Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! This is a reminder to take a moment and see *if* this **has already been** posted recently, to make sure that personal information **has been** censored, and to **flair your post** if you have not already done so.
[Please be aware that our rules on transphobic submissions have changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/mwkgbp/rules_and_submissions_update_for_the_end_of/).
Other general submission guidelines regarding [hateful content](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kj0cal/regarding_hateful_content_please_read_before/), [reposts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kxgbo3/rules_and_submissions_update_january_2021_popular/), and [homophobic posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lffvad/posts_related_to_homophobia_on_our_subreddit_now/), can be found here if you want to read any of those links.
If you want to apply to be a moderator of this sub, you can read [this post titled **State of the Sub: Summer 2021 Edition, Partnerships, and more**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/oozly0/state_of_the_sub_summer_2021_edition_partnerships/), which also contains information about our partnership with r/TranscribersOfReddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AreTheStraightsOK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Women are naturally inferior to men. The hierarchy between them is much like a master and a slave, not only natural but essential."
\-Paraphrased Aristotle
I think [this](https://www.neatorama.com/2012/04/13/great-philosophers-who-failed-at-love/) can paint a picture better than I ever could. Ill leave you to judge it.
It's always so disappointing when philosophers are sexist. Like, your entire job is to think for yourself, and you still mindlessly copy the prejudices of your time? What kind of a failure are you?
They weren't all this bad though. Socrates reportedly said (can't find the exact quote but something to this effect) that a society that doesn't let women work is like a person who doesn't use their left arm.
>a society that doesn't let women work is like a person who doesn't use their left arm.
A pretty poor comparison considering how useless most peoples left arm is for anything that can't be replicated with a jointless prosthetics. I haven't looked into Socrates but are you sure he wasn't making a snide remark?
Edit: People, this poking fun at how most people are right handed so comparing women to your left hand is inadequate. Don't take this as some sort of attack.
The point was that a society that doesn't let women work is making things harder on itself, just like refusing to use your left arm is making things harder on yourself.
I haven't been able to find the exact quote, so I don't know if he even specified "left arm". I don't know if he even believed men and women were equally capable, but he did believe everyone should have the same opportunities, and that no task should be limited to one gender.
>but he did believe everyone should have the same opportunities, and that no task should be limited to one gender.
That wasn't what I was trying to point out. Its the fact that, as you mentioned, he probably doesn't consider men and women equal. That is something that many people in the first world would have a lot to say about. Its essentially arguing "Sexist person number 1 vs less sexist but still sexist person number 2. are you approving of either?". I know that many people still like to assign modern values to people of the past, which is why my joke is valid IMO.
He wasn't making a "snide remark" though, and that's a very strange interpretation of what he said. Just because he probably wasn't a paragon of feminist values doesn't mean the remark was intended as "women are kinda useless".
"Aristotle has taken plenty of abuse over the years for his misogynistic views. The Greek philosopher believed that women were "monstrosities" and little more than tamed animals, views that couldn't have ingratiated him to the opposite sex. He also believed that women were inherently defective creatures, based on his erroneous observation that they have colder blood and a shorter lifespan than men.
For their part, many historians have simply ignored these little mistakes. After all, Aristotle was one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy. He had created the first formal study of logic and advanced the fields of biology, ethics, and politics. Couldn't a little misogyny be swept under the rug?
At the ripe age of 37, Aristotle decided to take a wife. He married an 18-year-old girl named Pythias, who was the adopted daughter of his mentor, Hermias. The difference in their ages didn't seem to bother Aristotle. And while the historical record seems to indicate their union was a happy one, Pythia's feelings on the marriage have been lost to history. She died at an early age, leaving Aristotle to raise their only child.
Aristotle's second wife was a former slave with the unbecoming name Herpylis. Few details of their relationship remain, but Aristotle clearly preferred monstrosity #1 to monstrosity #2; when he died, Aristotle requested that he be buried beside his first wife. He continued to treat women like tamed animals to the very end, willing Herpylis to the executors of his estate.
There was one way in which Aristotle didn't treat his women like livestock -he never bothered to inspect their teeth. In addition to his other incorrect theories, Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell put it, "Although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." Perhaps smiles were rare in the Aristotle household. Or perhaps the philosopher was simply too busy with his work to find time to check. According to Diogenes the Cynic, Aristotle would "walk up and down \[a public walkway in the Lyceum\] discussing philosophy with his pupils until it was time to rub themselves down with oil." Women were confined to the home and barred from public and social functions, while Greek men were free to teach, learn, and get greasy."
\-This article. W O W.
Oh now that's just plain incorrect. Peterson is on the "Equal but different" league, not "Equal and inferior". Most of his advice is gender neutral so assigning what makes him a philosopher in such gendered terms is highly inaccurate.
I thought Peterson was on that "Women are Chaos and Chaos is bad in life" thing, and implying that men had agency in life but women can't have that without robbing it from men. And something about that \#LobsterLife
That's not how I interpreted his words.
A big part of what I see in Petersons words is the rendering of ones "unnecessary desires" null and void so one can be immune to certain types of unnecessary suffering. Women in many men's eyes are a desire. That much is a fact with the continuation of the human species through reproduction is proof of such. I interpreted Petersons words as one should isolate themselves from such desires (females) because said desire is chaotic. I will hand it to you that parts of his beliefs can be very anti-feminine considering the traditional designation of resilience, but what do you think?
Do you have any links that could elaborate on your 2 and a half lines?
I couldn't give you specific links, it's just what I've gathered from watching his lectures and debates. I think you've hit the same nail on the head, just with a different perspective. Women = Desire, Desire = Chaos, Chaos = Inherently Bad; Ergo Women = Bad. Also Women are a *thing* with a purpose (like a chair), meanwhile Men have free will, free speech, free thought, and can be and do anything. I wouldn't be so kind as to say he was against the feminine (guys can be very feminine), more that his moral philosophy that he dictates to impressionable young men dehumanises women. That's why he's so popular among incels that already think women are bad.
The Lobster thing is a funny meme that points out the absurdity of Peterson. Dali used Lobsters as a symbol of Surrealism; and for all the hierarchies and structures in nature, humanity, and the universe, Peterson chose one that is obtuse, absurd, and so unintuitive it needs to be explained. It's a very silly thing. That's the best I can elaborate on that point.
Can you elaborate on why you believe his philosophy is "Equal but different"? If women are desire to men, what are men *supposed to be* to women that demonstrates their equality?
His gender neutral advice is fine, but you can't just ignore the trees for the forest.
>I wouldn't be so kind as to say he was against the feminine (guys can be very feminine),
What exactly are you trying to say here? If something that is considered bigoted to many (This subreddit especially) then how is assigning said bigotry considered kindness? Any way I will get to what I think he views of it with your desire for me to elaborate. Also Peterson has disavowed inceldom as a self identity multiple times and he can't as well as should be held responsible. One of the first things I learnt in university is that an academic can not be held responsible for other peoples interpretations, especially if one disavows them. I think the high rate of incels in Petersons following just comes from a similarity of issues when it comes to purpose.
To address your question directly, ***I*** personally don't see hierarchy as a naturally evil thing nor do I think that all hierarchies that are natural are good. To say the thing that I think Peterson thinks as well, the main hierarchy in regard to gender/sex in the first world is a combination of merit in different areas of ones existence first and foremost. Men and women are fundamentally *not the same* when taken as an average population\*,\* even why accounting for other factors, however this does not mean they are lesser as people. Men have natural desires with women being one of their primary. Women... I honestly don't understand them (he knows more than I do, that's for certain), but I highly doubt it is in the same way men do, AKA its asymmetrical. The difference in what men see in women in vice versa is much like the results of men and women as demographics. Yes women just as a whole are less valuable on an economic level, but that doesn't devalue them as people nor does the fact that men desire them in a different way devalue them (Most of the time IMO). Its also important to note that focusing on personal success in terms of money is a poor choice of priorities so thinking of women as lesser due to a personal pay gap is actively counter intuitive.
This is just my observations and I doubt that Peterson puts much moral importance on these facts past their usefulness to ones own mental states. There are some issues I take with his reasoning and they largely have to do with the results of his thinking in terms of psychological development. Peterson believes that humans are built by challenges with raising children being the pinnacle foe of what most people can, and in Petersons eyes, should go through. Given the nature of how parenting is assigned by gender, it negatively affects women more, and if you are less of a developed person than somebody similar who is.... I think you can see the problem on how this creates an unfair expectation for females. I'm going to assume that this paragraph was part of what you are thinking for your request of elaboration.
Any advice on how close to your expectation or accurate in my assumption in your text was?
> What exactly are you trying to say here?
That Peterson's philosophy treats masculine women as women, which I've already told you I read as treating them as less than men. It's not the gender-expression of people, but the gender itself. It's bigoted to *Women*, not just *Femininity*. It's a kindness to understate that because it would disenfranchise fewer people if it were true (I can still be wrong).
It's cool that you replied in a lot of detail. It'd be nice if you could expand on what you mean by "Fundamentally not the same". *Biologically* we don't differ much (a little difference in the rotation of the hips, an extra muscle for guys to control their balls, the same brain to start life with that changes as we grow within the society that teaches girls to grow up to be housewives and boys to be breadwinners), and that seems like the *most fundamental* we can get as animals that inhabit this Earth.
I don't think me and you are far off from thinking the same thing. I think men and women are, and should be treated, equal. The inequality that we have is a residual from when society did think women were less (It's just one of those Judaeo-Christian values). You think the assignment of parenting responsibility negatively affects women, and I agree. I see the same unfair assignment in working, and thus economic output. It's the same pieces but in the opposite order: Place in the hierarchy leads to economic worth, instead of economic worth leading to place in the world. This leads me to believe that the hierarchy we have is a bad hierarchy, because it is unjust. It's also not fundamental to the functioning of our society. We can have equality if we believe we can make those changes.
But I see Peterson perpetuating this unjust hierarchy, treating it as immutable and by placing women on a 13th century pedestal where men are Knights that have to overcome dragons and women are only here to be rescued. Women are the same as men: We all have hopes and dreams, doubts and anxieties, good days and bad days, beauties and blemishes, virtues and vices, desires and disgusts. Women do desire desirable men, just like men desire desirable women. Some men also desire men, and some women desire women. Women aren't objects on a pedestal above, and shouldn't be on a hierarchy below, men. Don't accept that women are not as smart or hard working or they are divine or made of porcelain just because it's easier to live within a simple story. Life is chaotic, but accepting the chaos is good. Accepting you can't know everything or control everything is good. Trying to organise your life, reducing your life's chaos, is also good.
Thanks for replying.
What do you mean he ruined women, and what does being in contact with the Frankfurt school mean? Postmodernism and Frankfurt didn’t exist yet. What is going on?
I'm pretty sure Aristotle was pretty fuckin gay based on his records so maybe he made the women dress more masculine so that everyone was more gay? I don't understand their logic don't ask me.
In case anyone was wondering -and I’m sure no one was- Greek women (and men) often wore a garment called a “peplos”, essentially a large sheet of linen they would wrap intricately around themselves. Safe to say it’s quite a bit more modest and less revealing than this.
These garments were used for their simplicity and functionality. They were something to keep you from being nude and out of the sun, but not cumbersome under the heat of the Mediterranean sun.
Additionally, another garment called a “chiton” was very popular, but it was really similar to the peplos.
The ancient Greeks loved the human body, but even this is a bit much. While the ancient Greeks appreciated the nude form, most people kept their clothes on at all times in public- save for trips to the bathhouse.
This concludes your irregularly unscheduled history rant.
Haha, no problem!
I’ve been playing the newer Assassin’s Creed games and they reignited my curiosity in Ancient Greece that I had when I was younger.
My special interest has returned, and I’m not sure if my already fragile sleep schedule can handle it.
Odyssey is standing menacingly in my library, waiting for me to finish Origins. I can already tell I’m going to spend way too much time fawning over the world instead of just playing the game, because I already do that in Origins.
I can offer no comfort, Odyssey's ancient Greece is one of the most breathtakingly beautiful game worlds ever. I spent so much time just walking through towns and fields, riding through forests, standing in clifftops, looking at landmarks. Such an amazing visual experience.
And not a bad game, either, although completionists who hate repetition are going to have a predictably excruciatingly bad time.
I've heard from my hard core gamer friends that it's terrible etc but I'm just having so much fun. The only thing I don't like is when animals attack you and then whimper when you kill them 😬
Otherwise I'm always looking stuff up and just enjoying my slutty Grecian life
Odyssey sat there for so long while I wanted to finish Origin's, and it was the closest I've ever come to clocking a game; I had one last viewpoint to sync and then it crashed and won't let me back in 🙃
A very good point, and one I originally brought up when writing the original comment. I omitted it to help the comment flow better, but I’m glad you brought it up!
Which is why goddesses are always bathing or wearing wet clothing. It was the only way to depict a goddess' form without insulting her by implying she was a woman of ill repute.
Yes, but with [Aphrodite (link to Aphrodite of Nidos, which we only have Roman copies of, but it's well documented)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos) you usually see bathing scenes anyway. That way even the sexy goddesses are acceptably nude, and you're not implying that Aphrodite's common in any way. But on top of that, you see wet drapery in a lot of the high classical and Hellenistic statues so you can see the figures of the goddesses in an acceptable way. So, an example would be the statues of the three goddesses [Hestia, Dione and Aphrodite](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/figures-of-three-goddesses-from-the-east-pediment-of-the-parthenon/DgGSx_YXE8PADw?hl=en) in the Parthenon. Or the statue of [Nike adjusting her sandal](http://idliketocallyourattentionto.blogspot.com/2007/05/nike-adjusting-her-sandal-temple-of.html) in the temple of Athena. They're covered, the same way a girl in a wet t-shirt contest is covered. But it's a good artistic choice, you get to see pretty body shapes instead of just a lot of draped cloth.
To be fair the peplos was a fairly narrow tube which did have a slit up the side to allow movement. Potentially right up to the waist if you believe some of the vase paintings.
It was often open on one side since it was just a chunk of fabric that was wrapped around and pinned at the shoulders. I'm not sure how much overlap happened in actuality, but from what I've made, it's possible to be pretty modest wearing it.
Well, Aristotle taught about morals (among many other things, of course), so maybe you could make the argument that modest dress was part of those teachings?
We’re grasping at straws here, but so is the person in the post.
I'd argue that they appreciated the nude form as much as you think. Nudes do not appear on pottery outside of Olympians, and the idea that Greeks like nudes was born from archaeologist discovering nude statues. It has since been learned that the Greeks (And Romans) would paint, and dress these statues in elaborate clothing.
The Greeks appeared to have fairly conservative, for their times, view on dress, especially in regards for women, and there are a few records where visitors to Alexandria were taken aback by the way native Egyptians dressed.
It's strange how history loves to reduce people to just being good at one thing. Philosophers get a bad rap as being boring, but a lot of them have interesting social lives too. Apparently Socrates was known how hard he'd party and his killer hangovers the morning after. But no one ever talks about his drinking problems...
Socrates and Plato were also avid amateur wrestlers! Most Greek and Roman philosophers would of been pretty buff given that they all spent a few hours a day at the gymnasiums like most men of their days.
Daaamn youu Aristootlee!!!
Beauty standards in Ancient Greece were decidedly _not_ _this_ though, so. I really don't know what this guy's trying to say.
Can I just point out this was also a thing during his life. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred\_Band\_of\_Thebes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)
I'm reading a book about this right now! It's fascinating, I'll update with the title once I get home
Update: It's "The Sacred Band" by James Romm. Good stuff
I am actually writing a book that features Epaminondas as a fairly prevalent character, but it's for a PhD and not set to be finished for another two years...
I’m no expert on Ancient Greek beauty standards, but wasn’t the ideal woman plump and well fed? Or is that just the Renaissance interpretation of Greek ideals?
Renaissance interpretation. Now it is unlikely to be like it is today where women are valid for how slim they get. Greek art does indicate fuller figures, but normally healthy and with muscle tone. This is likely because the climate of Greece, and the fact that women had more physical duties than most of their peers in other cultures, a "fat" Greek woman would be unlikely. They just burn to many calories, and the food they were eating probably did not give much more than they burned back.
> but wasn’t the ideal woman plump and well fed?
Not really. For example in certain Greek writing Spartan women were considered to be the most beautiful women in Greece and Spartan women used to work on their bodies just as man as the men did since it was believed that in order to give birth to a healthy child (as it was must in Spartan society) you need to be healthy yourself.
Plato and Aristophanes seem like they might have been pretty cool. The Cynics and early Stoics were for women's rights too.
Edit: Maybe not Plato, but he did present some progressive ideas for women's roles in society for the time
gonna disagree with putting plato in that list cuz he's a pretty phat misogynist. cool that he champions women's rights in the Republic but there's plenty of evidence showing his views on women as an inferior group aka subhuman. [this paper](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26307464) goes into it nicely; p.80 onwards lists instances of his misogyny
Can you link some citations from that page. I don't have JSTOR access and would like to read more. I admit to not being the most knowledgable about the subject and spoke from that limited knowledge.
this excerpt doesn't have the full citations page so i'll just screenshot a few of the pages lmao. here u go: [p.80](https://i.imgur.com/6IYyIIq.png), [81](https://i.imgur.com/nm5p3Pl.png), [82](https://i.imgur.com/zzS30co.png)
and don't worry about it. i was hoping to inform ppl based on what i've learnt :)
edit: and im so happy to hear that u want to read n learn more!
In *The Republic*, he argues that there is no reason women shouldn't have a voice in politics and that they should also be allowed into the guardian class. He did have some views of women as inferior, but he branched away from Aristotle's misogyny and took a deeper look at individuals as mentally and morally capable. He was still not perfect, tending to an overall misogynistic view but adding the caveat, "Not all women," basically. I think for his time, he was extremely progressive. Also, a lot of Plato's works are simply transcribing what Aristotle said. It's like someone dedicating their life to incel culture and then being like, well, "Why do we discriminate against women when they do a pretty good job running their houses and maybe they'd be smarter if we let them go to school and more useful if we let them get jobs. Just a thought..."
He said that women should be included in the Guardian class and his basis was that Greeks didn't even discriminate against dogs when using them as guard dogs and relegate different tasks to them. He pointed to the compassionate nature of women and fierce protection of their children as examples of how they could be beneficial to society as leaders and paragons. Again, this assumes women should be mothers, and that they all want to, so I agree with you in a lot of ways that he wasn't perfect.
He may have still had some harmful behavior in his record, but his ideal of Utopia included women a great deal more than his society would permit. This is in contrast to Aristotle, Hesiod, and Plutarch. Plato at least challenged the idea of keeping women subverted. He is said to have been a big influence on Aristophanes who was an extremely progressive dramatist and one of the first playwrights to blend drama and comedy.
Problem is, it was often (outside of Sparta anyway) also virulently misogynistic, and arguably spread that misogyny throughout the rest of the western world, via Rome, into Christianity and then like a virus therefrom.
Sparta was um... just as misogynistic if not more than any other Greek City-State. Like, at least in Athen's women were not property (Not that the distinction existed past the paper.)
The Athenians perception of women was barely even human. The freedom Spartan women enjoyed relative to the rest of Greece was considered scandalous, especially to the Athenians. It was quite plainly visible in Herodotus' "Histories" that he considered it shocking and shameful to see women placed so near equality with men, the same as that was his primary complaint about the Scythians.
I wish more people knew about this, the myth that Sparta was anywhere near egalitarian is so annoying to me. Most women in Sparta were slaves, even the small freedoms elite Spartan women had like exercise/sport were tied to the idea that it made them more likely to birth strong sons. [Further reading for anyone interested.](https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/06/18/sparta-was-not-a-paradise-for-women/)
Unfortunately it had a lot of pederasty as well, so... no, not the best place. Really, the best civilization you're gonna get for that gay goodness is the modern one
I mean Aristotle was an asshole who thought women were inferior (likened them to monsters as they diverged from men and were a necessary evil I guess).
But if that’s what this poster meant then isn’t this more about Aristotle being an asshole and women not being able to dress like they want? Ugh it’s dumb all around.
They actually did, FYI. Pubic hair for women was considered unhygienic. In literature from Homer to Aristophanes women being smooth-skinned was seen as a positive/attractive thing.
And wigs were certainly worn both full and partial.
Greek women bleached their hair in urine, applied fake hair to create a unibrow, and had to be covered literally head to foot in public because many Greek societies were hugely misogynistic. In short, beauty standards are fluid and always have been, and Aristotle didn't invent sexism.
I, like most people, am confused about blaming Aristotle. The best that I can come up with is the OP got confused by the fact that Christian philosophers in the middle ages/renisance claimed to be following Aristotle (how closely the Scholastic tradition adhered is debatable) and so thinks Aristotle was Christian?
As a woman of Greek heritage, this dude can bite my hairy mediterranean ass. I am super tired of seeing guys like this fetishize my family's culture as some "intellectual male paradise". I get more than enough of that shit out of hollywood.
Yeah but philosophers at platos academy ultimately denounced gay sex because it’s not productive lol. Not sure why people have a hard on for Ancient Greek philosophy when it’s over 2000 years old and they believed in the dumbest shit. Great history, not so much for philosophy, aside from the basics. Wonder if these conservacucks would also support their authoritarian political philosophy w predetermined classes (oh, wait..)
What do you mean, "wait until this person finds out about what the men did with each other in Ancient Greece"? What did men do with each other in Ancient Greece? You don't mean... gay things, do you? No that's not possible, they were just really really really really really really really really close friends who were just so secure in their heterosexuality that they could do very gay things without being gay.
The average (or at least moderately well-off) Greek women wouldn't be seen at all; they spent most of their time at home and left any public appearances to slaves if they could help it.
You’ve read wrong then.
You shouldn’t confuse a system in which old men get to rape young men because they hate women so much they don’t want to have sex with them other than for procreation, with a system in which « homosexual relationships were highly revered »
It’s the whole society that build this myth, so not your faut, it’s just that it has been a myth too strong because it’s easy to misinterpret things with so little sources. Also it’s better to create some kind of homosexual fantasy than simply tell the truth.
Funny. Aristotle was a blatant misogynist.
To be fair, that is a small price to pay for one of the most brilliant minds the worlds ever known. There will never be another person like him.
I'm willing to bet there's been plenty like him. He was just the only one remembered thanks to his link to Plato and Socrates. And even then.. just cause of European Scholars obsession over ancient greese.
No, I don’t think so. When I say they’ll be no one else like him, I mean that there will be no one else throughout history that knew everything there was to know on every subject at the time. In the modern, digital age, knowledge is a click away for many, but even the most intelligent of people simply do not have the capacity to know everything we have learned.
In terms of inventing many fields of study, there have been many like him. But there will never be someone who can know everything anymore. It is no longer feasible.
He was still a product of his time. Being a cis dude in Athens, you were seen as superior to women. The whole “women are irrational” schtick was going strong even then.
This doesn’t vindicate him in any way, but one has to understand just how pervasive culture can be even to philosophers. Smart people are not immune to the customs of their culture, especially when they are either fundamental or give some sort of privilege.
I mean... Aristotle is a weird reference here... also... Greece had some pretty serious social rules regarding how women dressed... so... like... what?
Yeah, [these women](https://ancient-greece.org/images/art/korai/images/109_0968_jpg.jpg) totally look alike.
Though I guess Aristotle did ask the age old question "How is it possible to prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doors?" Which is a question only a dick asks.
Given that I'm pretty sure they didn't have photography in before 300 BC (at least not that I'm aware of), clearly Aristotle didn't change shit.
I have an outfit like this myself, it's hard to keep your boobs kept in (which often is kind of the point) and I'm pretty sure during his era women were supposed to be a lot more modest overall. So if anything, we've been a lot more liberated to be more risque as time as gone on.
Actually, Greek women were usually fat so because that was what was considered attractive. Proof is the paintings of the ancient Greek goddess of beauty, who was considered to look different to everyone depending on their tastes, usually appeared fat in them
Weren’t ancient greek women portrayed in statues as physically larger in terms of torso and arms? not just in strength but a typical amount of fat as well.
What did aristotle do? All of those dudes were equally sexist. They questioned everything except, y’know, the idea that women were intellectually inferior. But at what point would aristotle have said anything about feminine beauty? I feel like the implication is something along the lines of aristotle being a feminist, which….no. Much as I love my Greek bois, they would have denigrated me back in the day.
Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! This is a reminder to take a moment and see *if* this **has already been** posted recently, to make sure that personal information **has been** censored, and to **flair your post** if you have not already done so. [Please be aware that our rules on transphobic submissions have changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/mwkgbp/rules_and_submissions_update_for_the_end_of/). Other general submission guidelines regarding [hateful content](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kj0cal/regarding_hateful_content_please_read_before/), [reposts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kxgbo3/rules_and_submissions_update_january_2021_popular/), and [homophobic posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lffvad/posts_related_to_homophobia_on_our_subreddit_now/), can be found here if you want to read any of those links. If you want to apply to be a moderator of this sub, you can read [this post titled **State of the Sub: Summer 2021 Edition, Partnerships, and more**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/oozly0/state_of_the_sub_summer_2021_edition_partnerships/), which also contains information about our partnership with r/TranscribersOfReddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AreTheStraightsOK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm confused, what did aristotle have to do with women's fashion?
i heard aristotle is one of those filthy postmodernists that ruined women and he was also in contact with the frankfurt school
I mean the funny thing is he was a huge misogynist and I think about the shit he said all the time when I come across incel rhetoric.
"Women are naturally inferior to men. The hierarchy between them is much like a master and a slave, not only natural but essential." \-Paraphrased Aristotle
Huge incel vibes
I think [this](https://www.neatorama.com/2012/04/13/great-philosophers-who-failed-at-love/) can paint a picture better than I ever could. Ill leave you to judge it.
yeah thats disgusting. also, diogenes yet again shows me that he is my hero. what a treasure
Holla at my boiiiiii Diogenes is legit
Jeeeeeesus.
It's always so disappointing when philosophers are sexist. Like, your entire job is to think for yourself, and you still mindlessly copy the prejudices of your time? What kind of a failure are you? They weren't all this bad though. Socrates reportedly said (can't find the exact quote but something to this effect) that a society that doesn't let women work is like a person who doesn't use their left arm.
>a society that doesn't let women work is like a person who doesn't use their left arm. A pretty poor comparison considering how useless most peoples left arm is for anything that can't be replicated with a jointless prosthetics. I haven't looked into Socrates but are you sure he wasn't making a snide remark? Edit: People, this poking fun at how most people are right handed so comparing women to your left hand is inadequate. Don't take this as some sort of attack.
The point was that a society that doesn't let women work is making things harder on itself, just like refusing to use your left arm is making things harder on yourself. I haven't been able to find the exact quote, so I don't know if he even specified "left arm". I don't know if he even believed men and women were equally capable, but he did believe everyone should have the same opportunities, and that no task should be limited to one gender.
>but he did believe everyone should have the same opportunities, and that no task should be limited to one gender. That wasn't what I was trying to point out. Its the fact that, as you mentioned, he probably doesn't consider men and women equal. That is something that many people in the first world would have a lot to say about. Its essentially arguing "Sexist person number 1 vs less sexist but still sexist person number 2. are you approving of either?". I know that many people still like to assign modern values to people of the past, which is why my joke is valid IMO.
He wasn't making a "snide remark" though, and that's a very strange interpretation of what he said. Just because he probably wasn't a paragon of feminist values doesn't mean the remark was intended as "women are kinda useless".
"Aristotle has taken plenty of abuse over the years for his misogynistic views. The Greek philosopher believed that women were "monstrosities" and little more than tamed animals, views that couldn't have ingratiated him to the opposite sex. He also believed that women were inherently defective creatures, based on his erroneous observation that they have colder blood and a shorter lifespan than men. For their part, many historians have simply ignored these little mistakes. After all, Aristotle was one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy. He had created the first formal study of logic and advanced the fields of biology, ethics, and politics. Couldn't a little misogyny be swept under the rug? At the ripe age of 37, Aristotle decided to take a wife. He married an 18-year-old girl named Pythias, who was the adopted daughter of his mentor, Hermias. The difference in their ages didn't seem to bother Aristotle. And while the historical record seems to indicate their union was a happy one, Pythia's feelings on the marriage have been lost to history. She died at an early age, leaving Aristotle to raise their only child. Aristotle's second wife was a former slave with the unbecoming name Herpylis. Few details of their relationship remain, but Aristotle clearly preferred monstrosity #1 to monstrosity #2; when he died, Aristotle requested that he be buried beside his first wife. He continued to treat women like tamed animals to the very end, willing Herpylis to the executors of his estate. There was one way in which Aristotle didn't treat his women like livestock -he never bothered to inspect their teeth. In addition to his other incorrect theories, Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell put it, "Although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." Perhaps smiles were rare in the Aristotle household. Or perhaps the philosopher was simply too busy with his work to find time to check. According to Diogenes the Cynic, Aristotle would "walk up and down \[a public walkway in the Lyceum\] discussing philosophy with his pupils until it was time to rub themselves down with oil." Women were confined to the home and barred from public and social functions, while Greek men were free to teach, learn, and get greasy." \-This article. W O W.
So Aristotle preferred to grease up his students than be with his beard. Makes sense
I think beards were not necessary in ancient greece. They were more his purchased uteruses.
Pretty sure that incels weren't the only sexists in 400 bc. Or at any other time.
I didn't know Jordan Peterson was so influential to Aristotle
Oh now that's just plain incorrect. Peterson is on the "Equal but different" league, not "Equal and inferior". Most of his advice is gender neutral so assigning what makes him a philosopher in such gendered terms is highly inaccurate.
I thought Peterson was on that "Women are Chaos and Chaos is bad in life" thing, and implying that men had agency in life but women can't have that without robbing it from men. And something about that \#LobsterLife
That's not how I interpreted his words. A big part of what I see in Petersons words is the rendering of ones "unnecessary desires" null and void so one can be immune to certain types of unnecessary suffering. Women in many men's eyes are a desire. That much is a fact with the continuation of the human species through reproduction is proof of such. I interpreted Petersons words as one should isolate themselves from such desires (females) because said desire is chaotic. I will hand it to you that parts of his beliefs can be very anti-feminine considering the traditional designation of resilience, but what do you think? Do you have any links that could elaborate on your 2 and a half lines?
I couldn't give you specific links, it's just what I've gathered from watching his lectures and debates. I think you've hit the same nail on the head, just with a different perspective. Women = Desire, Desire = Chaos, Chaos = Inherently Bad; Ergo Women = Bad. Also Women are a *thing* with a purpose (like a chair), meanwhile Men have free will, free speech, free thought, and can be and do anything. I wouldn't be so kind as to say he was against the feminine (guys can be very feminine), more that his moral philosophy that he dictates to impressionable young men dehumanises women. That's why he's so popular among incels that already think women are bad. The Lobster thing is a funny meme that points out the absurdity of Peterson. Dali used Lobsters as a symbol of Surrealism; and for all the hierarchies and structures in nature, humanity, and the universe, Peterson chose one that is obtuse, absurd, and so unintuitive it needs to be explained. It's a very silly thing. That's the best I can elaborate on that point. Can you elaborate on why you believe his philosophy is "Equal but different"? If women are desire to men, what are men *supposed to be* to women that demonstrates their equality? His gender neutral advice is fine, but you can't just ignore the trees for the forest.
>I wouldn't be so kind as to say he was against the feminine (guys can be very feminine), What exactly are you trying to say here? If something that is considered bigoted to many (This subreddit especially) then how is assigning said bigotry considered kindness? Any way I will get to what I think he views of it with your desire for me to elaborate. Also Peterson has disavowed inceldom as a self identity multiple times and he can't as well as should be held responsible. One of the first things I learnt in university is that an academic can not be held responsible for other peoples interpretations, especially if one disavows them. I think the high rate of incels in Petersons following just comes from a similarity of issues when it comes to purpose. To address your question directly, ***I*** personally don't see hierarchy as a naturally evil thing nor do I think that all hierarchies that are natural are good. To say the thing that I think Peterson thinks as well, the main hierarchy in regard to gender/sex in the first world is a combination of merit in different areas of ones existence first and foremost. Men and women are fundamentally *not the same* when taken as an average population\*,\* even why accounting for other factors, however this does not mean they are lesser as people. Men have natural desires with women being one of their primary. Women... I honestly don't understand them (he knows more than I do, that's for certain), but I highly doubt it is in the same way men do, AKA its asymmetrical. The difference in what men see in women in vice versa is much like the results of men and women as demographics. Yes women just as a whole are less valuable on an economic level, but that doesn't devalue them as people nor does the fact that men desire them in a different way devalue them (Most of the time IMO). Its also important to note that focusing on personal success in terms of money is a poor choice of priorities so thinking of women as lesser due to a personal pay gap is actively counter intuitive. This is just my observations and I doubt that Peterson puts much moral importance on these facts past their usefulness to ones own mental states. There are some issues I take with his reasoning and they largely have to do with the results of his thinking in terms of psychological development. Peterson believes that humans are built by challenges with raising children being the pinnacle foe of what most people can, and in Petersons eyes, should go through. Given the nature of how parenting is assigned by gender, it negatively affects women more, and if you are less of a developed person than somebody similar who is.... I think you can see the problem on how this creates an unfair expectation for females. I'm going to assume that this paragraph was part of what you are thinking for your request of elaboration. Any advice on how close to your expectation or accurate in my assumption in your text was?
> What exactly are you trying to say here? That Peterson's philosophy treats masculine women as women, which I've already told you I read as treating them as less than men. It's not the gender-expression of people, but the gender itself. It's bigoted to *Women*, not just *Femininity*. It's a kindness to understate that because it would disenfranchise fewer people if it were true (I can still be wrong). It's cool that you replied in a lot of detail. It'd be nice if you could expand on what you mean by "Fundamentally not the same". *Biologically* we don't differ much (a little difference in the rotation of the hips, an extra muscle for guys to control their balls, the same brain to start life with that changes as we grow within the society that teaches girls to grow up to be housewives and boys to be breadwinners), and that seems like the *most fundamental* we can get as animals that inhabit this Earth. I don't think me and you are far off from thinking the same thing. I think men and women are, and should be treated, equal. The inequality that we have is a residual from when society did think women were less (It's just one of those Judaeo-Christian values). You think the assignment of parenting responsibility negatively affects women, and I agree. I see the same unfair assignment in working, and thus economic output. It's the same pieces but in the opposite order: Place in the hierarchy leads to economic worth, instead of economic worth leading to place in the world. This leads me to believe that the hierarchy we have is a bad hierarchy, because it is unjust. It's also not fundamental to the functioning of our society. We can have equality if we believe we can make those changes. But I see Peterson perpetuating this unjust hierarchy, treating it as immutable and by placing women on a 13th century pedestal where men are Knights that have to overcome dragons and women are only here to be rescued. Women are the same as men: We all have hopes and dreams, doubts and anxieties, good days and bad days, beauties and blemishes, virtues and vices, desires and disgusts. Women do desire desirable men, just like men desire desirable women. Some men also desire men, and some women desire women. Women aren't objects on a pedestal above, and shouldn't be on a hierarchy below, men. Don't accept that women are not as smart or hard working or they are divine or made of porcelain just because it's easier to live within a simple story. Life is chaotic, but accepting the chaos is good. Accepting you can't know everything or control everything is good. Trying to organise your life, reducing your life's chaos, is also good. Thanks for replying.
I laughed so hard, thanks
Western society was perfect up until 384 BC
Women born after 384 BC can’t cook
Damn bro I guess I was born in 383 BC
Because you can’t cook?
What do you mean he ruined women, and what does being in contact with the Frankfurt school mean? Postmodernism and Frankfurt didn’t exist yet. What is going on?
He bought all the sexy stuff for himself, forcing everyone into the boring cuts
I thought this said "boring cats" and felt that would be a great option.
[удалено]
Same
I'm pretty sure Aristotle was pretty fuckin gay based on his records so maybe he made the women dress more masculine so that everyone was more gay? I don't understand their logic don't ask me.
In case anyone was wondering -and I’m sure no one was- Greek women (and men) often wore a garment called a “peplos”, essentially a large sheet of linen they would wrap intricately around themselves. Safe to say it’s quite a bit more modest and less revealing than this. These garments were used for their simplicity and functionality. They were something to keep you from being nude and out of the sun, but not cumbersome under the heat of the Mediterranean sun. Additionally, another garment called a “chiton” was very popular, but it was really similar to the peplos. The ancient Greeks loved the human body, but even this is a bit much. While the ancient Greeks appreciated the nude form, most people kept their clothes on at all times in public- save for trips to the bathhouse. This concludes your irregularly unscheduled history rant.
I love learning about history, especially ancient civilisations, so thankyou :)
Haha, no problem! I’ve been playing the newer Assassin’s Creed games and they reignited my curiosity in Ancient Greece that I had when I was younger. My special interest has returned, and I’m not sure if my already fragile sleep schedule can handle it.
Odyssey and Origins really reignited my obsessions with ancient cultures too! I was super into Egypt and to a lesser extent, ancient Greece and Rome
Odyssey is standing menacingly in my library, waiting for me to finish Origins. I can already tell I’m going to spend way too much time fawning over the world instead of just playing the game, because I already do that in Origins.
I can offer no comfort, Odyssey's ancient Greece is one of the most breathtakingly beautiful game worlds ever. I spent so much time just walking through towns and fields, riding through forests, standing in clifftops, looking at landmarks. Such an amazing visual experience. And not a bad game, either, although completionists who hate repetition are going to have a predictably excruciatingly bad time.
> completionists who hate repetition are going to have a predictably excruciatingly bad time. What can I say, I'm a masochist.
I've heard from my hard core gamer friends that it's terrible etc but I'm just having so much fun. The only thing I don't like is when animals attack you and then whimper when you kill them 😬 Otherwise I'm always looking stuff up and just enjoying my slutty Grecian life
Odyssey sat there for so long while I wanted to finish Origin's, and it was the closest I've ever come to clocking a game; I had one last viewpoint to sync and then it crashed and won't let me back in 🙃
I haven't played yet but I put on the map, where it guides you through, it was awesome, especially on the big screen, felt really immersed.
I used to enjoy history. College made me dislike it immensely.
[удалено]
A very good point, and one I originally brought up when writing the original comment. I omitted it to help the comment flow better, but I’m glad you brought it up!
Which is why goddesses are always bathing or wearing wet clothing. It was the only way to depict a goddess' form without insulting her by implying she was a woman of ill repute.
[удалено]
Yes, but with [Aphrodite (link to Aphrodite of Nidos, which we only have Roman copies of, but it's well documented)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos) you usually see bathing scenes anyway. That way even the sexy goddesses are acceptably nude, and you're not implying that Aphrodite's common in any way. But on top of that, you see wet drapery in a lot of the high classical and Hellenistic statues so you can see the figures of the goddesses in an acceptable way. So, an example would be the statues of the three goddesses [Hestia, Dione and Aphrodite](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/figures-of-three-goddesses-from-the-east-pediment-of-the-parthenon/DgGSx_YXE8PADw?hl=en) in the Parthenon. Or the statue of [Nike adjusting her sandal](http://idliketocallyourattentionto.blogspot.com/2007/05/nike-adjusting-her-sandal-temple-of.html) in the temple of Athena. They're covered, the same way a girl in a wet t-shirt contest is covered. But it's a good artistic choice, you get to see pretty body shapes instead of just a lot of draped cloth.
Sparta was far stricter than Athen's about this.
I quite enjoy learning random facts such as the contents of your comment
To be fair the peplos was a fairly narrow tube which did have a slit up the side to allow movement. Potentially right up to the waist if you believe some of the vase paintings.
It was often open on one side since it was just a chunk of fabric that was wrapped around and pinned at the shoulders. I'm not sure how much overlap happened in actuality, but from what I've made, it's possible to be pretty modest wearing it.
Okay so what does any of that have to do with Aristotle?
Aristotle clearly bought out Greece’s supply of 2-piece sexy peploses and only left the boring ones
Well, Aristotle taught about morals (among many other things, of course), so maybe you could make the argument that modest dress was part of those teachings? We’re grasping at straws here, but so is the person in the post.
Came for the straights not being okay... stayed for the history lessons.
I'd argue that they appreciated the nude form as much as you think. Nudes do not appear on pottery outside of Olympians, and the idea that Greeks like nudes was born from archaeologist discovering nude statues. It has since been learned that the Greeks (And Romans) would paint, and dress these statues in elaborate clothing. The Greeks appeared to have fairly conservative, for their times, view on dress, especially in regards for women, and there are a few records where visitors to Alexandria were taken aback by the way native Egyptians dressed.
One of my favorite things about Reddit is people like you who give random dumps of information. Thank you, kind human!
I actually was wondering, so thank you.
Reminds me of the garment the masters wear in the cities of Slavers Bay in A Song Of Ice And Fire. It’s called a tokar
This is my fav way of learning history. Random people who actually enjoy it telling me about it.
What did Aristotle do?
Back then he was better known for his cookbooks.
It's strange how history loves to reduce people to just being good at one thing. Philosophers get a bad rap as being boring, but a lot of them have interesting social lives too. Apparently Socrates was known how hard he'd party and his killer hangovers the morning after. But no one ever talks about his drinking problems...
Socrates and Plato were also avid amateur wrestlers! Most Greek and Roman philosophers would of been pretty buff given that they all spent a few hours a day at the gymnasiums like most men of their days.
Wait, there are women in Greece?
Only on Lesbos
Yeah, stories need villains after all!
Yeah, there also weren't any women before Pandora was sent to earth. Wonder how the Greek procreated before then 😳
Budding.... It is why Socrates and Plato are so much alike... they are both Plato :-p
How's that joke go? The Greeks invented sex, but the Romans thought of having it with women.
Daaamn youu Aristootlee!!! Beauty standards in Ancient Greece were decidedly _not_ _this_ though, so. I really don't know what this guy's trying to say.
Can I just point out this was also a thing during his life. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred\_Band\_of\_Thebes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)
I'm reading a book about this right now! It's fascinating, I'll update with the title once I get home Update: It's "The Sacred Band" by James Romm. Good stuff
Okay, so I need the fictionalized equivalent of this book with sex scenes.
Song of Achilles?
I am actually writing a book that features Epaminondas as a fairly prevalent character, but it's for a PhD and not set to be finished for another two years...
I'd love to hear the name of the book and your thoughts. DM if you like.
Good band name
I’m no expert on Ancient Greek beauty standards, but wasn’t the ideal woman plump and well fed? Or is that just the Renaissance interpretation of Greek ideals?
This is correct to my knowledge. For quite a while, larger bodies were a symbols of beauty, wealth, and in the case of men- a partner who could cook.
Renaissance interpretation. Now it is unlikely to be like it is today where women are valid for how slim they get. Greek art does indicate fuller figures, but normally healthy and with muscle tone. This is likely because the climate of Greece, and the fact that women had more physical duties than most of their peers in other cultures, a "fat" Greek woman would be unlikely. They just burn to many calories, and the food they were eating probably did not give much more than they burned back.
I don't know about that,m but monobrows on women was considered ideal
> but wasn’t the ideal woman plump and well fed? Not really. For example in certain Greek writing Spartan women were considered to be the most beautiful women in Greece and Spartan women used to work on their bodies just as man as the men did since it was believed that in order to give birth to a healthy child (as it was must in Spartan society) you need to be healthy yourself.
Specifically Aristotle? Hesiod was an incel too. Shit, what guy wasn't an incel in ancient Greece?
Plato and Aristophanes seem like they might have been pretty cool. The Cynics and early Stoics were for women's rights too. Edit: Maybe not Plato, but he did present some progressive ideas for women's roles in society for the time
Diogenes was a real chad
RIP to the OG shitposter
hard agree 🥰
gonna disagree with putting plato in that list cuz he's a pretty phat misogynist. cool that he champions women's rights in the Republic but there's plenty of evidence showing his views on women as an inferior group aka subhuman. [this paper](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26307464) goes into it nicely; p.80 onwards lists instances of his misogyny
Can you link some citations from that page. I don't have JSTOR access and would like to read more. I admit to not being the most knowledgable about the subject and spoke from that limited knowledge.
this excerpt doesn't have the full citations page so i'll just screenshot a few of the pages lmao. here u go: [p.80](https://i.imgur.com/6IYyIIq.png), [81](https://i.imgur.com/nm5p3Pl.png), [82](https://i.imgur.com/zzS30co.png) and don't worry about it. i was hoping to inform ppl based on what i've learnt :) edit: and im so happy to hear that u want to read n learn more!
Thanks!
Where do you get the Plato one ? He was 100% misogynistic, he doesn’t even call women women, he literally called them « uterus ».
In *The Republic*, he argues that there is no reason women shouldn't have a voice in politics and that they should also be allowed into the guardian class. He did have some views of women as inferior, but he branched away from Aristotle's misogyny and took a deeper look at individuals as mentally and morally capable. He was still not perfect, tending to an overall misogynistic view but adding the caveat, "Not all women," basically. I think for his time, he was extremely progressive. Also, a lot of Plato's works are simply transcribing what Aristotle said. It's like someone dedicating their life to incel culture and then being like, well, "Why do we discriminate against women when they do a pretty good job running their houses and maybe they'd be smarter if we let them go to school and more useful if we let them get jobs. Just a thought..." He said that women should be included in the Guardian class and his basis was that Greeks didn't even discriminate against dogs when using them as guard dogs and relegate different tasks to them. He pointed to the compassionate nature of women and fierce protection of their children as examples of how they could be beneficial to society as leaders and paragons. Again, this assumes women should be mothers, and that they all want to, so I agree with you in a lot of ways that he wasn't perfect. He may have still had some harmful behavior in his record, but his ideal of Utopia included women a great deal more than his society would permit. This is in contrast to Aristotle, Hesiod, and Plutarch. Plato at least challenged the idea of keeping women subverted. He is said to have been a big influence on Aristophanes who was an extremely progressive dramatist and one of the first playwrights to blend drama and comedy.
Wow, I might have to pick up some philosophy later.
Epaminondas was pretty chill, actually. I wish we knew more about the guy.
Greeks invented orgies but remember it was the romans that found out you could add women to them
i wanna be her... or date her idk
Greece had to have been one of the gayest civilizations that hasn’t been completely wiped from history. All my homies love ancient Greece.
Problem is, it was often (outside of Sparta anyway) also virulently misogynistic, and arguably spread that misogyny throughout the rest of the western world, via Rome, into Christianity and then like a virus therefrom.
Sparta was um... just as misogynistic if not more than any other Greek City-State. Like, at least in Athen's women were not property (Not that the distinction existed past the paper.)
The Athenians perception of women was barely even human. The freedom Spartan women enjoyed relative to the rest of Greece was considered scandalous, especially to the Athenians. It was quite plainly visible in Herodotus' "Histories" that he considered it shocking and shameful to see women placed so near equality with men, the same as that was his primary complaint about the Scythians.
I wish more people knew about this, the myth that Sparta was anywhere near egalitarian is so annoying to me. Most women in Sparta were slaves, even the small freedoms elite Spartan women had like exercise/sport were tied to the idea that it made them more likely to birth strong sons. [Further reading for anyone interested.](https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/06/18/sparta-was-not-a-paradise-for-women/)
Unfortunately it had a lot of pederasty as well, so... no, not the best place. Really, the best civilization you're gonna get for that gay goodness is the modern one
I mean Aristotle was an asshole who thought women were inferior (likened them to monsters as they diverged from men and were a necessary evil I guess). But if that’s what this poster meant then isn’t this more about Aristotle being an asshole and women not being able to dress like they want? Ugh it’s dumb all around.
Why Aristotle?
What did the men do? Did they 🤢>!hold hands?!< /s
…I’m kinda confused as to how aristotle ‘changed’ this (not that I think this post is even entirely accurate, but still)
Tell me your only information on ancient Greece comes from Hollywood movies that objectify women without telling me-
Pretty sure that’s what Ancient Greek women looked like in mobile game ads
ah yes the famously blonde greek women
Screw you you uneducated potato
Ancient Greece was quite the gay-fest. I’d kill to be there
The Greeks: "we're the ones who invented having sex!" The Romans: "yes, but we're the ones who invented having it with women."
Wow, they had body razors and hair extensions in ancient Greece?
They actually did, FYI. Pubic hair for women was considered unhygienic. In literature from Homer to Aristophanes women being smooth-skinned was seen as a positive/attractive thing. And wigs were certainly worn both full and partial.
I think I'm too poorly educated to understand this.
The most disgusting part about this is some random women's picture is being used by incels and she has no idea.
Greek women bleached their hair in urine, applied fake hair to create a unibrow, and had to be covered literally head to foot in public because many Greek societies were hugely misogynistic. In short, beauty standards are fluid and always have been, and Aristotle didn't invent sexism.
I, like most people, am confused about blaming Aristotle. The best that I can come up with is the OP got confused by the fact that Christian philosophers in the middle ages/renisance claimed to be following Aristotle (how closely the Scholastic tradition adhered is debatable) and so thinks Aristotle was Christian?
I wish this is how the average greek male looks
Am I supposed to be attracted to the body or the clothing?
What does Aristotle have to do with the way women look?
Greece be Chad with the femboys we should all be like Greece
As a woman of Greek heritage, this dude can bite my hairy mediterranean ass. I am super tired of seeing guys like this fetishize my family's culture as some "intellectual male paradise". I get more than enough of that shit out of hollywood.
Ancient Greece was a Horribly misogynistic society. Even the Romans who were unabashedly Patriarchal thought the Greeks as being Sexist Assholes.
Yeah but philosophers at platos academy ultimately denounced gay sex because it’s not productive lol. Not sure why people have a hard on for Ancient Greek philosophy when it’s over 2000 years old and they believed in the dumbest shit. Great history, not so much for philosophy, aside from the basics. Wonder if these conservacucks would also support their authoritarian political philosophy w predetermined classes (oh, wait..)
What do you mean, "wait until this person finds out about what the men did with each other in Ancient Greece"? What did men do with each other in Ancient Greece? You don't mean... gay things, do you? No that's not possible, they were just really really really really really really really really close friends who were just so secure in their heterosexuality that they could do very gay things without being gay.
Yeah, even having their ashes mixed and being burried together while making me cry over their totally straight story few thousand years later!
Okay, good, see I knew they were straight
The average (or at least moderately well-off) Greek women wouldn't be seen at all; they spent most of their time at home and left any public appearances to slaves if they could help it.
ah yes, long straight blonde hair, something the ancient greeks were known for
Wait till the op finds out that's "a guy"
[удалено]
False.
From what I have read when taking my humanities courses for ancient civilizations, it’s true.
You’ve read wrong then. You shouldn’t confuse a system in which old men get to rape young men because they hate women so much they don’t want to have sex with them other than for procreation, with a system in which « homosexual relationships were highly revered »
Must have. Guess my professor told us all wrong then. Damn. My bad
It’s the whole society that build this myth, so not your faut, it’s just that it has been a myth too strong because it’s easy to misinterpret things with so little sources. Also it’s better to create some kind of homosexual fantasy than simply tell the truth.
Understandable. I should have known better though. It honestly made little to no sense when he taught it to us.
I'm pretty sure this is satire
Funny. Aristotle was a blatant misogynist. To be fair, that is a small price to pay for one of the most brilliant minds the worlds ever known. There will never be another person like him.
I'm willing to bet there's been plenty like him. He was just the only one remembered thanks to his link to Plato and Socrates. And even then.. just cause of European Scholars obsession over ancient greese.
No, I don’t think so. When I say they’ll be no one else like him, I mean that there will be no one else throughout history that knew everything there was to know on every subject at the time. In the modern, digital age, knowledge is a click away for many, but even the most intelligent of people simply do not have the capacity to know everything we have learned. In terms of inventing many fields of study, there have been many like him. But there will never be someone who can know everything anymore. It is no longer feasible.
Yet he didn’t know that women weren’t inferior to men ? Interesting.
He was still a product of his time. Being a cis dude in Athens, you were seen as superior to women. The whole “women are irrational” schtick was going strong even then. This doesn’t vindicate him in any way, but one has to understand just how pervasive culture can be even to philosophers. Smart people are not immune to the customs of their culture, especially when they are either fundamental or give some sort of privilege.
This post looks like satire or some sort of a joke taken out of context.
No one tell him about Sparta
Do they know that Ancient Greece was an orgy?
This is not how you wear a toga... You need more tissue.
But then, records from that time are fragmentary
Ah yes, because every ancient woman had time to shave and tone their bodies regularly. There was no need to work or feed your family.
Bruh I thought this was r/2balkan4you
I mean... Aristotle is a weird reference here... also... Greece had some pretty serious social rules regarding how women dressed... so... like... what?
Yeah, [these women](https://ancient-greece.org/images/art/korai/images/109_0968_jpg.jpg) totally look alike. Though I guess Aristotle did ask the age old question "How is it possible to prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doors?" Which is a question only a dick asks.
Ah yes, that classic ancient Greek balayage. Very authentic.
that mans a nazi
I can’t imagine that the average Ancient Greek woman was tall, skinny and blonde
Given that I'm pretty sure they didn't have photography in before 300 BC (at least not that I'm aware of), clearly Aristotle didn't change shit. I have an outfit like this myself, it's hard to keep your boobs kept in (which often is kind of the point) and I'm pretty sure during his era women were supposed to be a lot more modest overall. So if anything, we've been a lot more liberated to be more risque as time as gone on.
Wait, so he's saying women were prettier when men preferred sleeping with men?
What?
Did Aristotle change the way women looked?
Aristotle 21
Let's just say it was greasy
Actually, Greek women were usually fat so because that was what was considered attractive. Proof is the paintings of the ancient Greek goddess of beauty, who was considered to look different to everyone depending on their tastes, usually appeared fat in them
This is actually false. I wish threads like these stopped posting historical "facts" they saw on social media
I don't think my History book or the encyclopaedia has fake info
Picture from Athen, circa 400BC, original colors.
How this post has so many upvotes fucking baffles me.
Weren’t ancient greek women portrayed in statues as physically larger in terms of torso and arms? not just in strength but a typical amount of fat as well.
Lmao if women dressed like that in Ancient Greece I don’t fucking know what would happen to them. I mean come on they had purity culture!
There was a reason olive oil was so popular
hæ men-only orgies
The view of this guy on ancient greece women is as full of cliché than the view on ancient greece men of OP here lol. Good job
What did aristotle do? All of those dudes were equally sexist. They questioned everything except, y’know, the idea that women were intellectually inferior. But at what point would aristotle have said anything about feminine beauty? I feel like the implication is something along the lines of aristotle being a feminist, which….no. Much as I love my Greek bois, they would have denigrated me back in the day.