Really pay attention. This filth isn't even Catholic let alone chivalrous.

I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.

all the good things of this life are given by God to do your [women’s] will and that of other ladies. It is evident, and for me absolutely clear, that men are nothing, that they are incapable of drinking at the source of goodness if they are not impelled to do so by women. However, women being the origin and cause of every good, and God having given them such a great prerogative…so it is obvious that each man must try to serve ladies so that he may be illuminated by their grace. …For all the good done by living beings is done through the love of women, in order to be praised by them, and to be able to extol the gifts that they give, without which nothing is done in life that deserves praise” (Pernoud, 97)

I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.

In a way, I agree that it uses a type of figure of speech. I haven't read the work from which the excerpt is taken, but it strikes me as satirical. The French have a uniquely biting wit that comes through even in translation.

If it's satire then why would the author of the article have

An opinion expressed in the 12th century by André le Chapelain is said to be the standard male view of women at that time:

Well, just because someone writes a book, doesn't make everything in it true or accurate. A reasonable question to be asked when reading it is "who said it was the standard male view of women at that time?" Does he give any corroborating view from other authors of the time?

I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.

That was  my impression too.  It sounded like an example from the medieval "courtly love" literary genre.  If so, it is neither Church teaching nor especially representative of everyday thinking.  I think that Chaucer gives more representative views of women. Wikipedia has an article on courtly love that people can look at if they are curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love

In a way, I agree that it uses a type of figure of speech. I haven't read the work from which the excerpt is taken, but it strikes me as satirical. The French have a uniquely biting wit that comes through even in translation.

Me neither, but I just looked it up, as I guessed, "André Le Chapelain was a French writer on the art of courtly love". https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andre-le-Chapelain 

I don't think people on the forum is particularly familiar with that genre, nor the meaning of it. So FYI Courtly love is between a Lady and a knight, there's a significant social class dynamic here and a knight praising the Lady is just like how government officials praise the emperor/queen. Yet the so to speak "the level of simping," I believe, is present in love letters and poems throughout history
The Church doesn't deem those literature as beneficial. Many of them are full of vice and infamous. But trying to rationale it "but the reality is so and so" is missing the point of the literature. It's NOT supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be an IDEAL. So ideally women should be very virtuous, very noble, very pure, and the very dirty filthy men (author is speaking for himself humbly) can aspire after them.

So you're saying women voting is wrong. And I am saying voting is wrong. Democracy leads the society down to the drain, so if it did, it was not women's fault. I don't see how anything would be different today if there was never women voting.

I am saying that the original justification for women voting was wrong, based on a false assumption about women's alleged moral superiority.  I am inclined to agree with you about voting in general.  Although I am not sure how much of the problem is democracy in itself and how much is all the "Enlightenment" baggage that comes with it.  The entire philosophical system leads to intellectual rot.

De Gaulle is one in a long line of traitors that betrayed France. He was worst in many ways because he is considered to the 'right'. However, he covered for the communist massacre of 100,000 patriots in the years following the second world war, in the 'épuration' and left education and culture in the hands of the left.

There is one silver lining though, he said of the Jєωs after the 6 day war: " the Jєωs, hitherto dispersed, but who had remained what they had always been, that is to say, an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering, have they not come, once gathered in the site of their former greatness, to change into ardent and conquering ambition the very moving wishes which they had formed for nineteen centuries: next year in Jerusalem"

That was the end for him as (((they))) programmed the May 1969 riots that brought down in his government.

I was not particuarly enthusiastic when our SSPX school, took the children to visit the Normandy D Day beaches for a school outing, when instead they could have visited the tomb of the Marechal Pétain in the île d'Yeu in the Vendée instead. It would be if a US SSPX school took the children to visit the Lincoln Memorial rather than the grave of Stonewall Jackson. It just doesn't seem right

Appalling but not surprising from the SSPX... The anti-gaullist priests are pretty much all in the SSPX - resistance now, ironically! 😊

Delete