Divine Misogyny

Divine Misogyny 

Few cultures have as extensive creation stories as the Greeks and Israelites. Archaeologists and historians have successfully preserved Hesiod’s Theogony: the creation story told from an ancient Greek perspective. The Bible, however, because of its popularity and everyday use, has been able to maintain its controversial ideas through centuries. Each book is severely flawed in its misogynistic depictions of women. The chauvinist illustration of women in culturally accepted sacred texts has directly affected how all practicing communities view and treat women.

Male figures in both texts objectify and undermine women as humans to something closer to an insignificant animal. In Hesiod’s Theogony, the Gods' livelihood is filled with subtleties of misogyny. In a more nuanced exploration of familial ties concerning Kronos, Hesiod explains, “Rhea, being forced by Kronos, bore the most brilliant offspring to him: Hestia” (Hesiod 38). Although a particularly easy detail to miss, the word “forced” in this sentence alludes to rape. The creators of these stories intentionally mitigate perverted details in order to avoid being painted as immoral men. The usage of words like “forced” or “knew” (Michael David Coogan et al.) works to disguise vulgar actions like violation or intercourse. Negligible details embedded in the depths of the language are only to be found when intimately analyzed from an unbiased literary lens. Rape creates a deeply abhorrent state of dehumanization, yet another example of the repugnant objectification of women. 

Women are overtly sexualized in both Hesiod’s Theogony and the Bible’s first book, Genesis. The girl created by Hephaistos in Works and Days is described as “The lovely figure of a virgin girl” (Hesiod, 61). The adjective “virgin” has the general connotation of one being untouched, inexperienced, young, and innocent. To most men, this screams “Prey on me”. The idea of virginity being something so sacred and innocent to a girl is how it unequivocally became sexualized. Men feel empowered by the idea of taking something away from someone, someone more fragile and pure in comparison to themselves. In creating a young, virgin girl, it is clear that the intention of men was render her subject to sexualization. Unfortunately, the young girl created was Aphrodite, Goddess of fertility and desire; who has invariably been depicted with minimal clothing and a curvaceous body: all aspects of women that pleasure men. 

                                                             〜

Women are bodies. And that’s all they are. At least according to men that have transformed the general perception of the world. Michelangelo, Picasso, Warhol. All artists from different time periods and movements that have exploited the pulchritude of a woman’s body. There is something foreign about thighs, no? How they gracefully link the flower and the feet. They are so important to a woman, along with all of her other round features. What is it about roundness that makes her so divine? It is almost effortless the way that any little thing about a woman can be and has been sexualized by men. By artists specifically; people who understand the world differently. People who think longer and process in an alternative manner. People who have the talent of creating, through words or images, in the end, they’re all the same, a man. When a man has his muse, what else is he supposed to do? Not look at her through his eyes of artistry? Impossible. Artists are prone to sexualizing everything. It's how they’re wired. By thinking differently, you explore feelings that aren’t supposed to be felt. You understand things in a way that others don’t. Unfortunately, many of those feelings are lustful and somatic. And even more unfortunately, nudity is what sells. Aphrodite sells. Supple breasts, sumptuous mane, sheer fabric. In the midst of her power in ancient Greek society, she is still only a body. 

                                                            〜

As if the sexualization in Theogony wasn’t grotesque enough, how Hesiod chooses to personify certain aspects of the land is anomalously erotic. When describing Greece, it is said that “Ungrudgingly, the fertile land gave up her fruits unasked” (Hesiod, 62). Here virginity is explained in a way that seems to favor the man. The inclusion of words like “ungrudgingly” and “unasked” terminate the idea that anything was taken by force, exonerating the man from accountability. But, were the land’s “fruits” truly given up by her free will? Realistically, land can never completely be in control, rendering it possible that even this sexualized personification is merely a trick created by men to distract the audience from their true, lustful desires. Carnal language can also be found in Genesis. After creating all animals, it is said that “Man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him” (Michael David Coogan et al.). Shortly after Adam identifies this problem, he creates Eve. The word “fit” has larger implications of Adam’s lustful preferences. What distinguishes Eve from the rest of the animals? The fact that she is a human like Adam? No. What makes Eve so fit is her ability to reproduce but more importantly, to pleasure Adam. 

Predestination, the idea that divine foreordaining of all that will happen, frequents itself in Genesis, and perpetually favors men. After Eve and Adam get caught eating the forbidden fruit, God punishes Eve with great severity. He tortures her by augmenting her child-bearing pain; contradictorily, the land is cursed as Adam’s punishment (Michael David Coogan et al.). God would rather destroy the land that all people would soon inhabit than hurt a man. When analyzed through a perspective of predestination, in which the idea that God had planned everything in order for this moment to happen exactly as it did, then he intentionally wanted to hurt Eve and save Adam. This would mean that God had created and instructed the serpent to lure Eve, exclusively to cause her pain. Another pressing example of male-dominated predestination can be found in Genesis 6, Noah’s Ark. After deciding that He was unsatisfied with the current race of humans, God sends a flood to Earth that kills all people (Michael David Coogan et al.). According to Genesis, “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Michael David Coogan et al.) which is why he was selected from all men to be the one to survive. He was instructed by God to build an ark to protect himself, his family, and livestock in order to procreate. Eventually, Noah and his family get through the flood together and successfully create a new generation of humans, undeniably deeming Noah the hero. Following the predestination theory, all-knowing God wiped out all humans for Noah to be special. Of course, his wife, the woman who bears the children, did not receive any credit for generating a new human race by those in the Bible nor the ones writing it.

The dynamic depicted between women and men in the two ancient texts evokes a rather controversial superiority complex. In Hesiod’s Theogony, women are illustrated as an abomination whose sole intention is to inflict pain on all men. In his description of a woman’s role in society, Hesiod says, “From her comes all the race of womankind, the deadly female race and tribes of wives…women are bad for men and they conspire in wrong” (Hesiod, 42). Accompanied by undertones of objectification, like the majority of the language that makes up this text, Hesiod bluntly communicates that all of womankind is evil. It is purported that through schemes and marriage, all women will try and destroy men, simply because it is their nature. There is a sense of belittlement in these words as well. In saying that their only purpose in life is to hurt men, it is not only implied that women are unable to live a complex life themselves but also sustain men as the focal point of the story. Whenever women are mentioned, it is always how they live relative to a man. Additionally, in Genesis 3, God gives Adam the power of naming Eve (Michael David Coogan et al.). A name is important when it comes to identity. It represents someone and their story. A name is what one is remembered by. If a man is given the power of establishing identity, they are indirectly affecting the entire course of a woman's life and how she is perceived by the rest of the world. The dynamic, or lack thereof, gives its audience insight as to how this written treatment of women came into fruition.

Misogynistic themes found in Genesis and Hesiod’s Theogony have critically affected all generations who indulge themselves in the texts. Books like these, ones that serve as the foundation for larger ideologies, are objectively some of the most important pieces of literature to exist. In the context of one of the most widely practiced religions, such as Christianity, written scriptures and verses are the only ways Christians are able to connect with the roots of the religion. Because Genesis was the very first book written, entrenched were the misogynistic themes that the rest of the Bible would follow. Unfortunately, corrupt ideas are likely to be exercised in households and communities that believe in what the Bible suggests. 

Works cited:

Hesiodos, et al. Theogony ; Works and Days / Hesiod : XElegies. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin, 19, 1973.

Michael David Coogan, et al. The New Oxford Annotated Bible : New Revised Standard Version : An Ecumenical Study Bible. New York, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Piece reflection:

This was a great write. The basis of this piece was an essay on the dynamic between genders in Hesiod’s Theogony and Genesis for my seminar class. I wrote it in about three days. Before I started this piece, I had read a book called “Ways of Seeing” by John Berger. It is a book compiled of essays regarding the changing perception of art throughout history. It was an insightful and greatly appreciated read. It was also one of the first books I read from cover to cover all summer (not a flex), so naturally, I was extra pleased to finish it. One essay that stood out to me was one on nudity and the sexualization of women in art. It was deemed highly interesting and sparked something within my writer-mind to maybe put together some sentences about this pressing “issue” (nudity in art isn’t an issue but a nuanced idea). If you know me, you know how I love to indulge in theological conversation. Although I’m sure my classmates and professor were annoyed by my constant raised-hand, the ideas that circulated the classroom that day helped me lay out a pretty solid essay. I submitted this piece on 10/1/24. I couldn’t stop thinking about it from then until 10/5/24. So upon my return from Chicago, I got to editing. This editing step is significantly important (redundant, i know), which I am still not sure why this has been realized so late. After editing half of my piece (this included changing sentence structures, replacing words with better ones, and switching the names Adam and Eve so that a woman led the partnership) I started to realize that I would have preferred to submit this freshly-edited version than the one I submitted on Tuesday. It’s not like my essay was bad, but this one is better. Anyway (I have learned that it isn’t “anyways”), after revising half of my sexualization-of-women paragraph, I put in some of me. I could have put this vignette anywhere, or even have left it out, but I wanted this essay to become a piece. And in order to successfully do that, I had to add my creative sparkle (that was very corny). This vignette was created to simulate my brain and its chopped up streamline of thoughts. That not so full-fledged idea was shoved right in the middle of that paragraph because it was the idea that inspired me to create this whole essay. The idea of sexualization from one of the essays in John Berger’s “Way of Seeing”. Wow, it really does all relate back to art when it comes to me. Someone recently told me that it was crazy to have over 100 pictures of art in one of my instagram highlights. Although it kind of pissed me off (this is the closest to the blog-gossip cliché that you’ll get from me), it reinforced that depressing idea that my dad frequently mentions: younger generations don’t appreciate art. He once noted on one of our gallery trips how unfortunate it was to see no people of my age in the same buildings we walked. In posting all the art that I do, there is a part of me that yearns to educate. To show my 500-some followers unreplicable and life-changing talent. Make it so that my dad doesn’t have to make such disheartening comments again. Is it so bad to be passionate about something that I have wanted to pursue for years now? No. In fact it makes me an even stronger contender for that director position. So yeah, when it comes to me, everything is about art. And I will be making another highlight for my next 100 pictures of art. And another one when that fills up. Thank you.