Emily Maitlis - Newsnight Presenter & WhingeBucket

Women in the Middle Ages

I managed to watch some of the BBC's rather lamentable series concerning the Medieval Ages recently. And, needless to say, the BBC managed to demonise the whole of Christendom and all of its men throughout.

The Muslims were, apparently, all wonderful throughout the Medieval period and the Christians were all positively evil.

Furthermore, in one programme, some considerable humour was derived from the fact that men were often killed by having red-hot pokers shoved into their rectums and/or by being first castrated and then having their eyes gouged out - while still alive - yes, the BBC really did make humour out of these things - and, in another programme, the fact that a knight was, allegedly, 'entitled' to rape a woman - but only if he had first killed her man - was taken as an indication of how oppressed were women!

Unnnnnbelievable!

And, of course, there was no humour about that!

Men being castrated and having their eyes gouged out before being killed - funny.

Women being raped - not funny.

Indeed, the notion that the actual deaths of men are of less importance than the poor treatment of women seemed to pop up throughout the entire series.

One programme, for example, was about the life of a Medieval woman called Christina. Apparently, she lived in an age when women were very badly catered for indeed.

And yet; we discovered that this woman lived to be 60 years old and had - if my memory serves me correctly - some three or four children. She ran two or three successful businesses and managed to leave them to her eldest daughter. Meanwhile, both her husband and her brother had died during the nationwide famine of the period. (She later married a younger man.)

How is it that this woman survived if she was so hard done by?

Tell me someone. How is it that this woman survived if she was so hard done by? - given that her brother and her husband did not.

How did she manage to bear and feed her offspring throughout all this, eh?

How did her life in any way whatsoever provide evidence to suggest that women were hard done by compared to men?

There was no answer at all to these questions throughout the programme.

Nothing! Zilch! Just the repeated sentiment that women had it worse.

Well, clearly, No they damn well didn't!

And, indeed, if women did, in fact, have it worse, then I can assure you that the BBC would have plastered the entire programme with evidence for this.

But, Nothing! Zilch! Just the repeated and completely unsubstantiated sentiment that women had it worse.

Ah yes - and then there was the usual cover-up of the gender of the victims of violence when they were male.

For example, in one programme, we learned that various lords and barons got fairly angry when some labourers who were forcibly bonded to work for them (for their entire lives) decided to escape to another part of the country in order to seek better futures.

the word "men" only entered into the narrative when men were the perpetrators

These "peasants", "serfs" and "fugitives" were, apparently, pursued by the barons and their "men" and, when they were caught, they were killed; i.e. the word "men" only entered into the narrative when men were the perpetrators, but not when they were the victims.

Ah yes, the BBC cannot draw the attention of the viewers to the fact that it was men who made up the vast majority of victims during the Medieval period when its main aim is to indoctrinate the public with the view that it was women who had it worse.

Indeed, I strongly recommend that you look at pre-feminist TV programmes to see just how differently are men described when they are the victims of something or other.

For a start, they are actually described as "men"!

"500 men were killed when the coalmine collapsed."

"50,000 men lost their lives during the battle."

"3,000 men drowned when the ship sank."

Not any more!

I was delighted to see Fathers4Justice activists sitting on the roof of Harriet Harman's house

On a more positive note, I was delighted to see Fathers4Justice activists sitting on the roof of Harriet Harman's house a few weeks ago. This woman has got to be one of the most disgusting, dishonourable, deceitful women to have entered British politics; in my view.

Just the sight of her on my TV screen nowadays makes me want to throw a brick at it.

I kid you not!

Even my missus cannot stomach her.

And if there are any angry Iraqis out there who would like to have a quiet word with Mz Harman, I suggest that they get in touch with Fathers4Justice, because they have obviously got her address.

Ah yes, Mz Harman - who pretends to be soooooo concerned about domestic violence and child abuse - and who voted for this, ...

Oh look.

A youngster with no arms ...

... courtesy of Mz Harman and her socialist friends in government.

And, of course, I was especially delighted to see Hillary Clinton's bid for future presidential office finally go down the tubes.

It made my day.

Women Oppressed in the Middle Ages?

Did you know that the restrictive laws in the Middle Ages did not apply to women?

Yep; it's true.

And here's James, giving us some of the details ...

.............................

Debunking the myth of women being oppressed in the Middle Ages.

This is taken from “The Time Travellers Guide to Medieval England” by Ian Mortimer.

Advantages to being a woman in the Middle Ages

1) When the king issued writs to his sheriffs summoning an army it was the men who had to risk their lives and fight, not the women. Despite this, high status women were entitled to all the benefits of being connected to ‘those who fought’.

2) Women could inherit land in their own right even though ownership for men entailed providing military service.

3) High status women shared the power of their husband’s position and rank.

4) Widows were able to carry on with positions and businesses after the demise of their husbands so, a villein’s wife was a co-tenant of a manor. Thus, a woman married to a tailor could herself become a tailor herself, or if he was a merchant then she could become a merchant herself. Legal inferiority had little consequence when some women were amongst the richest in the land (14^th Century, Queen Isabella was the second richest person in England)

5) Discrimination against women was legal, but not personal. While a man was allowed to legally beat his wife, she was allowed to accuse him in a church court of cruelty for beating her too much. However husband beating was not recognized as no court would sympathize with a man who was so feeble that he cannot defend himself against his own wife.

6) If a man wanted to take legal action against his wife for adultery, he had to admit that he is a cuckhold and in so doing make himself appear ridiculous.

7) If a husband and wife were to turn to crime and commit a hanging offence, only the husband hangs as the wife can claim she was obeying her husband’s orders.

8) In old age whereas men were seen as an embarrassment having lost the dominance of their masculinity; old women were revered as being wise and knowledgeable.

James Williams