None of which addresses the points raised in my post #125, but much of which reinforces the fact that most of our historical narratives are written from the male perspective and, either subtly or directly, reinforce male values. Aussie's comment above, for example, regarding traditional cultures, makes just that point that where there were coequal gender relations, these were soon undermined by imported and opposed western values.
Those values are the legacy of feudalism.
The 'Code of Chivalry' emerged around the c10AD in France as the Christian church tried to regulate the violence endemic to Frankish society. Here emerged the knight, the man equipped for war is the central concept of chivalry; peasants need not apply.
From here a martial elite arose with the view that warfare was its hereditary profession.
Chivalry relegated the female aristocracy to an ambiguous position in society. Outwardly held as objects of reverence, they were relegated to the position of appendage in a hyper-masculine martial society. As chivalry became more stylized, women were increasingly constrained within the ideal of the passive, beautiful female. Any deviation from this, any expression of independence, was regarded as suspect and sinful.
Women were not the only victim. While the Code of Chivalry expected knights to be Christian in conduct, the Biblical prohibitions were not applied to those outside the church, thus knight were guilty of terrible atrocities, allowed by various concessions, such as killing Jews, Moslems or heretics, as these were outside the cover of Christendom.
And while chivalric charity extended to the enemy knight (when advantageous), these dispensations did not extend to the peasantry who were often slaughtered wholesale whenever they were deemed in the way or stepped out of line.
The 'gentlemanly' (chivalric) values of today are entirely anachronistic. A fallacy that came about with the "re-discovery" of chivalry in the Romance Movement of the Victorian Era by authors who wanted to spin creative tales of pageantry and adventure. As such our impression of knights — and ladies — derive from highly stylized fantasies of art and literature generated in pursuit of a mythic ideal.
+++
Interestingly, the Code of Bushido is likewise a much later invention. The popular image in the west derives from the book published by Nitobe Inazo in 1905, himself a Christian, and his book was a presentation of the samurai ethos in Christian terms. The reality of Bushido is drawn from materials from almost a thousand years earlier that show a similar 'Code' formed around a martial elite bound by obligation and allegiance to their superiors.
Interestingly also is, with the emergence of this particularly Japanese form of feudalism, is the manner in which the female is similarly relegated, where once she was central to the affairs of the Imperial Court, in the military households she was confined to the womans' quarters — she lost her right to inherit wealth, land and titles. She lost her voice. Where the formidable female Tomoe Gozen (C1157-1247) fought and won battles, and was renown as an
onna-bugeisha, she was as capable a warrior as she was a military leader:
Tomoe was especially beautiful, with white skin, long hair, and charming features. She was also a remarkably strong archer, and as a swordswoman she was a warrior worth a thousand, ready to confront a demon or a god, mounted or on foot. She handled unbroken horses with superb skill; she rode unscathed down perilous descents. Whenever a battle was imminent, Yoshinaka sent her out as his first captain, equipped with strong armour, an oversized sword, and a mighty bow; and she performed more deeds of valour than any of his other warriors. (The Tale of the Heike)
In later years women would simply be excluded from the possibility of making a career as a warrior.
The exceptions are of course there: Of the three unifiers who eventually brought peace to Japan, all of them had women in their close council — but this does not detract from the over-arching marginalisation of the female. These women emerged only because of their proximity to men of power, as mothers or mistresses, and so were close to the top, while those of a similar or even superior capability did not have the access to the men who could enable them to emerge.