Discussion: Post-1000 AD, how rapidly could gender equality be achieved in Western Europe?

[Drunkrobot]

I define Western Europe as the modern boundaries of the British Isles, the Benelux area, France and the Iberian Peninsula.

With PoDs starting no earlier than the Year 1000, could the status of women in regards to the franchise, property rights, employability etc. be fast-tracked towards equality with men? I think most people would place the later 20th Century as generally being the time when women achieved equality, at least on legalistic terms, but cold the period have occurred earlier, I'm the earlier 20th Century or even the centuries before it?

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

As soon as enough women prove their worth, and probably only if the church agrees to it.

- BNC

 

[LSCatilina]

Women in medieval era were certainly freer than they were up to the late XIXth century, with their social and economical conditions declining after the XVIth.
While they were not really equal to men on several grounds, it's more a case by case approach : women could inherit property (including nobiliar property), could work (obviously so in rural areas, but some urban jobs as beer-making were definitely considered as feminine; but as well in "gender-neutral" jobs as textile), and generally weren't the eternal minors that XIXth century made them be (up to the absence of proper money or social voice).

A woman as Alienor of Aquitaine, not only having its own political autonomy, but being involved deeply into politics (rather than just briging its title to her husband); or a woman as Alienor of Provence as "Lord Chancellor", while relatively accepted in the XIIIth, would have been nothing short of unthinkable in the XVIIIth and most of these women were vilified as scheming harpies, or considered as submissive matrons. Heck, would it be participating to military expedition alone would seem absurd : and yet it did happened.

They didn't to "have to proove their wroth", they did it either on everyday lives, or on grand political roles.

Again, it doesn't mean at the latest it was an era of gender harmony, but it was far from the corner women were put in after the XVth.

So what happened? It's hard to point one factor, but it's rather a mix of Roman Law being anew the legal norm or main inspiration (and Roman Law was hugely misogynistic), the re-evangelization of the XIVth century (after the crisis and the plague) that really caricatured women either as saints or as demons; the decline of coporations into narrow groups (basically excluding women); the religious turmoil of the XV/XVIth centuries and the holier-than-thou competition (at the point wtiches trials, that were especially frowned upon by the Church classically, became more common), the rise of universities as clerical (and then mostly male) cultural centers (and especially their fossilisation by the late Middle Ages while Italy is an interesting oddity), etc.

Basically : the reinforcement of medieval states along a legalist bureaucraty based on Roman Law from religious reaction by the XIVth/XVth, and general crisis of the medieval world.
I'm not sure how much it would have been preventable to happen at some point, but it could have been more limited (absence of Justinian Law, for instance) and allowing a more smooth transition (or even stagnation) before a revival of woman's rights.

 

[Londinium]

I think if more major kingdoms and realms had only heiresses become the sole ruler (and the majority of heiresses were as formidable as Eleanor of Aquataine) that would helped. Of course, in addition to being formidable anomalies, these heiresses would have ALSO themselves have encouraged other capable women's participation in governmental matters (even Elizabeth I did NOT do this but seemed to prefer being sole queen bee ordering adoring male drones about but keeping other women relegated to being ladies-in-waiting or glorified servants).

Perhaps, too, have mother superiors of convent orders start participating in clerical matters alongside male bishops, etc. that could have also helped.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Women in medieval era were certainly freer than they were up to the late XIXth century, with their social and economical conditions declining after the XVIth.
While they were not really equal to men on several grounds, it's more a case by case approach : women could inherit property (including nobiliar property), could work (obviously so in rural areas, but some urban jobs as beer-making were definitely considered as feminine; but as well in "gender-neutral" jobs as textile), and generally weren't the eternal minors that XIXth century made them be (up to the absence of proper money or social voice).

A woman as Alienor of Aquitaine, not only having its own political autonomy, but being involved deeply into politics (rather than just briging its title to her husband); or a woman as Alienor of Provence as "Lord Chancellor", while relatively accepted in the XIIIth, would have been nothing short of unthinkable in the XVIIIth and most of these women were vilified as scheming harpies, or considered as submissive matrons. Heck, would it be participating to military expedition alone would seem absurd : and yet it did happened.

They didn't to "have to proove their wroth", they did it either on everyday lives, or on grand political roles.

Again, it doesn't mean at the latest it was an era of gender harmony, but it was far from the corner women were put in after the XVth.

So what happened? It's hard to point one factor, but it's rather a mix of Roman Law being anew the legal norm or main inspiration (and Roman Law was hugely misogynistic), the re-evangelization of the XIVth century (after the crisis and the plague) that really caricatured women either as saints or as demons; the decline of coporations into narrow groups (basically excluding women); the religious turmoil of the XV/XVIth centuries and the holier-than-thou competition (at the point wtiches trials, that were especially frowned upon by the Church classically, became more common), the rise of universities as clerical (and then mostly male) cultural centers (and especially their fossilisation by the late Middle Ages while Italy is an interesting oddity), etc.

Basically : the reinforcement of medieval states along a legalist bureaucraty based on Roman Law from religious reaction by the XIVth/XVth, and general crisis of the medieval world.
I'm not sure how much it would have been preventable to happen at some point, but it could have been more limited (absence of Justinian Law, for instance) and allowing a more smooth transition (or even stagnation) before a revival of woman's rights.

Going by this seems to conclude that part of the reason behind the reversal of views on women was that the pillars of power in many European kingdoms went from the feudal nobility (which by the randomness of birth could mean titles and land regularly falling to women) to institutions controlled more directly by the monarch (where positions were filled in a case-by-case basis, and the more favorable existing privilege of men i.e. more often heads of households, given more leeway of working in commerce or war etc. meant that they could systemically keep women out of vacant positions and turn them into Old Boy's Clubs). In England, this period of centralisation of the state happened predominantly during the Tudor Period, dominated by Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I (who as Londinium said liked being Queen Bee). A Queen with a long rein at the right time might be able to set a more equal precedent.

 

[LSCatilina]

Going by this seems to conclude that part of the reason behind the reversal of views on women was that the pillars of power in many European kingdoms went from the feudal nobility to institutions controlled more directly by the monarch

Partially so indeed, even if women could efficiently rule late medieval and Renaissance realms : Isabelle of Castille, Catherine de Medicis, Elisabeth I are fine exemples on perfectly able and skilled queens (that had a bad rap, especially on Catherine de Medicis, not always for really fair reasons and because it was already going down at this point).

With the french exemple, we could see how Catherine de Medicis de facto's rule maintained the centralization effort (at the price of moral decision) that existed in France but contrary to what happened with Elisabeth I, it was done in a serious religious/political turmoil but nevertheless paved the way (along with Henri III's policies) for Bourbon's successes (which admittedly had everything to win blaming her).

Eventually the transition period lasted from (very roughly) the XIIIth to the XVIth (at least for France, taking in account the last time a Queen of France was indeed crowned, and with serious contempt with that), and concerned more than politics : where did the Italian women students and teachers in Italian universities went? Why views on women's bodies became much more suspicious (and partially lead to the disappearance of medieval public baths)? That's not really to do with politics directly, but part of a larger decline of feminine condition.

Even with more accepted feminine rulers in late medieval Europe, I'm not sure that alone would be nearly as enough to, I not say reverse, but at least make this decline stop : there is a cunjonction of political, religious and legal factors there (as well as regional : some places were more accepting of feminine rule or social role than others).

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Related thought -- there's something of a historical debate as to whether the Industrial Revolution represented an advancement or regression for women; I, for one, am firmly in the camp that says the socio-economic transformation was empowering.

I am also firmly of the school that in order to have the Industrial Revolution, you first had to have what could be called "the Capitalist Revolution", which created the growing consumer demand for manufactured goods, making advances in "mechanization" cost effective.

Now I'm not in a position to argue with @LSCatilina on whether there was a regression away from feminism in the late medieval / early modern period. But if there was, I would say moving up these Revolutions, without accelerating male privilege, would be you're challenge here.

 

[LSCatilina]

I'm not too sure about the impact of classical and late medieval mechanisations on women's work (altough I must admit this is quite an interesting question), but it seems that it didn't, indeed, prevented them to work in textile production (for exemple). What really made them interesting as workers was they were certainly less payed and less considered as for an equal job (altough you did have women's guilds), in an environment where salaries rised up since the end of XIIIth century.

It's really with the XVIth century that women were cast off from main work on commercial or productive entreprises (it did began earlier, tough), because of the facilities given by law to do so as for crushing inner and outer concurence, up to Adrian Beier's jurisprudence casting off women as suppletive taskforce in the XVIIth.

I'd tend to think then, that while mechanisation can empower women socially, it's not that tied diretly : hell, the mechanisation of XVIIIth and XIXth was made in a civil environment where women were actually deprived of even more legal rights (see Napoleonic Code) and made eternal minors. I agree, however, that it can be a strong support for what you describe.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I'd tend to think then, that while mechanisation can empower women socially, it's not that tied diretly : hell, the mechanisation of XVIIIth and XIXth was made in a civil environment where women were actually deprived of even more legal rights (see Napoleonic Code) and made eternal minors. I agree, however, that it can be a strong support for what you describe.

AIUI, the rights the Napoleonic Code rolled back were themselves pretty recent, the result of the French Revolution. Anyway, I'm more familiar with the U.S. context myself.

 

[LSCatilina]

At this point tough, most of what concern women in the NC was either already a thing legally, or at least jurisprudentially. It "only" formalized it, which admittedly made it harder to root out of. But even by the pre-Revolutionary situation, women's rights were already mainly off.

Not that it prevented women to play an independent economical role (most of NC laws weren't, because they couldn't, fully applied in popular classes), but it was more or less para-legal and often under supervision of men anyway : for exemple, as women were not to borrow money over 5 livres in Ancien Régime France, it was often overrided by women sub-loaning money for financials.

 

[Drunkrobot]

I've heard the increasing use of coal in households following the onset of the Industrial Revolution in Britain might've contributed to a rollback of female emancipation. Where houses used to use wood for heat, they now used coal, which left coaldust on everything, throughout the house and on clothing. Keeping laundry and furniture clean became a much more intensive shore, and with both husband and wife put out of artisan work by the new factories, it became the pattern for men to work in factories and women to work in the house (many women obviously working in factories as well). It wouldn't be until electrification and the advent of household appliances when the required (wo)manhours to keep the household went down, freeing time for women to work for wages en-mass.

 

[jefferypendragon]

Full equality isn't possible until birth control.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

<snip>

Ah, then the rollback predates the Code and the Revolution. (I would also argue the civil emancipation of the FR had a plausible chance of lasting, but that's getting off topic.)

Full equality isn't possible until birth control.

BC has existed in one form or another since human civilization began, albeit with far less effectiveness then compared to now. Developments of said effectiveness comes in part from advances in medicine, and so are tied to the Scientific WaAnd Industrial Revolutions, and in part from existing social movements (women's movement births the BC movement, and it's the BC movement that births better BC).

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I think the best way would be to have some capable Queen-Regents who manage to start filling the corridors of power, and combine it with circumstances that make HER preferable to HIM.

Maria Theresa is a perfect example in Austria - the Pragmatic Sanction. Perhaps take that and do something like that for Aquitaine, or England.

Joan of Arc surviving the 100 years war and the monarch dying could lead to her being declared a form of Monarch, with enough victories under her belt. Bring in a few pious women in as generals in her own image, and women could change France entirely.

Or flip the 100 years war result - have the British win, perhaps switching the artillery dynamic in Orleans so that the English have more firepower than the city. This then leads to the Dauphaine being taken out. If this is followed by an unfortunate dynastic circumstance where to keep France and England united, they have to have a daughter - Boom, English and French law gets changed right quick by a strong monarch fearing his demise. (And avoiding an alt-Henry VIII).

 

[LSCatilina]

I've heard...

It seems...unlikely, or at least I'm under the impression it's mixed with folk history
I could count some places where, in Middle-Ages, coal was used for heating; but that's a bit irrelevant : the main point is that I'm dubious with coal being that systematically widespread and used in the XVIIIth or early XIXth century that it could roll-off an entiere society when it comes to gender.
That's certainly not the case for most of continental Europe, where wood, scrape of coals, turf were more or less mixed (when all were present, of course) and didn't have that distinct stoves (to say nothing on most common hearths). Widespread coal-heating mostly get widespread in cities by the late XIXth IIRC.

I'm more hesitating when it comes to England specifically, tough (would it be only because I'm not sure at all if coal-heating couldn't have been more pervasive in rural England; when it wasn't that much on the continent) : is there reccomandable articles or books on this topic?

Ah, then the rollback predates the Code and the Revolution. (I would also argue the civil emancipation of the FR had a plausible chance of lasting, but that's getting off topic.)

Certainly : by the XVIIIth most of what medieval women could enjoy as rights became either privilege or more often para-legal uses, and even that was diminished later.

 

[jefferypendragon]

Ah, then the rollback predates the Code and the Revolution. (I would also argue the civil emancipation of the FR had a plausible chance of lasting, but that's getting off topic.)

BC has existed in one form or another since human civilization began, albeit with far less effectiveness then compared to now. Developments of said effectiveness comes in part from advances in medicine, and so are tied to the Scientific WaAnd Industrial Revolutions, and in part from existing social movements (women's movement births the BC movement, and it's the BC movement that births better BC).

Of course BC is tied to advancement in science and medicine, that was kind of my point. And by birth control I ment a safe, reliable and highly efficient birth control, basically tied into women being in control of their fertility (atleast mostly) instead of nature.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So it seems like what we need is, without delaying or averting (and possibly even moving up) the Capitalist Revolution of the 17th and 18th (and arguably 16th) Centuries, how can the rollbacks against the economic, social, and civil rights of women in the 16th and 17th Century be prevented?

As it happens, I've got a couple of threads currently discussing focusing on the economics of this period, so maybe they're relevant?

Of course BC is tied to advancement in science and medicine, that was kind of my point. And by birth control I ment a safe, reliable and highly efficient birth control, basically tied into women being in control of their fertility (atleast mostly) instead of nature.

It's also tied to demand and to already existing social movements demanding greater autonomy for women.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think the best way would be to have some capable Queen-Regents who manage to start filling the corridors of power, and combine it with circumstances that make HER preferable to HIM.

I litterally can't name all women having positions of powers, being regents or rulers of their own, in all the Middle-Ages. Listing the most famous exemples alone would take too much time.

So, let's remember that, again, women didn't have to proove their worth to men, because they did it on a regular base. What changed is that having women in charge became less and less tolerable by the XVIth century for a political society bred on Roman Law. Almost every woman searching a position of power got an immediate reputation as scheming monsters; and women that did before either conveniently forgotten or described as bad exemple.

Joan of Arc surviving the 100 years war and the monarch dying could lead to her being declared a form of Monarch, with enough victories under her belt. Bring in a few pious women in as generals in her own image, and women could change France entirely.

It's not really going to happen, altough for much different reasons than sexism.
1) Charles VIII already had children at this point.
2) Joan of Arc didn't led victories herself, and while she had commending skills, most of victories in the 1430's were engineered by other peoples, Joan leading as a banner (on both definitions of the word)
3) Joan being of low nobility, even disregarding 1 and 2, there's no way in Hell or Heaven that she would have been chosen and accepted.

And that's only the top of it. It could make a nice ASB TL, but nowhere close to happening otherwise.

Or flip the 100 years war result - have the British win

HYW was basically unwinnable for England if the goal is to swallow up France.

At worst, it would have turned into a war of attrition, and while France had really divided periods up to civil war, it beneficied from quite ressources (demographic, economics, military, etc.) that England did catched up but with a Parliment not too enthuiast about it.
There's a reason why the war lasted decades, or why Plantagenets preferred to make truces and peace of compromise as Brétigny as more realistic objectives while they clearly had the upper hand, over taking over the french crown with dubious rights.

Even if, by sheer luck, Double Kingship manages to be a thing, having Queen ruling it would certainly never influences history that much : again, you had countless Queen and regents ruling with particularily sharp political skills in both France and England historically, and it did peanuts to ensure a slighly less obvious gender pressure on women after the XVIth.

 

[desmirelle]

Didn't women have most of these rights in Roman times?

 

[LSCatilina]

how can the rollbacks against the economic, social, and civil rights of women in the 16th and 17th Century be prevented?

I think it would pretty hard to really butterfly these, eventually, not without a quite early PoD that would make these centuries barely recognizable. No Justinian law or at least a Justinian law so broken that written customs may prevent some unfortunate consequences on woman's right.

But eventually the big problem is that the raising bureaucracies (and consequentially, political culture) had as obvious model of state that was the Roman Empire and Roman Law. While it represented a clear political, social and legal progress when it came to formation of bureaucratized and unified states, it really wasn't for feminine condition.
Unfortunatly, there was no real way to separate this aspect from the others, especially not with the Renaissance mindset.

The clerical part could be more easy to tweak, but that may require a Late Roman PoD (with a butterfly effect playing much) : historically, institutional Christianity made Western societies a bit more aware about women and girls (girl infanticide in Rome is downright creepy) and stressing on consent when it came to relationship. However it definitely closed a door when women were deprived of full clerical rights.
It was a bit tinkered with, and we do have exemple of abbesses on dual monasteries having authority over men. It remains rare, and women having a too important religious status as Béguines were seen with caution.

Having women taking a greater role in clerical structures would certainly help as, contrary to secular life, they weren't that present in clear dominant position in what was a central social/political institution.