Patrimalarkey 1: Women on Top - Revision history

Robert Brockway at 11:08, 19 April 2019

2019-04-19T11:08:01Z

Robert Brockway at 04:03, 4 August 2015

2015-08-04T04:03:30Z

Robert Brockway at 01:53, 7 June 2015

2015-06-07T01:53:31Z

Robert Brockway at 13:04, 29 September 2014

2014-09-29T13:04:24Z

Robert Brockway at 13:07, 30 March 2014

2014-03-30T13:07:44Z

Robert Brockway at 03:34, 6 January 2014

2014-01-06T03:34:44Z

Robert Brockway at 03:31, 6 January 2014

2014-01-06T03:31:18Z

Robert Brockway at 03:23, 6 January 2014

2014-01-06T03:23:38Z

Robert Brockway at 03:21, 6 January 2014

2014-01-06T03:21:30Z

Robert Brockway at 03:20, 6 January 2014

2014-01-06T03:20:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:08, 19 April 2019
Line 27:		Line 27:
	A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.		A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

−	[[Category:~~MRAu]][[Category:AVfM~~]]	+	[[Category:History]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:03, 4 August 2015
Line 27:		Line 27:
	A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.		A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

−	[[Category:MRAu]]	+	[[Category:MRAu]][[Category:AVfM]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 7 June 2015
Line 27:		Line 27:
	A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.		A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

−	[[Category:~~Articles~~]]	+	[[Category:MRAu]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:04, 29 September 2014
Line 27:		Line 27:
	A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.		A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

−	[[Category:~~Draft~~ Articles]]	+	[[Category:Articles]]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Patriarchy means literally rule by fathers but it is generally intended to mean rule by men.  Such a society, one in which rule was mandated by men, would not permit female rulers.  Women would simply not find their way in to positions of power.  Even a cursory view of history reveals
-that female rulers, while fairly uncommon, feature across a wide variety of societies and eras.  The upshot here is that there was no patriarchy - it was a myth.  The reality is that societies shape social expectations of men and women to fit their own needs.  In many cases, as have been noted by MHRA advocates, men were considered disposable by society.  In particular those men who were not members of the ruling class were considered disposable.
+that female rulers, while fairly uncommon, feature across a wide variety of societies and eras.  The upshot here is that there was no patriarchy - it was a myth.  The reality is that societies shape social expectations of men and women to fit their own needs.  In many cases, as have been noted by [[MHRA]]s, men were considered disposable by society.  In particular those men who were not members of the ruling class were considered disposable.
 A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition.  The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy.  The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 So during this period we had Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots vying for power across the British Isles.  It should be clear that this was no patriarchy.  These women were no ones puppets - those that were successful ruled over England, Scotland and Ireland as
-ruthlessly and authoritatively as any male ruler.  They also demonstrated that they were quite prepared to order the torture and execution of their enemies or those they perceived as enemies.  These historical events and others that occured in many other parts of the world throughout history demonstrate that these women were not helpless pawns of the patriarchy.  They were power monarchs and in a very real sense, they were the law in their respective countries.
+ruthlessly and authoritatively as any male ruler.  They also demonstrated that they were quite prepared to order the torture and execution of their enemies or those they perceived as enemies.  These historical events and others that occured in many other parts of the world throughout history demonstrate that these women were not helpless pawns of the patriarchy.  They were powerful monarchs and in a very real sense, they were the law in their respective countries.
 Patriarchy means literally rule by fathers but it is generally intended to mean rule by men.  Such a society, one in which rule was mandated by men, would not permit female rulers.  Women would simply not find their way in to positions of power.  Even a cursory view of history reveals

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 While it is true that English practised Male-preference primogeniture (preferencing inheritance by the first born son over other sons and all daughters) this did not stop many women inheriting and retaining thrones in their own right around this time.
-Elizabeth I is well known through the English speaking world and is generally remembered as an effective leader who reformed the English state and built up a strong navy in the face of external military threats.  Others show that while the early years of her reign were generally prosperous this was not so later on.  What all of these sources agree on was that Elizabeth was the queen in her own right.  The decisions made were made by her.  It should be clear from this that she was the leader of the English and Irish states.  She was no figure head.
+Elizabeth I is well known throughout the English speaking world and is generally remembered as an effective leader who reformed the English state and built up a strong navy in the face of external military threats.  Others show that while the early years of her reign were generally prosperous this was not so later on.  What all of these sources agree on was that Elizabeth was the queen in her own right.  The decisions made were made by her.  It should be clear from this that she was the leader of the English and Irish states.  She was no figure head.
 What is generally not as well known is that there were several contemporary female monarchs in the British Isles.  Immediately proceeding Elizabeth I as Queen of England and Ireland was Queen Mary I, her half sister.  Queen Mary I is also known as 'Bloody Mary' as she had a habit of ordering the death of her subjects (usually by burning at the stake) when they didn't agree with her religious views.  Mary I didn't reign for long (thankfully, given her penchant for violence) but was every bit as much in charge of England and Ireland as Elizabeth would be after her.  Each effectively changed the national religion (Christian denomination) while reigning.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 To the north of England was Scotland, which was ruled by a Queen Regnant from 1542 to 1567.  She is generally known as Mary Queen of Scots in English, probably to distinguish her from Mary I who was her contemporary.  Her rule of Scotland overlaps that of both Mary I and Elizabeth I.  The entirety of the British Isles was ruled over by female monarchs from 1553 to 1567.  This period would likely have gone on much longer except that Elizabeth imprisoned and eventually executed Mary Queen of Scots after she fled south seeking Elizabeth's protection.  Elizabeth apparently viewed Mary Queen of Scots as a potential rival since Mary was her niece.  Mary Queen of Scots was fleeing south to England as she was suspected, then and now, of being a tacit accomplice in the brutal murder of her second husband.
-Mary Queen of Scots was an absentee monarch during her early life, having spent her youth in France.  Scotland wasleft in the hands of another woman, her mother, Mary of Guise.
+Mary Queen of Scots was an absentee monarch during her early life, having spent her youth in France.  Scotland was left in the hands of another woman, her mother, Mary of Guise.
 So during this period we had Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots vying for power across the British Isles.  It should be clear that this was no patriarchy.  These women were no ones puppets - those that were successful ruled over England, Scotland and Ireland as