The Myth of Universal Gender Roles and Categories
INTRODUCTION
The gay/lesbian rights movement has been called the civil rights issue of the new millennium. Conservative Christian groups oppose granting the gay-lesbian community the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and they do so on the basis of a black and white moralistic dichotomy. Some Pagan groups do as well. I will argue here that opposition to gay and lesbian rights on a historical basis is misguided and – where not influenced by Judeo-Christian understanding of morality – is based on modern ideas of gender roles and categories. Homosexuality has not been universally seen as immoral; it has not even always been seen as homosexuality. As often happens, the truth is much more complex than the simple black and white model offered modern Western audiences.
We claim to live in an enlightened age yet we are trapped by our own understanding of gender roles and categories. We are brought up to believe that there are boys and there are girls. Boys have penises and girls have vaginas. And there is nothing in between and it is obvious how the pieces are supposed to go together. And no surprise: we are brought up to see the world in this way.
But it is not the only way; other cultures and other ages have different ideas and understandings. In the industrialized West we determine gender categories based on plumbing. We don’t base these categories on gender roles; instead, gender roles have for a long time been determined by gender categories: men fight and hunt; women engage in domestic duties.
Likewise, if a boy makes love to a boy, it is homosexuality. You thus have a category called “homosexual” – those who engage in same-sex sexual relations. Both participants are labeled as homosexuals.
But homosexuality, few people realize, is a modern concept. The pathology of the 19th century created the category from the male/female conceptualized as abnormal.[1] Ancient ideas about sex and sexuality are far more ambiguous.[2]
To claim therefore that modern distinctions and prejudices are simply continuances of ancient Pagan feeling on the subject is to misstate the case. As Marilyn Katz puts it, “the nineteenth-century notion of sexual pathology was unknown to antiquity.” As she goes on to say, “[T]here is a radical discontinuity between the ancient and modern discourses on sexuality.”[3]
This is a point upon which modern Pagans would do well to ponder. Will we appeal to the past, or to the present, or will we find our own way? And if we appeal to the past we must have a care that we do not impose our own prejudices on our interpretation of history. As Beate Wagner-Hasel observed in 1989, the debate over the status of women in ancient Greece “is not only an attempt to reconstruct a bygone way of life, it is also a discourse over woman’s place in modern bourgeois society which had its beginnings in the Enlightenment and has continued up until the present time.”[4]
Archaeologist Joan Breton-Connelly speaks of “presentist” assumptions – arguments based on or colored by “late twentieth -century political sensibilities.”[5] With regard to genders as “fixed” categories Breton-Connelly appeals to Judith Butler’s questioning of “woman” as a fixed category in her Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990) in which she “exposes the ways in which traditional feminist constructs decontextualize individuals from their historical, political, and cultural settings and identities.”[6] The same can be said of homosexuals as a fixed category.
OTHER PARADIGMS
But what if gender was based on gender roles instead of plumbing?
Take for example my own Norse ancestors. While a boy might be born with male sex organs, that simple fact did not in itself make him a man. Gender categories were not fixed and manhood was something that had to be earned – and maintained – through the activities normally associated with that gender category. This meant that while a boy and his penis could aspire to manhood, so could a woman. By laying aside one set of gender roles and embracing another, a woman could become a man. Conversely, a man could become a woman.
Critics – many of them Christian – and Western – say “you confuse gender roles with gender categories.” The answer to this claim is that such a viewpoint is ethnocentric and of little help in understanding the complex nature of gender issues both temporally and spatially.
“This is a world in which ‘masculinity’ always has a plus value, even (or perhaps especially) when it is enacted by a woman,” writes one scholar.[7] It was “a society in which being born male precisely did not confer automatic superiority, a society in which distinction had to be acquired, and constantly reacquired, by wresting it away from others.” Because women had no theoretical ceiling and men no theoretical floor, gender categories were flexible and movable.[8]
Like the Norse, the Romans and Greeks lacked a modern understanding of “homosexual” and “heterosexual.” Once again, it was not what a Roman “was” but what a Roman “did” that determined things. A Roman male was supposed to be a penetrator, the “active” partner in sexual activity. It was manly to penetrate; it was feminine to be penetrated.
The poet Horace put it thusly:
When your organ is stiff, and a servant girl
Or a young boy from the household is near at hand and you know
You can make an immediate assault, would you sooner burst with tension?
Not me. I like sex to be there and easy to get.
As one author puts it, for a free male citizen of Rome “to be sodomized was shameful, a betrayal of his masculinity. Anyone who was known to enjoy being buggered was scorned.”[9]
The Norse understood things in the same terms. “Anal penetration constructed the man who experienced it as whore, bride, mare, bitch, and the like – in whatever guise a female creature.”[10]
To put it bluntly: A hole was a hole was a hole, and quite literally, since the Roman word “vagina” (which means sword-sheath) applied equally to vagina and anus and certain Norse words served the same dual purpose.[11]
The evidence suggests that for the Norseman’s “character was not either male or female, but lay on a spectrum ranging from strong to week, aggressive to passive, powerful to powerless, winner to loser.”[12]
To be called a man was the highest compliment a man could pay a “woman,” as we see in Laxdaela Saga when Snorri of Helgafell says of Gudrun the Fair, “Now you can see what a man Gudrun is, when she gets the better of both of us.”
To be a man was to be hvatur – bold, active, and vigorous – and this was to be admired, whatever sort of plumbing you had. Likewise, to be blauður – soft and weak – was to be despised, whatever sort of plumbing you had.[13]
CONCLUSIONS
In our world of assumed certainty, things are far less certain than we like to pretend. As it turns out, gender roles and categories are nebulous, shifting things. In the end, they are what we say they are from age to age and culture to culture. We decide man = x and woman = y but x and y are neither fixed nor universal.
The moralizers in some ancient pre-Christian societies decided that men were penetrators and women were penetrated. The old ditty about Caesar demonstrates this, that he was “every woman’s man, and every man’s woman.” In contrast to today’s paradigm, by sodomizing another man Caesar would not be seen as effeminate; but being sodomized was another matter altogether.
Christian moralizers, following Jewish Law, presented the Western world with a new paradigm: Not only did men “insert” and women “receive,” but men could only be insertive with regards to women and women could only be recipients of men. Any toying with this equation was an abomination that had unhappy results for all concerned. And the derision of your fellows (in Pagan cultures) and a relatively quick death (in Judaism) was replaced in Christianity by an eternity of hellfire.[14]
And so it remains today.[15]
Except that these distinctions are all artificial. In mathematics numbers added to or subtracted from other numbers have certain, unchangeable results. But nature – and life – don’t work that way. There is homosexuality in the natural world outside of the human species – or at least we label it as such (we can’t possibly know how the animals involved would think of it).[16]
It is the human-imposed synthetic categories of “moral” and “immoral,” “normal” and “abnormal” that is unnatural. They are not universal; they are not constant and unchanging. They are what we say they are. And if we want, we can say they are something else. The irony is, for the West, that it is a religion that distances itself from nature that has decided for us what is and is not natural.
Some Pagan moralizers sound like conservative Christians; they like to say that homosexuality is immoral but they have forgotten to change their moral filters. For a reconstructionist religion making this determination isn’t reconstructing the past; its imposing modern prejudices on their model of the past (which had an entirely different set of prejudices).
On reconstructionist grounds alone, there is no basis for 21st century ideas about gender roles and categories; you cannot reconstruct what did not exist. It seems the pathology of the 19th century can capture those who escape the clutches of Judeo-Christian moralizing.
The monolithic and universal category of male/female is a myth, the determinants differing for every culture and/or religion. For one group to say “our way is the True way” is not only arrogant but wrong-minded. Just as every ethnic group or culture has a religion that is true for it (true because it works) so every culture has gender roles that work for it. We may not approve of them, but then, who are we to say that we are right and they are wrong? Put the shoe on the other foot and see how you feel about it.
Once we start imposing our particular views, once we start categorizing our local views as universal, we open ourselves up to a world where might makes right, where the dominant culture (which in recent centuries has been Western and Christian) determines in a blatantly ethnocentric manner what is right for everyone: this is what a woman is, this is what a man is. These are the rules permissible for men and women; conform or die.
But ancient Church Councils aside, universal truths are not attainable by popular vote. One book, developing out of one culture and society (and religion) no matter how popular, cannot dictate for everyone what determines gender roles and categories. Such an understanding is only one out of many thousands of possibilities.
If we are going to come to a new understanding of these matters, we have to set aside our arrogance and our ethnocentrism; we need a new paradigm…and a new discussion.
[1] Marilyn Katz, “Ideology and ‘The Status of Women’ in Ancient Greece,” History and Theory 31 (1992), 92. With regard to “homosexual” or “gay/lesbian,” and the effect of using one term over another see Steve Williams, “Gay and Lesbian or Homosexual? What’s in a Word?” http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/gay-and-lesbian-or-homosexual-does-it-matter/
[2] See Ray Laurence, Roman Passions: A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome (Continuum, 2009), 84-86 for a discussion of views of “homosexuality”in the Roman world.
[3] Katz (1992), 92.
[4] Beate Wagner-Hasel, “Frauenleben in orientalischer Abgeschlossenheit? Zur Geschichte und Nutzanwendung eines Topos,” Der Altsprachliche Unterricht 2 (1989), 19.
[5] Joan Breton-Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece (Princeton University Press, 2007), 19-20.
[6] Breton-Connelly (2007), 22.
[7] Carol Clover, “Regardless of Sex: Men, Women, and Power in Early Northern Europe,” Speculum 68 (1993), 372.
[8] Clover (1993), 380.
[9] Anthony Everitt, Augustus (Random House, 2006), 149.
[10] Clover (1993), 375.
[11] Clover (1993), 378.
[12] Nancy Marie Brown, The Far Traveler: Voyages of a Viking Woman (Harcourt, 2007), 74.
[13] Brown (2007), 74.
[14] And in Uganda, with the support of extremist American Evangelicals, we are seeing the return of the death penalty for homosexuality. See “Human Rights Impact Assessment of Uganda’s Anti-homosexuality Bill,” The Zeleza Post, January 17, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86439&id=18903-6770804-EYlalox&t=5
[15] See the discussion at ReligiousTolerance.org: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_legis.htm
[16] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He maintains a second blog, Digital Gods (www.digital-gods.com) which focuses on polytheism for the digital age. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion. 
On the traditionalist Catholic forum I’m a member of, the topic of homosexuality has come up recently, so I decided to jump in and point out that science has proven that gays are born that way. The replies I got ranged from the tired old myth “it’s a product of nurture/culture/abuse during childhood” or “developmental disorder” all the way to (and this is a direct quote):
“Even if homosexuality turns out to be biologically determined, so what? Neither the Bible nor the Church teach that homosexuality per se is sinful; rather, they affirm that sinfulness resides in homosexual acts. Biological homosexuality might then simply be envisioned as a consequence of original sin.”
(http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3427540.75.html)
Most of them just dismissed the evidence as nonsense and continued their homophobic tirades (turns out “sodomite” is a very popular word on Catholic forums).
On the other gender issue, women, I earlier pointed out the mistreatment of women by the Church throughout history, and the first reply I got was:
“Women still are not allowed in the sanctuary, and must wear a veil to show they are under their husbands authority. And they may not preach. And yes this is from the bible, St. Paul, St. Peter, and Genesis. Calling this “mistreatment” is a laugh. Mistreating them would be treating them like men.”
The common refrain throughout was that men and women are different, women are subject to men’s authority, and things should remain that way. This is viewed as God’s word, and should apply to all cultures – those that have different concepts of gender are automatically excluded from the Kingdom of God.
Essentially, people with these agendas, especially conservative Christians, create their own little world, where normal words have different definitions than in the rest of society. “Mistreatment” is one. Another is “universalism”: in traditional Christianity it does not equate pluralism, but simply means “anyone can come in, but once you’re in, you can’t go elsewhere”. It also means, notably with regard to this gender issue, that Christian values must be imposed on all, regardless of their cultural milieu. I think this is at the core of the topic you addressed. Despite modern developments, it’s hard to shake off centuries of Christian cultural indoctrination.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head, Metatron. That is at the core of the subject. I run across these attitudes quite frequently too and it astounds me. It astounds me even more when I continue to see in history books how Christianity freed women. Freed them? In what sense. I think Ramsay MacMullen puts paid to that particular myth rather well but it continues to come up. People repeat it, believe it; and have no comprehension of what they’re talking about. But then, you’re not supposed to question. Like they told Celsus in the third century: “Do not ask questions; just believe.”
I applaud you for trying with these people. You have more stomach for it than I do. I’ve taken to occasionally discussing their absurd claims here, rather than trying to argue with them on the forums (the Catholic Answers Forums).
I had some hope for dialogue with these people in the beginning, and I did have a bit of that, but very little. I don’t post much, since I know for the most part it’s quite useless. 9 out of 10 times any argument I’ll put forth will fall on deaf ears. The ones you can actually have a productive dialogue with are, alas, a minority.
Something that’s also amazed me on that forum is the common practice of not only putting down other religions, but other Catholics as well, who are considered “liberal” or non traditional. There’s people posting there, saying, with full conviction, that essentially people who attend the modern versions (post-1960s) of the Mass, as opposed to the more traditionalist versions (so called SSPX), will in fact go to hell. There’s a huge rift in the Catholic church itself simply because of ridiculous issues such as this. You’d never see Pagans bickering over stuff like this. The mudslinging and put downs on that forum are unbelievable.
But what really irritates me with regards to myths is one that’s often preached by the Church, including wholeheartedly on that forum, that Nazism and all of it’s monstrosities are a product of Neopaganism, and that the Nazis were Pagans themselves, which is completely false. The Nazis were Christians, and their anti-semitism was based on Christian literature (“Saint” Chrysostom and Luther namely). They were only Pagan in symbolism. In addition, most racists and neonazis today are fundamentalist Christians, not Pagans (though sadly a tiny minority, who make a lot of noise, do call themselves Pagans, thus further perpetuating this falsehood).
Just a final thought. Something the great emperor Julian said long ago, which is still true today:
“No wild beasts are so dangerous to men as Christians are to one another.”
There is nothing quite so offensive to me as re-writing history to make it more “user-friendly.” We’re seeing that among the Protestants too, with all the “America was founded as a Christian Nation” crap. If history isn’t to your liking, just re-write it – fact must fit the system rather than creating a system based on fact.
I share your feelings about the whole Nazism-as-Paganism line of bull and I’ve written about it here and elsewhere (NewsJunkiePost). Christianity invented anti-Semitism as we know it; just as it was Christianity that brought about slavery based on skin color; Christianity which perpetuated slavery in this country (based on biblical arguments)…the list is almost endless and their capacity for self delusion bottomless.
The emperor Julian was an early hero of mine and as soon as I could I bought myself a copy of “Against the Galileans.” It now shares a proud spot on my bookshelf along with Porphyry’s “Against the Christians” (R. Joseph Hoffmann’s reconstruction of it) and Celsus’ “On the True Doctrine.” I really don’t think any Pagan should be without these if he or she can help it. The arguments they raise are still valid. Seriously, any book the Christians want to burn, we should want to own.
Just to go along with that: these arguments about Nazi’s being Pagan, or at the very least, not-Christian, seem to just be a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. One that is very popular among Christians, it seems, when discussing things like the American Slave Trade or the Nazis.
“of course the Nazi’s weren’t REALLY Christian, because No True Christian… blah blah blah”
Yeah Julian was a great man. I read “Against the Galileans”. A lot of gems in there:
“Then if a man is jealous and envious you think him blameworthy, whereas if God is called jealous you think it a divine quality?”
“you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands.”
I find it incomprehensible that Julian today remains an ostracized and disreputable figure, even though he was a merciful and tolerant emperor who (as far as I know) never killed nor persecuted anyone, unlike his Christian contemporaries, and also unlike them, he rejected the opulence of the imperial court for a humble lifestyle. Criticisms against him remain even in modern historical works. I recently flipped through an otherwise decent, recently published survey of the Byzantine Empire, “Lost to the West” (Lars Brownworth), and the author praises Justinian (an anti pagan/semite mass murderer we can all agree) as a great cultural icon of the empire, while he describes Julian as a religious fanatic out of touch with his time and set on destroying Christianity. I simply can’t understand it.
I hear that one a lot, Benjamin. I’ve told them it just won’t work. Especially when many of the people making that claim are just as intolerant (in my experience at least) as the ones they’re accusing of not really being Christians. And of course, if you read the NT, you have to include Jesus then as not really being Christian, because he advocated genocide on a world-wide scale and said his message wasn’t for dogs and swine, as he called Gentiles. The irony seems to be lost on the bigoted, however.
I agree, Metatron. I think Julian was a little out of step with Paganism but it’s no surprise, given he was approaching it from quite a gap – a full generation since it was fully legal – but his intentions were good and laudable. I’ve always felt it a shame he wasn’t able to rebuild the Temple as well. I wonder how different history would have been had he lived. I’ve flipped through Lost to the West but hadn’t gotten around to reading it yet. Good to know about his view of that maniac Justinian up front. I far prefer Guy Gavriel Kay’s character based on Justinian in Sailing to Sarantium to the real thing.
Another reference that you might want to note is David F. Greenberg’s The Construction of Homosexuality, published by the University of Chicago Press. It was first published in 1988, but it’s still in print.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226306285
Actually, if you follow the links on the above page to their collections on Gay and Lesbian Studies and on Gender and Sexuality, you may find quite a few items of interest.
Thank you, Makarios. This is one of those articles I could have made several times as long, there is so much material. I didn’t even really get into Jenny Jochens on Norse women. What I will probably do is re-do the article for publication at mosmaiorum.org, not to make it longer but to make it a little more complete and to reference other sources of information on the subject.