The Worth Of Women

1. Corinna argued that a man’s good qualities come from women since the very beginning, “If a man has some virtues, it is because he has picked them up from the woman he lives with, whether mother, nurse, sister, or wife- for over time, inevitably, some of her good qualities will rub off on him” (Cox, p. 58). Cornelia said that it also takes a man to ruin a woman, “he takes advantage of her naivete and gradually strips her of all her natural feminine dignity and power until she is finally reduced to prostitution, either because he has abandoned her, as often happens, or because some other hardship forces her into it” (Cox, p. 89). Then the women they ruined will give men a taste of their medicine, “just as men once preyed on their honor, they prey on men’s purses” (Cox, p.89). This loop seems pretty interesting to me. Boys are first exposed to women’s virtues, especially their mother. Then their father comes around and inject them with social standards and ignorance. By the time they become old enough, they tend to act on what their father told them, but keep the virtues they learned from their mothers in the back of their heads. Some virtues were obviously lost, either by choice or just pure brainwashing. Then they go on and contaminate women. Them some women will back stab them with the same strategy that men used. It just seems like this is a continuous, zero- sum loop. Nobody wins in this loop, yet it was the structure of society for many years.
2. I never understood the social interactions between men and women, especially husbands and wives. After the reading, I am convinced that “men are completely wrong when they claim such superiority over us and refuse to recognize our great worth, when ultimately a man without a woman is like a fly without a head” (Cox, p. 116). I don’t think the society appreciate women enough on what they have done; this is probably because the fact that the society is still dominated by mostly men. But it was eye opening for me to learn that the women in Sparta, “who, when their husbands were in prison, obtained permission from the enemy to visit their men and then removed their feminine clothes and dressed their men in them, remaining in the prison themselves to be killed as a punishment while they sent their men out of danger” (Cox, p. 111). And the fact that some women, “whose city was captured and who obtained permission from the enemy to leave in safety with all the possessions they could carry with them. And, leaving everything else behind them, they could carry away their husbands or fathers or children or brothers, leaving their homeland with all their possessions in prey to the enemy” (Cox, p. 111). Personally, I have never heard of these stories; I was always told on how a male hero saved his city with his brilliance, or some male kid doing something smart that I should learn. I think stories like this should be told more, and it is nice for me to learn.
3. I was really shocked by the fact that both the author and the fictional characters know so much about bodies and medicine. This idea was initially introduced when the group of women was discussion their diets, “’You must have a complexion that tends toward the hot and the dry,’ said Corinna, ‘because fish is bad for those whose complexion is dominated by phlegm’” (Cox, p. 142) On the footnote, it says that during this time, “Foodstuffs, like human bodies, were thought to be characterized by differing combinations of the four basic ‘qualities’ of ‘contraries’ (cold, hot, dry, and moist). Imbalances could lead to ill health: thus people of ‘phlegmatic’ complexion (cold and moist) were advised to avoid cold and moist foods like fish” (Cox, p. 142) This characterization is very similar to the yin and yang energies described in Asian culture. They both drew conclusions that bodies and foods should be separated based on their elements like the following: gender, environment, etc. They also believe that eating the compatible food with your specific body is the most healthy. The text also touched on natural medicines and remedies, “The narcissus, hyacinth, jasmine, and carnation are among the stronger smelling flowers. The first two have a short life, while the second two last rather longer. And each of them has particular properties. And the same can be said of white lilies and irises, which have aperient and warming properties” (Cox, p. 176). This idea is also heavily seen throughout Asian culture. Most shockingly, both Asian writings and this text believed that white lilies have aperient and warming properties. I think this not a coincidence; it shows that either international trades were dominate, or the fact that knowledge has no boundaries.
   
4. An interesting point was brought up during the conversation about love. Lucretia mentioned that “when love has really found its way into someone’s heart, I don’t believe that anything except death can really cauterize and cure it. But we’re not just talking about grand passions, but about affection in general, since, as we’ve already established, we women have such a tendency to be affectionate by nature” (Cox, p. 171). In modern interpretation, this is very similar to Freud’s Eros and Thanatos. The idea is that we all have desires, and women’s natural tendency to be affectionate is driven by the desire of love, because we want love naturally ever since we were babies. Lucretia realized that desires like love cannot be removed unless we are dead is the same idea that philosophers also concluded. I think this overlap serves as an introduction to modern philosophy, which is pretty cool.
   

1. Corinna mentioned in the conversation, “that of acquiring the knowledge of good and evil- that Eve allowed herself to be carried away and eat the forbidden fruit. But Adam was not moved by this desire for knowledge, but simply by greed: he ate it because he heard Eve say it tasted good, which was a worse motive and caused more displeasure” (Cox, p. 94). Eve was the first to try the forbidden fruit, and she did it out of ignorance. Eve didn’t know what would happen, thus she consumed the fruit; this means that she lacked information, which fits the definition of ignorance. Cornelia mentioned ignorance prior in the text, “ignorance does not excuse a sin, and, besides. Their ignorance is a willful vice and they are all too aware of the evil they are doing. In fact they accuse us of ignorance and senselessness and uselessness. And they are right about one thing: we are indeed senseless to suffer so many cruel deeds from them and not to flee their constant. Tacit persecution of us and their hatred of us as we would a raging fire” (Cox, p. 61) Cornelia critiqued men for their foolish and ignorant actions and the fact that men would blame this ignorance on women. In the first example, Corinna portraited Eve’s ignorance as good because the motive was knowledge seeking, even though the action was forbidden. In the second text, men’s ignorant actions are condemned as willful vices and evil. How would you differentiate between being ignorant to seek knowledge and being ignorant because they are evil? Wouldn’t Eve’s action also be considered a willful vice because her way of seeking knowledge was forbidden, and also caused Adam to seek knowledge for himself? Let’s say that Eve’s action was knowledge seeking, and she told Adam that the forbidden fruit tasted good, should Adam believe her knowledge and never test it for himself. In other words, is one person’s knowledge the maxim?
2. Previously, I used The Diary of Murasaki Shikibu and The Diagnosis And Cure Of The Soul’s Passions to conclude that humans are social creatures. This book focused very heavily on social interactions between men and women, especially husbands and wives. Lucretia said, “I can think of one example, at least, of a woman whose husband is so foul- tempered tat she has no peace except when he leaves the house” (Cox, p. 71). This is due to the fact that “there are those husbands who spend all their time shouting at their wives and who, if they don’t find everything done just as they like it, abuse the poor creatures or even beat them over the most trivial matters, and who are always picking fault with the way in which the household is run, as though their wives were completely useless” (Cox, p. 70). From the first quote, it seemed that women would be living more peacefully without abusive husbands, husbands, or men. This foreshadows the fact that social interactions were created by men, and women are forced to be in it against their will. The second quote demonstrated the terrible social interaction between a husband and a wife, which could be argued that it was the husband’s fault. From both quotes, can we conclude that humans are not social creatures? More precisely, could we say that men are social creatures, and they force women to be part of that culture. Wouldn’t that also mean that the abusiveness of men come from social interactions or standards that they created based off of more powerful households? Then does this mean that if social interaction is eradicated, or at least the evil aspect of it, life would be completely fair and peaceful to everybody?
3. The text mentioned the characteristics and the necessity of true friendship, “having a dear and loyal friend is one of the greatest gifts one can have in life, one should be careful not to jeopardize such friendships through one’s own foolishness. For in times of trouble, a good friend can often be more helpful than the closest relative” (Cox, p. 127). The group of women believed that a good friend is helpful and important but needs to check several different criteria, “it is best to approach someone upright, decent, and virtuous, or at least someone who seems good and has a good reputation. For, by conversing with good people, we learn good habits and become better people through their example; and there’s also the consideration that, in this way, we are able to share in their good reputation” (Cox, p. 127). The group of women think that a true friend must be a great human being that meets all the standards; it doesn’t matter if they are male or female. When the group was discussing men and their deception, Leonora said that “Flattery makes us friends, the truth, enemies” (Cox, p. 199). Based on that logic, a friend becomes a friend through flattery, and an enemy speaks the truth. Wouldn’t that mean true friend would never be truthful because their virtuous character would refuse to hurt others? I believe this is not Leonora’s intention; I think she meant that a true friend would always lend support and a helping hand. But even if we look at the statement from that angle, true friends would either have to tell both the lie and the truth at appropriate times; wouldn’t that make them a liar and fake still?
   
4. The group of women discussed a lot of nature. When talking about the root cause of earthquakes, Corinna said, “The wind, when, instead of wandering through its natural element, the air, it gets trapped underground for some reason, and cannot find a way out. And since, by its nature, it cannot stay enclosed, it puts all its energy into trying to escape, and it is this force that shakes and agitates the earth so violently” (Cox, p. 129). Can we also say that emotions are similar to wind, in which cannot stay enclosed and it always tries to escape? If that is the case, anyone’s calmness is just simply masked by a controlled amount of emotions that is waiting to be released. If a person is trying their best to hide this fact, they have to act in opposition with their emotions, which makes them a deceiver. If they allow emotions to burst, then they are not virtuous. If emotions are very similar to wind, and wing causes earthquakes, wouldn’t that mean the explosion of emotions is inevitable for everyone, and thus no one is truly virtuous?
   

1. Are humans social creatures?
2. How has the standards changed over time?
   
3. Would any of the rules change if a powerful female noble is in this conversation?
   
4. Can people complain about abuse, then proceed to kill and eat animals?