|
Post by Shannon on Oct 16, 2009 11:10:33 GMT -5
History Channel has a new series, Clash of the Gods, that explores myths and their basis in reality. The other night I watched an episode on Medusa, in which the panel's interpretation was thus: Medusa was a beautiful priestess of Athena, raped by Poseidon, punished by Athena, and defeated by (some kid whose name I forgot). I have no idea if this is 'right' since all I know about Greek Mythology I learned in middle school Lit, and that was... awhile ago. Anyway, some of it bothered me. Why would Athena, an icon of feminism, be such a raging bitch? Why did yet another Patron Goddess have to be a virgin? OK, so as Blackrose said once, " Sometimes monsters are monsters." Greek society punished the victim of rape and that's just the way it was. But really? So I decided it went something like this: Athena can't punish Poseidon for the rape since he's a God. (This is already established.) But that doesn't mean she is punishing Medusa, instead. The way I see it, she punished man through Medusa. (Don't worry, it all works out for her.) So men like to conquer- through rape, war, politics. The male urge desecrates Athena's temple and she can't do anything about it. Medusa is lost to Greek society, lost to her religion, so the only recourse for Athena is to transform Medusa into a new figure of lust- blood lust. The men won't touch her as a defiled woman, but they will seek her as a monster. Athena uses their urges against them, while also suppling Medusa a means for revenge. Metaphorically, I think Medusa's appearance, and it's ability to turn men to stone, refers to men being confronted by the affects and pain of those they attempted/succeeded in victimizing. Basically, I think Medusa is a cautionary tale for Men, one meant to give them pause before they decided the world and women were theirs for the taking. SO Medusa and Athena are kicking ass left and right, but here comes this kid. His mom is being forced against her will to marry some guy. So Kid sets out to get Medusa's head and save his mother. It's really interesting to me that the only person that was able to defeat Medusa was a man who was doing so to save another woman from bondage/rape/man. So Kid saves his mother, and Medusa's head is placed on the shield of Athena. So maybe Athena's virginity isn't a commentary on the society of that time- But a statement of independence. And Medusa, her beloved and victimized priestess, becomes immortalized and given a place of honor in memorial.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 16, 2009 14:05:58 GMT -5
Greek society was, by our standards, messed up about sex. Not like we're any to talk - but even their much-quoted acceptance of homosexuality was in actuality an acceptance of sex with youths as a perk for older, successful men. You didn't really see that many of what we would call happy, egalitarian, same-age, openly gay couples. Good thing Sappho got a name as a poet. Otherwise we'd never have heard of her.
But, by standards back then, punishing rape victims wasn't messed up at all. Greek society was pretty typical in that regard. Rape was often a crime against a woman's male "owners" - father, husband, brothers - rather than against the woman herself, and the "she must have asked for it" reasoning is sadly not new. Hopefully, that reasoning is on its way out.
Can't forget either that chattel slavery was also not only openly practiced, but was a major economic basis for society.
Doubt it was any kind of "commentary" - that's not usually what myth was for. (Often, commentary is a role for art, though, which might use myth). The virginity, though, might well have been not only a statement of independence but a means to keep it, for women who were lucky enough to have that option as well as for Gods. If your husband is going to out-and-out own you, keeping your legs crossed may well be the only means of remaining independent. Remember there wasn't good contraception either! And a society might well note a Goddess's virginity as a means for saying She is independent - She doesn't have to be defined through a role of wife or mother as She otherwise would. In a society that can't get its collective head out of it hindquarters otherwise, a virgin Goddess can be a warrior, or have wealth, or be intelligent or wise without any of that having to be referenced to supportive behavior toward men or children. This wouldn't be because the myth-makers were consciously aware that they were sexist bastards, however. It remains up to us to notice that.
Also, we must remember in Athena's case that She was also the patron Goddess of a city. Using another tired metaphor older than dirt, Her virginity also "meant" that Athens did not plan ever to be conquered.
Some ancient societies, such as the Norse, were a bit more lenient toward women (by necessity or otherwise) and/or featured less of a dichotomy between the "mother" or "lover" (often meaning "whore") Goddesses and the warrior or wisdom ones. But it does not appear that any society was much better than ours about women's equality, Margaret Murry notwithstanding. In our culture, women can be any combination of mother, lover (gay or straight), wise-woman, warrior, wealth-holder, or whatever that they want (or as circumstances allow). You can even have women technicians and artisans, usurping the role of the old blacksmith God. Older societies had a lot less of that and their myths reflect it.
I'll not say much on the Nasty Killer Goddess archetype, or delve into why these Deities were usually rendered negative and/or terrifying - that's a whole different post. Suffice to say you can find plenty of not-fertility-oriented, non-nurturing Goddess images (just ignore what fluffy literature has to say about them). Athena is actually often a good example. But they're usually a bit problematic, and the sexism is often still quite visible, if only because it was so obviously considered not all right, in many places and times, for a woman to ever get angry.
If the old societies had this flaw about women, we should remember that - after all, we know what is said about those who don't know their history. Nothing wrong with recasting those myths in a way that speaks to your reality, though. More power to you. Just know that's what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by E on Oct 19, 2009 18:27:17 GMT -5
First off, while it is on my mind, in response to Den's observation of "Older successful and young male" Greek dynamic, I learned it TOTALLY differently. I learned it was more a "training" the young man to pay court or in other words "woo" a woman. The elder males were basically doting on these young men and teaching them the "how to's" of snagging a wife. I was taught there was never, under any circumstance, penetration of the young male. I know that there were brothels aplenty in ancient Greece and that many young men (and women), whom enjoyed the attentions of these older successful types (men and women) "plied" their trade as... well... whores.
This is a society that did not limit a woman once she was married either. The ancient Greeks were known for allowing their wives to take lovers after they had fulfilled their duty to continue the family's line (breed). That is a very common "duty" throughout the ancient world AND the modern one. There is one woman in particular that comes to mind.. damn, what was her name? She was quoted as saying that "she never took a lover unless the caboose was full", in other words unless she was already pregnant by her husband, in order to avoid the nasty mess of becoming pregnant by a lover (contraception comment from Den in mind).
What the hell was her name? Let me google.
I can't find it, but here is this
quote : Julius Paulusadulterer-killing is allowed only if the couple is caught in the act while in the house of the father or husband. On the other hand, sex with a woman who is in charge of a business is not considered adultery. These wrinkles show that the laws are meant to protect men who have properly kept their women at home. Moreover, it can’t be adultery unless it makes a free man uncertain of the paternity of his woman’s children. For example, if he has sex with a slave, that’s not adultery. (Julius, Consequences)
And here is a law from the same page.
quote: fourth century, the writer, AlexisIn 16 B.C.E., Augustus enacted one of many laws regarding marriage which made it illegal for men to procreate without being married.
quote: Julius Paulussince nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them(wives), nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation(marriage therefore procreation) rather than for our temporary pleasure. [/i]
quote: James Davidson in Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical AthensMarriages were arranged, usually for the purpose of connecting land, titles, or property. These women were not highly educated, and it was not really expected that men would spend much time in their company. Men more often spent their time with another breed of woman, the courtesan or hetaera. These women were highly educated, both intellectually and in the arts of love, and were sought by most of the educated men of the culture.
Shit, I can't find what I was looking for.
Anyway, I agree with Shannon that perhaps Medusa's plight was not a punishment directed at her but a "finger" to Poseidon. What a guy to go into the temple of a warrior goddess and rape her highest priestess.
I think that Medusa got screwed either way, she had devoted her life to the only "independent" option she had and got the shaft.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 20, 2009 8:23:20 GMT -5
I don't know much about the ins and outs of Greek life and law, so I can't comment overmuch; however, the issue of punishing a woman for being raped reminds me of some of the passages in the Bible which do just this. Even today we see some cultures in which a woman is punished for being defiled, even if it's not her fault. With that in mind, as much as we like to think of the Greeks as enlightened, I think it's fair to say that it might very well be possible that it was Medusa being punished. (This might make more sense in the versions where she is seduced, and not raped.) From one of the things I read, it was also the fact that the defilement happened in Athena's temple, which, thus, defiles the temple itself.
I think that if Medusa was created as a punishment of Poseidon, then Athena would not have helped Perseus kill Medusa, and then place the head on her shield. (Unless you want to argue that it was because Medusa was pregnant with Poseidon's child, though I'm not sure we can safely say the Greek gods always cared about their children all that much.)
But, as Den said, there's no particular reason why it can't be recast as a feminist myth - as long as you don't necessarily apply it backwards without adequate evidence. It's been done with Lilith, afterall, who was a demoness until the 8th - 10th century when she was recast as the first wife of Adam. A lot of people tend to forget she was a right evil bitch first, though...
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Oct 20, 2009 12:12:58 GMT -5
I should have titled this re-interpreting Medusa. I'm certainly not trying to rewrite history, or trying to say that the History Panel was WRONG. I was trying to modernize the myth, and find contextual value in it's lessons. I was even pondering to myself that the beauty of these myths seems to be their versatility in changing with the ages. Divine design? Medusa has become an icon for feminism and her symbol (now) depicts the power of female rage for many. I don't think the history of Medusa should be lost, or forgotten, and I don't think we should ignore the conceptual lessons of the past, but that we CAN grow and evolve within the understandings of these myths, and that the myths can grow and evolve. If a thousand years from now a panel of historians is revisiting the Medusa Myth and including her journey as a feminist role model and rape advocate, should we ignore that aspect of her ever growing and evolving persona because it isn't true to her adolescence in history? For me, that begs the question as to how alive we view these deities/ideas. Are they truly 'dead', never growing or developing because their spirit dissolved B.C? Are myths and ideals and the spirits of such things stagnant? Born from the minds of men and killed upon their utterance? ...Stillborn Myths. Or, are they ever-lasting? Do myths and the deities contained within grow and mature with man, with understanding, with culture and with the experience of life? I'm comfortable appreciating Medusa, Athena, and Poseidon for what they represented then, and what they can represent to us now.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 20, 2009 13:59:14 GMT -5
Sorry. Going back and rereading it I can see that, but, originally, it seemed like you were saying the History Channel people were interpreting historically in the feminist way. I misread you're not entirely clear post. Anyway... I'm a bit torn on the interpretation of myth thing, and how much it can be changed throughout history. I also sometimes wonder why it's necessary. If someone isn't comfortable with the Medusa myth as it stands, why the need to reinvent it? Why not, instead, refer to the historical Boudica instead, or someone like her. On the other hand, I don't think that spirituality is a dead thing, and there is always some level of cultural interpretation and representation in the presentations of the mythos. I do think that there's a limit to how much something can be altered. In this case, at least, the original source material remains the same, but the intepretation is what changes. As long as we don't apply it historically, then that's all well and good. But in the instances where things are totally reimagined (i.e. Morrighan becomes loving mother goddess) - then I have a larger problem with this. I do think, though, that the people who are more prone to reinterpret myths are those who don't believe the essences and energies behind them are real. For instance, by reinterpreting the Medusa myth you're not just reinterpreting what Medusa represents, but you're also interpreting Athena - which is a cultural construct and, thus, a reflection of the times. (That said, she's gone through changes, too. Most gods did, as differing ideas and ideals and cults fought for dominance. I think this is clearest in the Egyptian dynasties, and well as the Greek interpretations of Egyptian gods. For instance, Isis is not Aset. Ra is not Amen-Ra.) (The reason, btw, that I believe that a myth can only evolve so much before it breaks is because I believe the 'true myths', so to speak, are cultural representations and ideas of actual living essences. If a myth is altered too much, it takes it out of the domain and realm of influence of the actual living essence, and then "points" somewhere else. I also believe that god-forms, like people, are products of their lives & experiences, which are part and parcel of the culture/society in which they live. ) I sometimes believe in the 'American Gods' method of god-making. If belief shapes god-forms from essence, then perhaps this New Age Morrighan exists - but she is not the same as the original, not the same as mine, which is probably some conglomerate of the original and my own ideas, but still, generally, referring back to the original essential archetypal energies. Historically, gods have been "borrowed" and "adapted" from culture to culture throughout time, and each culture put their own spin on the myth, based on their own ideas and ideals. However, historically, these god-forms have also been given different names. As I said above, Isis is not Aset, Inanna is not Ishtar. The pairs are, generally, shapes from the same overarching essence, but the god-form itself is shaped by interpretation. So the unanswerable question remains - do the god-forms change with new interpretations, or are we creating something new? I think there's a little evolution involved, but as a certain point there's a break from the original, and we are now talking about a different god-form, even if we don't change the name. It's sort of the same as how we are and are not the same people we were 5, 10, 20 years ago, but we are still ourselves - some of the important basic elements of who we are have not changed, even if the ways we express them have. But, say we get knocked in the head which alters are fundamental selves. Are we really still who we were? Where that line gets drawn is completely and irrevocably up to debate, and my ultimate answer would be - ask Athena. Of course, with the above theories in mind, you may get a different answer depending on which Athena you happen to contact. *grins* Nothing quite like talking in circles, eh?
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 21, 2009 8:47:35 GMT -5
I was thinking about this a bit last night, but about interpretations of history more than mythos. For instance, Salem Mass has become a booming witch town, and a rallying cry for the "Never Again the Burning (or in this case hanging or being pressed to death) Times". Actually, hell, most Burning Times stuff which interprets the Inquisition as not a power play of politics and the churches versus heretics (and anyone else not them, really - and also the fact that a lot of it was Catholic vs Protestant turmoil, so on and so forth) but as an extermination of "The Old Ways". Is it ok to reinterpret history in a way which speaks to us? (I mean, heck, Hollywood does it all the time, so it can't be all bad. ) Then it becomes a question of how different is myth and history? How much of myth is a living entity, and how much of it is a reflection of culture and history? There are no hard and fast rules... IT's a matter of... interpretation, I suppose. >:>
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 21, 2009 17:01:08 GMT -5
(I'll just say about the so-called "Burning Times" - remember said "Times" spanned a couple hundred years at least and many countries, so it's not surprising that thousands died, and of course by now we all know that the death toll estimates that go much higher than that are simply dead wrong - that these "Times" had their start not too long after the Black Death, which literally put the fear of God into the European continent. It's easy to believe in curses and demonic attack when your grandmother died suddenly with agonizing purple swellings at her joints and throat, and remember you don't even have the germ theory of disease to mount a decent counter-belief. And that's without considering all the other issues concerning power struggles and heretics to which Blackrose alludes.)
The issue concerning myth interpretation/re-interpretation gets even hairier if you consider them to be living energies you call forth in ritual, prayer, or magic. I'll admit that's less and less my approach, as various skepticisms and nonbeliefs eat away at my view - but if it's yours, accuracy becomes all the more important. I suppose the issue becomes making sure your ritual design calls forth the "aspect" of the being or myth you really want, rather than just the whole myth-sequence in general. If, for instance, you want the modern, more feminist interpretation of the Medusa myth, you should design your working or prayer or whatever accordingly. You wouldn't be alone in interpreting the myth that way - it's understandable that women who are seeking powerful female images from past cultures would do this, those cultures being so...non-ideal...in certain respects. And while it's true that one option is to just turn to a pantheon, culture, or myth-cycle that looks at first blush a little better in that regard, it is also true that that isn't always an option, or always the best option. What, for instance, if you're of Greek heritage and want something that relates to your own bloodline? What if it's simply the Greek culture that captivates you? If you're already set on that, the Norse or Celtic cultures simply will not do. Not only that, but even the most "enlightened" ancient cultures, from a "feminist" standpoint, weren't anywhere close to our own (admittedly still flawed) treatment of rape victims. Those who are looking for empowering female images in these cultures are essentially in the same boat as those feminists who still prefer to work in the traditionally male-dominated monotheisms. Recasting, reinterpreting, picking out the best of what's there, generating new material, and working toward the future are more or less the options.
Needless to say, you do have to acknowledge what comes from what sources, what's "personal gnosis", and that you're re-imagining, but remember this also: so is everyone else.
The whole thing might at first sound depressing. But look at it this way: it means at least the trend is generally in the right direction, rights-wise.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Oct 22, 2009 8:34:17 GMT -5
I couldn't help but think of this comic strip when reading this:
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Oct 22, 2009 16:48:51 GMT -5
I think the interesting thing about Medusa is that she HAS been reinterpreted throughout her history. Something about her specific story has endured through time, through different cultures, and she still remains a well-known image in mainstream society. Her story strikes a chord with many people, and her image has been re imagined for centuries. There's a thesis out there in cyberland, that I can't provide a link for at this time, called, " From Beast to Beauty" that examines the time line of vases depicting the Medusa and the evolution of her image.
Maybe this thread should have been titled: "There's Something About Medusa." This isn't a case of Medusa being reinvented in modern society to fit into a role we find best for her. That reinvention has been a part of her history by a society that staked more claim to her than anyone else. Could it be in part the fact that she represents the worst fear in most of us? Ostracized, demonetized, shunned, persecuted. Does her story hit a nerve in those devoted to religion who are afraid of an unavoidable sin and the absence of forgiveness? Medusa is a beastly and tragic figure. She speaks to those who ask if society produces criminals, she speaks to women who feel that there is an unspoken power struggle/hate relationship between females and the quest for male attention. She has inspired discussions on the boundaries in stereotypes. Can a Good Girl(Athena) be bitchy, while a Slut (Medusa) have goodness? Can we (women) allow that in one another? She represents and elicits a variety of emotion and fears in men.
She has been compared to the Mona Lisa.
What's striking about Medusa is the deep feelings that she produces in a person, in whichever personal connection one may make with her. And it has been that way through the ages. To say that the myth is the sum of her does not even scratch the surface of who Medusa is.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 22, 2009 17:50:19 GMT -5
To be blunt, I think some of the modern fascination with her is about the fact that being unapologetically ugly is a privilege still not often extended to women. Medusa, after all, probably didn't do much calorie counting. Being the ultimate scary, rejecting/ed, emasculating bitch could have its attractions. Note the use of the image on the Aegis as a source of protective power...so Medusa can also be a power or invulnerability thing. "Gorgon stare", in fact, is a term sometimes used for when a woman wears a cold or intimidating facial expression. Plenty of gals would like to have that. (There's also the Frankly Freudian interpretation for the Gorgon's head...) These ideas could add up to both a "fear" and a "fantasy" (more likely of the power than the sexual kind) for many women (and even some men, these days), now more than ever, with our multi-billion-dollar beauty and fashion industries. Those caught up in the issues related to these might well like to thumb their collective noses at them. (Go right ahead, ladies...)Oh, by the way, you mean demonized I assume? Though Medusa was also "demonetized" as a part of the curse - not a lot of money lying about when you're hiding on a remote island! I tend to think of Athena as more a Daddy's Girl than a Good Girl, but that is of course often a subtle distinction. That's if I'd use the term for a juvenile female human being about Her at all.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Oct 23, 2009 0:24:39 GMT -5
Spellcheck and self-doubt. (Hey, if it can make 'titless' happen....) Good thing I can count on you to correct my word usage. Again. But back on topic. To be blunt, I think some of the modern fascination with her is about the fact that being unapologetically ugly is a privilege still not often extended to women. Somebody (extremely important and with flawless grammar, I'm sure) once said that women fall into two categories; Prey or Invisible. If man can't hunt you, then you as a woman cease to exist in the male world. Maybe some of the fascination surrounding her and her ugliness is that she never ceased to be a 'prize' for men. Whether stunningly beautiful or monstrous, she was always pursued. I think that could definitely fascinate women. And frankly, I don't feel comfortable discussing this with you anymore. Your belittling attitude has hurt my feelings, and I find I'm more concerned about your patronizing and dismissive posts than I am about learning and exploring the Medusa myth further. Which is a shame, because I generally enjoy your insightful and patient posts and the discussions they foster. Unfortunately, I'm now all to aware of how idiotic you feel I'm coming across.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 23, 2009 10:04:47 GMT -5
Wha-a? I didn't know I was coming across as belittling, and no, I don't think you're being idiotic. The thing about "demonetized" was just that I thought that one was cute, and we've joked around about typos before, so I didn't think you'd mind. I'm sorry.
I wasn't even sure whether or not we were disagreeing. But, if you don't want to discuss the topic any more, that's ok. It's a free country. More generally, I consider you a good friend, online or otherwise, and I respect your intelligence. So I'm very sorry if I've hurt your feelings, and I hope you're feeling better soon.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Oct 23, 2009 17:17:26 GMT -5
Thank you for the explanation. I knew there was a possibility that I was misreading your tone, and that it may not be intentional, and that I'm also a bit overly-sensitive at the moment. Either way, I wanted to be upfront about my feelings so that a) we could discuss why we were having differences, or b) discover it was all a misunderstanding. (*Sigh* I guess I'm becoming too bitter for games. I'm just a crotchety old hag.) I apologize for misreading your posts, and shall try and remember the type of person you are next time. Not in the mood to jump right back into the discussion, but hopefully we can revisit this in a few days? I am very interested in hearing more about your opinion on this myth, especially now that I don't feel like I'm on the defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Oct 23, 2009 17:25:27 GMT -5
Sure, we can come back to this in a few days or anytime. And as to feeling defensive, of course you get a pass. Plenty of times I've been the one to feel that way. Just glad you weren't hurting for too long. If so, then the cool kind. If I don't "see" you, have a great weekend!
|
|