Previously, in the more agrarian societies, they'd worked at animal husbandry as well as in the fields alongside the men; Thomas Hardy records the harvesting being a mostly female concern in the middle of the 19th century and were considered equal contributors to the household.
But when industrialisation and the move to the cities began, heavy labour became the province of men and women's roles were relegated. Their work was devalued by employers and so were considered lesser contributors.
So the church simply reflected the changed role of women. This would also have required the trumpeting of manliness, where sissiness was a threat, not just ot general order, but to impoverishment of the immediate family.
However, this article is quite illuminating .
The widespread appearance of queer subcultures across Europe around the year 1700 is almost certainly linked not to the rise of capitalism but to the rise of surveillance. Efficiently organized "police forces" hardly existed before then. The subculture was uncovered as a result of new social regulations rather than created by some tenuous link with economic structures or changing gender conceptions.
It seems that there were groups such as the Society for the Reformation of Manners whose original focus was prostitution, but who used the Biblical prohibition against buggery to bring the trade into disrepute (I could be mis-reading here). However, within a few decades they were seen as a general nuisance but had, by that time, succesfully driven homosexuality underground. Thus allowing puritannical instincts within society to demonize it further and render it socially unacceptable and shameful. keep to the Fen Causeway
Although interestingly, the Roman Empire, that most militaristic and "manly" society had no problem with homosexuality whatsoever...
That's not entirely true. Roman social sexuality seems to have been very complicated, with equal parts austere and ranting fundie patriarchy, and wild swinging.
Man-love seems to have been accepted, but not integrated. It wasn't persecuted, but it was seen as slightly disreputable and decadent, especially when compared to the Roman ideal of dutiful marriage.
The 'manly' part wasn't so much manly as driven by frenetic ancestor worship. The worst possible humiliation wasn't gay sex, it was letting down the family name.
The opposite of that was claiming glory for the family. Which is why the Romans eventually bred a generation of lunatics who conquered most of the known world more or less on their own, by force of will.
But I think there is a relationship between gay hating and nationalistic imperialism, at least in the Anglo countries. Anglo culture seems extremely rigid, controlling and obsessive, and the perceived passivity of gay sex might threaten that mindset.
I don't even think it's about sex, necessarily. The core Anglo myth is belief in one own's hermetically sealed individuality and personal destiny, and the personal power to influence people, places and things.
The prospect of getting buggered by someone doesn't sit well with that.
How about the prospect of buggering? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Late night listening.
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
But almost everything stated above about the de-socialization and general dissing of gays can also be applied to church treatment of women. So you're left with all the control in hands of a bunch of old, mostly white, men.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Women still had important roles later on, but not as official church heads.
A forgotten "saviour" of Athanasian Christianity is Theodelinda (lived AD ~570-628). She was a Bavarian princess married to Lombardian king Autharia (AD 584-590), after whose death she became a strong ruler: first shortly on her own, then via a figurehead husband-king (Agilulf, AD 591-616), then via her own son Adaloald (AD 616-626). At this time, Athanasian dominance was gone because most of the Germanic tribes were Arians (which was the main rival in the 4th century battle for monopoly in the Roman Empire). Now, Theodelinda was a religious fundie, and by propping up the Church in the forms of financial support, church-building and repression against Arians, she played a key role in resurrecting Athanasian Christianity as dominant at the heart of Christianity. (Though it would take another century until Athanasians also win against and suppress Arians among the nobility.)
Then, in the 9th century, the papacy had one of its more decadent periods at the time of Muslim invasions into Italy, called the pornocracy. Called so because the blame was later laid on some female aristocrats (Theodora and her daughter Marozia) who were in incestuous relationships and controlled several Popes. What they 'forgot' was that these women were shaped by exploitative Popes and aristocrats already in childhood, and male contemporaries and successors were no less decadent -- in fact Marozia's bad reputation is the work of her own power-hungry son Alberic II from 932, when he deposed her and her husband and took over, to rule Italy and control six successive puppet Popes. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
