WI: Female Jesus

The issue is that a female Jesus would completely flip the path of the historical Jesus. Jesus IOTL was a figure in the inside of the social system helping those left on the outside of the social system. Female Jesus (Shesus?) would be an outsider trying to move in. In the end, just by the nature of the times, Shesus would more or less be forgotten as some random mystery cult leader within Judaism.
 
Considering how a lot of cultures already had powerful feminine figures, this just reduces the anti-women trends exhibited by many "western" states since that era. It also means a further departure from Judaism- which is not based around a woman.
 
His claim to divinity is undermined neigh immediately since spontaneous births are possible if the end result is a girl (medical science for the lose?). Beyond that, Jesus is Jesus is Jesus.
 
His claim to divinity is undermined neigh immediately since spontaneous births are possible if the end result is a girl (medical science for the lose?). Beyond that, Jesus is Jesus is Jesus.
Im pretty sure human spontaneous pregnancy is impossible, regardless of the gender of the child.

It seems like there are two separate questions here. WI the biblical account stayed the same but with a Shesus. OR, WI Jesus was born female. Boarding on ASB in the first case, and obscurity is likely in the second.
 
I suppose a more interesting response on my part would be to ask the question: How can we get a female Jesus to lead the life of biblical Jesus. And, accepting that we can't recreate it perfectly, what are the likely changes/compromises and their impact.

I'd start by trying to identify positive female characters from the Torah as a role model. Im running up against my own ignorance here, but the only one I can think of is the Queen of Sheba. Starting off as a powerful political figure would undermine the whole champion of the downtrodden angle, but i'm not sure how else to make Shesus be taken seriously. Maybe a powerful patron among the local priesthood? But any Rabbi that supported her would likely lose influence quickly. Roman support would undermine her credibility. Im not sure if the Parthians would bother, and it probably wouldn't help anyways.

On the plus side, assuming we can get the whole temptation/betrayal/crucifixion/resurrection story to be canon, it breaks the streak of women always succumbing to temptation depicted elsewhere in the Torah. (Eve, et al.)

A side note, I have an unfounded gut reaction that the people of the time would be too sexist to accept a 'daughter of god', so I suspect the title 'child of god' may be more common. If this wild guess is true, that could have a lot of implications.
 
I suppose a more interesting response on my part would be to ask the question: How can we get a female Jesus to lead the life of biblical Jesus. And, accepting that we can't recreate it perfectly, what are the likely changes/compromises and their impact.


On the plus side, assuming we can get the whole temptation/betrayal/crucifixion/resurrection story to be canon, it breaks the streak of women always succumbing to temptation depicted elsewhere in the Torah. (Eve, et al.)

A side note, I have an unfounded gut reaction that the people of the time would be too sexist to accept a 'daughter of god', so I suspect the title 'child of god' may be more common. If this wild guess is true, that could have a lot of implications.
If anybody like Peter still gets his paws on the thing, whoever was Shesus' Magdalene would probably be shown as the leading inspiration for the whole thing and the one true inspiration for what Shesus, dumbfounded by her female nature, would not have been able to accomplish.

On the other hand, if it gets some momentum, it could get even more powerful, equating the status of women and the one of slaves, both of which were major early supporters of the Faith if I recall

This could slow spread among men, but then again you had things like the cult of Isis so who knows?
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Any female prophet will make little headway in the patriarchal world of the past. At best she will be a minor holy woman or priestess with a very small following.


Unless your going full on ASB and Lady-Jesus is in fact the daughter of God capable of performing actual miracles.
 
Im pretty sure human spontaneous pregnancy is impossible, regardless of the gender of the child.

It seems like there are two separate questions here. WI the biblical account stayed the same but with a Shesus. OR, WI Jesus was born female. Boarding on ASB in the first case, and obscurity is likely in the second.

Well, almost. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819982.300-the-boy-whose-blood-has-no-father/

This is probably the closest you'll get without the ability to modify eggs directly. You'll still need to fertilize the egg of course, though.
 
I suppose a more interesting response on my part would be to ask the question: How can we get a female Jesus to lead the life of biblical Jesus. And, accepting that we can't recreate it perfectly, what are the likely changes/compromises and their impact.

I'd start by trying to identify positive female characters from the Torah as a role model. Im running up against my own ignorance here, but the only one I can think of is the Queen of Sheba. Starting off as a powerful political figure would undermine the whole champion of the downtrodden angle, but i'm not sure how else to make Shesus be taken seriously. Maybe a powerful patron among the local priesthood? But any Rabbi that supported her would likely lose influence quickly. Roman support would undermine her credibility. Im not sure if the Parthians would bother, and it probably wouldn't help anyways.

On the plus side, assuming we can get the whole temptation/betrayal/crucifixion/resurrection story to be canon, it breaks the streak of women always succumbing to temptation depicted elsewhere in the Torah. (Eve, et al.)

A side note, I have an unfounded gut reaction that the people of the time would be too sexist to accept a 'daughter of god', so I suspect the title 'child of god' may be more common. If this wild guess is true, that could have a lot of implications.

There were also Esther and Judith, both are revered Jewish heroines remembered for, one way or another, standing against foreign oppressors to safeguard the welfare of their own people. I believe that they represent better the ideal of Jewish women as "national" (in the sense of "Jewish people" against "gentiles) than the Queen of Sheba, who I belive was not actually Jewish. There were others in more peripheral (i.e. wives or daughters) roles.

But the analysis you presented is very interesting, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Perhaps a way to "Shesus" to work out is to emphasize the confusion between the religious/apocalyptic teaching of Christ with the idea of a an earthly national warlord, the "Messiah" (who in the archaic sense of the term, before Christianity, was more likened to a political and social hero than a prophet). I mean: nowadays Jesus is better remembered as a prophet and a religious leader who promised otherwordly salvation than as a resistance leader against the Roman domination, but perhaps Shesus might distinguish herself exactly by virtue of being a political opponent of the Romans and the Pharisees - this doesn't means necessarily an armed opposition, it could be a form of proto-civil disobedience mixed with a religious revivalism, insisting on puritanical reading of the Mosaic creed, and so forth. In the end, I guess the Romans would simply get rid of her, perhaps not by crucifixion, but simply by enslavement or something like that.

We can never forget that the Jews - despite domestic divisions, dynastic strife (you can read about the bloodfest that was the Herod rule) and religious troubles since the conquests of Alexander and the introduction of Hellenism - were prone to accept a political unifier to resist the foreign rule. The Maccabees had done it, so did the leaders of revolt against Nero, and then later, Simon bar Kokhba during Hadrian's reign. I'm not sure how "Shesus" would fare against the might of the Roman Republic, but I suppose that her "word" (if she indeed assumes a an universal prophetic/apocalyptic inclination, much like OTL Jesus) will spread more vividly if she is remembered as a Jewish leader than simply as a woman who tried to teach the poor to pray.

This is another point that would need to be addressed: Jesus OTL was a rabbi IIRC, and despite his rather demagogic approach to his followers, being seen as a man of the people, he was educated. Shesus might not follow the same path, as I doubt that women were allowed to study the Torah at the time, much less be tolerated in arguments with scholars in synagogues. So, Shesus might not attract a number of followers, perhaps, unless she associates herself with other religious preachers, such as John the Baptist. I guess by now the comparison with Joan of Arc is inevitable... a woman would only be respected if she presented herself as a formidable leader, something Jesus himself never had to do because he was somewhat respected as a member of an intellectual strata.

A disclaimer: I'm using the term "nation" with a grain of salt, of course, but I guess it applies better to the Israelites/Hebrews during Antiquity better to any other ethnic groups, since the Jews themselves saw themselves apart from the other peoples.
 
I suppose a more interesting response on my part would be to ask the question: How can we get a female Jesus to lead the life of biblical Jesus. And, accepting that we can't recreate it perfectly, what are the likely changes/compromises and their impact.

I'd start by trying to identify positive female characters from the Torah as a role model. Im running up against my own ignorance here, but the only one I can think of is the Queen of Sheba. Starting off as a powerful political figure would undermine the whole champion of the downtrodden angle, but i'm not sure how else to make Shesus be taken seriously. Maybe a powerful patron among the local priesthood? But any Rabbi that supported her would likely lose influence quickly. Roman support would undermine her credibility. Im not sure if the Parthians would bother, and it probably wouldn't help anyways.

On the plus side, assuming we can get the whole temptation/betrayal/crucifixion/resurrection story to be canon, it breaks the streak of women always succumbing to temptation depicted elsewhere in the Torah. (Eve, et al.)

A side note, I have an unfounded gut reaction that the people of the time would be too sexist to accept a 'daughter of god', so I suspect the title 'child of god' may be more common. If this wild guess is true, that could have a lot of implications.
I could be incorrect but isn't the Torah just the first five books of Christianity's Old Testament? If you were to look at prominent women not just listed in the Torah then there are a few more, such as Deborah, Esther, and Ruth.
 
As an alternative to "Shesus", perhaps "Sarah", meaning princess (albeit already biblically used).

I'm not sure that points mythically in the right direction, but given the background on Sarah of Genesis, as pointed to by Savina Teubal's book I cite below, it may be exactly the direction a feminist revival religion branching off of Second Temple Judaism needs to go in.

The issue is that a female Jesus would completely flip the path of the historical Jesus. Jesus IOTL was a figure in the inside of the social system helping those left on the outside of the social system. Female Jesus (Shesus?) would be an outsider trying to move in. In the end, just by the nature of the times, Shesus would more or less be forgotten as some random mystery cult leader within Judaism.

Agree with all of this but for the last sentence. The OP challenge I think is to think of how such a figure could have an impact comparable to OTL, with a religion centered on a female "Daughter of Woman" or however the genders would sort out (Daughter of Man? Daughter of God, where God is seen as more feminine? etc).

We have several approaches to take:

1) Historical Jesus is real and did the miracles and all that, Gospels are close to historic truth. Interpret the miracles however you will; the obvious simple conclusion is God is real and Jesus is who orthodoxy says He is, and Christianity (which version??) is the True Religion.

2) There was a historical Yeshua of Nazareth and his actual life is distorted beyond all recognition by Christian myth, which presumably arises due to sociological forces finding a seed to form a "desired" religion around.

3) There never was a Jesus, the whole thing arises out of pure mythology.

Every one of these hold out the possibility of a powerful religion of the Woman Christ. To stem from #1 of course that means we, or anyway the ATL, are in a Universe created and run by a God who is quite different from OTL Christian theological teachings! For the others--we might suppose there were unrealized potentials in sociological development that could have occurred--ie either the Female Jesus is at the center of a basically patriarchal religion--not impossible when when contemplates the role of the cult of Mary Mother of God in the belief systems of some very patriarchal and misogynist radical Catholics for instance; or an anti or anyway non-patriarchal religion either in tension with opposing patriarchal social elements or overwhelming them completely for a non-patriarchal late Classical, Medieval and modern world is somehow possible.

All of these may be long shots, but I don't think we should close our minds to the possibility they might work out somehow.

In that context, the majority of your post is pretty damn profound. Yes, indeed, a female Jesus would imply a very different sort of religion--whether it can be beaten into a serviceable patriarchal state cult or not, the religion and its purported Gospel history would be different.

His claim to divinity is undermined neigh immediately since spontaneous births are possible if the end result is a girl (medical science for the lose?). Beyond that, Jesus is Jesus is Jesus.

Ummm---wuut??

Rridgway at post 11's response does plenty to disprove this unless you have some example known to science. The New Scientist article rather reinforces my impulse to challenge you to produce an example of any mammalian species at all, let alone our own.

Parthenogenesis was not unknown to mythology of course! On the other hand, IIRC Aristotelian "science" held that the entire pattern of any human being came entirely from the male "seed," with women reduced to the role of mere incubator and regarded as an imperfectly formed man. Virgin birth of a woman is no more and no less astounding to both contemporary and modern science than that of a man.

Sure, all the genetic material needed to make a perfect clone of the mother would seem to be there in her own cells, but not filtered through the ovaries it isn't!

Her claim to be the result of an Immaculate Conception is exactly as miraculous or unbelievable as the same claim for male Jesus.


I suppose a more interesting response on my part would be to ask the question: How can we get a female Jesus to lead the life of biblical Jesus. And, accepting that we can't recreate it perfectly, what are the likely changes/compromises and their impact.

I'd start by trying to identify positive female characters from the Torah as a role model. Im running up against my own ignorance here, but the only one I can think of is the Queen of Sheba. Starting off as a powerful political figure would undermine the whole champion of the downtrodden angle, but i'm not sure how else to make Shesus be taken seriously. Maybe a powerful patron among the local priesthood? But any Rabbi that supported her would likely lose influence quickly. Roman support would undermine her credibility. Im not sure if the Parthians would bother, and it probably wouldn't help anyways.

On the plus side, assuming we can get the whole temptation/betrayal/crucifixion/resurrection story to be canon, it breaks the streak of women always succumbing to temptation depicted elsewhere in the Torah. (Eve, et al.)

A side note, I have an unfounded gut reaction that the people of the time would be too sexist to accept a 'daughter of god', so I suspect the title 'child of god' may be more common. If this wild guess is true, that could have a lot of implications.

Growing up a good Catholic, I of course accepted the narrative that the Jewish religion was consistent from Creation (which I already had trouble believing in in grade school but that's what doublethink is all about after all--I wasn't very good at it though) to modern times. In actuality, what we have now is essentially Second Temple Judaism, adapted to a post-Temple destruction era.

A whole lot of contradictory stuff is hidden in plain sight throughout the Torah, especially in Genesis. It seems historically that whatever the exact nature of the Hebrew religious tradition was in Abrahamic and Kingdom of Israel times, what came back from the Babylonian Captivity was a new thing, very strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism and who knows what else. If you go back as far as Genesis, it seems clear enough the "Patriarchs" of those days were quite polytheistic--maybe "henotheists," meaning they acknowledged the existence of other gods but reserved special reverence for one, but the early passages of Genesis throw even that into doubt.

Anyway I'm influenced by the book Sarah the Priestess, by Savina Teubal, which argues that Sarah wife of Abraham was in fact a priestess of a goddess analogous to Ishtar/Inanna, and explains many instances of the narrative given in the canonical text that are otherwise very very hard to understand, especially in the context of Abraham, his "seed" and presumably the people close to him such as his wife being paragons of virtue as the later religion would come to define it. In fact the alternative interpretation that seemed obvious to many future Christian analysts was that the women of Genesis were very bad, wayward figures, the opposite of exemplary and illustrating the fallen nature of man, Daughters of Eve most especially! It is not the sort of account one expects patriarchs to write, unless their purpose is to celebrate immorality. Yet there it is, embedded like flies in amber in the very heart of the text!

Beyond the interpretation of many key events in the relationship of Abraham and Sarah themselves, the book also points out a persistent matrifocal pattern-for generation after generation, the sons and further descendants of Abraham go east to Mesopotamia to find wives, rather than marrying locally in Palestine. Yet more divergences from patterns one would expect out of a proper patriarchy, such as younger sons succeeding to carry on the dominant lineage while older ones are shunted aside, are also evident.

Now by the time of Christ, clearly the Hebrew people (now "Jews," in that 10 of the old 12 tribes are gone completely and Benjamin remains only as submerged in Judah, the wildcat nation that stood aside from the 10-tribe Kingdom of Israel) have indeed been patriarchal for quite a long long time. But there remains the possibility that there was some kind of alternate living narrative, not written in the Torah but in living tradition, that dated back to an earlier time, and that found some significance in the frozen text of Genesis and other books.

Below your post some other notable women of Hebrew narrative are brought up. Let's not forget Judith in the Book of Judges, who used wiles to get close to an enemy commander and beheaded him--yet another figure Christians thousands of years later struggled to get some comprehension of. My extremely (if perhaps not entirely orthodox) Catholic sister was ranting some time over the past holidays over a woman not named in Jewish canon (named Hannah IIRC in the Catholic version) in Maccabees who is mother of someone persecuted by Antiochus, who was pleaded with by the Seleucid monarch in person to persuade her son to accept Greek ways, and who instead reaffirmed his obligation to martyrdom which she would share with him for her own disobedience to the king--my sister demanded to know why neither the Jews nor normal Catholics celebrate her name as the texts of both versions say we should.

As Catholicism evolved, the importance of such female figures, grouped around the overwhelming image of Mary Mother of God herself, strongly reasserted itself. Meanwhile in such mystic practices as Kabbalah, some profound roles are assigned to supposedly feminine principles as well (I don't understand Kabbalah well enough to expound on them though).

Thus I think any serious attempt to reconstruct the mentality of various adherents to Judaism in the Common Era times would probably open up a lot of latitude for stuff that has not come down to us through the main channel of acknowledged Rabbinical Judaism, but may have been there nonetheless.

To this very day Judaism remains matriarchal--that is, customarily speaking, a person is Jewish if their mother was. This is why in conservative Jewish circles it is a catastrophe if a Jewish man marries a Gentile woman. Unless extraordinary measures are taken, his children are lost to the Jewish people.

If this custom had been historically followed with no lapse and no work-arounds, the Jewish people today would be identifiable by a defined family of mitochondria inherited from the ancestral matriarchs!

If anybody like Peter still gets his paws on the thing, whoever was Shesus' Magdalene would probably be shown as the leading inspiration for the whole thing and the one true inspiration for what Shesus, dumbfounded by her female nature, would not have been able to accomplish.
Patriarchy most definitely has its ways and means! As the above examples of the transformation of plainly Goddess-related stuff into obscure corners of complex and glossed over dead narratives would show. A reworking serviceable to patriarchy is a possibility, though one might ask why shouldn't something more serviceable to such a purpose--a Romanized Zoroastrianism, or Buddhism, shove it aside? If we work with Option 1, She-Jesus really is who She says She is, the problem is explained away as that the true religion can be perverted and entombed but not forgotten. Otherwise it is more problematic, unless one supposes that the paradox itself is what is valuable and useful to the secular leaders.

Here's an instance of "productive" paradox to work on--supposing the ATL Shesus, like OTL Jesus in modern Christian orthodoxy, is supposed to be virginal, never indulging in any hanky panky with the opposite sex (or her own). That can certainly resonate in patriarchy, viz the role of Athena/Minerva in Olympian religion. What message exactly does that send? A religion much like OTL Christianity can emerge from the cult of the Virgin Redeemer! What if in the course of her Passion, an obvious humiliation for her tormentors to try is to rape her--but remarkably bad things happen to the would-be perpetrators, and they settle for just crucifying or stoning her to death instead?

St. Maria Gorreti, anyone? It is stuff like this that drove me away from Catholicism, but on the whole it seems to rather serve to hold it together somehow for some people. It is entirely possible that a very misogynistic and patriarchal religion can indeed revolve on such an axis, apparently.
On the other hand, if it gets some momentum, it could get even more powerful, equating the status of women and the one of slaves, both of which were major early supporters of the Faith if I recall

This could slow spread among men, but then again you had things like the cult of Isis so who knows?

Indeed, if one first envisions a strong and feminist cult that will prevail in the end, and then tries to ravel known civilization around that instead of OTL orthodoxy, the mind does bend. That's more or less the point though, to get a very ATL outcome!

Any female prophet will make little headway in the patriarchal world of the past. At best she will be a minor holy woman or priestess with a very small following.


Unless your going full on ASB and Lady-Jesus is in fact the daughter of God capable of performing actual miracles.

Or unless there are more potentials in human society than contained in your philosophy.

The best I can do is try to elaborate Goddess religions as I know them, which by the fact that I am not myself an active acolyte of such nor can I point to great successes, needs work. As I understand the evolution of patriarchy there are indeed strong reasons it prevails today and trying to envision an alternative seems to me to be one and the same with the project of proposing a Utopia. Nevertheless, I persist in thinking it is something that could be attained, would not be as Utopian as I think if attained, and that modern history in perhaps much transformed shape could build around.

There were also Esther and Judith, both are revered Jewish heroines remembered for, one way or another, standing against foreign oppressors to safeguard the welfare of their own people. I believe that they represent better the ideal of Jewish women as "national" (in the sense of "Jewish people" against "gentiles) than the Queen of Sheba, who I belive was not actually Jewish. There were others in more peripheral (i.e. wives or daughters) roles.

But the analysis you presented is very interesting, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Perhaps a way to "Shesus" to work out is to emphasize the confusion between the religious/apocalyptic teaching of Christ with the idea of a an earthly national warlord, the "Messiah" (who in the archaic sense of the term, before Christianity, was more likened to a political and social hero than a prophet). I mean: nowadays Jesus is better remembered as a prophet and a religious leader who promised otherwordly salvation than as a resistance leader against the Roman domination, but perhaps Shesus might distinguish herself exactly by virtue of being a political opponent of the Romans and the Pharisees - this doesn't means necessarily an armed opposition, it could be a form of proto-civil disobedience mixed with a religious revivalism, insisting on puritanical reading of the Mosaic creed, and so forth. In the end, I guess the Romans would simply get rid of her, perhaps not by crucifixion, but simply by enslavement or something like that.

We can never forget that the Jews - despite domestic divisions, dynastic strife (you can read about the bloodfest that was the Herod rule) and religious troubles since the conquests of Alexander and the introduction of Hellenism - were prone to accept a political unifier to resist the foreign rule. The Maccabees had done it, so did the leaders of revolt against Nero, and then later, Simon bar Kokhba during Hadrian's reign. I'm not sure how "Shesus" would fare against the might of the Roman Republic, but I suppose that her "word" (if she indeed assumes a an universal prophetic/apocalyptic inclination, much like OTL Jesus) will spread more vividly if she is remembered as a Jewish leader than simply as a woman who tried to teach the poor to pray.

This is another point that would need to be addressed: Jesus OTL was a rabbi IIRC, and despite his rather demagogic approach to his followers, being seen as a man of the people, he was educated. Shesus might not follow the same path, as I doubt that women were allowed to study the Torah at the time, much less be tolerated in arguments with scholars in synagogues. So, Shesus might not attract a number of followers, perhaps, unless she associates herself with other religious preachers, such as John the Baptist. I guess by now the comparison with Joan of Arc is inevitable... a woman would only be respected if she presented herself as a formidable leader, something Jesus himself never had to do because he was somewhat respected as a member of an intellectual strata.

A disclaimer: I'm using the term "nation" with a grain of salt, of course, but I guess it applies better to the Israelites/Hebrews during Antiquity better to any other ethnic groups, since the Jews themselves saw themselves apart from the other peoples.

For what it's worth the anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote an iconoclastic essay trying to frame the Gospels as an account of a would-be conventional Messiah, a warrior-king wannabe, who gets reframed later into Prince of Peace in the face of his obvious failure as a warlord. I don't recall the specifics enough to say there was anything convincing there, but the idea of a failed warlord turning into the mystical Savior through Passion is not unprecedented anyway.

"Sarah" as a Joan of Arc sort of figure...this might have possibilities indeed! Especially if a massive Jewish revolt that persists for years as drastic as the eventual OTL Massada rebellion does happen and is well known to all history.

Suppose she is not virginal, but gets married and has children in the normal way, but then is widowed and at age 30 (by which time even her youngest children might have grown past close dependency on her) goes forth as Jesus did on an unprecedented prophetic mission. She probably would alienate the Sanhedrin and other more or less conservative forces, but perhaps a preaching of love and compassion turns into a jihad--it happens often enough with OTL known messianic movements. Maybe the account preserves her innocence at every step, with the rebellion and rising around her happening quite tangentially to her own exhortations, yet she remains faithful to the movement as it turns violent and nationalistic. Or, to preserve the parallel--not nationalistic; suppose the Sarah Rising is a movement embracing not only the various divergent branches of Hebrew faith (as the Gospels have Jesus interacting with various offshoots shunned by good conventional Jews) and even such Gentiles as Greeks and Romans. Emperor Tiberius eventually puts them down and they catch and judge Sarah, perhaps with the frustrated rape scene--or even not frustrated. Then the myth goes on to have her resurrected and saving and consoling people scattered by the Roman crackdown.

Perhaps instead of dignifying her with crucifixion they stone her to death? What would that do to iconography?

The insurgent Church would be pitted directly against Roman power from the beginning, and yet persists and survives and eventually the Empire embraces it somehow, and it goes on to define medieval Europe and various other nations around the Old World.

Perhaps it is wracked all through its existence with debates and schisms relating to feminist versus patriarchal interpretations.
 
It really is just that justifying Christ as being the Jewish messiah is inherently restricting. Could there be a female religious figure that begins a major religion? Yeah. But could that religious figure really claim to be the Jewish Messiah? It would be a stretch at best.
 
"Sarah" as a Joan of Arc sort of figure...this might have possibilities indeed! Especially if a massive Jewish revolt that persists for years as drastic as the eventual OTL Massada rebellion does happen and is well known to all history.
That is a monster of a post, but in a good way!
You make an absolute ton of very interesting points and are obviously well learned.

I have an observation: women tend to get completely ignored in narratives, but when they do manage to "break free", they tend to shine brighter because of that exceptional status. Like Joan of Arc or Alienor d'Aquitaine
 
Top