3 ms·
The example of the Catholic Church seems to support the author's point. It was only as the Church's power declined that it became acceptable to publicly accuse
by cperciva 10y ago
The example of the Catholic Church seems to support the author's point. It was only as the Church's power declined that it became acceptable to publicly accuse it of wrongdoing.
The taboos you mention about things being seen in public are more about not doing things than not saying things, so I don't think the same philosophy applies. On domestic violence, there certainly was an issue of men suppressing any discussion of the topic; these days of course, the first greater taboo is against any mention of women assaulting men, and that taboo is very definitely enforced by a powerful group which fears losing that power.
- vacri 10y agoI think you've got it backwards - you're saying that the taboo lifted as the church lost power, that the taboo was there while the church was very powerful? While the Catholic Church has lost power, they're certainly not weak now; they're just not as supreme as they were. They've become weaker but still have power of enforcement, yet taboos have lifted (somewhat)? That's the opposite of what the article is saying. With domestic violence, it wasn't just men suppressing it. Women also suppressed it, because "you just didn't talk about that kind of thing". Domestic violence shelters weren't really a thing, because you were expected to just deal with it and not talk about it. I just think it's simply a wrong statement to make, that taboos are only about middling social powers. It seems to be trying to shoehorn the facts to fit an argument rather than the other way around.