In the twentieth century the role of women changed dramatically.
Emmeline Pankhurst started the ball rolling when, in 1903 she formed 'The Woman's Social & Political Union,' the Suffragettes.
In Devon, WSPU activists, lead by Emmeline's daughter, Sylvia were called, chained themselves to railings, by picketing Exeter prison and beginning a militant campaign in Devon.
The time had come for equal rights between men and women- and thanks to Emmeline it is all but standard now.
During the time of the second world war when the men folk went to fight the good fight the way opened for the true equality of the sexes when women had to do their traditional jobs.
Now nothing is sacred.
Women take the helm as much as men.
The tables have turned and the male has frequently become the subordinate, sometimes finding it difficult to adjust to the change, especially if he was one of the many who had played the dominant role.
Long gone are the days when the woman was the housewife dependent upon her bread winning spouse, the woman who stayed at home, brought up the children and everything that entailed.
By the end of the twentieth century she and many others had taken over some of the top notch jobs and the running of formerly male orientated positions in commerce.
Yet historically, women have always played a major role.
Queen Elizabeth 1st being a prime example of just how well her gender could run a kingdom.
Arguably - in modern times - Margaret Thatcher was another.
Odd that both women were reluctant to give precedence to others of their sex in the jobs thatmattered.
Perhaps they felt it was easier to manipulate a man knowing full well that, despite the physical attributes given to men, women were always the stronger sex in real terms.
Given the right sort of women that is.
This is how John Aylmer, 16th Century Bishop of London, described women.
He made the fairer sex be of two sorts: "Some of them wiser, better learned, discreeter and more constant than a number of men," but another of them and the most part he sharply described as: "Fond, foolish, wanton, flibbergibbs, tattlers, triflers, wavering, witless, without counsel, feeble, careless, rash, proud, dainty, nice, tale-bearers, eves-droppers, rumour raisers, evil tongued, worse minded, and in every wise doltified with the dregs of the Devil's dunghill.
" His vocation certainly brought him into contact with women of all sorts and no doubt he is probably one of the few men of his time who spoke in good knowledge of them.
In his younger days he served as tutor to Lady Jane Grey and her sisters, Katherine and Mary.
He was well known and respected by the Tudors in Court.
He knew the royal children, Edward and Elizabeth when they were in their early teens.
He spoke well of Katherine Parr, Henry V111's last wife, but not so well of Mary Tudor who put Lady Jane and her husband, Guildford Dudley to death by removal of heads.
Later, in his defence of women Aylmer obviously influenced Elizabeth who made him Bishop of London.
According to 16th century preacher, John Knox, a Scottish reformation leader, women, by the law of nature and God were unfit to rule and were forbidden by scripture so to do.
Good Queen Bess soon took exception to this.
In his book: "First Blast Of the Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women" he described women being "weak in nature, feeble in body, soft in courage and unskilful in practise" and many other derogatory things.
In 1559 John Aylmer replied with a book of his own:" An Harbour For Faithful And True Subjects" listing names of remarkable rulers of the past who happened to be women.
He discovered them in the histories of the Jews, Ethnics and Christians; Johannes, Alexandria, Salome, Isis, Lavinia and of course, Cleopatra to mention just a few who proved to be as formidable, sometimes more successful than their male contemporaries.
He did much to procure the better welfare for the poor but, on the downside, was none too lenient with the papists, some of which he imprisoned.
He made loud noises about the lavishness of the aristocratic ladies in declaring: "Make your Queen rich for your defence rather than your husbands poor for your gearish gayness.
Rings, chains, the price of superfluous ruffs, furs, fringes and other such trinkets would be better spent to make the Queen richer and abler to meet with your enemies, and yourselves much the honester.
" His assertion was that the huge amount of expense given to such adornments would be better spent to help the Queen in the procurement of her fighting forces.
He was quick to come down on Lady Jane when she copied her contemporaries.
Such was her respect of him that she backtracked to being just plain Jane.
There is much of the nature of Shakespeare's writings in the chronicles of John Aylmer and it is likely that he read some of scholar's work.
Will often niggled the gentry in Queen Elizabeth's Court, following them around and making notes - "all the time making notes" and gathering information.
I wonder if he did likewise with the Bishop of London? Otherwise where did he accrue all the data for his classical works.
He certainly put many women on a pedestal.
And there are always women of all sorts cropping up in his famous writings.
One could argue that because Queen Mary Tudor, the 'Bloody Queen' ruled at the time Knox was first published he wrote with her in mind making much of her errors.
Like Aylmer Knox exiled on the continent because his life too would certainly have been on the line.
Aylmer who exiled in Strasbourg , was of the wrong following to take chances in England and would surely have been burnt at the stake as were so many of his contemporaries if he had stayed there.
His Archdeaconry of Stow was all but lost.
Aylmer must have deemed Mary to be one of the few women who failed the monarchy being spurned by the people after she married Philip, King of Spain.
He must have despised her for removing the head of one of his brightest pupils, Lady Jane, but seemed to understand she was in a catch 22 situation when Jane's father joined ranks with Thomas Wyatt in a vein effort to dethrone her.
Nothing has really changed that much.
Women surely have and will always be the stronger sex.
History is merely repeating itself.
© Peter Carroll.
2008.
Emmeline Pankhurst started the ball rolling when, in 1903 she formed 'The Woman's Social & Political Union,' the Suffragettes.
In Devon, WSPU activists, lead by Emmeline's daughter, Sylvia were called, chained themselves to railings, by picketing Exeter prison and beginning a militant campaign in Devon.
The time had come for equal rights between men and women- and thanks to Emmeline it is all but standard now.
During the time of the second world war when the men folk went to fight the good fight the way opened for the true equality of the sexes when women had to do their traditional jobs.
Now nothing is sacred.
Women take the helm as much as men.
The tables have turned and the male has frequently become the subordinate, sometimes finding it difficult to adjust to the change, especially if he was one of the many who had played the dominant role.
Long gone are the days when the woman was the housewife dependent upon her bread winning spouse, the woman who stayed at home, brought up the children and everything that entailed.
By the end of the twentieth century she and many others had taken over some of the top notch jobs and the running of formerly male orientated positions in commerce.
Yet historically, women have always played a major role.
Queen Elizabeth 1st being a prime example of just how well her gender could run a kingdom.
Arguably - in modern times - Margaret Thatcher was another.
Odd that both women were reluctant to give precedence to others of their sex in the jobs thatmattered.
Perhaps they felt it was easier to manipulate a man knowing full well that, despite the physical attributes given to men, women were always the stronger sex in real terms.
Given the right sort of women that is.
This is how John Aylmer, 16th Century Bishop of London, described women.
He made the fairer sex be of two sorts: "Some of them wiser, better learned, discreeter and more constant than a number of men," but another of them and the most part he sharply described as: "Fond, foolish, wanton, flibbergibbs, tattlers, triflers, wavering, witless, without counsel, feeble, careless, rash, proud, dainty, nice, tale-bearers, eves-droppers, rumour raisers, evil tongued, worse minded, and in every wise doltified with the dregs of the Devil's dunghill.
" His vocation certainly brought him into contact with women of all sorts and no doubt he is probably one of the few men of his time who spoke in good knowledge of them.
In his younger days he served as tutor to Lady Jane Grey and her sisters, Katherine and Mary.
He was well known and respected by the Tudors in Court.
He knew the royal children, Edward and Elizabeth when they were in their early teens.
He spoke well of Katherine Parr, Henry V111's last wife, but not so well of Mary Tudor who put Lady Jane and her husband, Guildford Dudley to death by removal of heads.
Later, in his defence of women Aylmer obviously influenced Elizabeth who made him Bishop of London.
According to 16th century preacher, John Knox, a Scottish reformation leader, women, by the law of nature and God were unfit to rule and were forbidden by scripture so to do.
Good Queen Bess soon took exception to this.
In his book: "First Blast Of the Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women" he described women being "weak in nature, feeble in body, soft in courage and unskilful in practise" and many other derogatory things.
In 1559 John Aylmer replied with a book of his own:" An Harbour For Faithful And True Subjects" listing names of remarkable rulers of the past who happened to be women.
He discovered them in the histories of the Jews, Ethnics and Christians; Johannes, Alexandria, Salome, Isis, Lavinia and of course, Cleopatra to mention just a few who proved to be as formidable, sometimes more successful than their male contemporaries.
He did much to procure the better welfare for the poor but, on the downside, was none too lenient with the papists, some of which he imprisoned.
He made loud noises about the lavishness of the aristocratic ladies in declaring: "Make your Queen rich for your defence rather than your husbands poor for your gearish gayness.
Rings, chains, the price of superfluous ruffs, furs, fringes and other such trinkets would be better spent to make the Queen richer and abler to meet with your enemies, and yourselves much the honester.
" His assertion was that the huge amount of expense given to such adornments would be better spent to help the Queen in the procurement of her fighting forces.
He was quick to come down on Lady Jane when she copied her contemporaries.
Such was her respect of him that she backtracked to being just plain Jane.
There is much of the nature of Shakespeare's writings in the chronicles of John Aylmer and it is likely that he read some of scholar's work.
Will often niggled the gentry in Queen Elizabeth's Court, following them around and making notes - "all the time making notes" and gathering information.
I wonder if he did likewise with the Bishop of London? Otherwise where did he accrue all the data for his classical works.
He certainly put many women on a pedestal.
And there are always women of all sorts cropping up in his famous writings.
One could argue that because Queen Mary Tudor, the 'Bloody Queen' ruled at the time Knox was first published he wrote with her in mind making much of her errors.
Like Aylmer Knox exiled on the continent because his life too would certainly have been on the line.
Aylmer who exiled in Strasbourg , was of the wrong following to take chances in England and would surely have been burnt at the stake as were so many of his contemporaries if he had stayed there.
His Archdeaconry of Stow was all but lost.
Aylmer must have deemed Mary to be one of the few women who failed the monarchy being spurned by the people after she married Philip, King of Spain.
He must have despised her for removing the head of one of his brightest pupils, Lady Jane, but seemed to understand she was in a catch 22 situation when Jane's father joined ranks with Thomas Wyatt in a vein effort to dethrone her.
Nothing has really changed that much.
Women surely have and will always be the stronger sex.
History is merely repeating itself.
© Peter Carroll.
2008.
SHARE
