the ancients on women

[Wilde woman]

For one of my classes, I've been reading some Biblical and Classical texts about women, gender, and sex. So far, there's been a lot of emphasis on St. Jerome, Aristotle, Galen, and Isidore of Seville. Needless to say, the vast majority of these texts are extremely misogynistic (and yes, I know I'm being anachronistic when I say that). I'm not a person easily offended by misogyny, since it's pretty much the norm in my field...one does not become a medievalist to be a feminist. :biggrin5: But I admit I'm a bit offended by some of these philosophers' views on female physiology.

Aristotle (in his De Generatione Animalium) posits the idea that women are basically imperfect men, that menses are a corrupt form of semen, that semen is responsible for regeneration, and that women merely provide the place for a fetus to grow:


A woman is as it were an infertile male; the female, in fact, is female on account of inability of a sort, viz., it lacks the power to concoct semen out of the final state of nourishment...because of the coldness of its nature...

And when you get to talking about menses, all reason apparently flies out the door. Of course, these are all male authors we're talking about, who never had to experience the phenomenon of having a period, but still...the way they characterize the menses completely outrages me:


The reason is that the female is as it were a deformed male; and the menstrual discharge is semen, though in an impure condition; i.e. it lacks one constituent, and one only, the principle of the Soul.

Continuing this line of thought, Aristotle goes on to imply that only men have souls. Aristotle and other philosophers also consider a menstruating woman untouchable, and her menses to be venomous. The editor of this translation, A. L. Peck summarizes some of their ridiculous beliefs about the menses: if men come into contact with menses, it was believed they could contract burning STDs, be drained of their vital blood, shrink their brains, and poison their small children. According to Isidore of Seville, contact with menses could cause:


fruits fail to germinate, grape-must goes sour, plants die...metal is corroded with rust, and bronze objects go black. Any dogs which consume it contract rabies.

WTF! REALLY? :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: And these Classical ideas found their way into the Christian canon, spreading this crap about women far and wide, and using such ridiculous rhetoric to justify the Church's misogyny, and to make women feel deep shame for a perfectly natural process.

Okay, I know that menses continue to freak men out to this day. Many of the guys I've dated get really uncomfortably silent whenever the topic comes up. So here's my question: To what extent do such beliefs persist today? Do we still see such anxiety surrounding the female body? What forms do anti-feminism take in this day and age? I'm particularly interested in what Christians have to say about this.

[Alexander III]

A quik defense of the ancients misogyny

From the times of ancient greece to the Renaissance, education was solely for men. As in women would only learn household and such tasks. Appreciation of art, politics, warfare, philosophy, theology these wore subjects that were only understood and taught to men.

So the average women during those times had the sole appeal of beauty, a man could never love a woman in the sense that we have love today, for once he finished his fornication he could not talk to her about anything, she had the knowledge of a child. That is why in ancient greece the love between two men was held in much higher regard than the love between a man and woman. The love between two men was one based on intellect and soul, the love of a woman was only based on lust and the need to procreate.

Recent studies have shown that cleopatra was not the beauty ancient sources held her out to be, in fact she was of a plain ordinary face? Why then did every man fall in love with her? Because she had what no other roman woman had in those times, culture, education - when talking to her they would be talking to an equal in mind.

[OrphanPip]

Not many ancient Greek men were educated either, and there were some educated females. The Athenian politician Aspasia, the mathematician Hepatia, and the poet Sappho were likely educated, and from wealthy families too though. I don't think it's clear how generally educated wealthy women were. Since public activities by women were frowned on, few would be involved in politics or any kind of work that would result in records being left behind.

Aristotle's understanding of male physiology was pretty bad too, he thought the testicles were weights to keep the urethra open. Aristotle pulled most of his "science" out of his ***, or more accurately he based a lot of his conclusions on anecdotal stories passed on in Greece.

[Cunninglinguist]

Aristotle's understanding of male physiology was pretty bad too, he thought the testicles were weights to keep the urethra open. Aristotle pulled most of his "science" out of his ***, or more accurately he based a lot of his conclusions on anecdotal stories passed on in Greece.

Expanding on this, Aristotle thought that the brain's only function was to regulate blood temperature. In any case, when Aristotle says that female ejaculate lacks the "principle of a soul" isn't it possible that he's just saying female ejaculate cannot impregnate?

[mortalterror]

What, you mean that stuff isn't true?

[JuniperWoolf]

Aristotle's understanding of male physiology was pretty bad too, he thought the testicles were weights to keep the urethra open. Aristotle pulled most of his "science" out of his ***, or more accurately he based a lot of his conclusions on anecdotal stories passed on in Greece.

Yeah, he was the one who thought up the whole "earth, wind, water and fire" as the elemental components of everything in the universe. Water runs down hill because it's more like earth, and fire goes up hill because it's more like air. I like reading his bizzare theories.


In any case, when Aristotle says that female ejaculate lacks the "principle of a soul" isn't it possible that he's just saying female ejaculate cannot impregnate?

No, he really did think that the female body was just like a jar that contains the semen until it's a baby and that the woman didn't contribute anything to reproduction but a place for the baby to grow. They compared women to fields and sperm to seeds. All the life is in the seed, the field is just where the seed becomes a plant.

Still, no more misogynistic than the Christian creation myth.

[JamesRhodes]

Interestingly enough, Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale is a direct attack on these kind of views. The wife of Bath is a very early feminist figure and reflects the difference between the writings on marriage by the likes of St Jerome and practical male / female relationships in which women very often take the upper hand.

So, although certain authority figures held these ridiculous views, you can be pretty sure that the average man had more sense.

[The Comedian]

I don't have much time to post, but as I'm sure you know Wilde Woman, the ancient Greeks were freaked out by women. But I think that what often gets overlooked in all of the repression stuff, which is certainly there, is that they saw the female as powerful. I'll argue that to my dying day. I mean, in nearly all of the Greek myths, the monster of any heroic story is female. And, yes, the male hero has to vanquish her and return some of her power to the male society. But we don't repress or struggle to vanquish the powerless.

I live in the northern US; there are wolves and bears here. Lots of people want to kill them all. I don't hear anyone talking about the great need to vanquish the squirrels, chipmunks, and chick-a-dees. These nice forest creatures pose no threat, hence no need to vanquish them.

As for menses. . . . I don't have much to say. It is kinda gross, like a lot of bodily excretions. I don't talk about the dump I left in the toilet. I don't discuss my spit or pissin' that much with others. Maybe a little bit when I was hanging out with the boys back in college. But such talk never seemed to make the ladies feel comfortable. And now that I'm older, aside from some potty-chat with my kids, I don't talk much about excretions much at all.

[Cunninglinguist]

Yeah, he was the one who thought up the whole "earth, wind, water and fire" as the elemental components of everything in the universe. Water runs down hill because it's more like earth, and fire goes up hill because it's more like air. I like reading his bizzare theories.

I think, given the technological tools of the time, Aristotle's theories were inspired by a seldom, if ever, precedented ingenuousness. We can now look at him and find how he categorized things laughable; but a millennia from hence, I'm sure the future will be laughing at how we categorized the world, morally and otherwise, too. For, given that the universe is infinite, we're all infinitely ignorant and there is always infinite room for the comparative improvement of our knowledge.


No, he really did think that the female body was just like a jar that contains the semen until it's a baby and that the woman didn't contribute anything to reproduction but a place for the baby to grow. They compared women to fields and sperm to seeds. All the life is in the seed, the field is just where the seed becomes a plant.

Still, no more misogynistic than the Christian creation myth.

I guess I'd need to see some references to accept that Aristotle really held that view - it is believable, no doubt, but so are other things.

The text of the creation myth isn't unequivocally misogynistic, and it states implicitly is subject to a variegated multitude of exegetical convictions. Certain theologians have argued that the creation myth does not imply a crucial inequality between the sexes, just as there is no such inequality between Jesus and God. But, in the end, even the most logically informed hermeneutic methods are pretty much worthless in comparison to popular belief... I would say that the myth itself isn't misogynistic, but certainly many people's interpretations of it have been.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think, given the technological tools of the time, Aristotle's theories were inspired by a seldom, if ever, precedented ingenuousness. We can now look at him and find how he categorized things laughable; but a millennia from hence, I'm sure the future will be laughing at how we categorized the world, morally and otherwise, too. For, given that the universe is infinite, we're all infinitely ignorant and there is always infinite room for the comparative improvement of our knowledge.

Well, to be fair, our theories are based on a little thing called "evidence." There were many classical thinkers who outshine Aristotle, you just don't hear about them as often.


I guess I'd need to see some references to accept that Aristotle really held that view - it is believable, no doubt, but so are other things.

I guess I could send you the publication information of my classics textbook if you want. PM me.


I would say that the myth itself isn't misogynistic, but certainly many people's interpretations of it have been.

Really? Have you read it?

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee.

Genesis is pretty insanely misogynistic. There's really no way to get around it.

[Cunninglinguist]

Well, to be fair, our theories are based on a little thing called "evidence." There were many classical thinkers who outshine Aristotle, you just don't hear about them as often.

Aristotle's theories were based on empirical evidence. One might blame him for a "liberal" use of induction; but we oft use such methods as much as he does. The thing that places us apart from Aristotle, and the future apart from us, is that there are and will be simply means (via technological advancement) to get much, much more of said evidence. Simply said, Aristotle had less of it, and so, for his categorization of the elements, forces, etc., accounting for all his context, I think his ideas quite inspired.

I don't know about "outshining" him; I think that highly depends on how you define "outshine." Indeed, no one was more influential upon western thought perhaps until Kant; as for being "right," well that in of itself is partly caught up in one's definition and further cultural context. So I'm not exactly keen on which philosophers you're referring to.


Really? Have you read it?

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee.

Genesis is pretty insanely misogynistic. There's really no way to get around it.

Going back to Milton, I think he did an OK job in Paradise Lost. That said, for one more example, many older Jewish cultures would not be classified as misogynistic. The understanding between the genders was not of some fundamental disparity; though certain roles were generally (pretty much universally) assumed, there was a mutual respect, and where there was not we cannot confidently attribute that to some interpretation of the Bible. So, while Genesis is "insanely misogynistic" to you, misogyny has not been the universal extrapolation from it in the past or present, nor do I think will be in the future.

I think such an understanding stems out of a purely literal, word-for-word exegesis of Genesis, which some, but by no means all, people hold. To say the myth ought to be unequivocally called misogynistic, or is unequivocally understood as endorsing misogyny, is, for the former, quite imposing your interpretation on everyone, and, for the latter, simple ignorance. What's further is that you're categorizing those who believe there is wisdom, whether stated implicitly or explicitly, in the myth, Genesis, and the Bible as, by virtue, necessarily misogynists. In a word, I don't think this is sound, nor do I think this is open-minded.

[JuniperWoolf]

To say the myth ought to be unequivocally called misogynistic, or is unequivocally understood as endorsing misogyny, is, for the former, quite imposing your interpretation on everyone, and, for the latter, simple ignorance.

Really? "And he shall rule over thee." I'm interpreting those words as misogynistic because I'm ignorant and imposing? Er... alright. :skep: I think you're reaching.

Anyway, just because I think the bible is a terrible book to base one's faith upon doesn't mean that I think Christians are ignorant. Religions are perpetuated for cultural and political means. Usually people are Christian because of chance birth, not because it's their choice. They were born into a Christian country and family and then raised Christian, and that's that.

As for it being misogynistic, the bible is a pick-and-choose book. It says "yes" and "no" to virtually every issue and course of action that you can think of. Vengance is advocated in the same book as absolute tolerance. You could use it to prove that homosexuals are evil, and you could use it to imply that God himself is a homosexual (we're made in his image, right?). It is misogynistic - but it is also a feminist text (Mary Magdalene is a patron of women's preaching).

[OrphanPip]

I think, given the technological tools of the time, Aristotle's theories were inspired by a seldom, if ever, precedented ingenuousness. We can now look at him and find how he categorized things laughable; but a millennia from hence, I'm sure the future will be laughing at how we categorized the world, morally and otherwise, too. For, given that the universe is infinite, we're all infinitely ignorant and there is always infinite room for the comparative improvement of our knowledge.


Most of Aristotle's science was refuted by contemporary Greek philosophers, his bad science kind of held back European science for generations because he was considered infallible.

Much of Aristotle's shortcomings are from his lack of math, he seemed completely inept in the field or simply uninterested. He also didn't have a concept of falsification and testing of theories like the modern Scientific Method has. He liked to take stuff, cut it up, draw it, describe it, then make ridiculous overreaching generalizations. It's really puzzling, he thought women had less teeth than men, he could have verified that quite easily you have to wonder why he held such a ridiculous view point. Moreover, his belief that lighter things fell slower than heavier things was falsified by other Greeks, but no one bothered to believe them until Galileo.

He also thought that particulars always reflected some universal ideal, a certain failing of Greek Teleological thought. If you think gods made your world, you might as well attribute the workings of everything to magic.

Edit: Though I've met people who think men have one less rib than women because of Adam giving his rib to make Eve, so the willingness to perpetuate easily refutable facts isn't particular to Aristotle.

[mortalterror]

If I may recap, you are questioning why Aristotle, possibly the smartest man who ever lived, wasn't smarter? Why he and Galen didn't apply Renaissance era scientific methods to their researches? Their books were the cutting edge of science for two thousand years after they died. Isn't that smart enough? How'd they come up with erroneous assumptions? The same way most smart men do, they read it somewhere.

[JuniperWoolf]

If I may recap, you are questioning why Aristotle, possibly the smartest man who ever lived, wasn't smarter?


...his bad science kind of held back European science for generations...

I'm 71% sure that we would have been better off if Aristotle had never existed. It's annoying that people still give him the occasional sloppy tongue bath.

[prendrelemick]

What's a sloppy tongue bath?


It seem to be that one man's work as had a hugely dissproportunate influence down the centuries. I think societies pick and choose what they want to believe in (ours is no different.) It has been convenient to the status quo to go with Aristotle for centuries.

But before we blame him for all the misogyne of the world, Societies that have never heard of him - African, Polynesian, Far Eastern - have similar attitudes, particularly about menstruation. Where does that come from?

[OrphanPip]

If I may recap, you are questioning why Aristotle, possibly the smartest man who ever lived, wasn't smarter? Why he and Galen didn't apply Renaissance era scientific methods to their researches? Their books were the cutting edge of science for two thousand years after they died. Isn't that smart enough? How'd they come up with erroneous assumptions? The same way most smart men do, they read it somewhere.

No, just saying science would have been better if people were more willing to believe the Epicureans than the Aristotelians. Aristotle and Epicureus both followed in Democritus' footsteps to some extent (Plato was apparently a bitter enemy of Democritus), Epicureus made better use of Democritus' concepts of materialism. Epicurean materialism was likely rejected as a scientific approach, with its concepts of reductionism and falsifiability, because the Epicurean promotion of ethical hedonism rubbed Christians the wrong way.

Aristotle's major contribution is writing down formal logic, but to be frank it is likely many of those concepts were well known without being formalized. I'm not sure Aristotle was ever on the cutting edge of science, natural philosophy was his weak point. Most people credit him with being right about atoms (an idea that he took from Democritus so it wasn't his) and gathering some accurate information on embryology (which he was right about because it happens that cutting stuff open and drawing it is an accurate way to depict embryological development in stages).

I'm just saying, we would have been better off if we had listened to Aristotle less, not saying that Aristotle was an idiot.

Edit: Just as an aside, most of the major actual scientist of Ancient Greece were Epicureans.

[JuniperWoolf]

What's a sloppy tongue bath?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGDb0iqlGuM

[signelect]

I don't think those beliefs are persistent now a days. The majority of people around the world now a days see the female body with more of an understanding; as something that's natural and many more man are understanding when it comes to the subject of menstruation. So woman are seeing as more of an equal to man.

[L.M. The Third]

I don't think those beliefs are persistent now a days. The majority of people around the world now a days see the female body with more of an understanding; as something that's natural and many more man are understanding when it comes to the subject of menstruation. So woman are seeing as more of an equal to man.

Perhaps in Western countries, but not quite in the "majority" of the world. There are still countries where married-rape is legal and female genital-mutilation is practiced (among other demeaning and misogynistic practices). This may not be directly tied to attitudes toward menstruation, but it's indirectly related through it's connection to a woman's position and her body.

I'm intensely interested in the misogyny in religion referenced in the original post, but don't have much insight at present because, as various posts have pointed out there is ambivalence in the Bible, Judaism and Christianity towards women.

I will say that while Genesis places a curse upon women, man is given a milder curse of the ground. So I still see the intense misogyny associated with Genesis as much exacerbated by Milton.

[MsSilentia]

About the misogynic of Aristotle, and the lack of education for women in his time:

There is an interesting point in comparing him to the playwright Aristophanes, born about sixty years before him. Aristophanes did obviously consider women as political beings. Even if he might have been radical for his time there must still have been something in the time that gave him the ideas for such plays as Lysistrate.

In the prologue to one of his late plays he even comments the misogynic tendency in “modern” comedies. Unfortunately I do not remember which play. But what happened after that? Aristotle must have been a child of his time, just as Aristophanes must have been of his.

Anyone knows?

[cyberbob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGDb0iqlGuM

Holy crap! LOL

I liked the "that's sooooo twilight zone" comment. That's exactly what it reminded me of.

[Wilde woman]

Re: I don't understand how anyone can say Genesis is not misogynistic.

But I recently learned in class that there were two Creation stories: one in which God created man and woman simultaneously and one in which woman was created from man's rib. (I believe this is in Genesis 1:27.) The first one, which suggests more equality between the sexes, was ruled apocryphal. Obviously, I'm familiar with Scriptural terminology, so could someone back me up here?


So the average women during those times had the sole appeal of beauty, a man could never love a woman in the sense that we have love today, for once he finished his fornication he could not talk to her about anything, she had the knowledge of a child.

That's an oversimplification, but I get your point that women's sole to society (and not just amongst the ancient Greeks) was to be married and produce children, to ensure the continuity of the patriarchal system.


That is why in ancient greece the love between two men was held in much higher regard than the love between a man and woman. The love between two men was one based on intellect and soul, the love of a woman was only based on lust and the need to procreate.

I think you're right that male-male love/friendship was valued over male-female relationships (Plato says as much in his Symposium), but I'm not sure that had to do as much with gender as with social class. If, as you say, "the love between two men was one based on intellect and soul", that's only because the two men in the relationship were of relatively equal social standing and/or education could meet each other halfway in conversation. Also, more importantly, they could be seen in each other's company in public. The term I've heard used to describe this is homosociality, which was privileged over heterosexuality - at least in literature - up until the 12th century, when courtly love arose. And, arguably it was preferred far past that time period, easily into the Renaissance.

I'm not convinced that men could not have legitimate relationships with women of equal rank...it's just that there could be suspicion of an inappropriate sexual or adulterous relationship as well.


Interestingly enough, Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale is a direct attack on these kind of views....So, although certain authority figures held these ridiculous views, you can be pretty sure that the average man had more sense.

Yes, but Chaucer was one of the few writers who was relatively sympathetic towards women. And if you've read the rest of the Canterbury Tales, you'll see that most of the women are not nearly as outspoken as the Wife of Bath. In the literature of the time period, it is really only in very specific genres (fabliaux, saints' lives, courtly love - kind of) where women have any sort of power over men. And if you're familiar with the Constance stories (in Chaucer, the Man of Law's tale), you know she is hardly the prototype of a powerful woman.

How do you know the "average man" had more sense? In terms of literature, the little evidence we have comes from these authority figures. Your average layman could not read or write and even if he could, it is highly unlikely his work would be published/circulated, so what evidence do we have that these ideas were not widespread?


they saw the female as powerful. I'll argue that to my dying day. I mean, in nearly all of the Greek myths, the monster of any heroic story is female. And, yes, the male hero has to vanquish her and return some of her power to the male society.

I completely agree with you. I think the ancient Greeks and Romans afforded their women much more presence and participation in public life than, say, the Europeans of the Dark Ages (a term I hate, but can't disagree with when it comes to feminism). My original post was never about women's power per se, only thoughts about these physiological concepts.