For the love of manly sanctity, don't let women take over!

Let's just get this right out here, women are always in the most minimal of ways, oppressed or excluded from various activities, occupations, and societal roles due to historical periods having influenced what our society thinks about or applies to women today. From the earlier periods of time (ancient or medieval) until modern day there is always a way for women to slip into artistic, political, or philosophical influences despite always fluctuating from gaining rights to losing them in the next century. In the Middle Ages for example, women were only expected to take on domestic roles. The art during this time reflected and emphasized--in the beginning--the daily lives and customs of women and their labor.



Illustration in a Bodleian Library manuscript, Ms 764, f. 41v.
(Chadwick 42)
 

What removed the emphasis in the middle ages from the labor roles of women was the power of the religion--Christianity--and the church which ruled over the lives of everyone. Unfortunately, despite the church "[...giving] shape to the human expression [which held] 'The need to take a direct part in spiritual life, in the work of salvation, in the truth which lies in the book,'" women still had to uphold their role according to Christian ethic (Chadwick 44). The Christian church made sure to "[stress] obedience and chastity, by the demands of maternal and domestic responsibility" (Chadwick 44). Overall, the economic and social status of a woman during the Middle Ages determined her role and it was not like she had a voice anyway. The only respect--as close as we can get to equality--that existed was within monasteries that of course, segregated the monks from the nuns.

 

Although, let's not get carried away. Some women did take the opportunity to go to an abbess and be educated in the religious scriptures (where they were free to learn) but, reforms took place and there were few moments women were given other authorities, and they were not given power over things as a form of advancement. It is presumed or theorized that when Otto I allowed women of royal families who were unmarried to have "religious power and intellectual authority[, it] was one way of lessening the chances they would marry potential rivals outside the family" (Chadwick 53). So, really, it was a way of men in the Middle Ages to say, "Hey yeah, I'm totally for you having this, depending your social class but...you can only have this power. It's a total advancement though! I promise. Soon you'll get more free roam..." and on the side they probably laughed about their true intentions that were hidden.

 

When it came to the period of the Renaissance, women did participate a little more in the lives of men. Again, this depended on the social class status of said woman which included from which family bloodline she was from and who the connections were. Women still got the short end of the stick. But then, what was it that allowed women to have more involvement at least with the family business? Apparently, "The development of capitalism and the emergence of the modern state transformed economic, social, and familial relationships in Renaissance Italy" (Chadwick 66). This is the period in which middle class families began to see the possible benefit of a woman tending to the family business.

 

Works Cited

Chadwick, Whitney.Women, Art, and Society. 4th ed. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 1990. Print.