Creative Misogyny

By -

 It struck me as funny, just how much Classen talks about how misogynistic the Church is during the Middle Ages. The way the Church said "if ... 'men could see beneath [women's skin]' then they would be safe from the temptations of touch, since 'how can we desire to embrace such a sack of dung'" (76) is hilarious. They get points from me for creativity, at least. 

A centuries-long history of homophobia within the Catholic Church seems almost ironic amidst these claims of how horrible women are--a disclaimer here is that I am a lesbian and grew up Catholic, though I no longer am. I sort of jokingly thought while reading a good majority of Classen's 'A Woman's Touch' chapter, "If they hate women that badly, why didn't think they think being gay is okay?" You know, women are "sack[s] of dung" (76) on the inside, so... just stop encouraging heterosexual marriage. Of course, I'm not serious about that, it's just sort of funny to think about the hypocrisy. Men are meant to be "rational" and think with the mind, but honestly, it seems like men throughout history have been anything but (76). If "rational" is meant to mean 'not dependent on touch,' then none of us could ever be considered rational. We all need touch, in one way or another, in order to feel grounded, to feel like a person. 

The Middle Ages revolved around forming homosocial culture, with men associating themselves with men and women with women. Swearing fealty involved a kiss, holding hands (handshake?), or really physical acts of touch in order to prove you meant it. It's really not only women who 'take advantage of touch' like the Church seems to imply with the whole 'temptress' thing. Kings know that touch forms a bond, it makes you vulnerable. Get someone that close to you, close enough to kiss you to swear fealty, and they're in your space. That's a show of power, an assertion of royal dominance, or really anything along those lines. 

I find it silly that they associate touch with women as if it were something that is 'bad' when touch in the hands of men is intimidating. Women possessing any sort of power was scary back then, I suppose. Touch is so influential that this idea has still existed in one way or another for years down the road. 


Comments

  1. Liv GregoryMay 5, 2022 at 6:59 PM

    I feel like as much as we talk about it I will never understand the double standards and hypocrisy of sexism and homophobia, because they are ultimately irrational concepts fueled by the hunger for power over others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emerson McEvoyMay 6, 2022 at 9:19 AM

    I totally agree with you, Ellie! It's a weird hypocrisy that seems to scapegoat femininity, no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amanda WellsMay 6, 2022 at 6:36 PM

    The history of religious, and especially Christian, misogyny is fascinating. Obviously a lot of it was likely left over from other cultural beliefs and gender roles. You'd likely enjoy this, but there was a time that men in ancient Athens were so misogynistic that it was considered gross to have sex with a woman outside of procreation purposes and that sexual relations with men were purer relationships!

    Overall, I think it has a lot to do with a fear of not knowing whether your children are your children, and so women were foremost assumed to be unfaithful so that harsh rules could be placed upon them in order to alleviate a lot of that fear. So, a lot of concepts of sin and morality got pushed upon women and boom, all the casual misogyny that was born from it. And then these thoughts just got continually reinforced until texts such as those began appearing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Charlotte BermanMay 10, 2022 at 11:07 AM

    I also think it's interesting (as both a lesbian and a history major) particularly because in the middle ages, there was no such thing as "gay people." That is, it wasn't possible to identify as "gay" (or straight or anything else), only to be a person who did gay things (which was looked down upon). It was fully about action (and therefore touch) and not internal identity and feelings

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The most primitive sense

By -
Image
Smell the Flowers by Kirsten Star Smell, to me, is the most primitive sense. When most mammals are born, they immediately can recognize their mother’s smell and form an attachment to that smell. Mammals like puppies are almost entirely limited to only the sense of smell until they develop more of their other senses. The sense of smell also becomes the most primitive when considering humans and the phenomenon of perfume. For years, humans hunted certain animals for the purpose of obtaining the musk produced in the anal gland. This musk in small doses can act as an aphrodisiac when put into a perfume even though it has incredibly primitive origins. Though most of Western culture has an aversion to smells considered gross or undesirable, the wealthiest of women are still willing to pay heavy prices to spray a smell once obtained from the anal glands of other animals. The sense of smell is not something that humans can control and adjust but rather it is only changed by evolution over
Read more

Cannibalism and Symbolism

By -
Symbolism plays an important role in religious ceremonies because people cannot have the divine being where they want him all the time. So they start creating ways to be in touch with God. Such as in Christianity, eating bread is symbolized to be eating God-made flesh. There are similar rituals in Judaism where they eat the food of God. A big difference between taste and the other senses is that the object that is being sensed is internalized, whereas all the other senses use an external sensation. Taste cannot extend anywhere like the other senses can. This allows the humans to have no barrier between the divine (symbolized as food) and themselves. This is the closest they can get to God, but internalizing Him.  This thought of getting the closest they can to someone by ingesting and gaining power from it led my mind to wander to the thought of serial killers that also happen to be cannibals. I know that it might be a stretch, but there are some similarities. I als
Read more

Wrap-Up Post

By -
Image
Alright, let’s tie this up in a nice little bow. I genuinely did not know what to expect coming into this class. The extent of my knowledge of the senses comes from elementary school when we had to make it a little song to get the information through our tiny heads. Beyond that, everything seemed pretty cut and dry. We have five senses. We need to use all of them to survive. It’s as simple as that. I did not know how there was enough to talk about the senses to fill an entire college course, especially one specifically regarding the relationship between the senses and religion. But the fact that we were barely able to fit all the content in before the semester ended proves just how wrong I was. Let’s talk about why that is and what some of the things I learned were. First off, even the most basic assumption about the senses, that there are five of them, was questioned immediately. The sixth sense may not have been as clearly defined as the other senses, but there was certainly a lot to
Read more