Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Old Tyrannia]

There's little doubt that the status of women improved by leaps and bounds moving from the Dark Ages to the Early Middle Ages, and that it was better in the Early Middle Ages than in the Classical Period by many metrics. The Renaissance reversed many of these gains, and they would not begin to resurface until well into the Early Modern Period.

I've usually heard the term "Early Middle Ages" used as a synonym for "the Dark Ages." Where do you draw the line between the two?

[Fahran]

Truly this is the Islam of dating advice. Do you also fast from dating except under the pale of night and date on an embroidered carpet? I dissent most from the use of a concrete concept of love. The human psychology with regards to relationships actually has a collection of different faculties - attachment, sexuality, and comfort come to mind, actually comfort includes separate areas itself: trust, empathy, and a fluctuating degree of openness. At a certain point, we reach the sentiment which we recognize as love, but there are different ways of getting there: a purely high degree of sexuality, a strong sense of attachment, or comfort. The foolish call a surplus of just one of these elements love, and at certain times that aesthetic is not undesirable. ut a deeper degree of love is only reached when all three are in the right mix. Do you see what an emotional harm you have prepared for yourself in life, erroneously supposing that such a serious love is possible from the very firsts?

The crux of my argument was against superficial artifices of love, not against the presence of sexuality, attachment, or comfort in and of themselves. The ideal relationship is one that binds you romantically, sexually, socially, spiritually, and in many other respects to a person of virtue with whom you can build a virtuous life and a family. You mistake me for an ascetic, I think, and someone as deep-hearted and romantically inclined of me cannot subsist long on mere material scraps. I want a love that destroys and that burns away what was there before leaving more fertile soil in its wake.

And also, love is not a sacrifice. Love is purely a feeling, and the feeling is worth enough that it helps you to interpret the many quirks of your partner differently from how you would see them if they were a random stranger sitting next to you. Liking somebody for the full range of their human dynamism requires the emotional influence of the several elements

To call love a feeling is to trivialize it. It is more all-encompassing and permanent than that. It animates one's behavior, outlook, and actions. If I'm in love it is not enough that I should keep that love to myself and contemplate it at length, it must be expressed in a shower of kisses, in the cooking of food, in the expenditure of time, in a thousand idle words, in care and concern and affection.

[Conserative Morality]

The Renaissance actually represented a relative regression in the status of wives, daughters, and women more broadly because the re-invigoration of Roman customs and traditions such as the paterfamilias saw men wielding an increasing level of authority over female relatives.

... no. The primary regression in women's rights from the Medieval period to the Renaissance is found in stricter application of existing laws and the integration of previously free cities into the greater legal structure of their overlords.

We can observe for instance that the institution of crusading seems to have often been passed down to younger sons by women from notable crusading families.

"The institution of crusading"

:thonk:

Concubinage was actually significantly reduced as Catholicism spread among peoples like the Franks, Lombards, and Normans. It was most often practiced by younger noblemen as a means of addressing their romantic needs at times when they could not achieve a profitable marriage, and it met with official condemnation from the clergy, who attempted to impose monogamous marriages on the elites.

Rarely. More often the clergy were taking concubines themselves.

There's little doubt that the status of women improved by leaps and bounds moving from the Dark Ages to the Early Middle Ages, and that it was better in the Early Middle Ages than in the Classical Period by many metrics.

No. Not even close. Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck is with the rampant Medieval apologism?

[Fahran]

There's little doubt that the status of women improved by leaps and bounds moving from the Dark Ages to the Early Middle Ages, and that it was better in the Early Middle Ages than in the Classical Period by many metrics. The Renaissance reversed many of these gains, and they would not begin to resurface until well into the Early Modern Period.

I've usually heard the term "Early Middle Ages" used as a synonym for "the Dark Ages." Where do you draw the line between the two?

I generally draw the line based on the increasing influence of the Christian faith on the Germanic warlords and the consolidation of the warrior aristocracy into a more formal class system. Charlemagne's coronation or some time in the 800's CE seems like a good point, with the High Middle Ages beginning a few hundred years before the Renaissance really took off - 1000 or 1100 CE. Part of the problem is that it's pretty difficult to nail down these changes in the social fabric in a consistent way. We can at least conclude that social changes occurred between the Dark Ages and the High Middle Ages, and those are largely what I was referring to.

[Bear Stearns]

There's little doubt that the status of women improved by leaps and bounds moving from the Dark Ages to the Early Middle Ages, and that it was better in the Early Middle Ages than in the Classical Period by many metrics. The Renaissance reversed many of these gains, and they would not begin to resurface until well into the Early Modern Period.

I've usually heard the term "Early Middle Ages" used as a synonym for "the Dark Ages." Where do you draw the line between the two?

In England, probably the period between the retreat of the Romans and the establishment of feudalism.

[Old Tyrannia]

I've usually heard the term "Early Middle Ages" used as a synonym for "the Dark Ages." Where do you draw the line between the two?

In England, probably the period between the retreat of the Romans and the establishment of feudalism.

The establishment of feudalism in England didn't occur until the Norman conquest in 1066, which is typically taken as the beginning of the "High Middle Ages" in England.

[Erythrean Thebes]

In England, probably the period between the retreat of the Romans and the establishment of feudalism.

The establishment of feudalism in England didn't occur until the Norman conquest in 1066, which is typically taken as the beginning of the "High Middle Ages" in England.

Though the discipline prefers Early Middle Ages as a replacement for the Dark Ages, in my dream world I would write a book suggesting that the Dark Ages is at least a defensible term for the period from the 5th to the 8th or 9th Century. The hard measures in legislation which the Frankish and Gothic kings used to establish their rule over Italy and France cannot be overlooked. Plus, it is actually characteristic of Medieval British history beginning in Late Antiquity that they fell into a nightmare of foreign raiders

[Fahran]

... no. The primary regression in women's rights from the Medieval period to the Renaissance is found in stricter application of existing laws and the integration of previously free cities into the greater legal structure of their overlords.

It's not merely that existing laws were more strictly enforced. Many of the property and work-related rights that women had enjoyed up until the High Middle Ages were significantly diminished as the Renaissance began to take off. Some of this had to do with the rediscovery of Roman classics that tended to idealize more demur, subservient women, but a lot of it had to do with the emergence of an early mercantile class and the solidification of guilds as economically viable institutions that could restrict women's ability to compete with men.

"The institution of crusading"

:thonk:

Was it not an institution?

Rarely. More often the clergy were taking concubines themselves.

While a snide remark or two can be biting and humorous, concubinage does seem to have declined in an official capacity by the end of the Dark Ages. The marriageable age, likewise, climbed to the early twenties in places like England by the time of the High Middle Ages. This, together with the emphasis on consent between spouses as an essential religiously mandated component of lawful marriage, meant that women probably enjoyed more rights at this point than at many points during the Classical Period.

No. Not even close. Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck is with the rampant Medieval apologism?

While Roman women seem to have generally married in their late teens or early twenties, the marriageable age was considerably lower for noblewomen. While consent was deemed important by the Romans as a prerequisite for marriage, the institution of manus marriage was arguably more restrictive of women than the institution that had emerged by the Early Middle Ages. Augustus's laws didn't really help matters. And don't even get me started on Athens.

[Conserative Morality]

It's not merely that existing laws were more strictly enforced. Many of the property and work-related rights that women had enjoyed up until the High Middle Ages were significantly diminished as the Renaissance began to take off.

>> when Salic law is now a Renaissance institution

10/10

Some of this had to do with the rediscovery of Roman classics that tended to idealize more demur, subservient women,

And which classics were those, again?

but a lot of it had to do with the emergence of an early mercantile class and the solidification of guilds as economically viable institutions that could restrict women's ability to compete with men.

Women and the guilds coexisted for quite some time before the decline in women's rights. What made the change was the increasing interest of the national polity run by kings and nobles to bring the cities in line with the legal and moral standards of the feudal structure, largely based on Salic law.

Was it not an institution?

Not one on a familial level.

While a snide remark or two can be biting and humorous, concubinage does seem to have declined in an official capacity by the end of the Dark Ages.

Since fucking when? Concubinage was fucking rampant, even amongst the clergy, until the 13th-14th centuries.

The marriageable age, likewise, climbed to the early twenties in places like England by the time of the High Middle Ages.

No, the marriageable age in England was, from the 12th to the 19th century, 12. The average age is estimated in the early 20s for the common folk; and much lower for the nobility - a criticism you cast at Ancient Rome as a 'contrast' later in your post.

This, together with the emphasis on consent between spouses as an essential religiously mandated component of lawful marriage,

"Consent" is a pretty generous term for what amounted to "Marry this guy or we'll send you off to a convent".

meant that women probably enjoyed more rights at this point than at many points during the Classical Period.

... because the minimum age of marriage was the same as it was in the Principate, and because they needed consent, like in the Principate?

????????

While Roman women seem to have generally married in their late teens or early twenties, the marriageable age was considerably lower for noblewomen. While consent was deemed important by the Romans as a prerequisite for marriage, the institution of manus marriage was arguably more restrictive of women than the institution that had emerged by the Early Middle Ages. Augustus's laws didn't really help matters. And don't even get me started on Athens.

Manus marriage was dead by the Late Republic even in the upper classes, much less the Principate, and it didn't make a revival.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

The welsh are the ones who are supposed to have dragons.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Reply to this is you think liberals shouldn’t be here.

[Old Tyrannia]

Reply to this is you think liberals shouldn’t be here.

I'd rather you weren't here, to be perfectly honest.

As I have said before, I look at "neoreactionaries" in much the same way I assume a hard-core Marxist would look at a kid who had decided to be a communist after playing Red Alert. It's just embarrassing.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Reply to this is you think liberals shouldn’t be here.

I'd rather you weren't here, to be perfectly honest.

As I have said before, I look at "neoreactionaries" in much the same way I assume a hard-core Marxist would look at a kid who had decided to be a communist after playing Red Alert. It's just embarrassing.

And why do you think I’m a neoreactionary? There certainly is little mention of them in media. They aren’t cool by most standards. Not even popular. And who is the “hard core Marxist” type you are alluding to? Fascism? I know I’m not a fascist and I will not pretend to be.

[Genivaria]

Reply to this is you think liberals shouldn’t be here.

I'd rather you weren't here, to be perfectly honest.

As I have said before, I look at "neoreactionaries" in much the same way I assume a hard-core Marxist would look at a kid who had decided to be a communist after playing Red Alert. It's just embarrassing.

Red Alert 2 only, the original Red Alert you work directly for fucking STALIN.

[Old Tyrannia]

And why do you think I’m a neoreactionary?

It's literally in your signature.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

And why do you think I’m a neoreactionary?

It's literally in your signature.

I meant why do you think I became one.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

I'd rather you weren't here, to be perfectly honest.

As I have said before, I look at "neoreactionaries" in much the same way I assume a hard-core Marxist would look at a kid who had decided to be a communist after playing Red Alert. It's just embarrassing.

Red Alert 2 only, the original Red Alert you work directly for fucking STALIN.

It’s funny how it is acceptable to make a game about the ussr but not nazi germany is positive light.

[Nova Cyberia]

Red Alert 2 only, the original Red Alert you work directly for fucking STALIN.

It’s funny how it is acceptable to make a game about the ussr but not nazi germany is positive light.

lol red alert doesn't portray the USSR in a positive light.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

It’s funny how it is acceptable to make a game about the ussr but not nazi germany is positive light.

lol red alert doesn't portray the USSR in a positive light.

The liberals who freak if they put nazi germany instead though.

[Valrifell]

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

The welsh are the ones who are supposed to have dragons.

I hope you're kidding.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

The welsh are the ones who are supposed to have dragons.

I hope you're kidding.

Yes- would make for an epic painting though.

[Nova Cyberia]

lol red alert doesn't portray the USSR in a positive light.

The liberals who freak if they put nazi germany instead though.

why exactly are you complaining this much about a video game?

playing the bad guy is fun.

[Valrifell]

lol red alert doesn't portray the USSR in a positive light.

The liberals who freak if they put nazi germany instead though.

Nonsense, I play as Nazi Germany in HoI4 all the time.

Mostly because they have the funnest start.

[Conserative Morality]

lol red alert doesn't portray the USSR in a positive light.

The liberals who freak if they put nazi germany instead though.

Ever play CoH?

Guess not.

[Old Tyrannia]

It's literally in your signature.

I meant why do you think I became one.

I'm not sure that I can answer you honestly and frankly without it coming off as a personal attack, which would be a violation of the site rules. Suffice to say I don't think it was a rational or well-informed decision.