Ah! So great to see just attention paid to Arthur! I haven't studied these in years, though they're embedded deeply in my consciousness. I'll listen to your podcasts with relish.
Also, this:
"it doesn’t matter whether you can win or not, what matters is that we defend what is true and right and good and holy"
reminds me of a quote Fr. Thomas Hopko used in a lecture which deeply affected my conversion 27 years ago. He said St. Teresa of Calcutta claimed that God didn't require his servants be successful, only faithful. This seems right in line with your assertion?
In a very real sense, the legend of King Arthur embodies western manhood, and the demise of the legend is largely a function of the rise of feminism. The core of feminism in misogyny, and is partly a feminine jealousy and pique. The male sense of protectionism and care for the female came to be seen as condescension and a show of superiority, and was a denial of vulnerability. In the vast majority of cases, the stronger have a natural desire to protect the weaker, which is commonly the case of men compared to women.
However, it doesn't seem to apply in the exceptional cases when women are the stronger of the two. Women tend to naturally be protective of children, especially of their own, but not of their men, unless he is suffering from an injury or disease, and only when it is temporary. A taller, stronger woman is not as inclined to protect a smaller, weaker woman, in contradistinction to a man protecting a smaller, weaker man.
Of course, there are exceptions, but exceptionalism is more often on display in men than in women. The myth of women being more caring than men is a fairly recent construction. Except in cases involving warfare. In point of fact, warfare is often in defense of women. And in warfare, the enemy's women do not receive the protection of their own, not of the enemy's children, to a lesser extent. Also, in cases of warfare, instances of women's care for enemy men or children is much rarer than that of men for enemy women or children.
In general, women are more apt to be vindictive than are men. And men are more inclined to general care. Hard-heartedness is found more often among women than among men. But, again in general, because men are on average larger and stronger than women, rage, when stirred up in men has more capacity for physical damage, thus in wartime, men appear more destructive and care seems less in consequence.
Glad you liked it! I'm definitely not finished with reflecting on Arthuriana, which is one of the other reasons I'm revisiting it here - eventually including, I hope, that interview with you that we talked about doing, once I'm finally finished reading at least one of the three translations of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that I now own (but haven't read yet)!
Many thanks, @Matt Whiteley, for your excellent post on “How Arthur Made the West”, which inspired me to revisit (and start re-posting) my old podcast! https://thisisleisfullofnoises.substack.com/p/how-arthur-made-the-west
Ah! So great to see just attention paid to Arthur! I haven't studied these in years, though they're embedded deeply in my consciousness. I'll listen to your podcasts with relish.
Also, this:
"it doesn’t matter whether you can win or not, what matters is that we defend what is true and right and good and holy"
reminds me of a quote Fr. Thomas Hopko used in a lecture which deeply affected my conversion 27 years ago. He said St. Teresa of Calcutta claimed that God didn't require his servants be successful, only faithful. This seems right in line with your assertion?
In a very real sense, the legend of King Arthur embodies western manhood, and the demise of the legend is largely a function of the rise of feminism. The core of feminism in misogyny, and is partly a feminine jealousy and pique. The male sense of protectionism and care for the female came to be seen as condescension and a show of superiority, and was a denial of vulnerability. In the vast majority of cases, the stronger have a natural desire to protect the weaker, which is commonly the case of men compared to women.
However, it doesn't seem to apply in the exceptional cases when women are the stronger of the two. Women tend to naturally be protective of children, especially of their own, but not of their men, unless he is suffering from an injury or disease, and only when it is temporary. A taller, stronger woman is not as inclined to protect a smaller, weaker woman, in contradistinction to a man protecting a smaller, weaker man.
Of course, there are exceptions, but exceptionalism is more often on display in men than in women. The myth of women being more caring than men is a fairly recent construction. Except in cases involving warfare. In point of fact, warfare is often in defense of women. And in warfare, the enemy's women do not receive the protection of their own, not of the enemy's children, to a lesser extent. Also, in cases of warfare, instances of women's care for enemy men or children is much rarer than that of men for enemy women or children.
In general, women are more apt to be vindictive than are men. And men are more inclined to general care. Hard-heartedness is found more often among women than among men. But, again in general, because men are on average larger and stronger than women, rage, when stirred up in men has more capacity for physical damage, thus in wartime, men appear more destructive and care seems less in consequence.
I really liked this series! Hope there's more of it to come.
Glad you liked it! I'm definitely not finished with reflecting on Arthuriana, which is one of the other reasons I'm revisiting it here - eventually including, I hope, that interview with you that we talked about doing, once I'm finally finished reading at least one of the three translations of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that I now own (but haven't read yet)!