#hostility in the religious mlm community | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

simonalkenmayer · 3 years

Note

"Former cult member answers cult questions from twitter" not sure if you'd be interested in this but you might! The person answering it is also a sociologist.

I’ve watched it and I have some thoughts.

I disagree with her on crucial points. In fact, most people who study this would disagree with what she said.

First, however, before anyone says “but she’s an expert because she was in a cult and she’s a sociologist” allow me to say that this doesn’t actually make you an expert on cults. Of course, a person who has been through it can tell you what they experienced, but they don’t necessarily have a studied or in-depth analysis of other cults with which to compare. It’s also true that sociologists study these things using specific lenses, so that needs to be taken into account. Also I haven’t verified any of her credentials or what cult or any of that, so skepticism is my first stance when watching anything sent to me anonymously via an ask and posted originally to YouTube.

That said, I disagree with her most strongly on two issues.

First:

There is no cult that has only two participants. That is just her opinion and she’s wrong. Why? Well let’s tackle that.

According to whom you ask, the definition of “cult” varies. Originally the term was coined by religious scholars to describe faiths that disagreed with them, including indigenous faiths. The term has been taken over and used by sociologists for years, and redefined until it is so loose as to be problematic, in my opinion. I tend to go with the APA definition, because they deal with the study of how to deprogram, the consequences of the traumas, and they study the psychology in play. Their research is used by law enforcement to observe and study the cults they track. The APA defines a cult as “1. a religious or quasi-religious group characterized by unusual or atypical beliefs, seclusion from the outside world, and an authoritarian structure. Cults tend to be highly cohesive, well organized, secretive, and hostile to nonmembers. 2. the system of beliefs and rituals specific to a particular religious group.”

As you can see, that second definition is more in line with what sociologists have used, I.e. to discuss things like “the cult of Diana” or “an Egyptian sub cult” That concerns me, because it can be used to classify damn near anything as a cult. It’s not helpful and the term’s association with faith-based critique makes it very troublesome to me.

By the APA definition, a cult surrounds a set of ideas, traditions, a culture. It is a delusion that can only be sustained by the systematic identity scrubbing, brainwashing, indoctrination, peer pressure, group dynamics, and reinforcement of a body of believers. Otherwise it’s just a folie a deux or a sustained psychosis or delusion of two people, or it’s simply an abusive relationship. A cult requires the group, to function and to maintain and to reach its goals, which they almost always have— a utopian society, a political ambition, worship of some entity to achieve blessings, communing with alien overlords, make change in a way they approve of, a race war, etc. in Group Dynamics, that classifies them within task-based groups, meaning specific dynamics are in play. So no, there is no such thing as a cult of one, or whatever the hell she was saying.

Secondly:

I strongly disagree with her classification of MLMs as cults. MLM are a Ponzi scheme, a financial arrangement, an economic classification—not a psychological one. an MLM can be used just as effectively by a con artist as a cult. How does it differ? Well, a cult, by the APA, has that authoritarian structure and punishments for lack of specific types of participation. People cannot escape because of their indoctrination, NOT because of a need for funds or lack of funds.

They can be used by cults, or lead to cult-like behaviors in sub-groups, but they are not inherently cults. They contribute to indoctrination and peer pressure by using capitalist motives to cause people to subvert their identity in order to make money. I’m afraid her classification does much more harm than good. Much much more.

What I’m trying to say is, an MLM is a tool, and used with other tools it can lend a cult its insular culture and consequences, but it disregards the unique damage an MLM can do on its own, even with no cult-like participation from the victim. A con artist can use an MLM to victimize while not actually building a cult.

I want to draw attention to this very comprehensive list made by Steven Hassan of all the ways in which indoctrination takes place and how, within a cult. It’s extremely detailed and very good. The specific goal of all this behavioral control is to make the subjects weak and unquestioning. It’s to isolate them from the world at large. It’s to make them question reality on a constant basis so that they can be ordered to do whatever it is that the central figure decrees is demanded. The BITE model is one referenced continuously in every contemporary study of cults because again, the central purpose and design of a cult is to coerce docility.

In group dynamics we look at how interactions between different figures within the group contribute to the eventual actions of the group and its members. We identify patterns within behavior and see if those patterns apply to all groups, or only certain types. For example, one thing often discussed when referencing cults, is the idea of the “inner circle”. But it’s not as simple as “a group of friends” who are closest to the leader. In a cult, the inner circle group isnt merely a set of devoted followers. No. They’re also people who have achieved some kind of status through displays of both devotion and willingness to have power within the organization. Control of the others is delegated to them, along certain parameters. It’s then their behavior as a group within a group that can be used to apply leverage or control to the others, policing authority derived specifically from their own participation in the circle, increased privileges, often they are encouraged to physically harm or control the other members. They sometimes vie for power within their own group and this can drastically shift dynamics and trickle down to the others. They are almost always active participants in abusing people to assist in the disruption of identity or understanding of reality. They align with blocking roles and achieve a polarized group through false consensus. They are also often informants on the others in the group, triggers for disciplinary action. Their behavior obeys patterns. Group dynamics deals with those patterns.

In any case…

I disagree with her words and I think distinctions and detail are important. Especially if people want to understand how cults form and work.

#group dynamics #cults

23 notes · View notes

deco-devolution · 3 years

Photo

Sexuality & Gender In Columbia

Okay, so this is a frankly huge topic to cover, and because there is so little direct reference to any non-heterosexual/cisgender culture in the games, a lot of this will be me sharing/explaining my headcanons/worldbuilding. My ideas will be based on historical record of LGBT+ struggles at the time (1890-1915) and mostly US-centric, as Columbia seems to be fairly westernized. in addition, I will be focusing purely on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities to cut down on post size and research time. Here we go!

Note: These all refer to Columbia (Rapture has a separate post) culture in the peak of the city’s life- a snapshot into queer Columbia circa 1910, roughly speaking. As such my talk about the culture is purely as I’d imagine it to be at that specific time only with no details as to the cultural development to that point.

cw for homophobia, transphobia, q slur

Sexuality In Columbia

If you’re not straight it’s over for you

Quips aside, just from playing the game you can tell Columbia is ruled by the most staunch of conservatism. The Edwardian Era in real-world history made heavy emphasis on modesty and a sense of duty but Columbia takes it a step beyond, and this can be seen in most every example of media or dialogue found in-game. Having such traditional Biblical leanings, it can easily argued that this also extends to sexuality.

Right off the bat, I feel like this is Heterosexual (& Cisgender) Land™. Any other sort of attraction, be it gay, bisexual, or anything else, is considered reckless experimentation at best and ungodly and deserving of punishment at worst. Aside from the religiously-motivated belief that only straight relationships are legit, there’s another reason they’re so heavily emphasized- population growth. Columbia, for all its pomp still has a relatively small population on a national scale- just from some educated guesses I’d put it around the borough to town region, as indicated on the settlement hierarchy of ekistics. While the limited space of the city means that the population can’t just continue to grow, a certain rate of births is needed to keep the population level.

Interestingly enough, even though Columbia is a hotspot of religious zealotry, the city still follows the conventions of Edwardian/Early WWI society- very proper, highly formalized in its ideals. Aside the propaganda and fearmongering, personal details are still taboo in polite conversation.

Cruising is done in places where social conventions are significantly different from formal events or even everyday conventions- namely the beach, pubs and lounges.

In the same vein, hookups, flings, and dates are called vague things like “going out to lunch/drinks”, “going for a stroll” or “having a picnic” and same-gender partners are typically referred to as close friends. It’s all very underhanded, the result of both Edwardian discreetness and closeted language.

Gender In Columbia

Like most of Columbian society, the queer groups in Columbia tend to gather based on gender. Lesbians share space with bisexual women, and gay men stick with bisexual men. As far as trans communities go, however, the cisnormative, rigid interpretation of gender predominant in Columbia means that they tend to be misunderstood among the other queer groups. Typically not in a blatantly hostile way but rather an obnoxiously condescending “poor confused dear” way.

Gender is not so much an identifier as much as an determinator; whatever you are assigned will be the factor driving not only your upbringing but your life choices as well.

There are quite a few social clubs that operate as safe spaces for the community- they typically rotate between the members’ houses and frequently merge or splinter with or from other groups, going from book club, to knitting social to any other politely banal gathering.

For those looking to dress how they’d like in safety, ‘costume clubs’ are popular among gender non-conforming, trans people and those interested in crossdressing. They present themselves as sort of novelty dance halls with every day being a masquerade. While technically legal, their image is strongly connected to immorality and looseness in Columbia and as such they’re rare and subject to higher levels scrutiny then other halls.

Because of the rigidity of the culture, the LGBT+ culture in Columbia uses nonverbal queues to state their identities- for example men place certain flowers in buttonholes or alternatively pin them to their lapels to let outsiders know they’re in the community. Women can put these same blossoms in their hats, brooches and hair. These include flowers such as lavender, violets, pansies, carnations and daffodils.

There are HRT gene tonics for sale- they’re marketed under the guise of improving a woman’s femininity or man’s masculinity, they’re sold in pharmacies in the health and beauty aisles without the need for a prescription. This helps some looking to transition do so much easier, though the issue of financial barriers for those who are younger and/or living in poverty still linger. As far as options like SRS go, the procedure is entirely underground, practiced by surgeons of varying repute. While being able to do so successfully is considered a show of skill, most practitioners and citizens are morally opposed to the idea.

Unlike Rapture, there’s not many fun or quirky terms for LGBT+ citizens. Those with same gender attraction are rudely referred to as “victims of unnatural passions” and those who ID as anything other then cisgender are accused of “falling into delusions of identity”. Among themselves though, WLW call themselves “Lady Lovers of Liberty” (as in the statue based on the Roman goddess Libertas) while MLM call themselves “Sons of Antinous” while trans citizens typically refer to themselves as “Children of Agdistis”. (Note that while Agdistis was portrayed as intersex in Roman mythology, their nonbinary existence and transformative identity made them a relatable icon for most trans people in Columbia)

Questions or comments? Let me know! Thanks for reading.

#mine #bioshock infinite #biotalk #bioshock #will update soon!

129 notes · View notes

jeannereames · 3 years

Note

Hi, Dr. Reames! I just read your take on Song of Achilles and it got me thinking. Do you think there might be a general issue with the way women are written in mlm stories in general? Because I don't think it's the first time I've seen something like this happen.

And my next question is, could you delve further into this thing you mention about modern female authors writing women? How could we, beginner female writers, avoid falling into this awful representations of women in our writing?

Thank you for your time!

[It took a while to finish this because I wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote it. Still not sure I like it, but I need to let it go. It could be 3xs as long.]

I’ll begin with the second half of the question, because it’s simpler. How do we, as women authors, avoid writing women in misogynistic ways?

Let me reframe that as how can we, as female authors, write negative (even quite nasty) female characters without falling into misogynistic tropes? Also, how can we write unsympathetic, but not necessarily “bad” female characters, without it turning misogynistic?

Because people are people, not genders, not all women are good, nor all men bad. Most of us are a mix. If we should avoid assuming powerful women are all bitches, by the same token, some women are bitches (powerful or not).

ALL good characterization comes down to MOTIVE. And careful characterization of minority characters involves fair REPRESENTATION. (Yes, women are a minority even if we’re 51% of the population.)

The question ANY author must ask: why am I making this female character a bitch? How does this characterization serve the larger plot and/or characterization? WHY is she acting this way?

Keep characters complex, even the “bad guys.” Should we choose to make a minority character a “bad guy,” we need to have a counter example—a real counter, not just a token who pops in briefly, then disappears. Yeah, maybe in an ideal world we could just let our characters “be,” but this isn’t an ideal world. Authors do have an audience. I’m a lot less inclined to assume stereotyping when we have various minority characters with different characterizations.

By the same token, however, don’t throw a novel against the wall if the first minority character is negative. Read further to decide if it’s a pattern. I’ve encountered reviews that slammed an author for stereotyping without the reader having finished the book. I’m thinking, “Uh…if you’d read fifty more pages….” Novels have a developmental arc. And if you’ve got a series, that, too, has a developmental arc. One can’t reach a conclusion about an author’s ultimate presentation/themes until having finished the book, or series.*

Returning to the first question, the appearance of misogyny depends not only on the author, but also on when she wrote, even why she’s writing. Authors who are concerned with matters such as theme and message are far more likely to think about such things than those who write for their own entertainment and that of others, which is more typical of Romance.

On average, Romance writers are a professionalized bunch. They have national and regional chapters of the Romance Writers of America (RWA), newsletters and workshops that discuss such matters as building plot tension, character dilemmas, show don’t tell, research tactics, etc. Yet until somewhat recently (early/mid 2010s), and a series of crises across several genres (not just Romance), treatment of minority groups hadn’t been in their cross-hairs. Now it is, with Romance publishers (and publishing houses more generally) picking up “sensitivity readers” in addition to the other editors who look at a book before its publication.

Yet sensitivity readers are hired to be sure lines like “chocolate love monkey” do not show up in a published novel. Yes, that really was used as an endearment for a black man in an M/M Romance, which (deservedly) got not just the author but the publishing house in all sorts of hot water. Yet misogyny, especially more subtle misogyny in the way of tropes, is rarely on the radar.

I should add that I wouldn’t categorize The Song of Achilles as an M/M historical Romance. In fact, I’m not sure what to call novels about myths, as myths don’t exist in actual historical periods. When should we set a novel about the Iliad? The Bronze Age, when Homer said it happened, or the Greek Dark Age, which is the culture Homer actually described? They’re pretty damn different. I’d probably call The Song of Achilles an historical fantasy, especially as mythical creatures are presented as real, like centaurs and god/desses.

Back to M/M Romance: I don’t have specific publishing stats, but it should surprise no one that (like most of the Romance genre), the vast bulk of authors of M/M Romance are women, often straight and/or bi- women. The running joke seems to be, If one hot man is good, two hot men together are better. 😉 Yes, there are also trans, non-binary and lesbian authors of M/M Romance, and of course, bi- and gay men who may write under their own name or a female pseudonym, but my understanding is that straight and bi- cis-women authors outnumber all of them.

Just being a woman, or even a person in a female body, does not protect that author from misogyny. And if she’s writing for fun, she may not be thinking a lot about what her story has to “say” in its subtext and motifs, even if she may be thinking quite hard about other aspects of story construction. This can be true of other genres as well (like historical fantasy).

What I have observed for at least some women authors is the unconscious adoption of popular tropes about women. Just as racism is systemic, so is sexism. We swim in it daily, and if one isn’t consciously considering how it affects us, we can buy into it by repeating negative ideas and acting in prescribed ways because that’s what we learned growing up. If writing in a symbol-heavy genre such as mythic-driven fantasy, it can be easy to let things slip by—even if they didn’t appear in the original myth, such as making Thetis hostile to Patroklos, the classic Bitchy Mother-in-Law archetype.

I see this sort of thing as “accidental” misogyny. Women authors repeat unkind tropes without really thinking them through because it fits their romantic vision. They may resent it and get defensive if the trope is pointed out. “Don’t harsh my squee!” We can dissect why these tropes persist, and to what degree they change across generations—but that would end up as a (probably controversial) book, not a blog entry. 😊

Yet there’s also subconscious defensive misogyny, and even conscious/semi-conscious misogyny.

Much debate/discussion has ensued regarding “Queen Bee Syndrome” in the workplace and whether it’s even a thing. I think it is, but not just for bosses. I also would argue that it’s more prevalent among certain age-groups, social demographics, and professions, which complicates recognizing it.

What is Queen Bee Syndrome? Broadly, when women get ahead at the expense of their female colleagues who they perceive as rivals, particularly in male-dominated fields, hinging on the notion that There Can Be Only One (woman). It arises from systemic sexism.

Yes, someone can be a Queen Bee even with one (or two) women buddies, or while claiming to be a feminist, supporting feminist causes, or writing feminist literature. I’ve met a few. What comes out of our mouths doesn’t necessarily jive with how we behave. And ticking all the boxes isn’t necessary if you’re ticking most of them. That said, being ambitious, or just an unpleasant boss/colleague—if its equal opportunity—does not a Queen Bee make. There must be gender unequal behavior involved.

What does any of that have to do with M/M fiction?

The author sees the women characters in her novel as rivals for the male protagonists. It gets worse if the women characters have some “ownership” of the men: mothers, sisters, former girlfriends/wives/lovers. I know that may sound a bit batty. You’re thinking, Um, aren’t these characters gay or at least bi- and involved with another man, plus—they’re fictional? Doesn’t matter. Call it fantasizing, authorial displacement, or gender-flipped authorial insert. We authors (and I include myself in this) can get rather territorial about our characters. We live in their heads and they live in ours for months on end, or in many cases, years. They’re real to us. Those who aren't authors often don’t quite get that aspect of being an author. So yes, sometimes a woman author acts like a Queen Bee to her women characters. This is hardly all, or even most, but it is one cause of creeping misogyny in M/M Romance.

Let’s turn to a related problem: women who want to be honorary men. While I view this as much more pronounced in prior generations, it’s by no means disappeared. Again, it’s a function of systemic sexism, but further along the misogyny line than Queen Bees. Most Queen Bees I’ve known act/react defensively, and many are (imo) emotionally insecure. It’s largely subconscious. More, they want to be THE woman, not an honorary man.

By contrast, women who want to be honorary men seem to be at least semi-conscious of their misogyny, even if they resist calling it that. These are women who, for the most part, dislike other women, regard most of “womankind” as either a problem or worthless, and think of themselves as having risen above their gender.

And NO, this is not necessarily religious—sometimes its specifically a-religious.

“I want to be an honorary man” women absolutely should NOT be conflated with butch lesbians, gender non-conformists, or frustrated FTMs. That plays right into myths the queer community has combated for decades. There’s a big difference between expressing one’s yang or being a trans man, and a desire to escape one’s womanhood or the company of other women. “Honorary men” women aren’t necessarily queer. I want to underscore that because the concrete example I’m about to give does happen to be queer.

I’ve talked before about Mary Renault’s problematic portrayal of women in her Greek novels (albeit her earlier hospital romances don’t show it as much). Her own recorded comments make it clear that she and her partner Julie Mullard didn’t want to be associated with other lesbians, or with women much at all. She was also born in 1905, living at a time when non-conforming women struggled. If extremely active in anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, Renault and Mullard were far less enthused by the Gay Rights Movement. Renault even criticized it, although she wrote back kindly to her gay fans.

The women in Renault’s Greek novels tend to be either bitches or helpless, reflecting popular male perceptions of women: both in ancient Greece and Renault’s own day. If we might argue she’s just being realistic, that ignores the fact one can write powerful women in historical novels and still keep it attitudinally accurate. June Rachuy Brindel, born in 1919, author of Ariadne and Phaedra, didn’t have the same problem, nor did Martha Rofheart, born in 1917, with My Name is Sappho. Brindel’s Ariadne is much more sympathetic than Renault’s (in The King Must Die).

Renault typically elevates (and identifies with) the “rational” male versus the “irrational” female. This isn’t just presenting how the Greeks viewed women; it reflects who she makes the heroes and villains in her books. Overall, “good” women are the compliant ones, and the compliant women are tertiary characters.

Women in earlier eras who were exceptional had to fight multiple layers of systemic misogyny. Some did feel they had to become honorary men in order to be taken seriously. I’d submit Renault bought into that, and it (unfortunately) shows in her fiction, as much as I admire other aspects of her novels.

So I think those are the three chief reasons we see women negatively portrayed in M/M Romance (or fiction more generally), despite being written by women authors.

------------------------------------

*Yeah, yeah, sometimes it’s such 2D, shallow, stereotypical presentation that I, as a reader, can conclude this author isn’t going to get any better. Also, the publication date might give me a clue. If I’m reading something published 50 years ago, casual misogyny or racism is probably not a surprise. If I don’t feel like dealing with that, I close the book and put it away.

But I do try to give the author a chance. I may skim ahead to see if things change, or at least suggest some sort of character development. This is even more the case with a series. Some series take a loooong view, and characters alter across several novels. Our instant-gratification world has made us impatient. Although by the same token, if one has to deal with racism or sexism constantly in the real world, one may not want to have to watch it unfold in a novel—even if it’s “fixed” later. If that’s you, put the book down and walk away. But I’d just suggest not writing a scathing review of a novel (or series) you haven’t finished. 😉

#misogyny in m/m romance #how to avoid misogyny writing women characters #writing complicated women characters #asks #writing life #writing advice

15 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 4 years

Note

I want to hear about gay knights. Please.

Ahaha. So this is me finally getting, post-holiday, to the subject that was immediately clamoured for, when I volunteered to discuss the historical accuracy of gay knights if someone requested it. It reminds me somewhat of when my venerable colleague @oldshrewsburyian volunteered to discuss lesbian nuns, and was immediately deluged by requests to do just that. In my opinion, gay knights and lesbian nuns are the mlm/wlw solidarity of the Middle Ages, even if the tedious constructionists would like to remind us that we can’t exactly use those terms for them. It also forces us to consider the construction of modern heterosexuality, our erroneous notions of it as hegemonically transhistorical, and the fact that behaviour we would consider “queer” (and therefore implicitly outside mainstream society) was not just mainstream, but central, valorized, and crucial to constructions of medieval manhood, if not without existential anxieties of its own. Because medieval societies were often organized around the chivalric class, i.e. the king and his knights, his ability to make war, and the cultural prestige and homosocial bonds of his retinue, if you were a knight, you were (increasingly as the medieval era went on) probably a person of some status. You had a consequential role to play in this world, and your identity was the subject of legal, literary, cultural, social, religious, and other influences. And a lot of that was also, let’s face it, what the 21st century would consider Kinda Gay.

The central bond in society, the glue that made it work, was the relationships between soldiers, battlefield brotherhoods, and the intense, self-sacrifical love for the other that is familiar to anyone who has ever watched a war movie, and dates back (in explicitly gay form, at least) to the Sacred Band of Thebes. Medieval society had a careful and contested interaction with this ideal and this kind of relationship between men. Because they needed it for the successful prosecution of military ventures, they held it up as the best kind of love, to which the love of a woman could never entirely aspire, but that also ran the risk of the possibility of it turning (homo)sexual. Same-sex sexual activity was well-known in the Middle Ages, the end, full stop. The use of penitentials, or confessors’ handbooks, as sources for views or practices of queer sexual behaviour has been criticised (you will swiftly find that almost EVERYTHING used as a source for queer history is criticised, shockingly), but there remains the fact that Burchard of Worms’ 11th-century Decretum, a vast compilation of canon law, mentions same-sex behaviour among its list of sins, but assigns it a comparatively light penance. (I don’t have the actual passage handy, but it’s a certain amount of days of fasting on bread and water.) It assigns much heavier penalties for Burchard’s main concern, which was sorcery and the practice of un-Christian beliefs, rituals, or other persistent holdovers from paganism. This is not to say that homosexuality was accepted, per se, but it was known about, it must have happened enough for priests to list in their handbooks of sins, and it wasn’t The End of The World. Frankly, I am tired of having to argue that queer people existed and engaged in queer activity in the Middle Ages (not directed at you, but in general). Of course they did. Obviously they did. Moving on!

Anyway. Returning to gay knights specifically, the fact remained that if you encouraged two dudes to love each other beyond all other bonds, they might, you know, actually bang. This was worrisome, especially in the twelfth century, as explored by Matthew Kuefler, ‘Male Friendship and the Suspicion of Sodomy in Twelfth-Century France’ and Ruth Mazo Karras, ‘Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and Sodomy’ in The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, ed. Matthew Kuefler (Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 179-214 and 273-86. I have written a couple papers (in the ever-tedious process of one day being turned into journal articles) on the subject of the Extremely Queer Richard the Lionheart, some material of which can be found in my tag for him. Richard’s queerness has been argued over for a long time, we all throw rotten banana peels at John Gillingham who took it upon himself to deny, ignore, or minimize all the evidence, but anyway. Richard was a very masculine and powerful man and formidably talented soldier who could not be reduced to the stereotype of the effeminate, weak, or impotent sodomite, and the fact that he was a prince, a duke, and a king was probably why he was repeatedly able to get away with it. But he wasn’t alone, and he wasn’t the only one. He was very much part of his culture and time, even if he kept running into ecclesiastical reprisals for it. It happened. If you want a published discussion that covers some of my points (though not all of them), there is William E. Burgwinkle, ‘The Curious Case of Richard the Lionheart’, in Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in Medieval Literature: France and England, 1050-1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 73–85. Also on the overall topic, Robert Mills, Seeing Sodomy in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).

Peter the Chanter, a Parisian cleric, also wrote De vitio sodomitico, a chapter of his Verbum abbreviatum, fulminating against “men with men, women with women [masculi cum masculis […] mulieres cum mulieribus]” which apparently happened far too often for his liking in twelfth-century Paris (along with cross-dressing and other genderqueer behaviour; the Latin version of this can be found in ‘Verbum Abbreviatum: De vitio sodomitico’ in Patrologia Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: 1855), vol. 205, pp. 333–35). Moving into the thirteenth and especially fourteenth centuries, this bond only grew in importance, and involved a new kind of anxiety. Richard Zeikowitz’s book, Homoeroticism and Chivalry: Discourses of Male Same-Sex Desire in the 14th Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), explores this discourse in detail, and points out that the intensely homoerotic element of chivalry was deeply embedded in medieval culture – and that this was something that was not queer, i.e. unusual, to them. It is modern audiences who see this behaviour as somehow contravening our expected stereotypes of medieval knights as Ultra Manly No Homo Men. When we label this “medieval queerness,” we are also making a judgment about our own expectations, and the way in which we ourselves have normalized one narrow and rigid view of masculinity.

England then had two queer kings in the 14th century, Edward II and Richard II, both of whom ended up deposed. These were for other political reasons, but their queerness was not irrelevant to assessments of their character and the reactions of their contemporaries. Sylvia Federico (‘Queer Times: Richard II in the Poems and Chronicles of Late Fourteenth-Century England’, Medium Aevum 79 (2010), 25–46) has studied the corpus of queer-coded historical writing around Richard, and noted that while the Lancastrian propaganda postdating the usurpation of Henry IV in 1399 obviously had an intent to cast his predecessor in as unfit a light as possible, the accusations of queerness started during Richard’s reign, “well before any real practical design on the throne […] and well before the famous lapse into tyranny that characterized the reign’s last few years. In poems and chronicles produced from the mid-1380s to the early 1390s, and in language that is highly charged with homophobic references, Richard II is marked as unfit to rule”. E. Amanda McVitty (‘False Knights and True Men: Contesting Chivalric Masculinity in English Treason Trials, 1388–1415,’ Journal of Medieval History 40 (2014), 458–77) examined how the treason trials of high-status individuals centred on a symbolic deconstruction of his chivalric manhood, demoting and exiling him from the intricate homosocial networks that governed the creation and performance of medieval masculinity.

This appears to have been a fairly extensive phenomenon, and one not confined to the geopolitical space of England. Henric Bagerius and Christine Ekholst (‘Kings and Favourites: Politics and Sexuality in Late Medieval Europe’, Journal of Medieval History 43 (2017), 298–319) traced the use of ‘discursive sodomy’ as a rhetorical tool employed against five late medieval monarchs, including Richard II and his great-grandfather Edward II, John II and Henry IV of Castile, and Magnus Eriksson of Sweden. In all cases, the ruler in question was viewed as emotionally and possibly sexually dependent on another man, subject to his evil counsels and treacherous wiles, and this reflected a communal anxiety that the body of the king himself – and thus the body politic – had been unacceptably queered. Nonetheless, as a divinely anointed figure and the head of state, the accusations of gender displacement or suspected sodomy could not be placed directly on the king, and were instead deflected onto the favourites themselves, generally characterised as greedy, grasping men of ignoble birth, who subverted both social and sexual order by their domination of the supposedly passive king.

None of this polemic produced by hostile sources can be read as direct confirmation of the private and physical actions of the kings behind closed doors, but in a sense, this is immaterial. The intimate lives of presumably heterosexual individuals are constructed on the same standards of evidence and to much greater certainty. In other words, queerness and queer/gay favourites could not have functioned as a textual metaphor or charged accusation if there was not some understanding of it as a lived behaviour. After all, if the practice did not physically exist or was not considered as a potential reality, there could have been no anxieties around the possibility of its improper prosecution.

This leads us nicely into the deeply vexed question of adelphopoiesis, or the “brother-making” ceremony argued by some, including John Boswell, as a medieval form of gay marriage. (Boswell, who died of AIDS in 1994, published the landmark Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality in 1980, and among other things, controversially argued that the medieval Catholic church was a vehicle for social acceptance of gay people.) Boswell’s critics have fiercely attacked this stance, claiming that the ceremony was only intended to join two men together in a celibate sibling-like relationship. A Straight Historian who participated in a modern version of the ceremony in 1985 actually argued that since she had no sexual inclinations or motives in taking part, clearly it was never used for that purpose by medieval men either. (Pause for sighing.)

The problem is: we can’t argue intentions or private actions either way. We can understand what the idealized and legal designation for the ceremony was intended to be, but we cannot then outrageously claim that every historical individual who took part in it did so for the party line reason. Maybe medieval men who joined together in brother-making ceremonies did live a celibate and saintly life (this would not be surprising). It seems ludicrous to argue, however, that none of them were romantically in love with each other, or that they never ever ever had sex, because surprise, formulaic documents and institutional guidelines cannot tell us anything about the actions of real individuals making complex choices. Even if this was not always a homosexual institution (and once again with the dangerous practice of equivocating queerness with explicitly practiced and “provable” sexual behaviour), it was beyond all reasonable doubt a homoromantic one, and one sanctioned and organised according to well-known medieval conventions, desires (for two men to live together and love each other above all) and anxieties (that they might then have sex).

The medieval men who took a ‘brother’ would probably not have seen it as a marriage, or as the kind of household formation or social contract implied in a heterosexual union, but as we have also discussed, the definition of marriage in the Middle Ages was under constant contestation anyway. The church was constantly anxious about knights: their violence, their (oftentimes) lack of religiosity, their proclivity for tournaments, swearing, drinking, and other immoral behaviour, the possibility of them having sexual affairs with each other and/or with women (though Andreas Capellanus, in De amore, wrote an entire spectacularly misogynistic handbook about how to have the right kind of love affair with a woman and dismissed same-sex relationships in one sentence as gross and unworthy, so he was clearly the No Homo Bro Knight of his day). So, as this has gotten long: gay knights were basically one of the central social, religious, and cultural concerns of the entire Middle Ages, due to their position in society, their necessity in a warlike culture, the social influence of chivalry and their tendency to bad behaviour, their perceived influence over the king (who they may also have given their Gay Cooties), their disregard of the church’s teachings, and the ever-present possibility that their love wasn’t celibate. So yes. Gay knights: Hella Historically Accurate.

The end.

#history #medieval history #queer history #gay knights #long post #i have a lot more to say but yes #the old guard meta #for reference #though this post was originally written in december 2019 #anonymous #ask

1K notes · View notes