If you’ve read The History & Arts of the Dominatrix by Anne O Nomis, you’re familiar with the timeline that emerges on female power. As early as c4000 BCE, there is evidence that Inanna (also known as Ishtar) was worshipped in a goddess cult at the Eanna temple in Uruk. Rituals that lauded her power were recorded in c2265-2250 BCE by Enheduanna (King Sargon of Akkad’s daughter; a high priestess). Said rituals involved extensive gender play (with kurgarra, assinu, and pilipili - third gender officiants), punishment (diamastigosis, a flagellation ritual), pain, and ecstasy. It is worth noting that Enheduanna was the first author of recorded history. This was quite a reign for a goddess; the cult of Inanna endured and thrived for centuries.

As beautiful things often are, worship of Inanna was gradually snuffed out. Somewhere between the first and sixth centuries, her praises declined. Is it a coincidence that the controversially known “Dark Ages” (experienced very Eurocentrically) - ruled widely by Christianity and eventually evolved into the hypercompetitive, increasingly imperialist, and sectarian facets of the High Middle Ages followed thereafter? Argue about it, but one thing we can all concede: misogyny has its memes.

And so, the cautionary tale of Phyllis and Aristotle was born. One of the earliest known versions was L'ai d’Aristote, c1220 CE. The tale varies in how it is told, but the formula remains the same (“The Aristocrats!”). Aristotle tells his protege Alexander (yes, the Great) to avoid Phyllis because women are a dangerous distraction from the pious, important work of philosophy… despite being fully obsessed with her himself. Alexander starts to reject Phyllis, which she hates. She finds out that Aristotle is motivating this, and the rationale behind it. So she tells Alexander a woman’s charms can overcome even the greatest male intellect; to prove this she hatches a plan. Unbeknownst to Alexander, Aristotle is trying his hardest to court her. She agrees to accept his courtship only if she can ride him like a horse; a brilliant figurehead reduced to lowly livestock. Unsurprisingly, he shows up to her chambers on all fours and makes a literal and figurative ass of himself in front of Phyllis’ carefully chosen witnesses. History looks on this so unkindly, Aristotle fades into obscurity and no one ever hears his name again. Oh wait, no - that’s the wrong ending… he’s still seen as one of the greatest thinkers ever and that was merely an excuse to pretend feminine wiles have more pull than pervasive misogyny. One does not have to be John von Neumann to see the incentive structure at play, nor its place in the society by which it was created. Women ruin everything, especially powerful men. If you want to be a powerful man, what do you have to do? Subjugate these harpies!

On the periphery, the tale looks empowering - it’s a woman — who would have been relatively powerless at that time in history — taking her (ideally rightful) place atop a philosophical giant. Any smart or ambitious lady who has been repeatedly eclipsed by mediocre men would probably love to get her comeuppance in this way, right? If not revenge, at least spite would be satisfied. Unfortunately, this parable is purely a mechanism by which patriarchal thought could be reinforced. It’s a bros before hoes story for medieval times. So even the most potentially interesting story of female dominance as a consensual, destigmatized activity (practiced by respectable men) is reduced to a sexist “BEWAAAARE.” Double unfortunately, this MGTOW/incel femme-hatred shows no signs of stopping. As one example of the ripple effect of this mentality across time, bodily autonomy is a hotly contested, debatable and retractable legal concept, rather than an enshrined, permanent facet of reproductive justice.

#BringBackInanna #IshtarForPresident