Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lafcadio · 11-01-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Where did you get this from?
It seems to be directed at my post but I give no such hint of that.
Quote "I understand there were only a few pagan women prominent in arts, literature, science etc." states quite strongly that pagan society was sexist with "only a few'' prominent pagan women.

My bad, then. I tried to see through your lenses and seemed to me that you tried to emphasize the difference between the two worlds (few vs none - which are not quite none, no philosophers but literate enough to count).

Quote:

But perhaps less sexist than Christianity which appears to have nil.
Within Christianity women seem to have been principally considered regarding their sexuality from the male POV.

I would say in Roman society it was not much different. Women were mainly child-bearers. The ideal woman in Roman society would have motherhood as main quality. Also I remember some accounts of husbands beating their wives to death because of drinking and/or adultery. And IIRC not only husbands.

Quote:

For the church to emphasise virginity and marriage for women was not a liberating process for them.

No, I don't think so. I think the patriarchal mentality was inherited from previous european cultures (Greek, Roman, Germanic, etc.). I hardly believe it was significantly worse or better in the periods next to the fall of Antiquity.
While about virginity, check the stoics

lpetrich · 11-01-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Once Christianity became mainstream, it picked up many of the patriarchical aspects of the surrounding pagan society ...

And before it, it was super feminist? Let's see.

Were there any Gospels written by Mattie, Marcia, Lucy, or Joan? Did Jesus Christ have a favorite disciple named Petra? Were any of those epistles written by St. Paula? Did a certain Joan receive a revelation about the end of the world?

And I don't see how it's a Good Thing to reject all sexuality but grudgingly-tolerated procreative marital sexuality. Birth control is a very Good Thing for women, since it's safer than abortion or giving birth, and since it helps women to be something other than baby machines, yet the Church has long opposed that, and Bede nowhere discusses that.

And if repression of sexuality is feminist, then strict Muslims must be super feminist. In fact, some strict Muslims make feminist defenses of their policies, like how burqas enable women to be something other than sex objects.

Quote:

It is likely that even medieval Europe gave women a higher status than any previous civilisation ...

The Middle Ages as some sort of Golden Age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Exactly the same as we see in paganism. To a pagan Roman or Athenian a woman was just a baby making machine, and male babies at that.

Bede, you are emitting crude and unjustified stereotypes, like when you implied that pagan priestesses were all Vestal Virgins and "holy prostitutes". And I'm surprised that you didn't recognize that Vestal Virgins were more-or-less pagan nuns.

Quote:

Here's a list of medieval Christian women writers with bibliography. It is far longer than any list of pagan women writers, even allowing for the difficulties of preservation.

Most of them are from the later Middle Ages, when more survives -- more written by men.

And where were all the female priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes? And female philosophers and theologians? Bede, since you know so much, you should have no difficulty discovering all of them.

From Richard Carrier's first article on women:

Quote:

Jesus was certainly more liberal in his treatment of women than other Jews of his day. The rampant misogyny that has characterized Christianity comes from Paul, not Christ. But there is nothing Jesus said or did that was at all uncharacteristic of any educated Gentile. The Jews were far more reactionary toward woman than their Greek neighbors, a point that was often a matter of contention between the two communities. The Romans, in turn, were even more remarkably liberal compared to the Greeks. But as one might say today: anyone looks like a liberal next to Pat Robertson. Or Paul the Apostle.

In short, the claim that "only a handful of philosophers" had views of women at least as favorable as Jesus is false. To the contrary, it was common among all the educated Greco-Roman elite to have views on the matter comparable to what we can deduce from what Jesus said and did. And this liberal attitude originates with the Classical and Hellenistic philosophers, centuries before Jesus. Epicurus was the first to admit women into his school, and Musonius (whom McFall cites) was merely echoing what had been the Stoic line since pre-Christian times. It became increasingly common after Alexander's conquests for intellectuals to accept female students, and many Greek cities ever since then had endowments for the public education of all girls. Consequently, we know of many female poets, historians, and philosophers who were well-respected (though medieval scribes failed to preserve any of their writings). Plato, Seneca, Plutarch all write of the importance of women having a good education, and many extant portraits of women depict them holding scrolls, tablets, or pens to boast of their schooling. Indeed, to really drive home the degree of women's liberty that had been achieved (perhaps appalling to the average Christian even today), a rich man's party was considered dull as dishwater if not attended by several well-paid hookers (hetairai) who could debate the fine points of poetry and philosophy as well as any man.

It is more significant that many pagan philosophers wrote explicitly in defense of the improved treatment of women, yet Groothius is forced only to "infer" such doctrines indirectly from things Jesus said or did. It is thus improper to make Jesus out as anything remarkable in this regard. One could just as easily note in comparison that many important pagan gods were female, leaving a far more prestigious image of the feminine in pagan culture and religion, and in contrast to Jewish culture, major priesthoods could be and often were held by women. ...

I don't think that that's completely correct, at least about earlier philosophers; Aristotle had been rather sexist. But some pagan philosophers had been surprisingly feminist, like Plato saying that women should receive the same education as men because their original nature is the same.

In Richard Carrier's second article on women, he expands on the above, and I will only quote excerpts:

Quote:

But even more so, many misogynists remained in antiquity. I am surprised, for example, that McFall did not cite Juvenal or Livy, famous for their diatribes against all the freedom and respect women were getting in their day. ...

Of course, Livy and Juvenal are not philosophers, and this brings up another important qualification. I often mistakenly wrote of "all elites" when the issue was "most philosophers." I will certainly concede that there were women-haters among the elite, who were more brazen than they would dare be today. But what I said remains firm in the case of actual philosophers. I am not aware of a single misogynist philosopher. I do know that some philosophers regarded women as moral equals but intellectual inferiors ...

... McFall will be hard pressed to find any philosopher who communicated the idea that women were sex objects. ...

You can contrast the status of women in Hellenistic and then Roman times with that in Jewish society in the time of Jesus by reviewing Elisabeth Tetlow's essay "The Status of Women in Greek, Roman and Jewish Society" online. This presents all the ways that women were still belittled and oppressed even in Roman society--none of which was ever denounced by Jesus. It also presents all the ways that women were better off in Roman society than in Jewish society ...

And now some of the ancient writers in their own words:

Quote:

Women, as well as men...have received from the gods the gift of reason...and the female has the same senses as the male...one has nothing more than the other. Moreover, not men alone, but women, too, have a natural inclination toward virtue and the capacity for acquiring it, and it is the nature of women no less than men to be pleased by good and just acts and to reject the opposite of these....Yes, but I assure you, some will say, that women who associate with philosophers are bound to be arrogant for the most part and presumptuous, in that abandoning their own households and turning to the company of men they practice speeches, talk like sophists, and analyze syllogisms, when they ought to be sitting at home spinning. I should not expect the women who study philosophy to shirk their appointed tasks for mere talk any more than men, but I maintain that their discussions should be conducted for the sake of their practical application. For as there is no merit in the science of medicine unless it conduces to the healing of man's body, so if a philosopher has or teaches reason, it is of no use if it does not contribute to the virtue of the human soul. (Musonius Rufus, "That Women Too Should Study Philosophy")

Richard Carrier had written at length about Musonius Rufus, as I had noted.

Quote:

The study of philosophy, in the first place, diverts women from all untoward conduct. For a woman studying geometry will be ashamed to be a stripper, and she will not swallow any beliefs in magic charms while she is under the charm of Plato's or Xenophon's words. And if anyone professes power to pull down the moon from the sky, she will laugh at the ignorance and stupidity of women who believe these things, inasmuch as she herself is not unschooled in astronomy....For if women do not receive the seed of good doctrines and share with their husbands in intellectual advancement, they, left to themselves, conceive many untoward ideas and low designs and emotions....but [a woman] will achieve a high and noble self-esteem if she shares not only in the roses but also in the fruits which the Muses bring and graciously bestow upon those who admire education and philosophy. (Plutarch, "Advice to Bride and Groom" 48 = Moralia 145c-146a)

So it's good for women to learn that lunar eclipses are caused by the Moon entering the Earth's shadow, so she won't believe that eclipses are caused by sorcerers making the Moon go away. Richard Carrier is knowledgable about this subject; he did his master's thesis on Cultural History of the Lunar and Solar Eclipse in the Early Roman Empire (with this parent page)

Richard Carrier does defend this as noblesse oblige in action, which I find a bit difficult to do:

Quote:

Control ought to be exercised by a husband over his wife, not as the owner has control of a piece of property, but, as the soul controls the body, by entering into her feelings and being knit to her through goodwill. As, therefore, it is possible to exercise care over the body without being a slave to its pleasures and desires, so it is possible to govern a wife and at the same time to delight and gratify her. (Plutarch, "Advice to Bride and Groom" 33 = Moralia 142e)

Almost as if women were men's pets.

Lafcadio · 11-01-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

we know of many female poets, historians, and philosophers

How many? Can I see a list?

Quote:

several well-paid hookers (hetairai) who could debate the fine points of poetry and philosophy as well as any man.

And this is one part of a phrase that makes me wonder. Most classical accounts I noticed on hetaerae just mentioned something like wit. From this to have them the finest philosophy debaters it's a long way and I fail to see what's the evidence on that. Maybe you or Richard Carrier can back on this one.

11-01-2005, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Lots of stuff...

Ipetrich, if you are saying that early Christians were not great believers in women's rights, then we have no argument. If you are saying that they were more misogynist that contemporary pagans, you are clearly wrong. Unfortunately, I can't quite tell from your post.

The list I gave you contains quite a few philosophers and theologians. I have no problem with the vestal virgins being pagan 'nuns'. I do have a problem that a group who were buried alive if they strayed are a good example of pagan tolerence. So much for only Christians having a hangup about virginity.

I am amused that a lot of the defence of pagan women's freedom is based on prostitutes. Get it into your heads - these women were sex slaves. They were very young and had no freedom or power. You all seem to find them rather kinky - I find the concept disgusting. The prostitute as empowered individual is still a myth today. How on earth can you imagine it was any different in classical times?

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Lafcadio · 11-01-2005, 07:16 AM

Bede, isn't true that were moments and places where women were forbidden to interpret Bible? Hence, their position as theologians and philosophers would be somehow limited?

11-01-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafcadio

Bede, isn't true that were moments and places where women were forbidden to interpret Bible? Hence, their position as theologians and philosophers would be somehow limited?

I'm sure it was. But Hildegard and Heloise were both fine thinkers. Other women writers tended to be interested in mystical theology, presumably because they lacked the logical training of a university educated theologian. That's not to say that the Middle Ages were a golden age of wmoen's rights compared to now. It was an improvement on pagan rome though. I can't think of a single female pagan latin writer. There were a few Greeks but they were exceptional.

I also think part of the problem is that we moderns can't imagine life without contraception that is safe and effective. The lack of this, plus the dangers of childbirth, made virginity seem a thoroughly good idea and made any sort of sex outside marriage either dangerous or unacceptable. I think all this stuff on clever prostitutes is wishful thinking that covers a reality awful beyond our capacity to comprehend it. People do look at the classical world through rose tinted spectacles and tend to denigrate Christianity at the same time. Classicists are poor on the lives of ordinary people and give us the impression that it was all baths, villas and aquaducts.

Frankly, no amount of philosophers saying women are OK compensates for widespread infanticide of female children and concummated marriage to pre-pubescant girls.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

CJD · 11-01-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I wonder when we'll see certain apologists claiming that biological evolution was discovered as a result of Xianity and that it supports Xianity and no alternative to it.

What do you mean "when"? Theories as to how the universe came to be as we now perceive it have nothing to do with how that universe originated. Evolution says nothing about creation.

Quote:

As Susan Jacoby notes in Freethinkers, feminism was a secular movement, and many Xian Churches fought against many feminist reforms. Many fundies still hate feminism and feminist sorts of things, like what you attribute to Xianity.

There are perfectly moderate positions with respect to gender issues that Christians, other religionists, and secularists all agree upon. Besides, most women (by which I mean mature, usually middle-aged and beyond) don't even agree with aggressive feminism.

CJD

Jack the Bodiless · 11-01-2005, 07:56 AM

Bede, you seem to be equating "pagan" with "Roman".

Do you not accept that the Celts had female warriors?

Quote:

There is a tendency to mythologise Christian and pagan attitudes towards women. The old legend of an ancient matriarchical society still crops up from time to time as do the ideas that various 'native' tribes gave women a more powerful role. All of this has now been revealed as wishful thinking.

...Boudicca never existed? :huh:

Lafcadio · 11-01-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

I also think part of the problem is that we moderns can't imagine life without contraception that is safe and effective. The lack of this, plus the dangers of childbirth, made virginity seem a thoroughly good idea and made any sort of sex outside marriage either dangerous or unacceptable. I think all this stuff on clever prostitutes is wishful thinking that covers a reality awful beyond our capacity to comprehend it. People do look at the classical world through rose tinted spectacles and tend to denigrate Christianity at the same time. Classicists are poor on the lives of ordinary people and give us the impression that it was all baths, villas and aquaducts.

I see you're insisting on this one. As far as I know, both in Roman world, as in later Christian world, a high number of children was a must to defeat the high rate of infant mortality. So I don't think contraception was much of an issue but for lovers, whores, courtesans etc.. I don't see that Christianity opposes Classical Rome in that matter.
While about prostitutes, I read once about an decree in Paris during 13th century or so where the public bath owners were forbidden to have prostitutes practicing their activities there. Or we can read Boccaccio or Rabelais and see the Christian society as corrupt as you wouldn't imagine considering the "high virtues" preached by Christianity.

While talking about ordinary people, during Medieval age they had same or even worse life than in antiquity. Feudal revolution had its high price.

11-01-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Bede, you seem to be equating "pagan" with "Roman".

Do you not accept that the Celts had female warriors?

...Boudicca never existed? :huh:

Well, the evidence for her is pretty minimal....

Yeah she existed, but the Celtic female warrior is largely a thing legend, I imagine. Sort of the thing the Romans would frighten their children with ... "These Celts are so fierce even their women do the fighting." It's like the amazons who were certainly legendary.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2005, 07:16 AM	#35
Lafcadio Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Romania Posts: 453	Bede, isn't true that were moments and places where women were forbidden to interpret Bible? Hence, their position as theologians and philosophers would be somehow limited?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.