Taylor
The readings of the church and to a great extent, the bible, played a significant role in the subordination of women in Medieval Europe. They were transcribed as weak, selfish and seductive from the very beginning. Adam and Eve are well-known religious characters but their story is one that carries a great number of sexist suggestions. For example, Adam calling Eve “woman” because she was made first from man suggests man as the dominant sex because he was the first. However, there are several instances of exceptional Christian women including the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene and Joan of Arc. The glory and inspiration of these women did little to help the inferior treatment of the female sex because their accomplishments were considered to be near impossible to repeat.
God’s words to Eve are “…your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This representation of marriage is still evident today but was amplified during The Middle Ages. Women were addressed according to their relationship to man as daughter, wife or widow. Conception was the most important role of women and they were married young so as to begin that role early and legitimately. The image below shows Eve giving her husband the forbidden fruit. Adam is clearly unsure whether or not to take the apple but his wife’s posture and expression appears to be loving and assuring.
 | |||
| Cranach's Adam and Eve. Image source http://www.artbible.info/art/large/515.html |
Jessica
As the Klapisch-Zuber reading relates, marital unions often played a
vital role in cementing social and political alliances throughout the Middle
Ages. Women were central to this process. Beyond a woman's role as a dutiful
wife, she had a responsibility to serve the interests of both families that her
marriage had brought together, and to perpetuate good relations between them.
She would also cement familial bonds in a practical fashion through the
exchange of her dowry, and in her ability to bear children. Despite its practical significance, however, marriage was not always celebrated.
As many of the primary sources from this week suggest, many Christian scholars
disparaged wedlock. While some did laud marriage as a holy union, the Christian
ideal of chastity was still held in higher regard. To summarise in the words of
St. Jerome: "I do not detract from wedlock when I set virginity before it.
No one compares a bad thing with a good."
Klapisch-Zuber emphasises that medieval marriage was generally not an
equal union. It materially benefitted the husband, and a woman's desires were
secondary to her duty to her male family members and the will of her husband.
Women often had little choice but to enter into unions against their will, and
take up roles for which Christian society then judged them. Pictured below is Abelard and his reluctant wife Heloise. In Abelard's words,
Heloise opposed their marriage because it would "dishonour [him] and
humiliate them both". She is said to have despaired at his final decision
to commit: "we shall both be destroyed; all that is left us is suffering
as great as our love has been".
 |
| Abelard and Eloise in a manuscript of the Roman de la Rose Image source http://cdn2.all-art.org/literature/french/abelard/Untitled-1.jpg The roles and duties of wives in the Middle Ages
Yi Chun
The
reading of Klapisch-Zuber explored the general roles and duties of wives in the
Middle Age medieval family. During the Middle Ages, families were dominated by
males; these gender-based relationships weakened the female’s roles in society,
including wives’ roles in the family. Women in the Middle Ages were traded
between clans much like goods or products, and the transfer of women from one clan
to another would also imply the transfer of wealth. In return, marriage
demanded that goods be “given” by one group to the other. For instance, these
goods were given by the husband’s clan to the family of the bride in
‘compensation’ for its loss of daughter. Later the goods would also be given to
the bride herself, in return to bring her husband influence and wealth that she
either gave to him or retained in her own proprietorship. Women were also
supposed to be completely obedient to the dominant male whether that was
father, brother or husband, and in some rare cases, son. Their actions or behaviours were also heavily restricted by the church
or bible.
Klapisch-Zuber pointed that, the
primary function of women in the Middle Ages was to reproduce, and all other
functions were subordinated to this. The picture, a domestic scene from the
Victorian era, demonstrates perhaps that little has changed.
 |
Question for blog discussion:
How did medieval society view women? Do you think there is any
continuity in how gender roles are viewed in our society today?
Medieval Europe viewed woman as lesser beings whose role in life to was to marry, obey their husbands in everything and produce as many children as possible. They were responsible for their husbands household and if their husbands fell into gluttony or lust it was the wives fault as they should have better controlled these.
ReplyDeleteI think that these gender roles continued for a time but have been largely rejected in culture today, except by the church. Those who are practicing Christians, such as myself, believe that God made the genders differently and so there are different roles for a man and a woman within a marriage. Men are commanded to “love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her” Ephesians 5:24, which is a self sacrificial love. So men are called to do their absolute best for their wives needs, not their own needs. If men are to love their wives in this way then their marriage will not be stifling but liberating and loving for both genders. So even though society has rejected the churches view on woman and their place in marriage, there are many who still believe that women and men have different roles in society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry about late reply...
DeleteRegarding your mention of specific verses in the Quran, most of it was quoted out of context. The problem with that is that you will create your own interpretation rather than what is authentic to the religion itself.
The status of women in Islam is quite different from that of Medieval Europe and Christianity. To begin with, contrary to the Biblical version of the story of Adam and Eve with the forbidden tree; Islam teaches that both were at fault and Eve was not the one who initiated. Hence she has no blame for the concept of 'Original Sin'.
In the 18th century when women were slowly achieving the right to vote, women in Islam had already been entitled that right since the 7th century. Contrary to the notion that women are slaves to their homes and families, there is nothing in Islamic scripture that demands such. It is also important to note that it is due to Muslim scholarly women who existed in the time of the prophet Muhammad that you are able to even make mention of his traditions (Sunnah). If there was no scope to allow for the development of womens talents, there wouldn't be volumes of books transmitted from women and there wouldn't be numerous great scholars taught of scholarly women. All of which predominately occurred before and throughout Europe's Medieval period.
Unlike Christianity, Islam views men and women equal in the sight of God (Quran 33:35) and establishes equity between. Gender roles are not necessarily a form of oppression but are rather considered complementary to the natural state of each gender (e.g Quran 4:34).
Unfortunately this isn't the place to discuss this further however, at the end of the day, what one may think is 'liberating' another may consider to be oppression.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWomen of the Middle Ages were basically seen as a means to continue the human race. They were married off and, in a sence, "traded", being treated more as property in comparison to the status of men. Despite this, they were also able to gain an education and rise up in the world, although never to the same extent as men. This sort of attitude, although possibly slightly varied, remaind prominant throughout the Victorian Era and even into the 20th Century. During the 20th Century women have fought for their rights and gained social status to a point never believed possible in the past. Despite the fact that women now share many of the same rights as men, unfortunately there is often still an underlying feeling of men being the superior sex. After several millenia of men being superior, it is going to take a lot longer for all men to get out of the Middle Ages and be able to view women as their equals.
ReplyDeleteIn Christian Europe, Medieval society's views of women were predominately produced from the Bible. From the beginning of the Bible, women are depicted as inferior to men, and also reliant on men, as they were supposedly physically created out of "Man". These ideas and attitudes were carried into Medieval society, with rights and respect for women not going further than the status of their husband or closest male relation. In Christiane Klapisch-Zuber's text "Women and the Family", the description of men having "authority" over women suggests that women were owned by men. This is confirmed by how women were given as brides as gifts in order to create peace and alliances during wars and disputes.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely seems that a woman's only purpose was for having children and serving their man. To prevent women from thinking any thoughts which could progress their own gender's inferior position in life, women had many tasks and activities to fullfil, such as embroidery and sewing, and for widowed women, working. Due to the little respect and power women possesed, becoming a widow often meant loss of reputation, and loss of a role in society.
In our society, there are definitely certain aspects of veiws of women which can be viewed as similar to those of Medieval society. For example, when has there ever been seen a commercial for laundry detergant/washing powder which has had a main role of a male doing the washing? Never. It is always "mum". Stereotypical views such as these are still present in our society, however they are more through subliminal messages rather than blatant statements of 'men are better than women'.
However, for the most part, today women are free from the "authority" of men, and the thought of being subservient to a husband, to most females and males, is offensive.
I agree with both Maia and Sanja - while the most obvious aspects of Medieval misogny may seem to have faded in today's Western society, it definitely still underlies an unfortunately broad part of our cultural mindset. The most prominent example I can see of this is the definition of women's roles and importance by their bodies in Medieval Europe: as virgins, wives, mothers, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis hasn't really changed much today, as can be seen in the sexualisation of women across pretty much every part of society, the lifting of motherhood onto a pedestal (with women being denigrated and hated if they fall short of perfection, see the fights between ideas of working mothers vs. stay at home mums), the debates about abortion and contraception (often a case of men or other women, often religiously underlined, trying to control other women's bodies and their reproduction), and more.
I think the reason for this is that as a cultural mindset, women are still very much viewed first by their bodies and less as individual, independent, powerful people. That sounds damning, yes, but why else are people still focusing on Julia Gillard's body over her policies? Why else is Julia Gillard inciting hate for being 'distant' and 'uncaring' when, as she herself has pointed out, leaders like John Howard and Kevin Rudd never got this? Why else do we have the sexual double standard for men and women? Why else, despite all the laws to the contrary, do many juries still fall susceptible to lines of questioning by the defence about what rape victims were wearing or their previous sexual history?
In short, I believe our society has made many steps forwards in addressing equality for women. However, the misogyny of medieval Europe hasn't disappeared, it's gone underground where it's harder to see unless you know what you're looking for.
To suggest that medieval misogyny still influences the modern society that we enjoy today is ludicrous. Let me just preface by saying that I’m not being completely ignorant suggesting that misogyny doesn’t exist in today’s society at all, but I believe that it exists on a far less extensive scale than I believe has been presented here.
DeleteThe correlation drawn between the medieval gender roles of women as wives and mothers and the continuation of these in modern times has nothing to do with societal perceptions. Perhaps in some way it could be argued that marriage is influenced by it in some way, but the union of two people (at least in western societies) is usually met on equal terms through mutual affection. Not through the bargaining and purchasing of a young wife as a product of pleasure and obedience. If a marriage doesn’t work out both genders are given the opportunity to legally separate. As women being perceived as virgins or mothers all we are talking about anatomy and biology and women are even then provided with a choice that otherwise wouldn’t have been permitted if society still functioned with medieval misogyny. Women now have the right to choose when they want to start a family and can do so when they are ready.
I agree with Sanja’s argument that modern day advertising stereotypes the household wife or exploits the female form but I disagree with the perception that this is gender specific. For example look at an advertisement for Calvin Klein male clothing; there is a particularly famous one featuring David Beckham. The male body is sexually exploited in the media as much as females, because it sells products.
The perceptions of Julia Gillard in the media and the apparent focus upon her body and attire opposed to policy is also reflected in the male leader of opposition. How long did the media make an unnecessary fuss about those classic red budgie smugglers Tony Abbott used to wear to the beach? And it isn’t misogyny that suggests that Gillard may be viewed as ‘distant’ and ‘uncaring’ for Kevin Rudd was dismissed by his own party for similar reasons and John Howard indicated his ‘uncaring’ nature in the implementation of ‘workplace agreements’ and his handling of the 2001 Tampa Asylum Seeker issue.
Finally, I don’t believe that the court case example Erica finished with has anything to do with misogyny. The same question would be asked if a male was the victim, the question of history is a question intended to indicate the character of the victim before the incident. If a possible murder case looks like it could have been a suicide then the question as to whether the victim had a history of depression is going to arise.
The misogyny that exists today therefore I don’t believe can be compared to the expected roles of men and women in medieval Europe.
To Jake,
DeleteFirst of all, thank you for your response. I'd like to discuss a few things you raised because I think you may have misunderstood my arguments.
I'm not saying that the society still functions with medieval misogyny, but I am saying that remnants of it still exist and can be seen in many social perceptions. I agree that we are certainly lucky enough that we no longer view women as bargaining and purchasing tools. Nevertheless, women being perceived as virgins and mothers is not just about anatomy and biology. In many cases in society, powerful men are married and have children. Yet you'll see that Bill Gates isn't often defined as a 'father' and a 'husband'. Those are certainly aspects of his identity, but he's also viewed as an individual separate from these roles. In contrast, many women are viewed as simply mothers or wives, eg. Michelle Obama, despite being in many areas more legally accomplished than her husband.
That brings me to the idea of virginity. I will unfortunately disagree with you that it is an issue of anatomy and biology - hymens can tear very easily from sport or everyday living - what is prized is the idea of the 'pure, untouched' woman. And you will see that this same emphasis is not placed on virgin men - virgin men, after a certain age, are seen as being inexperienced and immature, lacking somehow. This links male sexuality strongly to mature strength and accomplished power. In contrast, virgin women are maintained as prizes of youth and chastity and virtue, etc. I understand that you would be foolish just to take me on my word, so please check out the chastity movement in America and see the different focuses of the genders. Also check out the abstinence movement present in both America and Australia and the practice with which they give girls wrapped candy, ask them to unwrap it and suck on it, and then tell them that their bodies are like wrapped candy and they wouldn't want to give their husbands fouled candy spit-smeared by another man now, would they?
This brings me to your next point: women now have the right to choose when they want to start a family and can do so when they are ready. That is very true, but as mentioned, I did not say medieval stereotypes exist in their exact form today: they have been driven underground by movements such as feminism and emerge in less obvious ways. Women may very well have a right to choose, but society still puts an awful lot of pressure on women, not men, to procreate, or otherwise control their ability to choose. I'm going to leave aside anecdotal evidence of relatives, and point to the heated abortion debate in both Australia and America. If women truly had the right over their own bodies to choose when to give birth, then it follows that abortion and contraception would not be demonised because a woman would be trusted to make the right decision. Yet legislators across Western society (often male, but often female too) still find that it's acceptable to dictate to another women whether they can have abortions or not.
To give you a less emotionally charged example, imagine if every third legislator in Australia and America got up and told you that vasectomies, Viagra, and condoms were wrong and should be banned, that men shouldn't have control over their own reproductive powers. Just think about it for a moment.
DeleteRegarding advertising stereotypes - that one is more tricky, I agree. It's very true that male bodies are also used in advertising, and I actually am rather annoyed on your gender's behalf at the constant portrayals of men as stupid idiots who don't know how to use a domestic electrical appliance. Nevertheless, since I raised my argument in the context of sexuality and body, if you do a close study of advertisement, male bodies (white male bodies, actually) are often portrayed in sexually dominant and aggressive manners, while women (and black men) are often portrayed in sexually submissive manners, to the point that a shoe company thought it was appropriate to model their shoes on apparently dead women. This doesn't just reinforce gender stereotypes, it reinforces a submissive sexuality not that far off the medieval obedience to men that women suffered from. And as Micheline rightly pointed out, in terms of sheer numbers, female bodies are exploited far, far, far more than male bodies in advertising. This doesn't negate the exploitation of males, of course, but the same applies the other way: the exploitation of males does not negate the exploitation of females, just like the existence of male rape and domestic violence victims does not negate the frightening numbers of female rape and domestic violence victims.
Regarding our politicians: I won't dwell on it for too long - I'm looking at public perceptions not party issues, and I'll note that people never talked about Abbott's classic red budgie smugglers in lieu of his policies. The idea here is similar to my point above about men being able to be fathers and husbands and individual beings: Abbott and Rudd and Howard were allowed their own character and responsibility as leaders with a side-serving of personal commentary, while if you analyse public responses to Julia Gillard, they are far, far, far more likely to be talking about her hair, her childlessness, her butt (I'm not kidding), than for her work on the Mining and Carbon Taxes, and even when they are, the adjectives following are often derogatory towards females.
Regarding the court case example: I'm afraid that you are quite incorrect. My studies of criminal law are quite exact in what the court requires. You are correct that it is relevant whether a possible suicide case is investigated as to whether the victim had a history of depression. However, I would advise strong caution against applying this to a rape victim case - are you implying that if the rape victim had a sexual history, that would make them more likely to not have been raped? The issue in rape cases is simply whether there was sexual penetration and whether or not the victim consented. Consent is on a case by case basis. The only times evidence about a victim's sexual history is relevant is whether it impacts upon the immediacy of her consent (see Bull v R (2000) 201 CLR 443). I am troubled at your implications, and I would suggest this is an example where misogyny can rear its head unexpectedly without your intention. It is very easy in this society to assume that just because a woman has had sex before, they are loose or a slut, etc (see my discussions on virginity above). That is an incorrect assumption that robs a woman of her right to choose to control her own body, similar to that of women in Medieval Europe to some extent.
DeleteI'm sorry to keep you so long: just two more points. Firstly, please be careful in future in any Arts subject to label a view or an argument as 'ludicrous' out of hand. You may find that you may offend or hurt a member of a marginalised community.
Secondly, I hope that you read this incredibly long essay (I apologise again) in the light that I read yours. With an open mind and a willingness to evaluate the other's evidence. Changing your assumptions or your view about a state of society, or even acknowledging that there might be something more, requires a vast courage that isn't often recognised in today's society. It goes against our own human cognition that is so willing to seek out only the evidence that supports our own position. If you have read this far, I salute you for your own courage and strength, and I hope that you might be able to seek out and critically evaluate more evidence to make up your own mind.
To Erica,
DeleteI think both of our responses have developed from a misinterpretation of each others points. I apologize for the use of the term 'ludicrous', it was merely an emotional instigator for my response developed with the main objective of passing the subject. But I assure you that you were successful in conveying your offense at the word as well as producing some of your own by insinuating that I am a close minded, ignorant individual. Particularly the 'salute for my courage' part, nice touch. Well you'll be happy to know that I am more than happy to acknowledge and read someone else's perspective, I have a very open mind. May I use your own words? Thanks. "It goes against our own human cognition, that is so willing to only seek out only the evidence that supports our own position". I can assure you that I'm not the only one who is privy to this Erica, there is a male alternative to many of the points you've made here. If you ever get this response (to which I apologize for the late reply I was unaware you had responded) I would love to meet up for coffee to try and prove that I'm not the person you clearly think I am. If you've made it to the end of this message, then I salute you on your courage and bravery.
According to St Jerome c 320-420, marriage is blessed by god, but Jerome rated virginity more highly because Jesus was born to Mary a virgin. According to the biblical message of Adam and Eve, he regarded Eve as a bringer of destruction.
ReplyDeleteChristiane Klapisch-Zuber states that women were unable to choose whom they married but were given in marriage during the Middle Ages. Sometimes women united two conflicting families when marrying, or they could be married for political reasons. Marriage could be up or down the class system. Gifts were given or exchanged on marriage. The bride brought effects, property and money directly to her husband or retained them for security after her husband’s death. The home was the domain of upper class women. The peasant women worked in the fields and those of the artisan class worked in their husband’s shops. Poor women worked in domestic service.
A bleak picture is described of women as being helpless without choice, but some of these marriages may have been beneficial for the women. They would have gained status in society that unmarried women did not have. Some women may have enjoyed being the manager of the household and its responsibilities. They may have felt they were making a contribution to the household and taken pride in their embroidery, spinning and weaving. Some husbands may have respected their wives and what they contributed.
Gender roles in today’s Western society are more equal. Today women have choice. They choose their marriage partners, are educated, and can earn money outside the home. Women today have the benefit of social welfare. Women tend to be the main carers of children and the fathers now share this role when they can. Medieval women would be astonished at what has been achieved.
The society in medieval Europe was heavily reliant on gender roles. Women were clearly subordinate to men, and as Yi Chun mentioned; this would include all male relatives, sometimes even the son. It seems evident that the perception of women in medieval times derived from Biblical teachings.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether the perception of women has changed in modern times, I agree with Erica that not much has changed.Woman may have more rights than what they would've had in the medieval era, however the concept of 'equality' isn't necessarily consistent in upholding the rights of women. Sometimes equity establishes rights better than equality.
Also, I think the Biblical perception of women being a source of seduction and temptation is still maintained in society today. Much of that is evident in the media with the use of women as 'sex symbols' and advertising petty things like chocolate bars with half-naked women.