Although I have been supporting HE Bishop Williamson regarding his treatment by the SSPX leadership and his positions on the agreement with conciliar Rome, I would like to express respectfully a very different view concerning the role of women, and especially the role of women in the Middle Ages in contrast to the one presented by HE Bishop Williamson in the above conference.

Studying primary sources, French medievalist historian and archivist (conservator at the Museum of Rheims and then at the National Archives), Régine Pernoud shows that during the feudal era in the Middle Ages, around 1100-1300 AD, women were intelligent, capable, and highly influential citizens, involved in all areas of life, including medical, professional, education, political and administration. Never again have women had such influential roles in their society. As the Renaissance began to grip Europe, and the University of Paris barring women and the resurgence of classical Roman law, the role of women completely diminished.

The following is an extract from the study Women at the Days of Cathedrals, written by Régine pernoud. It demonstrate that women could be and were in position of authority and superiors:

“The Order of Fontevrault

“On August 31, 1119, the abbey of Notre-Dame de Fontevrault received the most illustrious of visitors: Pope Calixtus II. In the presence of a crowd of prelates, barons, churchmen and common people, he came in person to consecrate the new abbey’s main altar…
“Greeting the pope at the church entrance was a young, twenty-six-year-old woman called Petronilla of Chemillé, the abbess of Fontevrault.
In the year of 1119, she had already been four years at the head of the order of Fontevrault founded by the very famous Robert d’Arbrissel… It was a double order, which included both monks and nuns, and so two series of buildings were erected in the midst of which the abbey church… was the only place where men and women met, for prayer and the liturgical offices. The rule was strict on this point. No monk could enter into the part reserved for nuns and vice versa….

“Around the years 1140-1150, the abbot of Saint-Denis estimated that the order included five thousand members. An at their head was an abbess, not an abbot. The monks who entered the order owed their obedience and made their profession with their hands in hers…

“Petronilla of Chemillé had died on April 4, 1149, after directing the double monastery for thirty-five years…. In 1149, after Petronilla of Chemillé, she [Matilda of Anjou] was elected abbess at the age of thirty-four (she was also a widow and not a virgin to fulfil one of the conditions imposed by the founder, Robert d’Arbrissel, to direct the double monastery: that of being a widow not a virgin).”

Source: Régine Pernoud, Women at the Days of Cathedrals, Ignatius Press, 1998, pp. 113, 128, 131. And from the same author: Those Terrible Middle Ages, Ignatius Press, 2000, chapter 6, Women Without Souls, pp. 107.

In all, there has been 36 abbesses at the head of this double monastery from 1115 to 1792 (On 17 August 1792, a Revolutionary decree ordered evacuation of all monasteries, to be completed by 1 October 1792. The abbey later became a prison from 1804 to 1963, in which year it was given to the French Ministry of Culture.)

Other sources:
Weir, Alison (1999), Eleanor of Aquitaine, a Life. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-345-40540-4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontevraud_Abbey:

“Philippa of Toulouse persuaded her husband William IX, Duke of Aquitaine to grant Robert of Abrissel land in Northern Poitou to establish a religious community dedicated to the Virgin Mary.[2] The abbey was founded in 1100 and became a double monastery, with both monks and nuns on the same site. An international success, the order established several "Fontevrist" abbeys set up in England. Robert of Arbrissel declared that the leader of the order should always be a woman and appointed Petronille de Chemillé as the first abbess. She was succeeded by Matilda of Anjou, the aunt of Henry II of England. This was the start of a position that attracted many rich and noble abbesses over the years, including members of the French Bourbon royal family. It also became a refuge for battered women and penitent prostitutes, and housed a leper hospital and a home for aged religious.[3]”

The situation of the Fontevrault Abbey is only an example amongst many instances in which women were in a position of authority until the Renaissance with the resurgence of classical Roman law.

I cannot thank you enough for this, Nemmo.

I was in attendance at the conference and I was not at all convinced that I was on the receiving end of pure truth. There were truths contained in this conference, but they were exaggerated. Ultimately the picture painted was not reality. It was more a tableau of someone's imagination.

Also the conference leaves many questions unanswered.

Lastly, for all the women of the world who found the Truth after they lost their integral femininity, this conference offers only condemnation, with no hope, no forgiveness, and no understanding.

I remember Jesus saying to the adulteress: I do not condemn thee, only go and sin no more.

The message I got from the conference was: I condemn thee, go and BE no more.  

The claim that men in general are the reason for the rise of feminism is a lot like blaming Adam for Eve succuмbing to temptation first.  It's a concession thrown to the women to make things seem more even-handed.

Feminism is about women and their ambitions, pride, and lust.  That's the root cause of it.  Not the misbehavior of men.  The weakness of men, and the evil plots of some men have allowed it to come about, but men philandering didn't cause feminism.  The "double-standard" didn't cause feminism.  That's a feminist way of thinking.

You are incorrect.

Man is the principle of woman. We can thank men for all the heresies and all the errors and all the deformations plaguing the world.

There's nothing more disgusting than a denatured woman, but she is an effect, not a cause.

One key thing you're leaving out is that Bishop Williamson said that there were exceptions, that should not be mentioned because "we want to establish the RULE." Sure, there were exceptions, and I would say that they were RELIGIOUS that -were- those exceptions.

I think he went overboard and failed to balance out his conference with examples from reality.

Quote from: Telesphorus

The claim that men in general are the reason for the rise of feminism is a lot like blaming Adam for Eve succuмbing to temptation first.  It's a concession thrown to the women to make things seem more even-handed.

Feminism is about women and their ambitions, pride, and lust.  That's the root cause of it.  Not the misbehavior of men.  The weakness of men, and the evil plots of some men have allowed it to come about, but men philandering didn't cause feminism.  The "double-standard" didn't cause feminism.  That's a feminist way of thinking.

Lust???  Men lust, women don't.  Yes, feminism is about amibition and pride ... but yes actually, if men had remained at the head the women would not have sought to fill the gap.  Men philandering did ultimately cause feminism ... men wanted to have their cake and eat it, wanting both a mistress and a wife!  By not seeking and looking to God, they abused their position and then expected women to carry on managing everything.  Look around you today ... boys don't want responsibility, commitment, serious thinking, rather they want to play games all day!

My son has recently put away his games.  A gentle talk on 'a boy can't grown up to be a man if he spends his time playing games'...  He has an important role to play, as Priest or husband, he must lead and keep his eyes on Our Lord.

Society pushes women out to work.  Many women do not want to work but are left with little or no choice, especially if the man is not around.  There is no respect for women bringing up children and making a home, and very few men appreciate the tireless daily effort...

Well said.

If we want to understand how feminism gradually overwhelmed modern society ot the point that society now faces potential social collapse, this is indispensable reading.  Feminism results from men not holding women accountable.  Perverse indulgence of women is an anglo-liberal mindset:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

Columba, men have cornered the market on abuse of power.

Barbara, that's another irrational statement.

However, the effect was made immeasurably worse by the male-dominated, ʝʊdɛօmasonic pincer movement of marxist liberation and corporate consumerism. Men implemented women's suffrage, the welfare state, and the marriage 2.0 divorce laws that rendered marriage functionally obsolete for a large, fast-growing, and soon-majority segment of the population.

Beautifully stated.

The marxist revolution promised men unlimited free sex and freedom from provision for children.

The left has been promoting feminist law for a long time now.  There's nothing about freedom from provision for children in that.

They agreed to the bargain - meaning they agreed to withdraw from active governance of their domestic subjects in exchange for pleasures of the flesh.

That's funny, I don't know of any of the men in my family who agreed to that bargain.

This belongs to the realm of agency.  

As does willful blindness