Courtly love ideology leaves bitter men with only fantasies

By Douglas Galbi


In medieval Latin love lyrics, courtly lovers yearn for carnal love. They praise women’s bodily beauty, they beg for love and pitifully lament being rejected, and they plaintively foretell their death through lovesickness. Medieval clerics, white knights, and courtiers are standard-bearers of courtly love. They display ignorance, dogma, and fantasy that endures to our day as an alternative to the empirical science of seduction.

For long now I have shown myself
to be a devoted soldier of Love,
as whose bidding I rushed headlong
to commit foolish, daring deed,
loving at great hazard
one who never casts a kindly eye on me.
If I now entirely ceased,
I would serve myself well,
But only the inferior man
flees the clamor of battle.
Let it be, as I will!
Carelessly I offer my life to fortune’s hazards.
She must know of my soul’s greatness,
greater than my bodily form,
for I climb the loftiest bough
seeking for fruit on the tree
and claiming: guile
has no place in a lover who knows no fear.[1]

Soldiers of love are men who believe in the ideology of courtly love. They are men such as Ulrich von Liechtenstein, Suero de Quinones, and Nitin Nohria. Living in fantasies, they are generally not successful in love with women. They commonly became bitter men who hate themselves and other men. They tend to marry as beta-provider hubbies. They face a high risk of sexless marriage and being cuckolded. You don’t want your son, if you have one, to become that kind of man.

In the Middle Ages, just as in our current Dark Age, a few transgressive poets challenged the benighted scholars, gynocentric apparatchiks, and sophistic social-climbers that construct and re-enforce the ideology of courtly love. Drawing upon the full resources of classical, biblical, and contemporary culture, these poets offered a messianic secret. Their secret is accessible only to those who read medieval Latin poetry knowingly.

If I were to speak with angelic and human tongues,
I could not describe the prize, no worthless one.
By that I am rightly set above all Christians,
while unbelieving rivals envy me.
Sing, my tongue, therefore of causes and effects!
Yet keep the lady’s name cloaked,
so that it isn’t spread widely among the people,
and the secret is kept apart and hidden from the masses.

{Si linguis angelicis loquar et humanis,
non valeret exprimi palma, nec inanis,
per quam recte preferor cunctis Christianis,
tamen invidentibus emulis profanis.
Pange, lingua, igitur causas et causatum!
nomen tamen domine serva palliatum,
ut non sit in populo illud divulgatum,
quod secretum gentibus extat et celatum.} [2]

The medieval Latin poem Si linguis angelicis, written in a Latin meter associated with satire, subtly mocks the delusions of courtly love. The lover’s case history begins with plausible circumstances of despair:

In a beautiful, flowering bush I stood,
turning around in my heart this: “What should I do?”
I hesitate to plant seeds in infertile soil.
Loving the flower of the world, behold, I am in despair.”

{In virgultu florido stabam et ameno,
vertens hec in pectore: “quid facturus ero?
dubito, quod semina in harena sero;
mundi florem diligens ecce iam despero.} [3]

This stanza thoroughly mixes sexual and biblical imagery: standing erect in a beautiful bush, God from a burning bush instructing Moses, sexual intercourse not propitious for creating descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore, and the microcosm-macrocosm flower of the world / vulva of God. Life is wonderfully complex. The question in despair for every man conscious of his human nature: “what should I do?”

In the context of deeply rooted social hostility toward men’s sexuality, men increasingly are choosing to do nothing. As an alternative to life in the flesh, historically much more prevalent than pornography has been fantasies of courtly love:

I saw a blossoming flower, saw the flower of flowers,
saw a May rose more beautiful than all others,
saw a shining star brighter than the rest,
by which I passed into the experience of love.

{Vidi florem floridum, vidi florum florem,
vidi rosam Madii cunctis pulchriorem,
vidi stellam splendidam, cunctis clariorem,
per quam ego degeram sentiens amorem.}

The experience of courtly love centers on other-worldly idealization of the beloved woman. The deluded lover, feeling ineffable joy from this imaginary woman, rushes to her and greets her on bended knee:

Hail, most beautiful one, precious jewel!
Hail, glory of virgins, maiden glorious,
hail, light of lights, hail, rose of the world,
A Blanchefleur and a Helen, a noble Venus!

{Ave, formosissima, gemma pretiosa,
ave, decus virginum, virgo gloriosa,
ave, lumen luminum, ave, mundi rosa,
Blanziflour et Helena, Venus generosa!} [4]

Yes, even in medieval times, most women would regard this guy as creepy. She doesn’t even know him. He had seen her at a summer feast, fully five or six years ago. Since then, he has been suffering grievously from lovesickness. He has never spoken to her, but he thinks of her:

Drink, food, and sleep have deserted me,
By medicine I am unable to be healed.

These privations and many more have I endured,
No consolations fortify against my cares,
except repeatedly in the darkness of night
I am with you in forms shaped by the imagination.

{Fugit a me bibere, cibus et dormire,
medicinam nequeo malis invenire.

Has et plures numero pertuli iacturas,
nec ullum solacium munit meas curas,
ni quod sepe sepius per noctes obscuras
per imaginarias tecum sum figuras.}

Offering a fantastic alternative to the folklore motif “man gets sex without paying for it,” the imaginary woman declares:

So tell me, young sir, what you have in mind;
do you ask for silver, so as to enrich yourself,
or for precious stones to adorn yourself?
For if it be possible, I will give you whatever you seek.

{Dicas ergo, iuvenis, quod in mente geris;
an argentum postulas, per quod tu diteris,
pretioso lapide an quod tu orneris?
nam si esse poterit, dabo quidquid queris.}

Imagine — while he was secretly pining for her, she was also secretly in love with him! Even better, she wants to give him expensive gifts. Needless to say, real life five or six years after seeing a beautiful woman, but not speaking to her, isn’t like this. Continuing more realistically, the man dallies further verbally. Recognizing that he needs additional, explicit instruction, as many students do after being terrified in mandatory affirmative-consent classes, the loving woman declares:

Whatever you want to do, such I cannot foreknow,
however to your entreaties I desire to consent.
Therefore, what I have, sedulously investigate,
undertaking, if you can find it, whatever you seek.

{Quicquid velis, talia nequeo prescire;
tuis tamen precibus opto consentire.
ergo, quicquid habeo, sedulus inquire,
sumens si quod appetis, potes invenire.}

She speaks like a true scholastic. She even offers a hint of now-fashionable gender ambiguity. The lover throws his arms around her neck and kisses her a thousand times. As Ovid said after hugging his mistress Corinna’s lovely, naked body, who doesn’t know what then ensued?[5] Men bitter with the failures of courtly love will find pleasure in this fantasy. They must not lose heart, but have stronger hope that repeated failures of courtly love indicate forthcoming success.[6] Can anyone doubt that triumph in courtly love comes from fantasy, not empirical science?

Medieval Latin poetry shows a still more excellent way. With guile, amused mastery, and fear for his holiness, a man can aspire to be like God to the woman he wants to love:

Game, he may game, you all game! In your jesting now listen,
the sweet joys of the present life soothe and make merry:
the player roles the dice,
the student by his embraces
would delude women.
Love must be sung in sweet melodies;
It should not be held back in the shackles of grave homilies.
A little maiden should pledge her hand,
she flowering like a rose,
overcome by pious words.
She should say “yes!” readily, not refusing when asked,
Not inquiring of the aforesaid man’s standing.
She should do what is asked;
what is neglected to be requested,
the lauded young woman should provide.

{Lude, ludat, ludite! iocantes nunc audite,
quos presentis gaudia demulcent leta vite:
histrio tesseribus;
clericus amplexibus
deludat mulieres.
Amor est iam suavibus canendus melodiis,
qui non tardet gravibus detentus homiliis.
spondeat puellula
florens quasi rosula,
verbis devicta piis.
Dicat “ita!” facile, nil deneget rogata,
non viri notitiam rimetur prenotata.
faciat, quod petitur;
quod prece negligitur,
prestet virgo laudata.} [7]

The Virgin Mary said yes to the mysterious words of the angel Gabriel. About two millennia later, the Mystery Method has been extensively field-tested. Among all possible outrages — and medieval Latin provided now inconceivably broad latitude for outrageous words — the greatest of these is love.

* * * * *


[1] Carmina Burana 166 (Iam dudum Amoris militem), from Latin my English translation, with borrowings from the English translations of Marshall (2014) p. 205 and Walsh (1993) p. 187. In the final Latin line, Walsh replaces non from the manuscript with nunc and translates the last two lines thus:

claiming that in a lover who knows no fear there is now a role for native talent.

Perhaps climbing trees is a “native talent,” but that makes little poetic sense in context. For the original manuscript text, Walsh provides the alternate translation:

in a lover who knows no fear, there is no place for the crafty approach.

Id. pp. 187-8. My translation is similar, but makes more clear that the relevant craft is social ingenuity (ingenio): guile.

The phrase amoris militem (soldier of Love) “sounds the keynote of the poem; this is to be the proclamation of the courtly lover.” Id. p. 187. Ovid explored that theme, but with much more insight and sophistication.

[2] Carmina Burana 77 (Si linguis angelicis loquar et humanis) st. 1-2, from Latin my English translation, with borrowings from the English translations of Marshall (2014) p. 101-5 and Walsh (1993) pp. 65-8. Here’s a complete Latin text of the poem from Biblotheca Augustana. Above I provide the Latin text from id. pp. 62-65. That Latin text has some small differences from Bibliotheca Augustana‘s Latin text. All the subsequent quotes above, except the final one, are similarly from Si linguis angelicis, stanzas 3, 6, 8, 20 (ll. 1-2) & 21, 26, and 28. This poem has survived only in the Carmina Burana manuscript (Bavarian State Library, Munich, clm 4660/4660a).

The opening line of Si linguis angelicis cites 1 Corinthians 13:1. The next three lines are boastful and arrogant. Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4. Robertson (1976/1980) p. 141 insightfully notes:

the assertion of that self-esteem after the suggestion of charity in the first line is more than a little ridiculous and hence humorous. I do not mean that it produced loud laughter, but I am confident that it did produce a smile.

The reference in the second line to the prize (palma) plausibly derives from Apocalypse 7:9. Id.

The second stanza’s first two words Pange, lingua evoke the crucifixion hymn of Venantius Fortunatus. Fortunatus wrote that hymn for the presentation of a cross relic to Queen Radegund at Poitiers in 570. It subsequently was commonly used in the Christian liturgy for Good Friday. Robertson provides a learned exegesis of the phrase causas et causatum:

The rare participle causatus (from causo rather than the usual Classical causor) used substantially occurs prominently in only one familiar {sic} work: the translation of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics by Boethius. It appears in 1.7 toward the close in the clause “cum non ex causatis sciat causis,” which forms part of an argument to show that demonstrative principles appropriate to one discipline cannot be used for demonstration in another discipline unless the axioms of the two are the same, or unless one discipline can be thought of as being logically subordinate to the other.

Without being able to draw upon insights from the subsequently developed body of seduction field reports, Robertson makes a false distinction:

Divinity and seduction do not have the same axioms, since it is an axiom of Divinity that fornication is forbidden. For the same reason Divinity cannot be subordinated to seduction. The two are incompatible, and our lover is speaking foolishly.

Id. p. 142. On the messianic secret, Mark 8:29-30 and Romans 16:25-6. On men’s love for women in relation to crucifixion, Ephesians 5:25. The issue of divinity and seduction is further elaborated in the discussion of Lude, ludat, ludite! above.

The satire on courtly love in Si linguis angelicis hasn’t been recognized within Latin literary scholarship that largely celebrates man-oppressing courtly love. Considering Si linguis angelicis, Dronke declares:

The poet makes constant liturgical allusions — yet these are not in any way parodistic or blasphemous: they are not to establish an incongruity but to overcome one.

Dronke (1965) p. 318. The poem is written in a “goliardic” meter. That form is commonly associated with “satirical or jocular purposes.” Walsh (1993) p. 69. The poem has technical similarities with the immediately preceding poem in the Carmina Burana, Dum caupona verterem. Id. pp. 59-60. Dum caupona verterem is about a man of distinction who spent three months in a brothel having sex with Venus. He left as a pauper with fantastic memories. In contrast to Dronke’s and Walsh’s views, both poems seem to me to ridicule men’s ignorance and folly in love.

[3] The phrase in harena more literally means “in sand.” Cf. Mark 4:5-6. Ovid, Heroides 5.115 associates sowing seed in sand with prophecy of death. The context is Paris leaving Oenone for Helen. Walsh (1993) p. 70, which notes that reference, observes “the crudity of this double entendre is lightened by the literary reminiscence.” Male sexual function isn’t crude; it’s natural, beautiful, and in some instances fruitful. In context, the reference to sand evokes barrenness. The reminiscence of Helen and the Trojan War adds a dark note of brutal violence against men.

[4] The first three lines of the above stanza evoke Marian hymns. The fourth line refers to a secular romance and traditional Roman myth. Walsh (1992) p. 197 observes:

The identification of the loved one with Helen, who is cited as an exemplum of peerless beauty without animadversion to morals, should not have troubled Dronke, since it is a prominent feature in other lyrics and is recommended in the rhetorical handbooks.

Robertson offers broader insight:

Although it is true that in the twelfth century after it became commonplace to see the bride in the Canticle as Mary, the attractiveness of her physical attributes was sometimes indicated in very frank terms, and love for her was often expressed in what is today startling imagery, no one would seriously have sought to combine the Blessed Virgin, Blanchefleur, Helen and Venus in the same person. To deny that the effect of this line is humorous seems to me to be insensitive. Whatever we may think of Blanchefleur, Helen had an unsavory reputation in the twelfth century; and it would hardly have been possible for a girl to be a “virgo gloriosa,” which Helen certainly was not, and a “Venus generosa” at the same time.

Robertson (1976/1980) p. 145. Being humorous doesn’t exclude the serious purpose of challenging the dominant ideology of courtly love.

Medieval writers fearlessly combined sacred and profane themes. Carmina Burana 215 (Lugeamus omnes in Decio) uses the form of the Mass as a disparaging liturgy against the god of dice. The mid-fifteenth-century Middle English poem Kyrie, so kyrie rewrites Jankyn’s subordination to Alisoun. The Arundel Lyrics is a wide-ranging collection that evokes the extraordinary mixture of the Incarnation. Boncompagno da Signa (c. 1170- c. 1240) in his Rhetorica novissima declared:

A certain man who had had carnal knowledge of a nun said: “I did not defile the divine bed, but since the Lord had favored me in his words, I wished to raise his horn.” Moreover, a nun could say to her lover: “Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.”

From Latin trans. Huot (1997) p. 67. Cf. on Boncompagno, Dronke (1965) p. 318. Luke 2:23 offered possibilities for celebrating the sacredness of men’s sexuality. For relevant discussion, Huot (1997) p. 67.

[5] Ovid, Amores 1.5-23-24.

[6] Cf. the last two stanzas of Si linguis angelicis. Those stanzas offer platitudinous inspiration for courtly lovers:

So let every lover be mindful of me. He must not lose heart, though at that point his lot is bitter. For certainly some day will dawn upon him at which he will later triumph over his troubles.

Indeed it is from bitterness that pleasant joys are sprung; the greatest gains are not won without toils. Those who seek sweet honey often feel the sting, so those whose lot is more bitter should maintain the stronger hope.

Trans. Walsh (1993) p. 68. A later hand inserted amara (bitternesses) to make the first line of the final stanza to be in part “it is from bitterness that bitternesses are sprung.” With some dissent, modern scholars have tended to amend amara to grata (pleasant joys). Id. p. 73.

Interpretations of Si linguis angelicis have varied considerably within common respect for courtly love. Walsh declared:

The poem is serious insofar as the poet enthusiastically associates himself with the courtly experience, but the theme is handled wittily as a literary mode rather than with deep emotional involvement. In short, the composition is a stylized exercise

Id. p. 68. Robertson didn’t take the poem seriously. He speculated its “original purpose may have been to serve as a grammatical exercise for students.” Robertson (1976/1980), p. 150. Dronke read the fantasy of courtly love in Si linguis angelicis to cover seriously amour courtois generally:

‘Si linguis angelics’ draws together some of the poetically most notable attitudes of the twelfth-century courtois love-lyric. … In many ways I am tempted to see this poem almost as an emblem of the twelfth- and thirteenth-century European poetry of amour courtois.

Dronke (1965) p. 330. The above quote is part of the concluding paragraph for the whole interpretive volume of Dronke’s learned and influential work on medieval Latin love lyric.

Scholars haven’t recognized the seriousness of the parodic critique of courtly love in Si linguis angelicis. Courtly love ideology has deep psychological roots among elite men. Walsh’s view of twelfth-century clerics probably applies more accurately to many leading modern scholars of medieval literature: their understanding of seduction is “filled in imagination by love encounters with the pen rather than by personal approaches to ladies in real life.” Walsh (1992) p. 203. The modern empirical science of seduction and online documentary field reports enable much better appreciation for extraordinary medieval Latin love poetry.

[7] Carmina Burana 172 (Lude, ludat, ludite!), from Latin my English translation, with borrowings from the English translations of Marshall (2014) p. 210. Flowering like a rose, interpreted as blushing, suggests an erotic aspect of pious words. Marshall, id., entitles the poem Magicians of Love. Mystery, the eponym of the Mystery Method, seduced women under the persona of a magician.

Dronke declares:

All mankind {humanity} is one in love, all aspects of love are linked. This is the basic assumption of a poem such as ‘Si linguis angelicus’. It is grounded in a unity of experience which can affirm divine love and every nuance of human love without setting up dichotomies: all are involved together in the ‘Rota Veneris’.

Dronke (1965) p. 318. Those abstract assertions, which have little connection to the text of Si linguis angelicus, can be given considerable textual and practical meaning with respect to Lude, ludat, ludite!

[image] Knight knocked off his horse. From Kottenkamp, Franz, and Friedrich Martin von Reibisch. 1842. Der Rittersaal, eine Geschichte des Ritterthums, seines Enstehens und Fortgangs, seiner Gebra?uche und Sitten. Stuttgart: Carl Hoffmann. Thanks to Wikimedia Commons.


Dronke, Peter. 1965. Medieval Latin and the rise of European love-lyric. Vol. 1 — Problems and interpretations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Huot, Sylvia. 1997. Allegorical play in the Old French motet: the sacred and the profane in thirteenth-century polyphony. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Marshall, Tariq. 2014. The Carmina Burana: Songs from Benediktbeuren: a full and faithfull translation with critical annotations. 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Marshall Memorial Press.

Robertson, D. W. 1976/1980. “Two Poems from the Carmina Burana.” American Benedictine Review 27 (1): 36-59, reprinted pp. 131-50 in Robertson, D. W. 1980. Essays in medieval culture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press (cited to pages in 1980 reprint).

Walsh, Patrick Gerard. 1992. “Amor Clericalis.” Ch. 12 (pp. 189-203) in Woodman, Anthony. J., and Jonathon G. F. Powell, eds. Author and audience in Latin literature. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Walsh, Patrick Gerard. 1993. Love lyrics from the Carmina Burana. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

I asked Bing AI to give me an example of gynocentric behavior. Here is the response.

Can you give me an example of gynocentric behavior?

Searching for: examples of gynocentric behavior

Generating answers for you…

Sure, I can give you an example of gynocentric behavior. Gynocentric behavior is any action or attitude that prioritizes the interests, needs, and perspectives of women over those of men. For instance, a gynocentric behavior could be:

  • Expecting men to pay for dates, gifts, and other expenses, while not offering to reciprocate or share the costs.
  • Demanding that men perform chivalrous acts, such as opening doors, carrying bags, or giving up seats, while not showing appreciation or respect for their efforts.
  • Assuming that women are always right, innocent, or victimized, while dismissing, blaming, or vilifying men for any conflict or problem.
  • Believing that women’s opinions, feelings, and preferences are more important, valid, or relevant than those of men, and disregarding or silencing men’s voices.
  • Claiming that women are oppressed, discriminated, or marginalized by a patriarchal society, while ignoring or denying the privileges, benefits, and advantages that women enjoy.
  • Advocating for policies, laws, or programs that favor women over men, such as affirmative action, quotas, or special grants, without considering the fairness, merit, or impact on men.

These are some examples of gynocentric behavior that can be seen in various contexts, such as social, cultural, political, or interpersonal. Gynocentric behavior can have negative consequences for both men and women, as it can create resentment, hostility, inequality, and division between the genders. Therefore, it is important to challenge and overcome gynocentric behavior and promote a more balanced and respectful way of relating to each other.

I asked Bing AI what is gynocentrism? – Here’s the response

Gynocentrism is a term that refers to the tendency to prioritize women’s interests, needs, and perspectives over those of men. It is often associated with feminism, but it can also be seen as a broader cultural phenomenon that affects both men and women in various ways. One of the possible psychological explanations for gynocentrism is that it is a form of narcissism, a personality disorder characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration and validation.

According to some researchers, gynocentrism can be seen as a gendered expression of narcissism that operates within the context of heterosexual relationships and exchanges. They argue that gynocentric women exhibit features of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, such as entitlement, manipulation, exploitation, self-enhancement, self-victimization, and resentment. These women tend to view themselves as superior to men, expect special treatment and favors from them, use them as sources of narcissistic supply, and discard them when they are no longer useful or satisfying. They also tend to blame men for their own problems, deny their own responsibility, and seek sympathy and support from others.

Gynocentrism as a narcissistic pathology can have negative consequences for both men and women. For men, it can lead to feelings of frustration, resentment, alienation, and depression, as well as a loss of self-esteem, identity, and autonomy. For women, it can prevent them from developing healthy and fulfilling relationships with men, as well as from achieving personal growth and happiness. It can also create a backlash from men who feel oppressed, exploited, and devalued by gynocentric women, resulting in hostility, aggression, and violence.

Therefore, gynocentrism as a narcissistic pathology is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and challenged. It is not a healthy or sustainable way of relating to others, nor is it a fair or respectful way of treating others. It is a distorted and dysfunctional way of thinking and behaving that harms both men and women, as well as society as a whole.

Republicans and Democrats, both Gynocrats


By Peter Wright and Paul Elam


All parties, all sorts and conditions of politicians, from the fashionable and Conservative west-end philanthropist to the Radical working-men’s clubbite, seem (or seemed until lately) to have come to an unanimous conclusion on one point – to wit, that the female sex is grievously groaning under the weight of male oppression.”

– E. Belfort Bax, (1907)1


Our two party political system increasingly reveals itself to be a staged battle, inspiring about the same credibility as professional wrestling. Democrats and Republicans allegedly square off on either side of a deep philosophical divide and battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. It is family values vs progressive ideals, religious edicts vs personal autonomy, secure borders vs open inclusion and multiculturalism vs national identity.

It is actually dozens of seemingly opposing ideals, impassioned voters on either side of the fence, setting off increasing media fireworks as we get closer to completing each election cycle.

Yet, as we see right before our eyes, our political practices and policies play vastly different than campaign issues would make it appear. The servants we elect wage the same wars, maintain the same extralegal prisons, bail out the same corrupt Wall Street players, cater to the same corporate interests and infringe equally on our Constitutional protections.

What we have pre-election is the Great American Psychodrama; a Dog and Pony Show that distracts us from the post-election reality that an agenda more powerful than Dem vs Pub is actually calling the shots on our governance.

We have a one party system. Republicrats vs Republicrats; a political mafia who sends front men out to “represent” respective sides of a philosophical battle that exists only in the minds of voters.

It allows politicians to run on platforms like “hope” and “change,” with their biggest challenge being the maintaining of a straight face.

This is the perfect environment for modern sexual politics as well.

This is hardly a surprise to most men’s advocates. Many are already aware that there are two different brands of politicians in today’s world when it comes to gender issues: Knights and Troubadours. Just like Dems and Pubs, they ostensibly appear to be on opposing teams. That façade falls apart quickly, though, when you realize they answer to the same master; they are simple stage props used interchangeably by the same production company.

They are owned and operated by Gynocentrism, Inc. Their marching are women first and most often women only. They appear on the surface to be at odds but chivalry is the glue that binds them together. Everything they say and do comes back to women first every time.

Let’s take a look at their approach to perpetuating gynocentric privilege for women through different styles of chivalry.

In the chivalric tradition knights are viewed as damsel savers. They are the protectors of womankind and the hero of ladies. We first saw them emerge all the way back to medieval politics where, for instance, Jean II Le Maingre – marshal of France and a knight renowned for his military skill – instituted The “Enterprise of the Green Shield with the White Lady,” a chivalric order that gathered a team of knights to defend women’s honor from male brutality. Inspired by the ideal of courtly love, the stated purpose of the order was to guard and defend the honor, estate, goods, reputation, fame and praise of all ladies.

Alternatively, the troubadour politician has long been a permanent fixture in western politics, and has his roots in chivalric knighthood. He is the singer of sooth songs to female voters. He’s the one who proudly waxes that women can do anything men can do, and do it better, and do it in heels.

This aristocratic crooner emerged in the troubadour revolution of France and Germany. But unlike the chivalric knights who aggressively rescues damsels, the troubadour makes stock and trade of awaiting counsel from his female superiors.

Medieval literature is rich with stories of such men seeking direction from women, the latter having an endless list of tasks for the troubadour to fulfill before his gynocentric credentials are confirmed. A famous example is Ulrich von Liechtenstein, a German troubadour (minnesinger) who wrote the autobiographical manual “The Servicing of Ladies.” Von Liechtenstein’s modus operandi, like that of all troubadours, was to put himself before a lady and ask to be directed.

And then to strut around like a banty rooster, high on his own achievements and hopeful for a pat on the head or even access to the holy of holies.

Has anything changed? Nope. We still see the smugly sacrificing heroics of the alleged right and the sycophancy of the alleged left. We see both as they posture themselves as the advocates for all womankind, throwing men and boys directly into the meat grinder of feminist governance with open abandon.

The knightly politician of today likewise offers to protect women from harm and insult, the benevolent patriarch.

The more sensitive, troubadour-like politician of today offers his to support all female issues and alleviates all female discomforts on instruction from women. He’s an archetypical feminist, SJW and sycophant.

The bottom line? What we live in today is essentially a gynarchy, defined as a political system governed by women or heavily in the interest of women. Some will protest that we don’t live in a gynarchy because most of the political leaders are male, but that would be a superficial conclusion. In her book What’s Right With Feminism Cassandra Langer gives a concise definition that accounts for the proxy role of male leaders: “Gynarchy refers to government by women, or women-centered government.”2

Gynarchy refers to any government advocating female interests, including any establishment of laws and bureaucracies that mostly benefit women, regardless of whether the advocates in question are male or female. Said differently the political system that women govern may actually be staffed by male servants called prime ministers, presidents, or politicians who work on behalf of the of women.3

We can hear the protesters already: But surely the United States has always been governed by and for the dominant patriarchal powers?

No, not according to some early observers.

One of them was cultural critic Max O’Rell who in 1903 observed;

“The government of the American people is not a Republic, it is not a monarchy: it is a gynarchy, a government by the women for the women, a sort of occult power behind the scenes that rules the country.” 4

What O’Rell saw in 1903 was that both sides of politics were serving as liegemen to the female populace – and nothing else.

The solution to this is simple and far from easy. All we need is a healthy percentage of the population, say one or two percent, to look past FOX NEWS and CNN programmed thinking; to look past their own biological impulse to save those who don’t need saving and to engage in a pragmatic, rational examination of modern sexual politics.

We need them to see that the so-called candidates they are so bitterly either defending or attacking are just the same whores wearing different clothing.

Mind you, this is not about right vs left, which is a much more tangible and credible divide.

In American elections there is no right and left, just the pandering to Americans acting like robots with emotion chips that have gone on the fritz.

Whether it is with Lilly Ledbetter, VAWA or any other legislation enjoying round bipartisan support, what Americans have is a single option two party system that gives voters the opportunity to feel warm and fuzzy as they destroy their sons while chanting “You GO Girl”

All it will take is a tenacious, indefatigable minority of people who will simply not allow the lies and the injustice to pass unchallenged.


[1] E. Belfort Bax, The “Monstrous Regiment” of Womanhood (1907)
[2] Cassandra Langer, What’s Right With Feminism, iUniverse, (2001)
[3] Alison Tieman provides a historical example of slave leadership in her video When Slaves Ruled.
[4] The Philadelphia Record, quoting Max O’Rell’s 1903 comments on American women

El Matrimonio es esclavitud

By Peter Wright (translation by Andres Bolaños)


El matrimonio moderno evolucionó de un ritual histórico diseñado para contratar esclavos para los señores, aunque la mayoría de la gente ha olvidado su historia. Sin embargo, muchos de los comportamientos y rituales que son centrales en esta historia se pueden todavía discernir en el matrimonio moderno.

grooms_wedding_ring-02Se piensa que la práctica de intercambiar anillos de boda se extiende muy atrás en la historia antigua, y se ha encontrado evidencia de ese ritual en el Antiguo Egipto, Roma, y en diferentes culturas religiosas. Sin embargo, nuestra práctica moderna de anillos de bodas tiene un origen y un significado distinto, uno que podría ocasionar un estremecimiento en más de una persona. Como se sugiere en el blog Society of Phineas, el anillo funciona como un contrato feudal entre el hombre y su esposa:

“El anillo funciona como una prueba de habilidad en el juramento del vasallo a su esposa. Esto es cierto si se tienen en cuenta las expectativas tradicionales de la cantidad de recursos que han de utilizarse en comprar el anillo junto con los gastos del día de la boda. En este ambiente ginocéntrico, es un sacrilegio total no darle a la mujer su Anillo Único u ofrecerle uno que esté por debajo de los estándares de ella y de sus amigas. Ella utiliza su Anillo Único como prueba social de su estatus en el Equipo Mujer (es una competencia parecida a los regalos del Día de San Valentín), ya que ella no dudará lucirlo tanto como sea posible cuando lo consigue, si es que éste obtiene su aprobación.” (1)

Esta opinión encuentra apoyo en académicos medievalistas quienes muestran el origen de nuestro ritual de intercambio de anillos en primitivas fuentes literarias o en representaciones artísticas de la Edad Media. H.J. Chaytor, por ejemplo, escribió “El amante era colocado en su posición por la dama, hacía un juramento de fidelidad para con ella y recibía un beso para sellarlo, un anillo, o alguna otra posesión personal.” La Profesora Joan Kelly nos ofrece un resumen de la práctica:

“Un beso (como el beso de homenaje) sellaba el juramento, se intercambiaban los anillos, y el caballero entraba al servicio de su dama. El representar el amor en los términos del vasallaje tenía varias implicaciones liberadoras para las mujeres aristocráticas. Las más fundamentales, la ideas de homenaje y mutualidad, se introdujeron en la noción de las relaciones heterosexuales junto con la idea de libertad. Como se simbolizaba en los escudos y en otras ilustraciones que colocaban al caballero en actitud ritual de mención, arrodillándose ante su dama con sus manos dobladas entre las de ella, el homenaje significaba servicio masculino, no la dominación ni subordinación de la dama, y significaba también fidelidad, constancia en ese servicio.” (2)

155190-425x282-istock_000018156233xsmallComo en la descripción ofrecida por Kelly, los hombres continúan poniéndose sobre una rodilla y no tienen problema en demonstrar humildad declarando que la boda es “el día de ella”, traicionando el origen y la concepción del matrimonio al hacerla, en su estructura más feudal que cristiana. Con gestos como ese, es obvio que el matrimonio moderno está basado en los primeros rituales feudales conocidos como “ceremonia de mención” o “de elogio” en la que se crea un lazo entre el señor y su guerrero (es decir, su vasallo). La ceremonia de mención está compuesta de dos elementos, uno que es realizar el acto de homenaje y el otro que es un juramento de vasallaje. Para el juramento de vasallaje, el vasallo colocaba sus manos en la Biblia (como aún se practica) y juraba que nunca lastimaría a su señor en ninguna forma y que le sería fiel. Una vez que el vasallo había hecho el juramento de vasallaje, señor y siervo entraban en una relación feudal.

Como este contrato arcaico sigue en vigencia en nuestros matrimonios contemporáneos, también podríamos cuestionar los conceptos típicos de obediencia entre marido y mujer. En las antiguas ceremonias cristianas, la mujer a veces juraba amar, estimar y “obedecer” a su esposo. Sin embargo, como estaba enmarcada dentro de una relación de tipo feudal, la obediencia de la mujer estaba fuertemente compensada e incluso revertida en la práctica porque ella tendía a ser quien tenía el poder en relación al hombre. En este último caso, la mujer, como la figura más poderosa, simplemente obedece –si es que obedece del todo– a sus responsabilidades como un gentil señor feudal de su esposo. Es importante notar que en este caso se cambia la noción de patriarcado benévolo a un ginocentrismo amable que las feministas tratan de promover como amoroso, pacífico, e igualitario.

El servicio de amor

El modelo Medieval de servicio a un señor feudal fue transferido en su totalidad a relaciones de “servicio de amor” de los hombres a las mujeres. Dicho servicio es la marca distintiva del amor romántico y es caracterizado por la deferencia que el hombre le profesa a la mujer, quien es vista como superior moral. Durante ese periodo, los hombres se referían a las mujeres como domnia (rango dominante), midons (mi señor), y después como dame (autoridad respetada), términos que tienen su raíz en el latín dominus que quiere decir “señor”, o “dueño”, particularmente de esclavos. El experto en lenguaje Medieval Peter Makin confirma que los hombres que usaban estos términos debieron ser conscientes de lo que estaban diciendo:

“Guillermo IX llama a su dama midons, que he traducido como ‘mi Señor’… Estos hombres sabían latín y debieron ser conscientes de su origen y peculiaridad; de hecho, era claro que eran sus emociones y expectativas colectivas las que suscitaban lo que solía ser una metáfora del ámbito del señorío, de la misma manera que el proceso de creación colectiva de metáforas establece ‘bebé’ como un término para referirse a una novia, y que crea y transforma el lenguaje constantemente. Así mismo, al saber que don, ‘señor’, también se usaba para referirse a Dios, ellos debieron haber sentido alguna conexión con la adoración religiosa.” (3)


Recapitulemos las prácticas que estaban asociadas con el ritual de dar anillos de bodas:

1. Genuflexión: el hombre se coloca sobre una rodilla para proponer matrimonio.
2. Símbolo de mención: se intercambian los anillos.
3. El beso de vasallo: se representa en la ceremonia.
4. Homenaje y vasallaje: implícito en los votos matrimoniales.
5. Sumisión: “Es el día de ella”.
6. Servicio: el hombre se dispone a trabajar para su esposa por el resto de su vida.
7. Desechabilidad: “Moriría por ti”.

¿Es de extrañar que las mujeres sientan tantas ganas de casarse y que los hombres estén rechazando el matrimonio en bandadas? El modelo feudal revela exactamente en qué se están metiendo los hombres a través de esa pequeña banda dorada –un compromiso de por vida con una mujer que está culturalmente preparada para actuar como nuestro señor. Mientras más hombres se dan cuenta de esta farsa, más escogerán rechazarla, y para aquellos que aún consideran casarse, los aliento a que lean este artículo una segunda vez; su habilidad de conservar o perder su libertad depende de ello.

[1] Website: Society of Phineas
[2] Joan Kelly, Women, History, and Theory, University of Chicago Press, 1986
[3] Peter Makin, Provence and Pound, University of California Press, 1978

El otro Mito de la Belleza

By Peter Wright (translation by Andres Bolaños)

En 1991, Naomi Wolf escribió El Mito de la Belleza [The Beauty Myth] en el que afirma que las mujeres son oprimidas por la presión cultural de ser hermosas. Lo que le falto decirnos es dónde se originó este hábito, y cómo se utiliza esencialmente para ganar poder sobre el sexo masculino.

En los seres humanos, diferentes compulsiones y deseos están en conflicto entre sí, cada uno atropellando a los otros por lograr la supremacía momentánea en la que un imperativo usurpa los derechos del otro. Dicho juego ha alcanzado un punto muerto durante los últimos 800 años porque, durante ese periodo de tiempo relativamente corto, la cultura humana ha enfocado su apoyo a desarrollar, intensificar e imponer el uso de prácticas dudosas en el ámbito sexual, hasta el punto en el que nuestras compulsiones sexuales parecen infladas con esteroides y llevadas hasta extremos nunca antes vistos en la sociedad humana (a pesar de los mitos sobre difundidas orgías romanas). La obsesión con la belleza de las formas femeninas son parte importante del problema.

Si viviéramos en la Antigua Grecia, Roma o en cualquier otro sitio, veríamos al coito como a cualquier otra función corporal, parecida al comer, defecar o dormir –una función corporal básica sin toda la publicidad que se le hace. Sin embargo, después de la Edad Media, se convirtió en un producto que se podía explotar y con el que se podía negociar, y el culto del romance sexualizado que surgió de él resultó en una frustración de nuestras necesidades de apego más básicas –una frustración instigada y secundada por las instituciones sociales que colocaban la manipulación sexual en el centro de las interacciones humanas. Este desarrollo atrincheró una nueva creencia según la cual la belleza era una posesión original de las mujeres, y solamente de ellas, y que en cambio el deseo de poseer esa belleza pertenecía sólo a los hombres, creando así una división entre los sexos que perdura hoy en día.

Comparemos esta división con las creencias de otras culturas –India, Roma, Grecia, etc. – y veremos un fuerte contraste, en el que las culturas clásicas asignaban la belleza equitativamente a los hombres y el deseo sexual a las mujeres. En la Antigua Grecia, por ejemplo, los hombres dejaban crecer su cabello y lo peinaban con veneración, untaban aceite de oliva sobre su piel y ponían mucha atención a su atuendo –los colores de la toga, los materiales con los que estaba hecha, la manera como envolvía el cuerpo –y tal vez no hay cultura moderna sobre la Tierra en la que la belleza masculina era celebrada de manera más asombrosa en las artes que la Griega.

Otro ejemplo viene del Cantar de Salomón, en el que la apreciación de la belleza y su añoranza fluía en ambas direcciones entre el hombre y las mujeres, mientras que en el amor romántico la belleza sólo es atribuida a la mujer, y el deseo sólo al hombre –los papeles están divididos radicalmente. Además, en el Cantar de los Cantares no hay ninguna evidencia del arreglo ginocéntrico; el hombre no aparece como vasallo de las mujeres, quienes son tanto Señores como deidades. Para los amantes del Cantar de los Cantares ya existe un Dios, así que no hay adoración de la mujer como una cuasi-divinidad que puede redimir la patética existencia del hombre –como si sucede en el amor “romántico”.

Según Robert Solomon, el amor romántico requería un cambio dramático en el auto-concepto de las mujeres. Este autor cuenta:

Ellas también fueron liberadas de una identidad que dependía exclusivamente de sus roles sociales, es decir, de sus lazos consanguíneos y legales con los hombres, como hijas, esposas y madres. Fue en este periodo de la historia cristiana en el que la apariencia adquiere una importancia de primer orden, en el que ser hermoso importaba para todo, no sólo como un rasgo atractivo en una hija o en una esposa (que probablemente no contaba para mucho de todas maneras), sino como una señal de carácter, estilo, personalidad. Un buen acicalamiento, en vez de las propiedades, llegó a definir a la mujer individual, y su valor, que ya no dependía de su padre, esposo o hijos, ahora se concentraba en su apariencia. La prima se le otorgaba entonces a la juventud y a la belleza, y aunque algunas mujeres hayan, incluso entonces, condenado este énfasis como injusto, al menos constituía la primera ruptura con una sociedad que, hasta ese momento, dejaba poco espacio para la iniciativa personal o el avance individual. Podríamos decir que el prototipo de la Playmate de Playboy ya había sido creado hace ochocientos años, y no requería, como mucha gente ha defendido recientemente, de las páginas centrales de Hugh Hefner para hacer de la juventud, de la belleza y de una cierta vacuidad virtudes personales altamente estimadas. El problema es el porqué seguimos teniendo dificultades para superar todo esto sin, como lo hicieron algunos Platonistas, despreciar la belleza totalmente –el error opuesto. [1]

Modesta Pozzo escribió un libro en los años de 1500 titulado El Valor de las Mujeres: su Nobleza y Superioridad sobre los Hombres. [The Worth of Women: their Nobility and Superiority to Men]. Esta obra supuestamente registra una conversación entre siete mujeres de la nobleza veneciana que explora casi todos los aspectos de la experiencia femenina. Uno de los temas explorados es el uso de cosméticos y de la ropa por parte de las mujeres para intensificar la belleza, incluyendo la tintura del cabello, para la que hay veintiséis recetas diferentes. La siguiente es la voz de Cornelia, quien explica que el deseo sexual de los hombres hacia las mujeres (y el control que las mujeres tienen sobre ese proceso a través de la belleza) es la única razón por la que los hombres pueden amar:

“Pensando en ello directamente, ¿qué tema podemos encontrar que sea más digno y más adorable que el de la belleza, la gracia y las virtudes de la mujer?… Yo diría que una forma corpórea externa perfectamente compuesta es lo más digno de nuestra estima, puesto que es esta forma externa visible la que se presenta primero ante el ojo y nuestro entendimiento: la vemos e inmediatamente la amamos y la deseamos, empujados por un instinto incrustado en nosotros por la naturaleza. No es debido a que los hombres nos aman que llevan a cabo todas estas demostraciones de amor y de devoción imperecedera, sino porque nos desean. Por lo que en este caso el amor es el retoño, el deseo su progenitor, o, en otras palabras, el amor es el efecto y el deseo es la causa. Y como quitar la causa significa quitar el efecto, eso quiere decir que los hombres nos aman en tanto nos desean, y una vez que el deseo, que es la causa de su amor banal, ha expirado en ellos (ya sea porque han obtenido lo que querían o porque se dieron cuenta de que no pueden obtenerlo), el amor, que es el efecto de esa causa, muere exactamente al mismo tiempo.” [Escrito en 1592]

Cavalier 1964Lo que me parece más interesante es que, desde la Edad Media, como es evidente en las palabras de Cornelia, hemos mezclado colectivamente el amor masculino con el deseo sexual como si ambos fueran inseparables, y con la habilidad de las mujeres para controlar ese “amor” masculino a través de la hábil cultivación de la belleza. Se podría perdonar que uno rehusara creer que esto es siquiera amor, y que en vez de eso sea la creación de un deseo intenso de satisfacción del placer sexual debido a la atracción hacia la belleza. Al observar detenidamente, se puede ver que el “amor” generado por el sexo no necesariamente lleva a la compatibilidad entre las parejas en un amplio espectro de intereses, y puede ocurrir entre gente que, además de la atracción sexual, son totalmente incompatibles, con casi nada en común, por lo cual la relación a menudo se deteriora tanto cuando empieza a haber ciertos vacíos en el juego sexual.

Esto plantea la idea alternativa del amor basado en compatibilidad, en lo que podemos llamar “amor basado en amistad” que no está basada únicamente en el deseo sexual –de hecho para este tipo de amor el deseo sexual ni siquiera es esencial, aunque a menudo esté presente. El amor basado en la amistad tiene que ver con intereses comunes que la pareja comparte, con encontrar un alma compatible y con conocer a la otra persona en igualdad de condiciones. Sin embargo, apuntarle a un amor basado en amistad quiere decir que las mujeres ya no necesitan manejar los hilos del deseo sexual tal como se practica en la atracción basada en la belleza, lo que en últimas libera a hombres y mujeres para encontrarse como iguales en poderes y, con suerte, encontrar mucho en común para poder sostener una relación duradera.

[1] Robert Solomon, Love: Emotion, Myth, Metaphor, 1990 (p.62)
[2] Modesta Pozzo, The Worth of Women: their Nobility and Superiority to Men, 2007
[3] Nancy Firday, The Power of Beauty