History books, museum exhibitions and viral podcasts overflow with tales of female influence, resistance and agency, while economists triumphantly uncover evidence of women's wealth and wages.
Would love to know what you make of Annete Kehnel's The Green Ages, which makes much of the communal prosperity of convents and beguinages. I think she is arguing that there were competing ideologies in medieval Europe, some of which were neither "modern" (ie capitalist) nor orthodox patriarchy. Ie not a book that says "let's celebrate this one person of 100,000 who beat the system" but rather "there were alternate systems that lasted centuries and weren't obliterated."
This was a great read, and I greedily soaked it up! Thank you so much for writing this. As I often like to say, medieval misogyny informs modern philosophy--we're not so far removed from the medieval world as we like to believe.
Thank you for writing this! I have not been able to put it into words myself: I enjoy the celebration of historical leaders standing against their structures, but it usually lacks the essential context, giving the reader the wrong impression of the systems at the time.
Indeed, while there were bright spots, medieval society was still quite sexist and patriarchal. Of course, the Burning Times (witch trials) and enclosures of the commons were a major regress for women and the broader working class, as Sylvia Federici points out so well. But to say that the Middle Ages were better that that is a truly pitifully low bar to clear. Bright spots aside, whitewashing and romanticizing medieval patriarchy is thus inherently wrong-headed.
(Mary Harrington and all other reactionaries and neo-reactionaries, I am looking at YOU!)
That said, had the Burning Times (a counterrevolutionary gynocide against women revolutionaries of the time) not happened, a good case could be made that women would have gradually and successfully taken over by now.
Indeed, when Adam threw Eve under the bus, it mightily backfired on him as well, and he too was punished: "You will work for every crumb". And with 55% of American men voting for a known misogynistic racist rapist fascist dictator, essentially throwing women under the bus, they are about to find out just how much karma will backfire on them as well.
I don’t know your work well, but you are spoken highly of by people of whom I think highly (“we decide what to believe by deciding who to believe” - Arnold Kling)
I have zero doubt you are 100% correct about the patriarchal problems of the past. All the way up to 1920 if you want, and partially through the Summer of Love in 1967, and still a bit too high through the fall of the Berlin Wall. (And of course just like racism, not 100.0% eliminated today).
But most of the people focusing on and condemning males and the patriarchy TODAY are the same ones who believe oppressor-oppressed ideology and Marxist (or close) economics.
And pretty much claim things are one of [as bad as ever / almost as bad as ever / worse than ever] to this day.
I’m pretty sure you are far from being one of those folks.
But it would be extremely difficult to tell that you are anything but a charter member of the woke / DEI / CRT / intersectionality ideologues club from reading this piece.
It seems to me in the last 35, and certainly in the last 15-20 years, western institutions have in fact overcorrected on this axis. Perhaps you disagree with me here, idk, but that would be fine.
But the piece implies that the woke left is correct to be smug in their views here.
Good survey/overview, especially the economic history/figures. I've thought for a time that medieval fantasy, which I still think in its Victorian-inspired/Romance-derived pastiche certainly informs how we see the real Middle Ages. To that extent, there is an interesting dichotomy between modern fiction in medieval-adjacent or -inspired genres pushing agency and empowerment for female characters and audiences inferring that this has a historical basis. Then, popular/public history celebrates most often those great and influential women from the Middle Ages and audiences start to confirm that fantasy media's historical basis is true. Perhaps it's also wish fulfillment to an extent. There's no doubt the medieval fantasy has a certain... fantasy.
It's really a fascinating dynamic. As others have noted, the Middle Ages may have been better (and indeed worse) than other premodern times for women but in general the bar is so low that from our perspective looking back, 'sugarcoating' is very apt. Equally, much good work has been done in this area to dispel certain myths and celebrate 'self-made' women but also more generally female agency. I have to admit I was surprised and happy to see a statue to Christine de Pizan erected for the Paris Olympics, and Ramirez' 'Femina' does a solid job introducing some influential medieval women.
Anyway. Your post started me off and I think I may have to pursue a write-up of my own: medieval-inspired literature, the portrayal of women, and a sugarcoated history...
This is an interesting piece and I really agree with your point that we must not under state the prevailing patriarchy in the medieval period. However I have appreciated the efforts to unearth and share female voices from this period, which had been unknown to me previously. There were highly educated and influential women - many people didn’t know that. Not all convents were poor - some were wealthy and wielded power, albeit with the patriarchy of the Catholic Church. It is still important that we recognise them because with the dissolution of the monasteries in the uk their way of life and that option for women was eradicated. Which means early modernity marked a backward step for women in the uk at least.
Don't forget that queens had considerable authority, influence, and power even though limited by men's actions to curb them. Some ruled in their own right (Isabel of Castile, for example), many as regents for their young sons, and many informally as diplomatic agents or writers.
Let's keep this in mind as we come to terms with the nasty fact that too many people in the US prefer a man for President, even though he's an ignorant felon who sees woman as toys.
Patriarchy: it's Tertullians all the way down, as I like to say. And a few islands of feminism and proto-feminism back then in an otherwise patriarchal ocean, do not a matriarchy make.
I am curious. Why are we interjecting 20th Century Feminist Philosophy into an era of Medieval culture that had no clue that word even existed in Middle English / Shakespearean English? It is from Ancient Greek term "Misogunia." Should the Ancient Greeks be more of your ire than The Renaissance of Saxony, Britton, and France?
Would love to know what you make of Annete Kehnel's The Green Ages, which makes much of the communal prosperity of convents and beguinages. I think she is arguing that there were competing ideologies in medieval Europe, some of which were neither "modern" (ie capitalist) nor orthodox patriarchy. Ie not a book that says "let's celebrate this one person of 100,000 who beat the system" but rather "there were alternate systems that lasted centuries and weren't obliterated."
Interesting indeed, worth exploring. Hopefully this book isn't just greenwashing.
This was a great read, and I greedily soaked it up! Thank you so much for writing this. As I often like to say, medieval misogyny informs modern philosophy--we're not so far removed from the medieval world as we like to believe.
I take it Festivus has started?
Yours, Brad DeLong
Thank you for writing this! I have not been able to put it into words myself: I enjoy the celebration of historical leaders standing against their structures, but it usually lacks the essential context, giving the reader the wrong impression of the systems at the time.
Indeed, while there were bright spots, medieval society was still quite sexist and patriarchal. Of course, the Burning Times (witch trials) and enclosures of the commons were a major regress for women and the broader working class, as Sylvia Federici points out so well. But to say that the Middle Ages were better that that is a truly pitifully low bar to clear. Bright spots aside, whitewashing and romanticizing medieval patriarchy is thus inherently wrong-headed.
(Mary Harrington and all other reactionaries and neo-reactionaries, I am looking at YOU!)
That said, had the Burning Times (a counterrevolutionary gynocide against women revolutionaries of the time) not happened, a good case could be made that women would have gradually and successfully taken over by now.
Really enjoyed this one. The men are also cursed in Genesis.
Indeed, when Adam threw Eve under the bus, it mightily backfired on him as well, and he too was punished: "You will work for every crumb". And with 55% of American men voting for a known misogynistic racist rapist fascist dictator, essentially throwing women under the bus, they are about to find out just how much karma will backfire on them as well.
They didn’t have sugar then so how could they sugar coat it. Maybe wool coat it I dunno
I don’t know your work well, but you are spoken highly of by people of whom I think highly (“we decide what to believe by deciding who to believe” - Arnold Kling)
I have zero doubt you are 100% correct about the patriarchal problems of the past. All the way up to 1920 if you want, and partially through the Summer of Love in 1967, and still a bit too high through the fall of the Berlin Wall. (And of course just like racism, not 100.0% eliminated today).
But most of the people focusing on and condemning males and the patriarchy TODAY are the same ones who believe oppressor-oppressed ideology and Marxist (or close) economics.
And pretty much claim things are one of [as bad as ever / almost as bad as ever / worse than ever] to this day.
I’m pretty sure you are far from being one of those folks.
But it would be extremely difficult to tell that you are anything but a charter member of the woke / DEI / CRT / intersectionality ideologues club from reading this piece.
It seems to me in the last 35, and certainly in the last 15-20 years, western institutions have in fact overcorrected on this axis. Perhaps you disagree with me here, idk, but that would be fine.
But the piece implies that the woke left is correct to be smug in their views here.
Good survey/overview, especially the economic history/figures. I've thought for a time that medieval fantasy, which I still think in its Victorian-inspired/Romance-derived pastiche certainly informs how we see the real Middle Ages. To that extent, there is an interesting dichotomy between modern fiction in medieval-adjacent or -inspired genres pushing agency and empowerment for female characters and audiences inferring that this has a historical basis. Then, popular/public history celebrates most often those great and influential women from the Middle Ages and audiences start to confirm that fantasy media's historical basis is true. Perhaps it's also wish fulfillment to an extent. There's no doubt the medieval fantasy has a certain... fantasy.
It's really a fascinating dynamic. As others have noted, the Middle Ages may have been better (and indeed worse) than other premodern times for women but in general the bar is so low that from our perspective looking back, 'sugarcoating' is very apt. Equally, much good work has been done in this area to dispel certain myths and celebrate 'self-made' women but also more generally female agency. I have to admit I was surprised and happy to see a statue to Christine de Pizan erected for the Paris Olympics, and Ramirez' 'Femina' does a solid job introducing some influential medieval women.
Anyway. Your post started me off and I think I may have to pursue a write-up of my own: medieval-inspired literature, the portrayal of women, and a sugarcoated history...
I've tried to explain why recent academic studies of medieval women have focused on women's agency: https://magistraetmater.wordpress.com/2025/01/02/are-we-sugarcoating-medieval-misogyny-1-academic-writing/
This is an interesting piece and I really agree with your point that we must not under state the prevailing patriarchy in the medieval period. However I have appreciated the efforts to unearth and share female voices from this period, which had been unknown to me previously. There were highly educated and influential women - many people didn’t know that. Not all convents were poor - some were wealthy and wielded power, albeit with the patriarchy of the Catholic Church. It is still important that we recognise them because with the dissolution of the monasteries in the uk their way of life and that option for women was eradicated. Which means early modernity marked a backward step for women in the uk at least.
Don't forget that queens had considerable authority, influence, and power even though limited by men's actions to curb them. Some ruled in their own right (Isabel of Castile, for example), many as regents for their young sons, and many informally as diplomatic agents or writers.
Let's keep this in mind as we come to terms with the nasty fact that too many people in the US prefer a man for President, even though he's an ignorant felon who sees woman as toys.
Patriarchy: it's Tertullians all the way down, as I like to say. And a few islands of feminism and proto-feminism back then in an otherwise patriarchal ocean, do not a matriarchy make.
For a more nuanced feminist perspective, 15th Century Feminist has an excellent Substack:
https://15thcfeminist.substack.com/p/selling-womanhood-the-medieval-conceptualization
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2024/12/1484-witches-hammer.html
I am curious. Why are we interjecting 20th Century Feminist Philosophy into an era of Medieval culture that had no clue that word even existed in Middle English / Shakespearean English? It is from Ancient Greek term "Misogunia." Should the Ancient Greeks be more of your ire than The Renaissance of Saxony, Britton, and France?
Don’t know the term needed to exist before the social behaviors (?)
And not sensing ‘ire’ in the pieces, rather more like archaeology…