Loved this so much! Thank you for including my Note. This was such a great read. Made me think of Georges Duby stating that the middle ages were 'resolutely male' -- like, excuse me? who made all of those people in the middle ages then? lol
Thank you for writing this and sharing this information with us!! ❤️
Thank you for your kind words! Especially as you know how nervous I was before posting this… And that quote by Duby is shocking! I think it’s fair to say the historiography of the Middle Ages has been resolutely male - but a lot of us are working hard to overturn that 💪
I didn't know Duby stated that but it doesn't surprise me. It confirms the fact that historians recreate the past influenced, among else, by their own time, contemporary historiography and popular ideas. We are more interested in women's history than historians 40 years ago, I guess.
By his logic, let’s imagine 21st century Americans with grave goods. A man buried with an M16 would be a man, and a female U.S. soldier buried with an M16 would be … identifying as a man? That would defy the vast majority of experience even in this enlightened Year of Our Lord 2025 … how so much more in the Other Country of the Past.
It’s mad isn’t it! I couldn’t quite believe it as I read it but it came up time and again. Your parallel with modern soldiers is so helpful: there are many, many women today for whom being physically strong and engaging in traditionally masculine arenas is a core part of their feminine identity!
Maybe I’m late to the party here, but let us assume the trad feminist position that men have suppressed women ‘s notable acts cultural and otherwise through history. To say that an Anglo-Saxon shield-maiden is “really a man” reeks of the same misogyny, doesn’t it? “She carried a sword — she thought she was a man!” And once again ignoring the literary and cultural evidence in favor of the correct narrative, whether patristic, Victorian, or Modern.
Love this a lot! Of course I’m no expert but over the centuries peoples outfits so vastly changed and today people say only girls wear skirts when in history, this wasn’t the case.
Not really related but what came to mind when I read this, was that I loved the book about the female pope - no matter whether it was true or fiction.
You’re right with the modern perspectives on the past! I had to cut it for word count, but I had a paragraph about the so-called ‘traditional gender roles’ being actually really quite a modern (C19th/20th) invention and that actually medieval women worked just as hard alongside the men in physically demanding roles! It wasn’t always the case, as I read a recent study showing that the men of a community had physically tougher lives than the women, but the past definitely had more nuance than is sometimes given to it.
You probably refer to Donna Woolfolk Cross' Pope Joan and, while it was a compelling story, I had a hard time tolerating her consistent use of wrong facts. For example, people eating corn in 9th century Germany or the clergy using utensils like forks when it's only in the 10th century Venice when it was introduced. It kind of broke the charm for me.
For sure, can totally see how it’s super frustrating when you spot the inconsistencies.
Thinking about it, I think I actually never read the book I watched the movie in 2009. Not sure if it was a German movie or international one but being 17 at the time, i thought “oh cool, a woman was a pope, so I can also be anything I want.” Of course the world is more complex and there’s likely a lot more fiction that reality to the whole story but I thought it was pretty empowering in a way. But maybe I’m not remembering it correctly after all these years 😂
No, it was cool because it introduced its audience to the possibility that there was a female pope which is not something we learned in school textbooks. 😃
Do you think these badass women would be pressured to be trans men today? Asking because it seems to me that gender stereotyping is what is being used a lot in explaining what is feminine/female vs masculine/male.
I think it’s definitely a difficult (and political) one to think through, and not a question I feel particularly well-placed to answer I’m afraid! There doesn’t seem to have been space for a gender outside of the binary masculine/feminine, in terms of the archaeological or written evidence, even though there is evidence for same-sex relationships. I’m not sure they’d have known what it meant to be trans as it just wasn’t on their radar yet in this part of the world. You raise a thought-provoking question though!
Not expecting an answer! Just voicing my thought process reading this and the linked articles. I personally think we should ditch the adjectives masculine and feminine and not assign any style, occupational preference, likes and dislikes, hobbies, etc, to male or female categorically. If you like long hair and nail polish, you like long hair and nail polish. If you're a warrior, you're a warrior. If you are a baker, you're a baker. Etc. etc. and so on.... None of those things is inherently male or female. I am leaning toward thinking that in today's world the idea of "gender" outside of a grammatical way to categorize nouns is useless and causes more harm than good.
(My comment/thought has nothing todo with sexual preference or the existence of medical/biological m/f sexes.)
I forget which episode it was, but at least one episode of Time Team involved a discussion of gender roles and warrior women in the context of the excavation of a grave.
IIRC, they found grave goods that would typically be found in a man's grave in that of a woman (or, who they thought was a woman that turned out to have been a man - I can't quite remember).
Ooh I love Time Team but don’t remember that episode - perhaps a good excuse for a rewatch… There was an encouraging episode on Digging for Britain recently in which an object typically found with females was found with a male: they suggested it could have been a gift or good luck charm from a sibling or lover, which feels much more fitting than suggesting the individual was asserting a mixed gender identity!
I loved the questions you asked after Stoodley’s conclusions. Particularly saying that just because a woman had a sword, did that HAVe to mean she was wholly masculine. I had an exchange on Substack this week talking about Motherhood. Why can we be either only a “stay at home mom” or a “working mom”
Why can’t we just be mother’s and then also go about whatever else we do. Because I think that historically, most mother’s would have considered everything they did to also be work. I thought those questions you asked were also very similar and pointed out a similar truth.
Thanks for sharing! We are definitely living in a time when our own identities can be broader than women in more recent history might have experienced: a working and stay at home mum, for example. It’s a helpful parallel!
And I think sometimes, we make the mistake of thinking that because of the 20th century rise of feminism, women through history were just more and more and more oppressed. But in my opinion, that was somewhat true, but also they had a totally different culture and many would have not felt that.
Yes, that oppression piece also came through in Stoodley study, without (I think) enough evidence. The statement was just thrown out that ‘things got worse for women in the seventh century’ but the written and archaeological evidence doesn’t support that, certainly not in such a broad sweeping statement.
This reminds me of a personal reminder based on experience from years studying armed conflict, both historical and contemporary, “first reports are always wrong”. This doesn’t mean that these first accounts and impressions are groundless and without merit. First reports and impressions tell us that there’s something going on and “it looks roughly like this” - more information and updates to follow. As I have spent most of my life in the field of military history new sources frequently become available and new techniques and technologies help us draw new and more accurate details from old material. I’ve enjoyed kibitzing in adjacent fields of history and watching the same process at work.
I love this article. You are clearly doing a great thesis!
Coincidentally I was jotting down some writing yesterday which is obliquely related, although about psychology rather than history. Which is the simple observation that a lot of these modern academic disciplines 'came of age' so to speak in the Victorian era (or let's say the century since the so-called 'enlightenment'), which was, amongst other extremely negative traits, as patriarchal as you can get. And so as a result, the 'formative' years of these academic subjects are an expression of the social environment/mores of the time. In the same way, for example, the study of 'evolution' becomes distinctly masculine and aggressive (not to mention a little racist), all that 'survival of the fittest' and 'competition' stuff, as opposed to 'cooperation', which was the actual norm for like 99% of human history. The same is true of gender roles. The Patriarchy is a relatively modern invention, in that sense.
The other thing we should perhaps consider is the massive cultural difference between pre- and post-1066. Post 1066 it's extremely patriarchal. And this eventually leads to the aforementioned Victorian mindset, after 800 years of indoctrination, effectively.
And unfortunately, we as a society (not just in Britain) are still having to deal with the post-traumatic effects of by now 1000 years of all this horrid stuff being inflicted on us. Equally unfortunately, there is a kind of struggle going on right now in the world between those of us - like you, Holly - who wish to unravel and heal all this that's been inflicted on people in terms of 'cultural identity' and 'attitudes' and so on, and try and foster a more tolerant and equal/balanced society (what true feminism should be about), and the reactionary pushback by the same old patriarchal types who have been in the ascendancy for so long.
If I was to be going really deep I'd blame it on monotheism ultimately, but that's beyond the scope of this comment and far too contentious! Although I would note that the Anglo-Saxons didn't entirely lose their pagan (i.e. harmonious) roots despite the imposition of Christianity (my guess is they were helped by the indigenous Celts - which is kind of one aspect of the Arthurian stories), whereas post-1066 it was very much the Roman version imposed on everyone, which was far more austere and authoritarian (i.e. patriarchal).
Anyhow - I loved your article as you can see, seeing what a train of thought it provoked!
Loved this so much! Thank you for including my Note. This was such a great read. Made me think of Georges Duby stating that the middle ages were 'resolutely male' -- like, excuse me? who made all of those people in the middle ages then? lol
Thank you for writing this and sharing this information with us!! ❤️
Thank you for your kind words! Especially as you know how nervous I was before posting this… And that quote by Duby is shocking! I think it’s fair to say the historiography of the Middle Ages has been resolutely male - but a lot of us are working hard to overturn that 💪
I didn't know Duby stated that but it doesn't surprise me. It confirms the fact that historians recreate the past influenced, among else, by their own time, contemporary historiography and popular ideas. We are more interested in women's history than historians 40 years ago, I guess.
By his logic, let’s imagine 21st century Americans with grave goods. A man buried with an M16 would be a man, and a female U.S. soldier buried with an M16 would be … identifying as a man? That would defy the vast majority of experience even in this enlightened Year of Our Lord 2025 … how so much more in the Other Country of the Past.
It’s mad isn’t it! I couldn’t quite believe it as I read it but it came up time and again. Your parallel with modern soldiers is so helpful: there are many, many women today for whom being physically strong and engaging in traditionally masculine arenas is a core part of their feminine identity!
Maybe I’m late to the party here, but let us assume the trad feminist position that men have suppressed women ‘s notable acts cultural and otherwise through history. To say that an Anglo-Saxon shield-maiden is “really a man” reeks of the same misogyny, doesn’t it? “She carried a sword — she thought she was a man!” And once again ignoring the literary and cultural evidence in favor of the correct narrative, whether patristic, Victorian, or Modern.
Yes yes yes! I couldn’t agree more.
“A real woman has children and fills the drinking horns and spins. Anyone who does culturally ‘male’ things as defined by us is a man.”
The yang self-identifies as the only important thing once again.
Love this a lot! Of course I’m no expert but over the centuries peoples outfits so vastly changed and today people say only girls wear skirts when in history, this wasn’t the case.
Not really related but what came to mind when I read this, was that I loved the book about the female pope - no matter whether it was true or fiction.
You’re right with the modern perspectives on the past! I had to cut it for word count, but I had a paragraph about the so-called ‘traditional gender roles’ being actually really quite a modern (C19th/20th) invention and that actually medieval women worked just as hard alongside the men in physically demanding roles! It wasn’t always the case, as I read a recent study showing that the men of a community had physically tougher lives than the women, but the past definitely had more nuance than is sometimes given to it.
You probably refer to Donna Woolfolk Cross' Pope Joan and, while it was a compelling story, I had a hard time tolerating her consistent use of wrong facts. For example, people eating corn in 9th century Germany or the clergy using utensils like forks when it's only in the 10th century Venice when it was introduced. It kind of broke the charm for me.
For sure, can totally see how it’s super frustrating when you spot the inconsistencies.
Thinking about it, I think I actually never read the book I watched the movie in 2009. Not sure if it was a German movie or international one but being 17 at the time, i thought “oh cool, a woman was a pope, so I can also be anything I want.” Of course the world is more complex and there’s likely a lot more fiction that reality to the whole story but I thought it was pretty empowering in a way. But maybe I’m not remembering it correctly after all these years 😂
No, it was cool because it introduced its audience to the possibility that there was a female pope which is not something we learned in school textbooks. 😃
Do you think these badass women would be pressured to be trans men today? Asking because it seems to me that gender stereotyping is what is being used a lot in explaining what is feminine/female vs masculine/male.
I think it’s definitely a difficult (and political) one to think through, and not a question I feel particularly well-placed to answer I’m afraid! There doesn’t seem to have been space for a gender outside of the binary masculine/feminine, in terms of the archaeological or written evidence, even though there is evidence for same-sex relationships. I’m not sure they’d have known what it meant to be trans as it just wasn’t on their radar yet in this part of the world. You raise a thought-provoking question though!
Not expecting an answer! Just voicing my thought process reading this and the linked articles. I personally think we should ditch the adjectives masculine and feminine and not assign any style, occupational preference, likes and dislikes, hobbies, etc, to male or female categorically. If you like long hair and nail polish, you like long hair and nail polish. If you're a warrior, you're a warrior. If you are a baker, you're a baker. Etc. etc. and so on.... None of those things is inherently male or female. I am leaning toward thinking that in today's world the idea of "gender" outside of a grammatical way to categorize nouns is useless and causes more harm than good.
(My comment/thought has nothing todo with sexual preference or the existence of medical/biological m/f sexes.)
Thanks for this analysis, Holly, I look forward to reading more about such research.
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I forget which episode it was, but at least one episode of Time Team involved a discussion of gender roles and warrior women in the context of the excavation of a grave.
IIRC, they found grave goods that would typically be found in a man's grave in that of a woman (or, who they thought was a woman that turned out to have been a man - I can't quite remember).
Ooh I love Time Team but don’t remember that episode - perhaps a good excuse for a rewatch… There was an encouraging episode on Digging for Britain recently in which an object typically found with females was found with a male: they suggested it could have been a gift or good luck charm from a sibling or lover, which feels much more fitting than suggesting the individual was asserting a mixed gender identity!
Excellent, so very thorough!
Thanks!
Fascinating article and topic!! The discussions had me going down some rabbit holes!! Challenging the 'norms' opens up so many possibilities.
The comments have been amazing! It was conversation I was hoping to generate, rather than providing answers. Glad you’ve found it interesting 🥰
A great read and such a good point! Thank you Holly!
Thanks McKenzie! I’d be interested to know whether any parts in particular were thought-provoking for you 🥰
I loved the questions you asked after Stoodley’s conclusions. Particularly saying that just because a woman had a sword, did that HAVe to mean she was wholly masculine. I had an exchange on Substack this week talking about Motherhood. Why can we be either only a “stay at home mom” or a “working mom”
Why can’t we just be mother’s and then also go about whatever else we do. Because I think that historically, most mother’s would have considered everything they did to also be work. I thought those questions you asked were also very similar and pointed out a similar truth.
Thanks for sharing! We are definitely living in a time when our own identities can be broader than women in more recent history might have experienced: a working and stay at home mum, for example. It’s a helpful parallel!
And I think sometimes, we make the mistake of thinking that because of the 20th century rise of feminism, women through history were just more and more and more oppressed. But in my opinion, that was somewhat true, but also they had a totally different culture and many would have not felt that.
Yes, that oppression piece also came through in Stoodley study, without (I think) enough evidence. The statement was just thrown out that ‘things got worse for women in the seventh century’ but the written and archaeological evidence doesn’t support that, certainly not in such a broad sweeping statement.
Oh that is very interesting to learn. And he doesn’t point to anything that would show how or why?
Have you come across anything else from the period that would point to that?
This reminds me of a personal reminder based on experience from years studying armed conflict, both historical and contemporary, “first reports are always wrong”. This doesn’t mean that these first accounts and impressions are groundless and without merit. First reports and impressions tell us that there’s something going on and “it looks roughly like this” - more information and updates to follow. As I have spent most of my life in the field of military history new sources frequently become available and new techniques and technologies help us draw new and more accurate details from old material. I’ve enjoyed kibitzing in adjacent fields of history and watching the same process at work.
I love this article. You are clearly doing a great thesis!
Coincidentally I was jotting down some writing yesterday which is obliquely related, although about psychology rather than history. Which is the simple observation that a lot of these modern academic disciplines 'came of age' so to speak in the Victorian era (or let's say the century since the so-called 'enlightenment'), which was, amongst other extremely negative traits, as patriarchal as you can get. And so as a result, the 'formative' years of these academic subjects are an expression of the social environment/mores of the time. In the same way, for example, the study of 'evolution' becomes distinctly masculine and aggressive (not to mention a little racist), all that 'survival of the fittest' and 'competition' stuff, as opposed to 'cooperation', which was the actual norm for like 99% of human history. The same is true of gender roles. The Patriarchy is a relatively modern invention, in that sense.
The other thing we should perhaps consider is the massive cultural difference between pre- and post-1066. Post 1066 it's extremely patriarchal. And this eventually leads to the aforementioned Victorian mindset, after 800 years of indoctrination, effectively.
And unfortunately, we as a society (not just in Britain) are still having to deal with the post-traumatic effects of by now 1000 years of all this horrid stuff being inflicted on us. Equally unfortunately, there is a kind of struggle going on right now in the world between those of us - like you, Holly - who wish to unravel and heal all this that's been inflicted on people in terms of 'cultural identity' and 'attitudes' and so on, and try and foster a more tolerant and equal/balanced society (what true feminism should be about), and the reactionary pushback by the same old patriarchal types who have been in the ascendancy for so long.
If I was to be going really deep I'd blame it on monotheism ultimately, but that's beyond the scope of this comment and far too contentious! Although I would note that the Anglo-Saxons didn't entirely lose their pagan (i.e. harmonious) roots despite the imposition of Christianity (my guess is they were helped by the indigenous Celts - which is kind of one aspect of the Arthurian stories), whereas post-1066 it was very much the Roman version imposed on everyone, which was far more austere and authoritarian (i.e. patriarchal).
Anyhow - I loved your article as you can see, seeing what a train of thought it provoked!