1/? It is often said that the Celtic world, and particularly Ireland, was a more egalitarian nation where it is often suggested that this was a time of equality and rights for women. however, records do not confirm this shitty idea.The biggest argument for supporting this nonsense about the belief in equality at the time boils down to the supposed "prominent role" of women in Irish mythology, with Queen Medbh of Táin being cited as an excellent example, even by figures in this forum who are obsessed with it.The biggest problem is that these stories should be seen as distant echoes of Celtic religion, and many of the characters are related to the gods, and Medbh in particular can be better interpreted as an allegory for misconduct than anything else.We have no primary records of a female ruler and all the laws of the monarchy are of a masculine nature. It's that simple, really. There are some references to isolated women with some aspect of power, but these are debated and change historical consensus.
>>186670682/?and didn't**** change historical consensus.Social norms expected women to be reserved and virtuous, and they were expected to have a "firm tongue, firm virtue, and be a firm homemaker." There was nothing about being independent. Nor was it expected that they would engage in illegal satire.Unlike the stories that are sold out there about "women's rights," "how she could divorce at will," marriage was defined by property. Plain and simple. Without parental permission, it didn't happen.They practiced polygyny and could have multiple wives. It was not uncommon to have a principal wife and a concubine in a household. The Church tried to prohibit polygyny, but was unsuccessful. The husband *literally* bought the wife from her father. Where is the equality?
>>186670813/?? A virgin wife was defined by a drop of blood, a drop of sweat, and a tear Remember what I said at the beginning, that basing oneself on ancient stories about vulgar, mythical queens wasn't the best way to analyze the local historical context? So, my friends, the repercussions and stigma if a bride were discovered not to be a virgin were significant. she could be subject to living miserably due to financial loss, social humiliation, or even murder. But you told me Ireland was feminist? Wasn't it? Idiots. >muh rights saarlol no. Women couldn't be witnesses in a legal case or even make contracts without their husband or father. They were always under a man's jurisdiction from the moment they were born until the moment they diedLet's say a married woman went to a pub without a man and she was abused by someone, she simply wouldn't receive compensation because it was wrong for her to be there without her husband to protect her.The law treated drunken rape and sober rape differently. A sober rapist was obligated to pay the price of honor to the husband or guardian of the woman.
>>186671004/4 In legal proceedings, an oath taken by a woman was considered invalid, except in certain special circumstancesVery feminist, isn't??
>>18667068>>18667081>>18667100>nooo they wuz patriarchal Oh, you're still uncomfortable since that thread? You and your friend (literally the same jerk) couldn't answer me about the existence of Koryos women and the Celts of the British Isles who were matrilineal, matrifocal, and matrilocal. Cope.Besides, the OP conveniently left out a lot of things that change the narrative, lol.1.hey troon, Divorce was 100% legal in marital disputes if the husband left a mark. she could divorce him. And considering how women usually start fights first, many men were screwed over by the law lol. And the law was very similar to what we have today kek a woman could divorce her husband if he was impotent or even overweight, lol. Feminist laws2. Troon, You're lying. They COULD sign contracts if they had money. Social standing was more important than gender.3.They literally had anti-harassment laws, lol, and usually a woman could go to a hearing alleging abuse; these were acts punishable by law and with fines. Imagine, you're in a tavern and a girl with some drunk cousins walks by and you think she's pretty and kiss her but next she says you harassed her.4.The part about the oath is also a lie. There were legal obligations to pay "maintenance due to illness" or an oath for a woman during childbirth, where there was a risk of death and the child's father was unknown LMAO 5. Just like in modern Ireland, abortion was practiced and celebrated. Very feminist, lol, there wasn't even a law against it.Bonus!!! Their Celtic cousins shared their wives with other men, why not in Ireland? BTFO again
>>18667068Nice try bro nations that allows itself to be led by a woman at war cannot be virile or masculine. I'm sorry. The Irish also received a lot of influence from their neighbors, and these laws are quite late.
>>18667137Yes, descendants of Celtic peoples being "misogynistic" or "androcentric" bcuz it would embarrass the OG Celts and their matrifocal ladies in a round hut in southern Britain >Reliefsand sculptures of Celtic women are known from theGallo-Roman culture. Prestigious burials of Celtic women have been found alongside genetic evidence formatrilinealityandmatrilocalityamong some Celtic peoples.>According to Suetonius,Caesarspent a lot of money on sexual experiences in Gaul. His legionnaires sang in thetriumphthat he had seduced a horde of Gallic women, calling him a "bald whoremonger>In the Irish saga of Conchobar mac Nessa, the king is said to have the right to the first night with any marriageable woman and the right to sleep with the wife of anyone who hosted him. This is called theGeisof the king>Most written accounts of the Ancient Celts are from the Romans and Greeks, though it is not clear how accurate these are. Roman historiansAmmianus MarcellinusandTacitusmentioned Celtic women inciting, participating in, and leading battles.Celtic bros?
Whydoyouwritelikethis?
>>18667150I'm sorry but you just have to accept that a dweeb in a dark basement like you still wouldn't win a masculinity contest against some iron age bog bastard, no matter how much you try to vicariously live through your own iron age ancestors.
>>18667068Get a life, incel.
>>18667068Some of those are anachronisms, but that aside, all were effectively mandatory under penalty of death or ostracision. Bragging about people being "devoutly Christian" in 15th century france is about as impressive as bragging about people being "devoutly Stalinist" in 1950 in the USSR.
>>18667131>1A man could discipline his wife by hitting her, but he couldn't leave her immobile and overreact—even Muslims say so. So what? The husband could also divorce his wife if she did not meet the pre-established marital requirements2. Women could not testify in court proceedings or enter into contracts without the presence of their husband or father. That's not a lie. The laws could sometimes be circumvented under certain conditions, mainly due to the Celts being a stratified society of social classes. But I think you're too stupid to understand that.3.In both Greece and Rome, or in patriarchal countries today, another person couldn't touch their property (a woman in this case) without legal consequences, so I don't know how that would prove they were feminists. It wasn't like today at all. They weren't really "feminist laws.4. You accuse me of arguing about things, but you're the only one doing it in the end. In legal proceedings, a woman's oath was considered invalid. But there were some exceptions, such as those mentioned above. As stated above, one of them concerned extreme bodily harm in which the aggressor would be required to pay compensation. As for a woman's oath during childbirth, it was simply because there was a risk of death and the child's father was unknown. I don't understand how this can be feminist.5. Back then, abortion wasn't "a social norm," much less celebrated as it is today. In fact, it was cited as grounds for divorce if the woman induced it. Stop lying, idiot. Legal texts from the early Middle Ages don't foresee any specific sanctions for abortion itself.>muh pic n shieetMuch of your knowledge is based on Roman propaganda not written by the Celts themselves. Irrelevant
>>18667384>>18667137>too late saarThe Law Texts were written down in the 14-16th C ***but** originate in the 7-8th C AD. Their origins go further than that to pre-Christian times. They are a fundamental window into the era of the Gaelic speaking Celts & demonstrate a patriarchal society. You lost, again.
>>18667068Feminine cultures get replaced by Masculine ones, take as old as time.
>>18667137Female warriors were not a cultural institution among the British, Iron Age Celts, as they were a strongly patriarchal, patrilineal society. There were of course occasional ""exceptions""" but this is at the level of individuals disasters
>>18667068Good thread Regarding the supposedly Germanic gender equality: The social status of women in both pagan and Christian Iceland was not particularly distinct.
>>18667821>Nooo they wuz egalitarian Feminist bros? Our answer??
