Author Topic: Thomas Aquinas on women  (Read 5506 times)

stacer

  • Level 58
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Stacy Whitman's Grimoire
Thomas Aquinas on women
« on: February 12, 2005, 01:49:55 AM »
So I'm researching medieval views on women for background for this paper I'm working on. Now, I'm sure it's no surprise to any of us that they weren't terribly favorable. But it's fascinating reading, stuff that makes me mad at times. This is just a little bit of what I've been reading, one point in the Summa Theologiae.

Quote
It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.


i.e., women are only good for procreation and nothing else. He goes on to say:

Quote
Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals.... But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation.


So men are good at everything else, have the active nature. Women are by nature passive and therefore are unable to think. Also supports the Victorian idea that there was only so much blood to support bodily functions, so if you were a woman who got too much education, you were cutting off the blood supply to your womb and were therefore not being a good woman.

The answers to the objections further down are annoying, too, but highly informative of medieval views (Thomas Aquinas was one of the most influential philosophers and theologians of the middle ages.)

Quote
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.


Quote
Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (96, 3).


Echoes the idea that since men are smarter, they get to rule over women because it's for their own good, just as since nobles are endowed by God with more smarts, they get to rule over the lower classes.

Interesting stuff, especially to balance it against the truth. Nothing we don't already know, but interesting to read a primary source from the 1260s.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2005, 01:53:26 AM by norroway »
Help start a small press dedicated to publishing multicultural fantasy and science fiction for children and young adults. http://preview.tinyurl.com/pzojaf.

Follow our blog at http://www.tupublishing.com
We're on Twitter, too! http://www.twitter.com/tupublishing

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2005, 11:21:33 AM »
I don't see a reason to get mad at someone who lived 800 years ago and that no reasonable people believes anymore

stacer

  • Level 58
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Stacy Whitman's Grimoire
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2005, 11:57:48 AM »
It's just a natural immediate reaction. But mainly what I was saying is that it's fascinating reading, because his stuff on how women should be passive is directly reflected in the folk tales of the time. Which I probably didn't say too clearly, and I can imagine that I'm the only one who is all that fascinated by it because I've been working on this paper for so long.
Help start a small press dedicated to publishing multicultural fantasy and science fiction for children and young adults. http://preview.tinyurl.com/pzojaf.

Follow our blog at http://www.tupublishing.com
We're on Twitter, too! http://www.twitter.com/tupublishing

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2005, 04:02:53 PM »
Isn't Aquinas still commonly read among divinity students?
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

stacer

  • Level 58
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Stacy Whitman's Grimoire
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2005, 04:07:29 PM »
I'm sure he must be. I found what I did in a book on Muslim, Christian, and Jewish thoughts on Genesis and gender through the ages.
Help start a small press dedicated to publishing multicultural fantasy and science fiction for children and young adults. http://preview.tinyurl.com/pzojaf.

Follow our blog at http://www.tupublishing.com
We're on Twitter, too! http://www.twitter.com/tupublishing

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2005, 10:17:40 PM »
I'm sure he is widely read. I've read him. That doesn't mean that he's agreed with on every subject. In a climate where even Catholic priests regularly admit that evolution is the way God created the world, I find it unlikely that Aquinas' misogynist ideas are widely embraced.

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2005, 02:51:22 AM »
Ah...I thought you meant no one believes anything at all he says anymore
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Oseleon

  • Level 8
  • *
  • Posts: 251
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Wie Fieles Russlander Fur Ein Panzer Halten?
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2005, 07:31:14 AM »
Aquinas is still valued, sepecialy his thoughts on "Just War" therory.  
Alles!!!

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2005, 11:36:21 AM »
I wasn't very clear, I realize, as happens a lot. I think faster than I type. I did only mean his views on women. Not that there aren't reasonable who aren't sexist, but that extreme view just isn't held by many people anymore.

origamikaren

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Fell Points: 0
  • The World is Quiet Here
    • View Profile
    • tiggywinkle
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2005, 06:26:43 PM »
Quote
I don't see a reason to get mad at someone who lived 800 years ago and that no reasonable people believes anymore


What planet are you living on?  Read my rant on Mother's day and Feminism to get one example of this stuff being taught (weaker sex, etc)

And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?

I'm generally not a feminazi, but I can see why some people get so worked up about it (sexim).  It is subtle and pernicious, and so many intelligent people like to believe that it doesn't really exist anymore in our enlightened society.  Sure it wears a different mask, but it's still there.

Take Women's lib for instance.  Women are now free to be in the workplace, but they are still expected to do everything else they were ever responsible for as well.  There was a great article in Newsweek on this a couple of months ago (it had a picture of a woman with six arms on the cover)
Check out my daily poetry selection and musings at http://karenspoetryspot.blogspot.com

-Karen

fuzzyoctopus

  • Level 57
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Fell Points: 0
  • fearsome and furry
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2005, 06:43:26 PM »
Well, see the thing is that even though it is a problematic issue, I don't really feel that discriminated against.  Are there people with backwards and harmful views towards women's roles?  Of course there are.  I don't agree with them. I also don't agree with the way Christian Scientists view medicine. I think it's downright idiotic and it makes me furious.  But I don't think that I can DO anything about it other than live my life in the way that I believe is correct and make sure my children grow up with healthy and realistic views about women's roles.
"Hr hr! dwn wth vwls!" - Spriggan

I reject your reality, and substitute my own. - Adam Savage, Mythbusters

French is a language meant to be butchered, especially by drunk Scotts. - Spriggan

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2005, 10:39:58 AM »
Quote
What planet are you living on?  Read my rant on Mother's day and Feminism to get one example of this stuff being taught (weaker sex, etc)

And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?

I'm living on earth. Why the heck to you think these moments are even noteworthy? Because by and large, these views are considered antiquainted.

Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2005, 12:26:07 PM »
Quote
And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?

I'm generally not a feminazi, but I can see why some people get so worked up about it (sexim).  It is subtle and pernicious, and so many intelligent people like to believe that it doesn't really exist anymore in our enlightened society.  Sure it wears a different mask, but it's still there.


That's not what the President of Harvard said in the version I heard.   In the version I heard he suggested, in a meeting where and when the subject was why there aren't more women in the sciences, that perhaps there were differences between the sexes that tended to promote that disparity.  Women in the room and around the world immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was a sexist pig and was REALLY saying that women were too dumb.

That's not what he said and these particular people were simply demonstrating that THEIR brains weren't capable of logical thought.

As for sexism still being around, of course it is.  It's just reversed its direction.  We now live in a world where a man can be vilified for a statement he didn't make just because people are willing to belive the worst...because he's male.  And where men can be widely portrayed as stupid and bumbling on TV with never a word said about it...because they're male.  
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch

Mistress of Darkness

  • Level 37
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Mama
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2005, 12:09:17 PM »
Quote
As for sexism still being around, of course it is.  It's just reversed its direction.  We now live in a world where a man can be vilified for a statement he didn't make just because people are willing to belive the worst...because he's male.  And where men can be widely portrayed as stupid and bumbling on TV with never a word said about it...because they're male.  


Amen.

I think the saddest part of "the women's movement" is how it often places more stress on women. Now it isn't enough to be a good wife and mother. You have to be a good employee too.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2005, 12:11:53 PM by Treyva »
" If i ever need a pen-name I'd choose EUOL, just to confuse everyone. " --Entropy

Oseleon

  • Level 8
  • *
  • Posts: 251
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Wie Fieles Russlander Fur Ein Panzer Halten?
    • View Profile
Re: Thomas Aquinas on women
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2005, 11:50:01 AM »
Quote
And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?


Actualy, he is the victim of a rather harsh charicter assasination attempt on the part of militant feminists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501190846.asp <--Addressed in NRO
Quote
This is perfectly consistent with Hopkins's current schtick &#8212; which got her a nice, sympathetic interview on the Today show and newspaper coverage around the world. In the past, women used to claim that vulgar language would cause them to grow ill or faint. Now feminists like Hopkins use the same tactic to silence ideologically unacceptable ideas and to intimidate the intellectually curious. That's the stereotype Hopkins is reinforcing: that feminists and the Left are pro-science and pro-scholarship as long as they already agree with the conclusions.

He addressed the very REAL fact that there are
1. Structural and Chemical diffrences in the brains between men and women
2. Numerous studies as to how those diffrences affect diffrent areas of apptitute
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF <--Scientific America article on the issue

So basicly, this guy was crucified for discussing an ACTIVE Scientific topic.  
How enlightened
Quote

Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is &#8220;offensive&#8221; even to consider it?

« Last Edit: May 13, 2005, 11:50:38 AM by D66 »
Alles!!!