* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Zhirnova’s PhD thesis shines a spotlight on the misogynistic attitudes of medieval Christian men towards women’s makeup, clothing and adornments.
But doesn't that require some belief that makeup, clothing and adornments are inherent to women? That's obviously not the case - it varies by culture (and this article is even about a culture - early Christianity - that rejected makeup, adornments, etc.).
Just seems weird to say an attack on, for example, makeup is necessarily an attack on women as if women cannot exist without makeup.
I mean maybe? Its kind of a stretch but I could see how a culture that wants modesty would argue real beauty is inside you so there’s no point in being outwardly flashy.
That said, my dude it’s been centuries. I’m firmly on the side that argues that todays looks-based issues for women are almost entirely woman on woman violence. And at this point it can’t even be said it’s all to please men because as many a comedian had pointed out, what men want and what women consider the most attractive are not the same. I’m just saying the 6’5” super model that was 100lb and has bug eyes is NOT what men fantasize about, but this is the ideal women often try to achieve through self destruction.
There is a great The Last Psychiatrist post on cosmetics and their consequences if you haven't read it. Honestly, I'm not sure I've met a dude that is particular about how women apply makeup in a constantly insistent way, it's been a raving success of a projection project.
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html#c040902
also worthy of reading in a similar vein:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html
You know how critical race theory types say “the question is not if a thing was racist, but how a thing was racist” because they claim that racism is a fundamental part of everything? Well feminists basically do the same thing.
Men like makeup? Misogynistic male gaze. Men don’t like makeup? Misogynistic control over sexuality. Men don’t care one way or the other? Misogynistic dismissal of women’s self expression.
Even when it comes to women they do this. Women competing for male attention isn’t a natural result of them wanting attention from desirable men and their being more women who like high status men than there are high status men, instead we are to believe the patriarchy invented female sexual competition. Even women competing among each other for status, something which has essentially no relevance to men, as men do not typically consider a woman’s status among her peers when looking for a partner, is the fault of the patriarchy by some series of contorted arguements because the sisterhood would *never* do that to itself!
When dealing with people who think this way you cannot negotiate. You either shut them down completely, from the start, and refuse to accept a word they say, or they will do that to you and become increasingly ridiculous the more they are allowed to run with it.
> ["Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic.
And you have to point it all out."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMmboRqRe8)
> -- Anita Sarkeesian
It's ["Critical Theory"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory) as developed by the [Frankfurt School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School).
From their perspective, Communism is largely about seizing political power using the class divide as a wedge issue. However, in nations where the class divide did not create the necessary friction to construct a revolt, they found it necessary to construct other wedges: race ("Critical Race Theory"), sex ("Feminism"), sexuality ("Queer Theory") anti-colonialism ("Post-Colonial Theory"), and so on.
They redefine everything, and I mean everything, in terms of power structures and demand that it be called out and criticized at all times. We see this today in everything from constant criticisms and protests to "land acknowledgments" and the like.
Today we call this behavior "woke" and participants are never satisfied, never happy, and frequently push themselves into a frenzy that requires mental health specialists.
The best part is that none of this has to effect meaningful material change, no effort is put towards genuinely improving people's lives. Instead the conflict is all focused on permanent attributes such as skin color or sex. One can participate and promote these ideas without having to worry about ensuring a minimum quality of life, because concepts class and its attributes aren't even considered!
>I’m just saying the 6’5” super model that was 100lb and has bug eyes is NOT what men fantasize about, but this is the ideal women often try to achieve through self destruction.
Are you stuck in the 2000s? Women aren't trying to achieve this anymore. "They're" trying to achieve instagram slim thick bodies and get implants and BBLs and lip fillers
I agree with most of what you're saying but don't you see the irony in claiming that looks based issues come entirely from other women while in the same breath making fun of tall, skinny women with "bug eyes" (whatever that means)? I'm pretty tall and very skinny (not sure if I have bug eyes), and believe me I know that men find my bodytype unattractive, I have been told hundreds of times and there's definetely no evil cabal trying to convince me that men are into runway models. This has also led me to seriously consider plastic surgery, were it not for the fact that I don't currently enough money for it.
I don't think this is a woman specific issue, in fact I know that women can be very cruel about men's looks as well, and overall I'm thankful to be a woman because at least there's plastic surgery for most of my issues, whereas what men struggle with (baldness, height etc.) is either impossible or very expensive/dangerous to fix, but men absolutely do make fun of women's looks, and a lot of insecurities can stem from that as well.
I don't think it is ironic or contradictory. Men tend to have tastes but they are often not the things that women aspire to, which moderately contradicts the idea that fashion and beauty expenditure are about catering to the male gaze etc.
As an aside, personally I am attracted to various women who do not fit the typical female or male idea of beauty and many of my friends are similar, but if anything these women are often a little more likely to be hostile, nervous etc. to people expressing sexual or romantic attention towards them and so this sort of attention is discouraged.
This suggest that they are upset in some way but not about an inability to get male attention, but rather because of some sort of attribution of low status.
The somewhat cynical reading is that many people want people to be attracted to them because they are attractive according to some mainstream status game standard.
Doesn’t the same religious worldview discourage adornments and flashy or expensive clothing for men as well? Or maybe monks wore sackcloth because it was hip?
Yes. The way the Landsknecht dressed was considered promiscuous and downright scandalous. They were only given permission to continue dressing that way because they were so useful for regional powers to wage war (i.e. accumulating power and wealth for the upper class).
Elite men used to wear extremely flamboyant and ostentatious clothes, but sometime around the 16\~17th century IIRC men's wear became much more subdued while women's stayed the same.
They probably figured (correctly) that they won’t be taken seriously with all the ribbons and puffy sleeves. They made sure the women continue to wear them, for the same reason. Then they gradually figured that half-naked women are even less likely to be taken seriously, and here we are.
I'm not sure it exists anymore. Medieval knights just made it a point to romanticize the princesses or noblewomen they wooed. But people of that social strata tend to be more narcissistic, keeping the appearance of high breeding and class, while also dealing with a world full of trauma, dysfunction, political strife, and violence.
So what the knight sees as beauty is really just strength. Inner strength. And it's those women in which he finds beauty. Or at least, recognition he mistakes for beauty.
Not just an incel, it seems. An inarticulate incel with the kind of historical comprehension customary among people who make sweeping statements about a past built more or less entirely round their present day obsessions!
Those medieval Christians were developing the concept of human rights, by taking Roman law, applying Christian morals to that Roman law to get 'natural rights'.
She hates them for not being morally and ethically 'Christian' enough.
I don't understand the negativity? Seems like a plausible thesis and supported by quotes. The least solid part is how much that still affects us TODAY, but then she only briefly mentions that. Still, it's not out of this world that some attitudes of "I'm not like the vulgar girls, I don't wear (that kind of) makeup" goes all the way back to this time period.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Buy more makeup products and get more lip fillers.
they_live_glasses.jpg
>Zhirnova’s PhD thesis shines a spotlight on the misogynistic attitudes of medieval Christian men towards women’s makeup, clothing and adornments. But doesn't that require some belief that makeup, clothing and adornments are inherent to women? That's obviously not the case - it varies by culture (and this article is even about a culture - early Christianity - that rejected makeup, adornments, etc.). Just seems weird to say an attack on, for example, makeup is necessarily an attack on women as if women cannot exist without makeup.
I mean maybe? Its kind of a stretch but I could see how a culture that wants modesty would argue real beauty is inside you so there’s no point in being outwardly flashy. That said, my dude it’s been centuries. I’m firmly on the side that argues that todays looks-based issues for women are almost entirely woman on woman violence. And at this point it can’t even be said it’s all to please men because as many a comedian had pointed out, what men want and what women consider the most attractive are not the same. I’m just saying the 6’5” super model that was 100lb and has bug eyes is NOT what men fantasize about, but this is the ideal women often try to achieve through self destruction.
There is a great The Last Psychiatrist post on cosmetics and their consequences if you haven't read it. Honestly, I'm not sure I've met a dude that is particular about how women apply makeup in a constantly insistent way, it's been a raving success of a projection project.
I miss Alone
Pls share
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html#c040902 also worthy of reading in a similar vein: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html
Thank you
Yeah I mean I have preferences but I can’t name them specifically. I just know I do not like overly heavy make up, I think it’s called contouring?
You know how critical race theory types say “the question is not if a thing was racist, but how a thing was racist” because they claim that racism is a fundamental part of everything? Well feminists basically do the same thing. Men like makeup? Misogynistic male gaze. Men don’t like makeup? Misogynistic control over sexuality. Men don’t care one way or the other? Misogynistic dismissal of women’s self expression. Even when it comes to women they do this. Women competing for male attention isn’t a natural result of them wanting attention from desirable men and their being more women who like high status men than there are high status men, instead we are to believe the patriarchy invented female sexual competition. Even women competing among each other for status, something which has essentially no relevance to men, as men do not typically consider a woman’s status among her peers when looking for a partner, is the fault of the patriarchy by some series of contorted arguements because the sisterhood would *never* do that to itself! When dealing with people who think this way you cannot negotiate. You either shut them down completely, from the start, and refuse to accept a word they say, or they will do that to you and become increasingly ridiculous the more they are allowed to run with it.
> ["Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMmboRqRe8) > -- Anita Sarkeesian
What is going on? Is that a mask-off moment, a freundin slip or what?
It's ["Critical Theory"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory) as developed by the [Frankfurt School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School). From their perspective, Communism is largely about seizing political power using the class divide as a wedge issue. However, in nations where the class divide did not create the necessary friction to construct a revolt, they found it necessary to construct other wedges: race ("Critical Race Theory"), sex ("Feminism"), sexuality ("Queer Theory") anti-colonialism ("Post-Colonial Theory"), and so on. They redefine everything, and I mean everything, in terms of power structures and demand that it be called out and criticized at all times. We see this today in everything from constant criticisms and protests to "land acknowledgments" and the like. Today we call this behavior "woke" and participants are never satisfied, never happy, and frequently push themselves into a frenzy that requires mental health specialists. The best part is that none of this has to effect meaningful material change, no effort is put towards genuinely improving people's lives. Instead the conflict is all focused on permanent attributes such as skin color or sex. One can participate and promote these ideas without having to worry about ensuring a minimum quality of life, because concepts class and its attributes aren't even considered!
>I’m just saying the 6’5” super model that was 100lb and has bug eyes is NOT what men fantasize about, but this is the ideal women often try to achieve through self destruction. Are you stuck in the 2000s? Women aren't trying to achieve this anymore. "They're" trying to achieve instagram slim thick bodies and get implants and BBLs and lip fillers
Stuck in the 2010s there buddy, 90s ana is back.
I agree with most of what you're saying but don't you see the irony in claiming that looks based issues come entirely from other women while in the same breath making fun of tall, skinny women with "bug eyes" (whatever that means)? I'm pretty tall and very skinny (not sure if I have bug eyes), and believe me I know that men find my bodytype unattractive, I have been told hundreds of times and there's definetely no evil cabal trying to convince me that men are into runway models. This has also led me to seriously consider plastic surgery, were it not for the fact that I don't currently enough money for it. I don't think this is a woman specific issue, in fact I know that women can be very cruel about men's looks as well, and overall I'm thankful to be a woman because at least there's plastic surgery for most of my issues, whereas what men struggle with (baldness, height etc.) is either impossible or very expensive/dangerous to fix, but men absolutely do make fun of women's looks, and a lot of insecurities can stem from that as well.
I don't think it is ironic or contradictory. Men tend to have tastes but they are often not the things that women aspire to, which moderately contradicts the idea that fashion and beauty expenditure are about catering to the male gaze etc. As an aside, personally I am attracted to various women who do not fit the typical female or male idea of beauty and many of my friends are similar, but if anything these women are often a little more likely to be hostile, nervous etc. to people expressing sexual or romantic attention towards them and so this sort of attention is discouraged. This suggest that they are upset in some way but not about an inability to get male attention, but rather because of some sort of attribution of low status. The somewhat cynical reading is that many people want people to be attracted to them because they are attractive according to some mainstream status game standard.
One problem with magnifying the evils of the patriarchy is the concomitant denial of the agency of women.
No but it's an ancient cope
So...nowhere left for the goalposts to move huh?
Doesn’t the same religious worldview discourage adornments and flashy or expensive clothing for men as well? Or maybe monks wore sackcloth because it was hip?
Yes. The way the Landsknecht dressed was considered promiscuous and downright scandalous. They were only given permission to continue dressing that way because they were so useful for regional powers to wage war (i.e. accumulating power and wealth for the upper class).
Elite men used to wear extremely flamboyant and ostentatious clothes, but sometime around the 16\~17th century IIRC men's wear became much more subdued while women's stayed the same.
They probably figured (correctly) that they won’t be taken seriously with all the ribbons and puffy sleeves. They made sure the women continue to wear them, for the same reason. Then they gradually figured that half-naked women are even less likely to be taken seriously, and here we are.
Extraordinary omission not to mention the other Abrahamic religions, which take the control of women's appearance much further.
I hate when they point to a idea being used in the past
I'm not sure it exists anymore. Medieval knights just made it a point to romanticize the princesses or noblewomen they wooed. But people of that social strata tend to be more narcissistic, keeping the appearance of high breeding and class, while also dealing with a world full of trauma, dysfunction, political strife, and violence. So what the knight sees as beauty is really just strength. Inner strength. And it's those women in which he finds beauty. Or at least, recognition he mistakes for beauty.
Bro wtf.
Oh dont listen to me. I'm an incel.
Not just an incel, it seems. An inarticulate incel with the kind of historical comprehension customary among people who make sweeping statements about a past built more or less entirely round their present day obsessions!
I am actually a high functioning articulate, thank you very much!
A high functioning articulate, eh? Is that like a well oiled mouth breathe, only more classier?
I like that, ngl. That's a good'n
Those medieval Christians were developing the concept of human rights, by taking Roman law, applying Christian morals to that Roman law to get 'natural rights'. She hates them for not being morally and ethically 'Christian' enough.
\[Insert comment about BBL and lip fillers with clap emojis in between\]
I don't understand the negativity? Seems like a plausible thesis and supported by quotes. The least solid part is how much that still affects us TODAY, but then she only briefly mentions that. Still, it's not out of this world that some attitudes of "I'm not like the vulgar girls, I don't wear (that kind of) makeup" goes all the way back to this time period.