Which would you rather Feminist edition

Hello. Today is celebrate your ladyparts day International Women's Day. This is exciting, non? I think so. There is a lot of stuff out there about celebrating the achievements of various women and, alternatively, criticizing countries and regimes which subjugate women. Having read some of this over the past few days, I started to be very glad that I am living where I am, but also when I am. I'm fortunate, I thought, that I live in the 21st century, where, at least in the UK, I am treated as a human being with human rights. So much better, I thought, than in Ye Olden Days.

Until I started reading this book. It's very interesting, as well as that rare sort of History book which is highly informative and well researched, but also fascinating for someone who only has a small interest in History. Written as a travel guide, it's literally like reading about visiting Spain, or China, or Mars for that matter. Anyway, in this book (which I'm not getting paid for the advertising of, honestly), the author talks about the rights of women in fourteenth century England.

In some ways, as people - myself included - it is very much a misogynistic society, with women controlled by men and no one wanting to change this as it is clearly God's will, as punishment for Eve's sins. Lack of understanding about general medicine meant that a lot of women died in childbirth, and as the general life expectancy was lower, women were often married at around the age of 14, quite shocking to us today. Furthermore, though rape was an extremely serious offense, it was extremely rare that a man was convicted, as it was taught that women could only conceive a child if she orgasmed during sex. If a child was conceived, she had clearly orgasmed, thus "enjoyed" the rape, and so it wasn't rape. Alternatively, if no child was conceived, there was no proof that the rape had taken place other than the woman's word, which, especially against a man in a position of power over her, was not likely to be believed.

Though forced marriages were fairly rare, they did still occur and must have been awful for the women who suffered through them. Women were also not considered free as such - even a high society woman 'belonged' to her father before she was married, then to her husband afterward.

Phew, you think, I'm glad I live now and not then.

Well, yes and no. Obviously there were huge inequalities in society, but there were some ways in which women did manage to have fairly equal opportunities. For example, women were allowed to report abusive husbands in their local church, and the men were often punished severely for their actions. Men on the other hand, were not allowed to report any violence against them by women, as if they did so, they would be perceived as a cuckold and therefore ridiculed. A backhanded reason for celebration, perhaps.

Another way in which women were more equal than we might first think was that, in the event of their husbands' death, she could take over his job or trade and make money for herself this way. For most women, this just meant continuing to farm the same fields or sell meat in a butcher's shop, but for a few notable exceptions this could leave them very rich - such as one woman from Coventry who ended up with a cloth business that was exporting its wares as far afield as Spain and earning her in excess of £800 in Medieval terms. 

Though there were a lot of arranged marriages, often men and women worked together to try hard to make it work and most came to love each other after a little while. If not, especially in the upper classes, one or both partners could take partners whom they loved - or at least lusted after.Women had the advantage of not being allowed to go to fight, and as there were a lot of wars going on during the 14th century, it greatly reduced their chance of dying whilst still young. Men who lived to an old age were looked down upon, unable to fight, they were considered no longer masculine. An old woman, on the other hand, was considered at the height of her power, full of the wisdom of the ages. 

Clearly, there was inequality in the Medieval society, and probably more so than there is in today's society in the UK. But conditions were perhaps not as harsh as one might first think, and though I still wouldn't want to live in their society, this is starting to have more to do with the large amounts of germs flying about with the Black Death and whatnot, rather than their treatment of women.  

Now you're just being daft

Here's another example of utter ridiculousness. I'm beginning to think that that's all this subject is. (Then I remember that my friends are doing things like Maths and Physics at university and I sort of feel a bit better. Ish).

But honestly, this is completely ridiculous. 

Today, according to wikipedia you might know, is St. Scholastica's Day (she's the patron saint of nuns, convulsive children and is invoked against storms and rain, apparently) and so, in 1335, when a riot occurred in Oxford on this day, they imaginatively called it the St. Scholastica's Day Riot. At least they thought to capitalize it...

The cause of the riot is depressingly mundane. Two young students of the university were drinking in the Swindlestock Tavern, when they decided that the ale they were drinking was not of the highest quality. Deciding, after several pints of said poor quality ale (I guess they had to check if it was all bad?), that this just would not do, they complained to the taverner. As so often happens, though, their complaints perhaps did not come across as they initially intended; words were had and things ended up with the taverner being beaten up by the two students.

Naturally, this was not an experience he enjoyed, and he decided that the only way to make up for it would be to organise a gang of locals to take on the students, which he swiftly did. He first approached the Mayor of Oxford for help, who asked the University's Chancellor to arrest the two students who had attacked the taverner. When it was made clear that this was not going to happen, a riot took place that lasted for two days and left around 30 locals and 63 students dead. This was probably going a bit far over a few drinks...

Eventually, the dispute was settled, after the King got wind of the Mayor of Oxford, John Barford riding into the countryside and calling for men to slay and smite the students, and ordered an investigation. A charter was drawn up, which stated that the Mayor and town councilors had to 'march bareheaded through the streets every year on St. Scholastica's Day and pay a penny for every scholar who was killed'. They were often pelted with makeshift weapons and jeered by the students whilst doing this, so naturally by 1825 the Mayor had gotten a bit of sick of the practice and refused to participate. After 470, no one from the university really bothered to complain, and the whole thing was dropped.

However, 600 years later, it was decided that the hatchet should finally be buried, and on 10 February 1955, the Mayor of Oxford was awarded an honorary degree by the University, and the University Chancellor was made an honorary freeman of the city.

This, naturally, made up for everything. Yes...     

Spirit of '68

On Tuesday, I am going to a protest. Not in one of the major cities of the UK - though the so-called Second City is practically on my doorstep - but in a tiny, middle class, true blue town very close to where I live. This town has it's own Hitler Conservative Youth club. The MP representing it has never, ever come from a party other than the Tory party. It contains an Independent School which is (supposedly) one of the most prestigious in the world which was founded in 1553. In short, I fear it is more rightwing than David Cameron's own constituency.

And yet. And yet. 

Despite all of this, I and (according to Facebook) 272 other students are going to take to the streets at 11am and protest against this government. This number has already gone up by two in the time it has taken me to write this, and I am sure it will go up further still by Tuesday. Oh, and this is the second protest in the high street - the first happened at the same time last Tuesday. 

My town is not unusual at all. It could be a town in Yorkshire, Worcestershire, Essex, Cornwall, Cheshire, Buckinghamshire. It's your basic Anywhere's-ville. And in all of these places, there will be students on the streets, protesting - and for a very good reason. They - I - do not want their right to education to be removed from them. Historically, education has been the biggest contributing factor to social mobility. Women and those from ethnic minorities fought, and in a very few extreme cases, died for the right to be educated. And this government, in raising the tuition fees to up to £9,000 per year, want to take this away from us. (After, of course, they went through higher education themselves for free, or, if they are young enough to have to pay fees, they did not pay nearly as dearly as we will have to, and most of them are millionaires anyway.)

I am aware that the funding for education has to come from somewhere. Tuition fees are a necessary evil. I want a job as a historian, researching and teaching in a university when I am older. The money from fees will probably pay my wages, so I would be a hypocrite if I pretended that I was completely against them. But a threefold increase in fees in a mere two years is entirely unethical. The psychological impact of a debt of £27,000 in fees alone the moment you graduate, would be, for some, too much - and understandably so. Those from the poorest backgrounds could be put off studying at university - or even Sixth Form, as the government have now decided to scrap EMA for those who need it the most - and this is fundamentally wrong.
 

The coalition claim not to have the money to fund universities, which may or may not be true, but there are other ways to pay for higher education other than increasing the fees by such an extortionate amount - taxing the banks and removing bankers' bonuses, or going after the millions of pounds of tax evasion (avoidance?) by the people and companies who fund the Conservative party, for example (Lord Ashcroft anyone?). Removing the right to education removes the chances of those from non-Upper Class backgrounds ever having any degree of power or moving up in the world - surely this can't be what the Tories want?!

I will make my placard and I will go out on Tuesday and I will protest - peacefully. I won't only be protesting against the rise in tuition fees, but also against the cuts to the welfare state - particularly those which will affect women, which are basically all of them. Did you know that, under the new Child Benefit reforms, a family with a single parent earning £44,000 or more will lose their benefit, but families with two earners each on a salary of £43,000 (giving a combined household income of £86,000) will keep the benefit? The proportion of single fathers raising children is much, much smaller than single mothers. There are a myriad of other injustices that I could list, but I fear I would literally run out of space. This is not right.

Your normal scheduled History programming will resume tomorrow (probably). But I could not let this opportunity pass - I had to write about it, as it is honestly one of the most vile things I have ever heard of. Anyone in the UK who has the opportunity to protest on Tuesday, wherever you are, should do so because we must show that we will not stand for this. Go out onto the streets and tell this weak and feeble government that you are not scared of them, and you will fight what they are trying to do because, fundamentally, it is wrong.