A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman
I find it interesting that misogyny takes so many forms and yet never fundamentally changes its underlying nature. Women are evil, whether they are beautiful or unattractive, and whether they are superficial or industrious. The best part about Patriarchy is that there is no way to win, but such a variety of ways to lose!
Despite their more realistic characters, the fabliaux were no more true to life than the romances, but their antagonism to women reflected a common attitude which took its tone from the Church. Woman was the Church’s rival, the temptress, the distraction, the obstacle to holiness, the Devil’s decoy.
[...] [Preachers] denounced women on the one hand for being the slaves of vanity and fashion, for monstrous headdresses and the “lascivious and carnal provocation” of their garments, and on the other hand for being over-industrious, too occupied with children and housekeeping, too earthbound to give due thought to divine things.
[...] [Petrarch] had only to recollect, he wrote to his brother the monk, “what woman really is,” in order to dispel desire and retrieve his normal equanimity. “What woman really is” referred to the clerical doctrine that beauty in women was deceptive, masking falsehood and physical corruption. “Wheresoever Beauty shows upon the face,” warned the preachers, “there lurks much filth beneath the skin.”
Tuchman later makes the sardonic point that misogyny tended to ramp up (as a general rule) near the end of a man's life "when a man began to worry about hell, and his sexual desire in any case was fading". And perhaps this is true, that it's easier to openly hate women when you're no longer trying to seduce them.
But I offer a counter-theory, that the process of thoroughly and completely hating approximately half of the world's population -- as well as such close persons as female friends, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and all the other variety of women and girls who pass through the life of any given man -- takes, for many people, time and practice. Sustained, unremitting hatred is tiring and can be hard to sustain.
If true, that would mean that the constant background-radiation misogyny that we constantly see and experience is so much practice that may, given enough time, make perfect. Which is why it is all the more important to call out the low-level misogyny in addition to the obvious-and-egregious misogyny, because the former is a precursor that fosters and enables the latter.
9 comments:
"And interestingly enough, the racial rankings (broadly, Europeans on top, Asians in the middle, Africans on the bottom) work out exactly the same either way."
Yeah, the original version of this was: "The more mature form is the more advanced form. Therefore, since the human male diverges more radically from the childish type than the female does, he is more advanced than she is. Also, since the Caucasoid races diverge more radically from the human norm than any of the other races do, the Caucasoid races are the most advanced human races. You can't argue with it; it's science."
Then it was confirmed that neoteny is actually a measure of humanness: we're all human partly to the extent that we diverge from the adult primate type and conform to the infantile primate type. Oops. After which the recalibration took place exactly as you describe. Although I have heard evo-psych types describe Asians as the most advanced humans, on the basis that, supposedly, they were exposed to more environmental challenges 20,000 years ago or whatever than the rest of us were.
The cool thing to remember about all of this is that the early European scientists were observing real stuff, it's just that they were viewing it the wrong way 'round. What they saw, and what they wanted to see, was a pyramid with a white man on top. They thought, in other words, that the rest of humanity was aspiring, biologically and in other ways, to the condition of a Caucasian male. In terms of the kind of thinking you're describing, all females "fell short" of being male, and all non-whites "fell short" of being white. What these men were actually looking at was a race in which the adult male closely resembles the adult female and in which both parents closely resemble their offspring. (And one in which most of the physical variations closely resemble each other, with comparatively few outliers.) They reported what they observed and did it faithfully, but they had biases that caused them to turn what they were seeing upside down. So that it's never enough to yowl: "But I have the facts!!" Because the way you interpret the facts is important.
"And interestingly enough, the racial rankings (broadly, Europeans on top, Asians in the middle, Africans on the bottom) work out exactly the same either way."
Yeah, the original version of this was: "The more mature form is the more advanced form. Therefore, since the human male diverges more radically from the childish type than the female does, he is more advanced than she is. Also, since the Caucasoid races diverge more radically from the human norm than any of the other races do, the Caucasoid races are the most advanced human races. You can't argue with it; it's science."
Then it was confirmed that neoteny is actually a measure of humanness: we're all human partly to the extent that we diverge from the adult primate type and conform to the infantile primate type. Oops. After which the recalibration took place exactly as you describe. Although I have heard evo-psych types describe Asians as the most advanced humans, on the basis that, supposedly, they were exposed to more environmental challenges 20,000 years ago or whatever than the rest of us were.
The cool thing to remember about all of this is that the early European scientists were observing real stuff, it's just that they were viewing it the wrong way 'round. What they saw, and what they wanted to see, was a pyramid with a white man on top. They thought, in other words, that the rest of humanity was aspiring, biologically and in other ways, to the condition of a Caucasian male. In terms of the kind of thinking you're describing, all females "fell short" of being male, and all non-whites "fell short" of being white. What these men were actually looking at was a race in which the adult male closely resembles the adult female and in which both parents closely resemble their offspring. (And one in which most of the physical variations closely resemble each other, with comparatively few outliers.) They reported what they observed and did it faithfully, but they had biases that caused them to turn what they were seeing upside down. So that it's never enough to yowl: "But I have the facts!!" Because the way you interpret the facts is important.
Reminds me of the ranking of human races by early scientists (all European): Originally, the European race was "older" more "mature" in comparison to the other races. So they looked for physical traits that made Europeans more "adult" and other races more "childish." But then they discovered that humans are neotonic: we're more like baby apes than adult apes. So the "higher," "more human" race would be the most neotonic, the "youngest" one. And they promptly forgot all the traits that "proved" Europeans were the most "mature" race and found a new bunch of physical traits to prove Europeans were the most baby-like race.
And interestingly enough, the racial rankings (broadly, Europeans on top, Asians in the middle, Africans on the bottom) work out exactly the same either way.
Right on the nose. A lot of the really fascinating (and laughable) stuff from that period of science is scientists coming up with data that clashes with the prejudices, then arguing around it. For instance, one scientist measured skull sizes of men and women to find which gender was smarter (bigger skull => bigger brain => more intelligence). He found that men's skull are, on the average, somewhat larger than women's. Still, men are, on the average, somewhat larger than women, so of course they have larger skulls, right? His analysis acknowledged this, but claimed that could only be part of the answer, because everybody knows that men are smarter than women. Seriously.
Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man is a very readable, fascinating survey of the "science" of patriarchy, racism, and classism.
CN: Sexual harassment, (intended) child molestation
It's a long time since I read the book, but my recollection is that the character who makes crude and obnoxious sexual advances to the young Alexander and then is struck speechless with fear when he sees who Alexander really is was not Aristotle but Demosthenes.
CN: Sexual harassment, (intended) child molestation
There's a delightful throwaway bit in Mary Renault's novel about the boyhood of Alexander the Great--basically, Aristotle is sending Alexander and his friends out to do field observations of animals, but they get bored, and make random stuff up about how foxes mate and such. Aristotle writes it all down and thanks them.
(The book also shows Aristotle thinking that the thirteenish Alexander is a slave when he first meets him (the kid is casually dressed for running around in the hills), and makes some crude and obnoxious sexual advances. Then nearly swallows his tongue with panic when he sees the boy again in context, that is, all dressed up, and sitting next to his faddah, da King. Alexander graciously never mentions that they met before their formal introduction.)
CN: Sexual harassment, (intended) child molestation
There's a delightful throwaway bit in Mary Renault's novel about the boyhood of Alexander the Great--basically, Aristotle is sending Alexander and his friends out to do field observations of animals, but they get bored, and make random stuff up about how foxes mate and such. Aristotle writes it all down and thanks them.
(The book also shows Aristotle thinking that the thirteenish Alexander is a slave when he first meets him (the kid is casually dressed for running around in the hills), and makes some crude and obnoxious sexual advances. Then nearly swallows his tongue with panic when he sees the boy again in context, that is, all dressed up, and sitting next to his faddah, da King. Alexander graciously never mentions that they met before their formal introduction.)
I'm reminded of a comic I once read, called "Epicurus the Sage," a satire on Greek philosophers (it was a fun comic to read at the time, given that I was studying philosophy for a year and actually had an inkling on who all these weird philosophers were). In one scene, Aristotle -- portrayed in the comic as a bit of a stuck-up snob -- brags about how he has proven that men are superior to women, listing among other things the "bigger skull => bigger brain => more intelligence" thing -- and when pressed on it admits that he made up his research, but justifies it because "Everyone knows women are weak-minded and inferior to men. I just thought up the reasons why this is so. The job of the scientist is to validate common wisdom."
Aristotle wasn't a fan of women in real life either...
"there is no way to win, but such a variety of ways to lose!" I think this sums up the problems of mysogony, as wel as just about any other form of bigotry and bullying. And, it also sums up the problem with the justification for failing to get involved to stop either, that one can blame the victim for not winning.
Post a Comment