So if their big metric is # of centuries "under the influence of the church," are they arguing for a stronger influence of the early church on kinship? And are they claiming that kinship was the Church's primary sexual concern (rather, than, sodomy/adultery/remarriage)? 9/13
-
Show this thread
-
And the citations are wildly terrible. You're going to claim that kinship changes caused sweeping changes in medieval society and then cite JARED DIAMOND and FRANCIS FUKUYAMA?? 10/13pic.twitter.com/fBSEDjplCx
2 replies 5 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
You're going to claim that kinship ties are the most important structuring institutions in society and then point to Levi-Strauss? 11/13pic.twitter.com/QUk996IkOr
1 reply 2 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
There's remarkably little citation of medieval scholarship and what is cited is piecemeal. I have no criticism of individual works cited, which are often very good, but they don't add up to a complete picture of medieval attitudes towards sexuality or kinship across Europe. 12/13pic.twitter.com/0SmpY9uXow
2 replies 3 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
Erik "Mr. Bloodaxe" Wade Retweeted
As
@ISASaxonists and@prof_gabriele have said recently in relation to other "studies" like this, these data studies are built on wildly ahistorical assumptions. This claim that the Church "built the West" rests on a racist foundation. 13/13 https://twitter.com/Lollardfish/status/1197704778505166851 …Erik "Mr. Bloodaxe" Wade added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 16 retweets 70 likesShow this thread -
I really want to know what
@GoingMedieval thinks of this new study5 replies 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @erik_kaars @GoingMedieval
I had an extended thread about this. What you’re saying is basically what I was saying then: how tf would the Church enforce any of this? How can any of this info be comparable?
1 reply 5 retweets 5 likes -
Dr C. M. Bromstick 🧹, Dublin Retweeted Dr C. M. Bromstick 🧹, Dublin
Link if you are curious. I had a number of scientists get angry at me, including one of the authors. One guy called me vitriolic.https://twitter.com/AdmiralHip/status/1192869222759763968 …
Dr C. M. Bromstick 🧹, Dublin added,
Dr C. M. Bromstick 🧹, Dublin @AdmiralHipSince several scientists can't just take the word of however many medievalists (not just historians either) have said this is bad scholarship, and why, here are some sources. Because I'm feeling generous. https://twitter.com/prof_gabriele/status/1192655774029406209 …Show this thread1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @GoingMedieval
I can’t believe I missed this! ThNk you for sharing! Omg, they attacked you? Talk about fragile
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @erik_kaars @GoingMedieval
So from day one I was asking where their medieval sources were. And this one scientist (who initially called me his comrade) was telling me how to access their data sets (but it required a programme), but that didn’t indicate their sources to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
And so eventually I said they didn’t have any medieval sources, because some guy named “Pseudo-Erasmus” told me they didn’t use any (while being rude and attacking me). So then my “comrade” accuses me of not reading the study and being vitriolic.
-
-
And I told him I did read it, but that I missed the supplement (but I had been asking where to find any of this info and no one told me). And okay, in the supplement they do use medieval data, but it’s bishoprics and monastery locations? Idk. I talk about it in the thread.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
So basically these scientists who I thought initially wanted to discuss shit in good faith were not interested in that at all. The most hilarious part though is that the guy accusing me of vitriol didn’t read the study either, at least not in full.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.