Menstruation and Miasma: A Blog-Based Response
In a recent statement on miasma and purification, Timothy Jay Alexander stated that “all organic fluids (blood, semen, menstrual fluids) and bodily excretions that cause you to be unclean then also causes [sic] Miasma.” I disagree that menstrual fluids are a big deal, not because I claim that this attacks women's place in religion, but because I am a good feminist who believes that proper hygiene can prevent or mitigate most miasma-based problems associated with the cycle.
My first counter to this argument is by questioning the statement “all organic fluids.” People excrete fluids all the time; this is a simple fact of life. We have saliva (which hopefully stays inside our mouths where it belongs). We have waste products and sexual fluids. We bleed. We sweat. Certainly, we should come before the Gods with the greatest degree of cleanliness we can, but some things are unavoidable. Few would chide a person with allergies for not draining their sinuses before giving cult to a Theos. Few would say that the sweat excreted to cool the body during sacred games and in the gymnasium creates ritual impurity. Why does menstruation have to be so different?
Before I continue, I will warn the reader that I am about to talk about the female menstrual cycle in greater detail. Let me also say to those women who experience debilitating pain during menstrual cycles, pain that causes vomiting and days home from school/work, that you probably shouldn't give cult to deities who are not associated with healing or feminine health until you feel better. The state of mind that accompanies continuous pain is not conducive to cooking dinner, let alone performing a Hellenic ritual. Not having experienced this special pain personally (which is illogical considering family history, so it must be Artemis's doing), you are free to disagree. At least make sure that you aren't on enough pain meds to make yourself a fire hazard.
The female menstrual cycle is not just defined by menses, but follows a pattern of accumulation and discharge over a roughly twenty-eight day period. Not only do women have menses, but around ovulation the body also secretes a clear mucous (and if it's not clear, go see your gynecologist NOW). If every bodily secretion makes a woman contract miasma, this means that we cannot worship for up to two weeks every month, more if you count any bleeding/irritation that happens internally. This is impractical.
It is my personal belief that, providing you maintain proper hygiene (showering daily, changing pads/tampons regularly to prevent odor, washing), most Theoi won't care. In Ancient Greece, people didn't have Always®, Stayfree®, or Tampax®. They didn't even have Keepers. It was a lot more difficult to maintain an acceptable level of personal hygiene. No wonder so many cultures (the Israelites, Egyptians, many Native American groups, Hellenes, to name a few) created ritual taboos!
Personally, I shelve “no worship during menses” with “women contribute absolutely no genetic material to their offspring”: okay if you live in Ancient Greece, but out of phase with modern reality. Some women, however, may discover that they feel better abstaining from worship completely or worshiping only female deities. It really depends on the circumstances and the mindset of the practitioner.
12 responses:
Well written! Of course, you want to know what's really amusing? There is no basis, whatsoever, for the claim that menstruation was considered in line with other miasma-inducing activities in ancient Greece. Considering the almost-universal nature of this taboo in other societies, and their fairly ambivalent view of women, the fact that the Greeks didn't see it that way is rather significant. One of the best treatments of the subject is, of course, Robert Parker's Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek religion, much of which can be found online here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zZXCfw267_AC
Do a search for menstruation and see what comes up. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised - I certainly was when it was pointed out to me!
Like Sannion, I've read in a few places that menstruation was not considered one of the bringers of miasma. After reading quite a bit for my book, I came to the conclusion that miasma is brought about by things which push our mortality into the forefront, into the eyes of the gods. They are Theoi, not human, and (most of them) have no interest in our humanity in its dirtiest. :) In other words, things like death, birth, major wounds, the shedding of blood in an UNnatural way (via knives etc) are all things which impart miasma. Menstruation is a normal thing. I believe there's even a myth that talks about menstrual rags in conjunction with one of the goddesses (damn, I wish I could remember!!), which would pretty much kill the whole miasma issue in conjunction with it.
That said, pain IS something that imparts miasma, imo. There are often times I put off worship because of cramping or discomfort. If I *feel* dirty or unclean, then I am, in some form. It's better to wait. On the other hand, if I feel fine, then a thorough cleaning of body and mind should be enough to remove any excess miasma before worship.
Oh, and in comment to the sweat in the competitions? There were gods who accepted sweat as offerings. :)
In any case, I think that in our modern times, it is very much a personal decision. There are definitely months that I do no worship at all during my period (this month is a good example) due to pain and overwhelming emotional issues. I abstain until I feel more able to approach the gods with a clean mind as well as a clean body. And heck, I worship mainly gods who don't care about those things LOL... It just seems right to me.
Allyson » Can't agree more, and I have no recollection of reading anything written by scholars about menstruation - just the comments I have seen from others. I follow a very diverse array of blogs from other polytheistic faiths, and I see this most treated by followers of the Egyptian Gods.
Sannion » I'll check that source out. I do admit that I have seen no one cite specific instances in which menstruation caused miasma, just generalization. Maybe that text quotes some primary sources I can use in my counterargument. :)
I actually have several quotes that mention menstruation in the context of miasma: not one of them comes from Greece itself. We find them in Asia Minor, Egypt, or the Middle and Near East, and thus are examples of the syncretic fusion of religions. Which is fine for someone like me, but a person who prides themselves on being a Super Pure Hellene [tm], probably shouldn't be basing their practice on such things. Interestingly, we do have a lot of temple inscriptions and cult regulations from Greece. They are often very specific - down to the color of clothing someone can wear inside the sanctuary, what types of food they can and cannot eat, how long they have to abstain from sex, etc. And yet they never mention menstruation. We even have a lot of medical and gynecological literature from ancient Greece - fascinating stuff, but a little outdated - and while they talk about religious stuff and sacred taboos, again, no mention of menstruation in that context. In some ways this is really quite shocking, since almost every other culture has some taboo on this. I've often wondered why Greece didn't.
I'm pretty sure Burkert also notes that menses had no significant taboos to the Greeks. His Greek Religion is practically "101 material" to Hellenismos.
It's been ages since I've read a LOT of things, but I'm pretty sure menses, to the ancient Hellenes, was just "one of those great female mysteries, like midwifery". There are also some theories and hypotheses about what women did use for, uh, "feminine hygiene" in ancient times, and according to some feminists I know, it seems generally agreed that "free bleeding" was rare in the Mediterranean, and they used either a wrap similar to a man's loincloth or pieces of sea sponge. It's even plausible that the vinegar douche was invented no later than the Roman period, so the primary differences between "feminine hygiene" products then versus now is 1) smaller and 2) disposable, with the only truly innovative designs to come about in centuries being The Keeper (and other reusable cups), and Instead (a diaphragm-like disposable cup).
Oh, they definitely had such things. One of my favorite stories about Hypatia involves menstrual wrags. Hypatia was a Neoplatonic philosopher, and like many of her school had a fairly ambivalent view of the human body. As an extension of that she had little interest in sexual relationships. She had a very eager admirer who kept making advances towards her and trying to butter her up with flowery, romantic language about how beautiful, and sexy and wise she was. Finally, tired of endlessly rebuffing the young thing, she took off her wrapping and flung it in his face and said, "This is what you are attracted to, not me. When you can love my soul as much as my body, then come back to me." Needless to say, she never heard from him again.
With all due respect, your response appears contradictory and paradoxical. On one hand you want to insist that menstrual fluid is not a source of Miasma, but then on the other state that modern sanitary products and hygiene practices will protect, shield, or reduce the exposure of a woman to the miasmic effects of that same menstrual fluid.
Also stated was the lack of evidence clearly identifying menstrual fluid as a source of Miasma. As I noted in hellenismos.us' forum conversation, lack of evidence is not evidence. Looking at what Robert Parker writes on the subject, while he also make note of the fact there is no specific documentation, he makes several observations… (1) that menstruation not being a source of Miasma would have been very unusual compared to other neighboring cultures… (2) menstruation is rarely brought up outside of medical records, suggesting it could have been so “secret and shaming” that even sacred law required purity from it… (3) menstruation was described as a form of purification for women, and therefore the waste and discharge should be expected to be impure.
This is not just idol speculation on my part, but a reasoned conclusion given the fact that blood and other bodily fluids and excretions were considered Miasmic. Considering your personal belief all natural fluids are unavoidable, and you seem to want to imply cannot therefore be Miasmic, I can understand your opinion, but your opinion is based on your own personal feelings rather than an actual understanding of Miasma.
There is simply no logical reason to exclude menstrual fluids, especially if menstruation was/is considered a purification process, which we could argue it is even from a modern medical viewpoint, and a woman needs to keep herself clean of it. With all the focus on hygiene and cleanliness, I don’t see how this gets a pass. Of course, in this day an age, and with the availability of good and effective hygiene products, I can’t see any real argument for women needing to abstain from worship either, in so long as they they are keeping themselves clean, which you oddly agree with while still claiming menstrual fluid is not a cause of Miasma.
You seem to want it both ways. You admit your feminist ideology will not allow you to accept menstrual fluid as a source of Miasma, but at the same time insist on rules for handling menstrual fluid be observed.
Tim » I fail to see how emphasizing hygiene makes my response contradictory and paradoxical. If one of the primary points of purification is to make one presentable to the Gods, the reason being that we should appear to them in equal or better state than we would approach our peers (with an added “spiritual” dimension, of course, because this is religious stuff we are talking about), then hygiene is a necessity. Improper hygiene while menstruating is a health hazard and does not honor the goddess Hygeia. This leads me to believe that one should try to be as clean as possible.
Murder, birth, sex, contact with the dead, and (to a lesser degree) illness all stem from lifestyle choices: the murderer must decide to pick up the knife, the woman must have sex to give birth; individuals must act in order to have sex; yes, there are social obligations, but one does not have a physical need to associate with the dead; and many controllable factors (diet, sleep, exercise) influence the immune system's vitality. Menstruation does not stem from any action on the part of the individual; it is a simple fact of womanhood. In fact, poor lifestyle choices, illness, pregnancy, and drugs are the only things aside from menopause or death that can stop it. I don't think that menstruation requires any special purification process beyond the physical cleanliness required of most people when entering a sacred precinct or approaching a shrine. In fact, Robert Parker states in his Miasma that “[p]urity from menstrual contamination only appears as a condition for entering a temple in late sacred laws of non-Greek cults” (101-102).
I wouldn't actually care if there were documentation of menstrual miasma (unless, of course, it came from a respected oracle ^_^). Do people advocate women's abstinence from worshiping Ares (as was done in some cities) even though they can now participate in combat situations in the armed forces of most countries? Should modern religious symposia be limited to men because that respects the historical context? Should we require female Hellenic Polytheists to let their husband lead domestic ritual? I don't respect any of these ancient gender divisions and think that people can and should approach the Gods on equal footing. That is the point of nonradical feminisim: creating social change by overthrowing taboos that prevent women from engaging with men as people instead of as sexual objects.
I have since read through the passage from Robert Parker's book. While others have commented on the puzzling lack of problems with menstruating women, Parker seems to argue that menstruation does not cause impurity. In academia, arguments previously take the thesis-counterargument-synthesis approach. The statements you have picked out are his alternative explanations for why no one mentioned it in the ancient texts.
I'm kinda shocked that you would surgically extract a quote out of context to support a personal opinion, rather than use what is stated in the whole source to create an educated opinion. I really thought you were better than that.
Parker writes, starting in the Introduction, that Miasma many times refer to those things that are both physically repugnant and morally outrageous, and where the "villain" shows a deficiency in shame. Your whole statement that "hygiene is a necessity" and "improper hygiene while menstruating is a health hazard" actually confirms menstrual blood is a source of Miasma.
Shame seems to be a main theme throughout Parker's work, and those who are the most Miasmic are those who lack shame... everyone from the person to murders in cold blood to those who don't care they are stinky and smelly. On page 76 Parker is writing about sex, but addresses bodily functions overall. He wrote, "An aura of shame does indeed surround sexuality, but its source seems to be embarrassing about bodily functions rather than guilt." He reiterates this statement about the embarrassment of bodily functions in several places.
Washing and good hygiene practices creates a "expression of respect" between the person and the Gods. Going father into his work, on pages 162-163, Parker writes sacred land was to be pure from the taint of birth, death, sexuality, and other bodily functions... and specifically bodily wastes is something talked about repeatedly within the work.
On the topic of menstruation, it is Parker who suggests that it could have been so “secret and shaming” that it wasn't spoke of at all and even sacred law required purity from it. (page 102) He is also the one that states that menstruation is commonly described as a process of purification, and that by analogy with other purifications, the discharge would have to be considered impure.
If you want to hold fast to the idea the no specific statement means menstrual fluid is not a source of Miasma, that is your choice, but it just does not hold up in a reasoned analysis of the overall concept. A historian has the luxury of waffling and saying it may or may not based on what we know and don't know, but religious reconstruction must make a stand, and must make a stand based on the preponderance of the evidence. Bodily functions, and specifically discharged waste, are Miasmic. Therefore, menstrual fluid must be considered a source a Miasma along with the rest of it.
*sigh* Tim, if I was citing stuff out of context, you definitely were. I really didn't want to do this because I should be studying for the GRE instead of parsing arguments from a book, but I will do so for you. Maybe it'll help me on the reading section. You never know.
Starting on page 100:
I. Introduction
A. We have not discussed menstruation in sexual matters.
1. Comparison with other cultures: New Guinea, menstruation = bad.
2. Greece » Unease/suspicion about women.
II. Argument
A. No demonstrated fear of menstrual blood as polluting force.
1. Surprising b/c attitudes about women could have found expression here.
2. Example of usage in later times: non-Greek cults menstruation = taboo.
a. Why no Greek cults?
b. In medical texts, though --- why no purification rituals?
c. (My note: if it's here and not in Greek cultic laws, then it is reasonable to think that it would have been in the Greek ones if they had had a taboo.)
III. Counterargument
A. Menstruation is too shameful for words?
1. Not mentioned in Old Comedy.
2. Debunk: taboo against intercourse during menstruation not observed.
a. (My note: Sex does cause miasma, so maybe menstruation not seen as any worse than having sex?)
B. Aristotle
1. Only evidence for magical menstrual blood.
a. Romans considered other properties (my note: however, Romans are not Greek).
b. Impossible to infer importance of menstruation from Aristotle.
III. Synthesis
A. Menstruation not a threat to men.
B. Hesiod: woman source of danger, taboo against washing water.
a. NOT a reference to menstruation.
b. No echo in later texts.
C. Women's minds more threatening.
Yeah, so this is what I sort of read here. If you look at IIA, I take that to be Parker's thesis. Perhaps you thought I made an out-of-context remark because I failed to make a logical linking sentence, but you can see the linking sentence that may have belonged there in IIA2c. Parker makes efforts to argue against IIIA with IIA2 by jumping from “hey, if menstruation is spiritually impure, you probably cannot have sex with a woman” to “hey, there isn't a taboo against having sex with menstruating women.”
Well, if religious reconstruction must make a stand, then perhaps we should make a stand against treating menstrual fluids in any special way providing that people actually take care of themselves. I mean, Gods, the last thing I want is for someone to turn this into something like the Kemetic Orthodox taboo against menstruation.
And I still say that, if you include all bodily fluids in this category, you will end up including sweat. And that just doesn't make sense.
That is a very long response, which simply does not resolve your paradox. On one hand you confirm menstrual fluids' impure properties by stating a need to maintain proper washing and hygiene, but simply refuse to accept menstrual fluid as impure.
Even your argument regarding menstruation and sex does go get taken out to it's logical conclusion. You state if menstruation is spiritually impure then you probably cannot have sex with a woman, but there was not an observed taboo against having sex with menstruating women... but sex was a source of Miasma and required washing... therefore, sex with a menstruating woman is irrelevant if one's going to bathe anyway.
With the fact you and I ultimately agree on the rules a woman should observe while menstruating, and it is only the classification of menstrual fluid, I have to presume you are one of these people who believe Miasma is the Hellenic equivalent to Sin. It is not, but seems to be a common misconception with certain circles within the "Hellenic community." Last year Allyson Szabo (aka Rev. Allyson) made that statement on the Delphic Maxim list last year and was quickly corrected by people, not just myself. Just a few weeks ago, Rebecca Buchanan on the The Reconstructionist Interfaith List made the same misstatement responding to a question.
While Miasma caused my moral vice is avoidable, Miasma generally has no moral connotation, is unavoidable, and is a result of the human condition. Death causes Miasma, but death is not a moral wrong. Sexual acts cause Miasma, but sex is not morally wrong. Birth causes Miasma, but birth is not a moral wrong. A community, as a whole, suffers from Miasma when a crime such as murder is committed.
Miasma, as does the Christian concept of Sin, does most certainly cause separation or estrangement from the Gods, but in many cases the only moral affront to the Gods is shamelessly approaching them in worship with this uncleanliness on you. Being contaminated does not make a person Evil or less than. It means only that they have become impure, and have the potential of contaminating others. In fact, menstrual fluid, like sexual intercourse, is one I would probably place in the category of a minor form of Miasma, and not needing over-ritualized attention but simple bathing or time.
All in all, while you try to make an argument that menstrual fluid should not be considered Miasmic, you don't ever make a real argument as to why it shouldn't. In fact, your own comments regarding women needing to maintain proper washing and hygiene for ritual when menstruating would support the menstruation is Miasmic point of view.
Therefore, at the end of it all, you make your own position irrelevant. Yours becomes a moot point. Debating has no ultimate effect, and is deprived of any practical significance. You many disagree with me academically, in principle and theory, but you do agree with me in practice. It is the practice that is important, not theories.
Tim » My last post was actually treating your accusation that I don't know how to critically read a text.
BTW, I don't confuse miasma with sin.
Post a Comment