celibacy and promoting chastity within marriage).

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Strong Medieval Women

Posted by: pat 02 Mar - 07:15 am

Two medieval women whose lives have fascinated me for some time are Matilda, Queen of England, and Eleanor of Aquitaine, who eventually became Matilda's daughter-in-law. When Henry I's only legitimate male heir, Prince William, drowned in what later became known as the white ship disaster in 1120, the king took steps to assure Matilda's ascension to the throne by having his barons swear fealty to her. When Matilda's cousin, Stephen of Bloise, seized the throne upon Henry I's death, years of civil war ensued as Matilda fought long and hard to recover her throne. Although I have my doubts as to whether she could have ever been an effective ruler since men were extremely reluctant to accept a sole female monarch at that point in time, I have to admire her grit and determination to surmount obstacle after obstacle. And, when all of those efforts eventually failed where her own ambitions were concerned, she continued fighting to assure her son, Henry II's, ascension to the throne. Talk about one determined woman!

Henry II apparently used his mother as a measuring stick when he later married Eleanor of Aquitaine - another very strong and determined woman. Heiress of the rich duchy of Aquitaine and married at the age of 15 to Louis VII, King of France, her divorce from the French king to marry Henry eventually enabled her to add Queen of England to her other titles. Their marriage turned out to be a very stormy one and Eleanor, at one point, even led her sons in an effort to usurp her own husband from England's throne. Although she was unsuccessful in this endeavor and paid for it dearly by being imprisoned by her husband in various fortified buildings over the next fifteen years, her spirit remained strong. Upon Henry II's death in 1189, Eleanor's son, then Richard I, immediately freed his mother, who continued to be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come. While Richard's reign was mostly spent out of England fighting in the holy lands, Eleanor remained on the homefront continually defending his lands and throne and was very instrumental in negotiating his release and securing the ransom for same when he was captured on his way home from one fateful foray. This queen was, in my opinion, one of history's most effective politicians and, considering the times she lived in, her many successes in this regard are truly astounding.

Pat

Posted by: Wendy Z 02 Mar - 08:42 am

[QUOTE]Upon Henry II's death in 1189, Eleanor's son, then Richard I, immediately freed his mother, who continued to be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come. - Pat

Eleanor, without a doubt was a captivating, charismatic and commanding woman. Even before Henry's death she was skilled, in the most maddening way (maddening to men, of course), in her determination to live her life with as many elements of *Eleanor* (the individual) and not be overshadowed by her crowns. Though upon further thought the combination of her Queenships and her strong individuality, makes it most impossible to separate the two.)

During her marriage to Louise, the myths, (and reality) of Eleanor of Aquitaine were set in motion. During the Second Crusade, Eleanor offered hundreds and hundreds of her subjects.....along with herself, arriving in Vezelay fully outfited as an Amazon on a white steed (supposedly?) The Church, and one can only applaud (especially viewing this from the present day), her forward, wholly individual behavior, for it was her intent to depart with her first husband, taking her ladies (which numbered well into the hundreds) with her to *allegedly* care for the injured.

Even into her elder years she journeyed frequently and persistently. She created marriage mergers and administered to her own armies, whilst, managing her own estates.

My most adored and treasured account of Eleanor is her travels to the Pyrenees to gather her son Richard's wife, Berengaria of Navarre. Eleanor was approaching seventy when she undertook this journey; and it brings out nothing but admiration in me for her (even knowing at times she could be her own worst nightmare, still it is that *stock* that is so amazing!)

By far, glancing at her sons, one has to think, 'Would England not have been better left in this brilliant, stubborn, savy woman's hands?

Wendy Z

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 02 Mar - 10:09 am

To me, Eleanor and Matilda are once again, perfect examples of women who make me ask: How many exceptions does it take to invalidate common 'knowledge'?

Both of these women believed in their ability to rule. Why? Modern feminism didn't exist. They just did what they did and convinced enough people of their abilities that they were taken seriously. They had detractors and supporters, just as men did.

King Stephen was captured by Matilda's army, and Stephen's wife was with his army when they captured Matilda's brother Robert. Robert's wife and Stephen's wife made a deal and traded their hostages.

It's not as if there were millions of women in these particular circumstances, but only three. In this case, these three women were in a position to determine the outcome of major events. And they did. Why do we automatically think they were exceptions?

Tamara

Posted by: Susan 02 Mar - 02:57 pm

Tamara

Quote: To me, Eleanor and Matilda are once again, perfect examples of women who make me ask: How many exceptions does it take to invalidate common 'knowledge'?

I think 'common knowledge' is frequently wrong - after all, how many people 'know' that knights lumbered around on cart horses having been winched into their saddles? Or that Vikings had horns on their helmets?

Last year I came across Morphia of Melitene, 12thC queen of Jerusalem and mother of 3 daughters. When her husband, King Baldwin, was taken captive by a Muslim warlord and his uncle too (who commanded strategic territory in what is modern day Armenia), like Eleanor she had to govern a kingdom, see off its enemies and set about raising a ransom for her husband...a ransom that involved handing over her smallest daughter as a hostage for surety of payment.

Time and again, research and general reading illuminates such women in small puddles of spotlight. If more light was cast, I'm sure we'd see a crowded stage full!

Best
Susan

Posted by: felicity pulman 04 Mar - 12:52 am

Surely the difference between Matilda and Eleanor (as I understand it anyway) was that Matilda was married off by her father to a German Emperor first and subsequently to Geoffrey of Anjou - the latter marriage was certainly against her will; possibly the first was too. Eleanor might have been married off to Louis, but she seems to have had her own way in her marriage to Henry. Surely this is the first 'right' one should consider when looking at women in the middle ages - the right to marry for love rather than advancement? In which case the lower classes possibly had more rights and freedoms than high-born ladies?? Perhaps those highborn ladies, those strong women we think of, came into their power later on, with maturity, but also with a husband's/father's wealth and prestige to make a difference?

Felicity Pulman

Posted by: Wendy Z 04 Mar - 07:14 am

QUOTE (felicity pulman @ 04 Mar 03 - 12:52 am)
Surely the difference between Matilda and Eleanor (as I understand it anyway) was that Matilda was married off by her father to a German Emperor first and subsequently to Geoffrey of Anjou - the latter marriage was certainly against her will; possibly the first was too. Eleanor might have been married off to Louis, but she seems to have had her own way in her marriage to Henry. Surely this is the first 'right' one should consider when looking at women in the middle ages - the right to marry for love rather than advancement? In which case the lower classes possibly had more rights and freedoms than high-born ladies??  Perhaps those highborn ladies, those strong women we think of, came into their power later on, with maturity, but also with a husband's/father's wealth and prestige to make a difference?
Felicity Pulman

There are records/novels (?source) to show that Matilda wanted nothing to do with her second marriage to Geoffry de Anjou.� She was but a child when she married the Emperer - may well have been treated as such intially forming a bond between the two.

Certainly she had more *power* in her hands during her push for England's throne and eventually through her children.

But the basic point is the union of marriage was a combination of guidelines and traditions that were a consequents of the Papcy and Judaism. These formed to create a worldly wise influence that was carried over by the church of the MA.

When we discuss right's, I stumble over the same block (and Susan *has* mentioned the need for documentations). The preference to be married or not (and *not* to be so was in many area's a stigma and an easy road to a nunnery).

The social order of the times (including the lower class, but *I* have to believe the nobility in all their wealth had more say), seldom questioned these traditions, believing as they did that the church *knew it all*.

Wendy Z

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 09:48 am

QUOTE (felicity pulman @ 04 Mar 03 - 12:52 am)
In which case the lower classes possibly had more rights and freedoms than high-born ladies?? Perhaps those highborn ladies, those strong women we think of, came into their power later on, with maturity, but also with a husband's/father's wealth and prestige to make a difference? Felicity Pulman

Felicity suggests that highborn ladies may have had more say in their fate, and that women lower on the social scale may have had more freedom to marry for love.

Everything I have read suggests that marriage in the Middle Ages was all about improving the economic position of both parties. Of course, love could grow with familiarity, but I think that a potential partner who brought nothing to the table would have been sent away with short shrift, no matter the social class. Some people did defy their families and marry for love, but the majority of these were cut off from their families and had to leave their homes and make their own way as best they could.

The nobility was especially likely to consider the benefits of alliances with friendly/rival families for the control of land, influence at court, or appointment to powerful positions.

The only women I'm aware of who had much freedom in marriage were widows, who were allowed to choose their own husbands if they subsequently married again. Even then, they were generally careful to maintain or bolster their economic position with their choice of mate. Royal widows, such as Maude/Matilda probably had less freedom in this aspect -- her father was still the reigning king when he forced her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou. From the nobility down, widows could and did (often) choose their own mates.

Mary Newton

Posted by: Wendy Z 06 Mar - 02:13 pm

The only women I'm aware of who had much freedom in marriage were widows, who were allowed to choose their own husbands if they subsequently married again. Even then, they were generally careful to maintain or bolster their economic position with their choice of mate. Royal widows, such as Maude/Matilda probably had less freedom in this aspect -- her father was still the reigning king when he forced her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou. From the nobility down, widows could and did (often) choose their own mates.

Mary Newton

I *just* skimmed across this topic which suggested that a widow (and not one of the nobility) would be considered *suspect* of marrying again because of her *enhanced* sexual desires - that being the only reason the church could/did assume one of their ranking (not merchant either) would find the need for them to do so unless it was to procreate.

Wendy Z

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 04:33 pm

QUOTE (Wendy Z @ 06 Mar 03 - 02:13 pm)
I *just* skimmed across this topic which suggested that a widow (and not one of the nobility) would be considered *suspect* of marrying again because of her *enhanced* sexual desires - that being the only reason the church could/did assume one of their ranking (not merchant either) would find the need for them to do so unless it was to procreate.
Wendy Z

Wendy, if I understand you correctly, widows were suspected of having excessive sexual desire if they remarried for any reason but procreation. This would be in reference to a widow who was not a member of the nobility.

Is that the right interpretation?

If so, that is very interesting. So if a widow already had a child/children, or was past menopause, she would likely be prevented from marrying by the church.

I can't cite any medieval cases, but I thought it was fairly common for (at least) young widows to remarry. According to frances and Joseph Gies _Daily Life in Medieval Times_ (ah, finally a bit of research :-)), a woman could inherit her husband's property if it was not entailed. As well, the Gies' give a number of examples in which property was willed from female to female. So I'm not saying a woman would have to have a husband in order to keep her property, but it would seem to make it easier. The economic benefits; keeping a business going; having a man to do the heavy work such as plowing the fields -- those would seem good reasons for encouraging remarriage. OTOH, it was fairly common for older widows (who could afford the corrody) to retire to a nummery.

Posted by: Wendy Z 07 Mar - 12:09 am

Wendy, if I understand you correctly, widows were suspected of having excessive sexual desire if they remarried for any reason but procreation. This would be in reference to a widow who was not a member of the nobility.

Is that the right interpretation?

If so, that is very interesting. So if a widow already had a child/children, or was past menopause, she would likely be prevented from marrying by the church. - Mary Newton

The above paragraph is correct.

A widow was not prevented from remarrying (as I understood it) but it was frowned upon by the local clery for the reasons I'd already stated.

I'll add some references tomorrow.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 10 Mar - 02:21 pm

Interesting subject Mary and Wendy. I might have read somewhere in passing that widows were not expected to remarry due to moral issues as viewed by the church but I never made much of it. I think it probably did apply to women past child-bearing age. Most aristocratic women of pre-menopausal age were usually married off again if widowed. e.g. aforementioned Empress Matilda, Maude Walter (sister-in-law of Hubert Walter Archbishop of Canterbury) Matilda Countess of Huntingdon, Sybilla Talbot, lady of Ludlow.

In king John's period at least, aristocratic women who had been widowed and did not wish to remarry, could keep their widowhood, providing they paid a fine to do so.

Fulke FitzWarin III's mother, Hawise, paid a fine of 30 marks in the late 1190's in order that she did not have to take a 2nd husband after the death of her husband Fulke le Brun. 30 marks was a substantial sum to cough up, but obviously she thought it was worth it! Whether this was a standard fee or whether it fluctuated according to circumstance, I don't know.

Best
Samwise...oops, I mean Susan

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:06 am

It's not as if there were millions of women in these particular circumstances, but only three. In this case, these three women were in a position to determine the outcome of major events. And they did. Why do we automatically think they were exceptions? - Tamara Mazzei

Of course there were exceptions and I'll name a few, although they were all women of the nobility.

Melisende, princess of Jerusalem is one. She was her father's heir and married Fulk of France in 1129. Initially (it seems) Fulk seized control but for some deliciously scandalous <g> reasons she soon gained the dominating influence and authority....to the point that her 'husband' scarcely instigated even inconsequential or insignificant issues w/o first consulting her.

Secondly, there is Isabella of Castile, (one really need only mention her name to realize her many acomplisishments 'against' her gender.)

Lastly Catherine de Medici (late MA), who grabbed the political marriage arranged for her and proved throu the reigns of her sons - She was the authority behind the throne.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 12 Mar - 03:58 pm

QUOTE: Of course there were exceptions� and I'll name a few, although they were all women of the nobility. -Wendy Z

Wendy gives more examples of women who were 'exceptions' -- i.e., women who didn't fit the common stereotype of medieval women. These are excellent examples that make me ask, once again, how many exceptions does it take to invalidate a 'rule'?

As Wendy notes, these women were social elites, and that does make a difference. But even so, I think it is possible to fall into a trap and assume that their status somehow made these women different from other women. They may have been, but we *don't* know.

The idea that social class is a useful way to group medieval women is fraught with perils, in my opinion. How does one define 'nobility'? Does it only encompass the landholding class? The warrier class? Does it require liquid wealth? Does it include the daughter of a rich merchant who marries a knight? What about the daughter of a knight who marries a Duke? What about the illegitimate daughter of a Duke who marries...anyone?

The parents of William I (the Bastard/Conqueror) were Herleva/Arlette, the daughter of a tanner, and Robert Duke of Normandy. After the Duke's death, Arlette married one of his barons. She was the daughter of a merchant; the mistress of a duke; and the wife of a lord. How does one define her social class?

Just some thoughts.

~Tamara

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 04:09 pm

Just some thoughts.
~Tamara

But my brain is getting tired

Wendy Z aka T.D

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Womens' Work

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 08:46 pm

I am interested in taking up another piece of this thread. Just how big was the range of occupations open to women in the Middle Ages? And how far do we think it is small because tradition tells us it was?

This is not a new topic. Many of the key works on Medieval Women deal with it in some shape or form. David Herlihy and his successors have done some lovely stuff with the Paris tax records - we have known occupations for women in the late thirteenth century ranging from running an employment service to selling pastries. But Tamara's thought elsewhere on requestioning the evidence suddenly struck me - do even the new writers in the field go far enough in establishing what women do.

Women worked - but what did they work at?

Gillian

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 06 Mar - 12:15 am

Gillian asks:
Women worked - but what did they work at?

This is such a good question, but I'm not entirely sure it's ever been answered. If it has been, it certainly isn't easy to find out where! I am still looking for a work that uses statistical analysis to give a complete picture of life and that includes women. I mean one that includes more than a couple of annecdotes and lumps the rest into a big category or two.

Tamara

Posted by: Wendy Z 10 Mar - 10:18 am

Women worked - but what did they work at?
Gillian

Surfing through some information to *really* discuss the occupations of women in the MA, you'd have to divide them by status.

The lower class of women appeared to maintain such position's as shopkeepers, pastry-cooks/bakers and more often than not weavers. Women, much as they are today, were even more so then, compensated much less than men, forcing them to retain at the least two trades.

There is much debate vs. the working mother and the stay home - if we look back over the centuries we discover (probably?) there was *no* such thing as a 'stay at home mom.' Women worked in the above mentioned occupations and also plugged away in the fields with their spouses and children.(Does this mean they were actually holding down three jobs?)

The situation of the middle class woman was distinctly finer. These women were mainly owners of companies (as widows or by the convenience of marriage.) When their husbands were absent due to trade or war the dependability of managing the assembly and the fiscal bookkeeping and by and large keeping everything functioning was left for them to administer.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 20 Mar - 08:26 am

I thought I'd add a snippet I found from:

www.womeninworldhistory.com/heroinne3.html

'By the second Crusade, experienced men-at-arms, mostly noble, were sought, leaving property and wealth to be administered and protected by women. Women who governed in their husban's name engaged in legal transactions, directed the farming, collected monies in case of ransom and brought up the children. Important female royal regencies rose when the king was away on crusade. King Louise IX, took arms in hi 'holy war.' On his departure in 1247, Louise IX told his mother: 'I leave my 3 children for your wards. I leave this realm of France to you to govern it. Truly I know that they will be well gaurded and it well governed be.' Blanche managed to suppress rebellions, and actually extend the power of the French dynasty. In 1249 she completed the absorption of the midi into the French state and made advantageous alliances. As a result, the Kingdom of France more closely assumed the shape it has today.'

I think the above has some interesting implications?

Wendy Z

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Clergy & Conflicting Views

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:28 am

It occurs to me that side by side with the church's view of women and the entire vexatious matter of sex - from which the impression is often received that Medieval priests would like to ban it altogether - runs a powerful thread of joyous bawdiness (the notorious Millers, Reeves and Merchants Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer for e.g. or some of the troubadour literature) - Susan H

I seem to be rolling today! THIS is such a contrdictition (not yours - what the statement implies) - I think 'here' is where we as a list would lose it but <g> I think it's a worthwhile thread that I plan on jumping on!

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:34 am

Just a quote - (Lynda L. Coon)

"Within early eclesiastical writing by a male priesthood and a masculinized church, women are either repentant desert hermits, wealthy widows, or cloistered nuns."

Not sure how much of that I agree with it but it's up for debate.

Wendy Z

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Welcome

Posted by: Sophie Masson 23 Feb - 11:19 pm

Hello everyone, this is one of your discussion leaders, Sophie Masson, novelist, essayist and aficionado of the Arthurian legend!

Morgana le Fay is one of the most interesting charactes in the legend, and her portrait one of the most complex. We hope to start some good balls rolling both on her portrayal in traditional literature, and now.

Posted by: Wendy Z 28 Feb - 04:22 pm

I give my desires and dreams into your keeping.

By Air I create the seed.

By Fire, I warm it.

By Water, I nourish it.

By Earth, I cause it to grow.

From Spirit, I draw the power to make all things possible.

Join me in celebration of the Goddess.

(maiden ritual)

Intro - Marion Zimmer Bradely

Just wondering what you thought of Zimmer Bradely's impact on le Fay? (Not being overly well read on MLF myself?)

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 08:30 pm

Just how many faces does this lady have, anyway?

Whenever I teach things Arthurian I come across hugely different views of her from studtents. I can never be sure in advance which Morgana they think I am talking about.

I find it hard to discuss her, not knowing how many people I am takking about. Either that or I just like lists - so what Morganas do people know? And where do we know them from?

Gillian

Posted by: jodurand 05 Mar - 07:42 pm

Hi

I first met Morgaine in 'the Mists of Avalon' and loved her story. I love the stories written by MZ Bradley because of their focus on the female perspective of 'events'.

I have since found another book called 'The Queen's Captive' by Haydn Middleton, where Morgan is exiled to Avalon, and her son Mordred is washed up on the beach of Avalon. It is a completely different take on the character of Morgan from MZBradley's and is quite dark.

I find Morgaine's character powerful because of her influence and input into 'history'. I wasn't even aware until a few months ago that there was a whole discourse around her character and would love to know more.

Jo

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > welcome

Posted by: felicity pulman 01 Mar - 07:07 pm

Hi everyone,

I'm the other presenter of this forum, recently returned from Tasmania (sigh!) and now ready to put my two bob's worth into the discussion. Thanks, Sophie, for starting things off. Briefly, I've just spent quite a few years completing my Shalott trilogy for teenagers (published by Random House) in which five Australian teenagers are zapped back to the world of Camelot. I started out with the stereotypical Guinevere (bitch) and Morgan (evil sorceress) but became very fascinated with both of them in the course of writing the novels. I've explored Guinevere's character quite extensively in Return to Shalott, and both she and Morgan come into their own in the last novel titled Shalott: The Final Journey, to be published in July. I've come to see Morgan on two levels: as an otherworld goddess? priestess? shape-shifter and trickster, but also as a woman who doesn't know how to love or be loved, and who is driven by ambition - for herself, for Mordred and for the good of Camelot itself - at least, that's how I've argued her! So far as Marion Z-B is concerned, in my opinion she's just one of a larger 'sisterhood of writers' of the 20th-21st century who are now giving women more of a voice in the Arthurian texts. I'd welcome your comments!

Felicity Pulman

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Morgan Le Fay's Origins

Posted by: IanAshton 01 Mar - 11:43 pm

Hi, I just want to say, first of all, that I am really excited about this topic being on here and want to say thanks for mentioning it on Arthurnet!

Morgan Le Fay is a character who has fascinated many readers as well as myself, for a long time now for several reasons really. First, there is the enigma that her name, alone, carries with it, to those familiar with Arthuriana, for certain. There are so many different sides to her and a number of different sources giving her different origins. When reading on the character, I mean really reading in depth on her, one must ask themselves, 'Who really is Morgan Le Fay?' The earliest source found up to now using her actual name, Morgen, is in Geoffrey of Monmouths Vita Merlini, referring to her as the chief of nine sisters who inhabit the Isle of Apples(Avalon), where Merlin takes the wounded Arthur to be healed. There is no mention of Morgen and Arthurs kinship in this story. From there her character has shifted and changed in numerous ways, often gradually becoming more grim and malicious, from goddess to sorceress. It has been said that she was confused, at some point, with Arthurs sister Anna Morgause, Queen of the Orkney Isles, and original mother or Mordred, and from that point became his sister. In many later stories, that concept is used again where Morgan and Morgause are actually fused into one character and in many stories, they both exist. Many critical analysts and literary historians have suggested that Morgan was derived from one or two different Celtic goddesses. One deity mentioned is the triple-goddess, the Morrighan(phantom goddess of death) and the other one is the Mother goddess, Modron. Modron, in an early version of the story, Owein, is Oweins mother, the role also taken on later by Morgan.

As I mentioned above, there are so many different roles that Morgan Le Fay has taken on and a number of sources giving her different origins leaving the many readers of her wondering, who she really is. Perhaps its wishful thinking but I often hope that as time goes on and perhaps more discovery is made in reference to the actual existence of Arthur and his court that maybe, just maybe, something might possibley turn as evidence of the existence of the mystical Morgan Le Fay. So, here's to hoping!

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > How did we get here

Posted by: Gillian Polack 10 Mar - 05:12 am

I am starting this thread because two of us met in the chat room and started talking and found out we had come to the Arthurian corpus from entirely different directions.

The direction we meet the books from surely helps determine how we see Morgana?

I came from the twelfth century writtings, mainly, so for me is she is not a major figure (yes, I know, shame on me ). She appears differntly in different works and so I really don't have a fixed opinion.

Gillian

Posted by: jodurand 10 Mar - 05:48 am

Nice to meet you again Gillian!

As I mentioned elsewhere, I met Morgana ( or Morgaine) via 'The Mists of Avalon' by Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Felicity's post highlights the many aspects of Morgana's character, ie goddess/priestess, shape-shifter, trickster, unloved/able and ambitious. I think this is a good description because it is rounded, not single dimensional.

Ian Ashton notes that Morgan's character may even be a blend of a few different women. As is Arthur's character. This is a common theme with legends, isn't it?

I guess I come at the Arthurian legend from the magical perspective, and a story that weaves the magical/spiritual into what is essentially a story about the warring exploits of a few men of Britain, appeals to me alot. I want to read about what the women did in those times, what their influences might have been, what impact anything they did had on the turns of events. In fact, any re-writing of history from a female perspective (herstory) appeals to me.

How has she become such a major figure since the writings that you talk of Gillian?

Regards,
Jo

Posted by: felicity pulman 10 Mar - 09:51 pm

Hi Gillian and Jo,

I think your comments get to the nub of what's going on with recent (re)writings of Arthurian legend. In the past, the legend was predominantly a guy thing told by guys, with no real attempt to understand or explore the central female characters - this is particularly true of the 'English' strand where Guinevere, Morgan et al are fairly stereotyped and one-dimensional. (G being either a conniving bitch or at best, hysterical and inconsistent, and M being an evil-minded sorceress.) Now, with feminism and with a growth in women writers telling the story, the emphasis has shifted so that, more and more, we're getting a new insight into the important female characters in the legend - often contradictory, I grant you, but that's half the fun. At least authors are trying now to get into the hearts of these characters, to find out what makes them act the way they do. Which makes for a much more interesting read, yes? Felicity. PS I don't know if this message is going to make sense; I was trying to attach a smiley face but it's all gone crook. I HATE technology!

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 12 Mar - 04:28 pm

The popularity of Morgana, and really all things Arthurian, never ceases to amaze me. The trends on the emphasis of certain characters as well as the way they are presented is just fascinating.

If the number of manuscripts submitted to my publishing company is anything to go by, Arthurian fiction is more popular than ever, though they definitely show a pattern of focussing on the 'historical' Arthur (or what passes for him).

I wonder if the modern characterisations of Morgana as a powerful sorceress reflect a growing recognition, at least on the part of women, that traditionally female domains can rival those of men? I also wonder if this vision of Morgana is in a downcycle for the moment. Thoughts, anyone?

~Tamara

Posted by: tracychaloner 16 Mar - 07:35 am

Count me in as an 'Arthurian' as well! Interesting that this is such a common theme.

Jo wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I met Morgana ( or Morgaine) via 'The Mists of Avalon' by Marion Zimmer Bradley.

I am a MZB afficionado as well as having come to the Arthurian legends via Malory when I was a teen.

I loved the romanticism of the stories as a teen, and MZB gave the romanticism an empowering feminist quality that appealed to me as an adult.

I particularly identified with the concept of 'wise women' and elders, of a feminist tradition of herbal lore and environmental 'oneness', and of a liberal but socially cohesive society that really hung together pretty well.

Was MZB an ecofeminist perhaps?

all the best
Tracy

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Fay Sampson's Morgana

Posted by: bbeatie 18 Mar - 06:00 pm

Most of the posts I read, after having been directed to this site by the Arthurnet, seem to refer to Marion Zimmer Bradley's Morgana. Does anyone know Fay Sampson's? Here are the data from my bibliography.

Sampson, Fay. Daughter of Tintagel. Comprising Wise Woman's Telling, White Nun's Telling, Black Smith's Telling, Taliesin's Telling, Herself. London: Headline Books, 1992. The five sections were originally published separately by Headline in 1989-1992.

I occasionally teach a course called "Guinevere's Sisters"--a look at the Arthurian legend, medieval and modern, from the double perspective of the female figures in the legend AND the (esp. 20th century) female contributors to the legend. After having come across Fay Sampson's book, I wanted badly to use it as the core text for my course--and it was already out of print and unavailable.

Posted by: Gillian Polack 18 Mar - 07:19 pm

I have the same trouble with teaching some of the more interesting texts - they are often out of print!!

I know the Sampson - it is quite different from MZB. I am interested that it has never developed that cult status - the level of argument that MZB can produce just does not occur in my experience.

Gillian

WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Ethics and the social - feminist opportunities.

Posted by: evacox 28 Feb - 06:27 pm

We need some more feminist dreamings, some ways of framing futures which give us the optimism to make the worls better. Even if we do not know what the future holds, we need to be able to make a difference and take some control over what is happening. So I want to discuss ways in which we can use some of the current debates on ethics, social cohesion and responsibility to develop our own images and strategies for better feminist futures.

In an uncertain world, there are risks that we could lose much of what we gained. When people are frightened, they become defensive, self interested and inward looking. We need to look at how to develop hope, trust and the other social characteristics that make it possible for us to offer feminist based leadership in ideas and practice.

The mid century years were times of optimism and some convictions that we knew the answers, or could work out how to make utopia work. Progress was good and the future better than the past. It was the sense of being able to change things for the better that made us politically and socially active. By the last couple of decades, the passions were waning and neo liberal economics had take over. Future progress was now often a threat and many dreams had become nightmares. By the end of nineties, the ideas of the social were back on the agenda as the economic lost its dominance.

How do we take on these new possibilities? Can we use debates on ethics and social responsibility to promote fairer societies, workplaces and communities? Can we stop complaining about what is wrong and start putting together some alternatives? the ones on offer are scary and there seem to few alternatives.

where to from here?

Ideas and comments!

eva

Posted by: jodurand 10 Mar - 06:12 am

Wow Eva, where does one start?

One idea I have (although by no means origianal!) is that we continue documenting our achievements and spreading them around. It is amazing how inspiring other women's stories are, especially when you are floundering. The intertnet and email are surely useful tools for this.

The www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au website and email list is a great example of sharing stories and questions and is well used by people all over NSW.

Also documenting where things went wrong (I know its embarrassing and disheartening - but so is reading of other peoples successes and not getting any yourself!!).

Have you looked much into Ecofeminism? It provides a holistic social, political and ecological analysis and framework for visioning the future, and draws in all aspects of the feminisms to date.

Jo

WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Making Feminist Futures. Using Debates on Ethics for New Ideas

Posted by: evacox 28 Feb - 07:15 pm

We need some more feminist dreamings, some ways of framing futures which give us the optimism to make the worls better. Even if we do not know what the future holds, we need to be able to make a difference and take some control over what is happening. So I want to discuss ways in which we can use some of the current debates on ethics, social cohesion and responsibility to develop our own images and strategies for better feminist futures.

In an uncertain world, there are risks that we could lose much of what we gained. When people are frightened, they become defensive, self interested and inward looking. We need to look at how to develop hope, trust and the other social characteristics that make it possible for us to offer feminist based leadership in ideas and practice.

The mid century years were times of optimism and some convictions that we knew the answers, or could work out how to make utopia work. Progress was good and the future better than the past. It was the sense of being able to change things for the better that made us politically and socially active. By the last couple of decades, the passions were waning and neo liberal economics had take over. Future progress was now often a threat and many dreams had become nightmares. By the end of nineties, the ideas of the social were back on the agenda as the economic lost its dominance.

How do we take on these new possibilities? Can we use debates on ethics and social responsibility to promote fairer societies, workplaces and communities? Can we stop complaining about what is wrong and start putting together some alternatives? the ones on offer are scary and there seem to few alternatives.

where to from here?

Ideas and comments!

eva

Posted by: tracychaloner 10 Mar - 07:49 am

Sorry, this is long...

I think that the lack of response on this topic is indicative of a pervasive despair that is threatening to jeopardise a feminist vision for the future.

I am unashamedly a 'liberationist' and idealist. I try to live my life through the guidance of Eleanor Roosevelt's words, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" and to emulate her strength and courage as a civil rights activist. "Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway" is another of her sayings that I am very fond of.

If we have no future vision, no dreams, then despair sets in. I believe that this is one of the many reasons why much of the feminist debate is in the process of stalling. Correct me if you feel that I am isolated in my thinking, but this has been my experience to date, within my circle of friends, political activism and study. The fact that no-one has engaged in this particular debate tha