It may well have been – to ‘rake hell’ is originally to ‘stir hell up’ in search of someone worse than a rake. But it probably changed over time to mean simply ‘stir hell up’ (to make a nuisance of yourself).

Bother!!! Having posted that link to Alison Roberts’ book, I see that she’s changed the subtitle. It’s now: “The Secret Power of Ancient Egypt”. But, in my older copy, it’s “The Serpent Power of Ancient Egypt”… which is what I had in mind.

What I wrote about dichotomous thinking reminded me of the Rhythm Model advocated in “Feminist Counselling in Action” by Jocelyn Chaplin. (Various editions: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=pd_rhf_s_1?ie=UTF8&search-alias=stripbooks&keywords=Jocelyn%20Chaplin.) She contrasts this with the hierarchical Control Model, which she represents as pyramid with a pair of opposites — one firmly above, the other firmly below. The Rhythm Model, by contrast, shows a serpentine form slipping between the paired opposites. The serpentine form reminds me of this book’s subtitle: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hathor-Rising-Secret-Power-Ancient/dp/0952423308/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

The question of whether it’s more to do with biology, or with sociohistorical structures, seems to be a restatement of the nature versus nurture debate. And, as always, the answer appears to be “it’s both”. Beyond that, I doubt whether biology and sociohistorical structures are as easily divorced as one might believe. Those structures, surely, arise from we (as humans) being the animals that we are, which is (I suppose) to say our biology.

I think that dichotomous thinking is probably always (at least a little bit) wrong. I’m attempting to avoid saying “a multi-faceted approach is right, and a dichotomous one is wrong” because that, in itself, looks very much like a piece of dichotomous thinking.

I think it’s less to do with biology and more to do with sociohistorical structures. The rake’s plotline, as it were, usually involves the seduction (often with attendant social rack and ruin) of a lady – the toppling of her off her pedestal of unattainability (and often virginal purity). Clarissa would, I think, be a classic example.

Now, women who adopted aspects of the rakish lifestyle or persona, conducting affairs with women in a kind of butch/femme manner, would also be playing with the gender roles described above.

I think that women in a femme role (read: most women of the day) would have had difficulties adopting the “rake” persona to seduce men, because they were operating from a level which society cast as socially subordinate to men. So the virginity of the men they would have been seducing is neither assured nor prized in the way that the female “maidenhead” is. It therefore becomes a different sort of game – one which, in the eyes of society as a general whole, predisposes the “harlot” narrative on the woman rather than the rake role… so she becomes a “seductress” instead.

That’s my two penn’orth on it, anyway.

All of this touches upon matters to which I’ve given a lot of thought recently. My current novel in progress is called “Jane and Eaquellety”. It is set in a future in which the eaquelles are an elite, rather than equals. A process called gynogenesis has been perfected whereby one woman can fertilise another woman’s egg. The Empress (so much for equality!) seeks to become the first woman in history to have more than a thousand children. (It is set in the sixteenth year of her reign, and it is unclear whether she has yet achieved this objective.) Gynogenesis will produce only female children, and all girls conceived through its agency are eaquelles by right of birth. The most usual route to eaquellety, apart from this, is to give birth to one of the Empress’ daughters. My narrator (Jane) is not (yet) an eaquelle… All of this draws heavily on equality and inequality; sexual fidelity and infidelity… issues which seem central to this rakish discussion.

I do not wish to claim that biology is the sole determinant of our behaviour. Nor do I wish to make any sweeping generalisations about “all men” or “all women”. But, those caveats aside, there is a link between sexual desire/behaviour and the replication of our genes. Biologically, women have a greater investment in their children than men do — if only because the number of children it’s possible to a woman to have is much smaller than the number a man might potentially sire. That being so, it seems to me that — biologically — the way of a rake or libertine makes more sense for a man than for a woman.

If my late mother could read this, she would probably be pleased to conclude that biology is on the side of female fidelity. She was a woman who set great store by respectability. I believe, though, that some research indicates that my mother would be wrong. The evidence seems to show that women are most likely to be unfaithful to their partners at the most fertile point in their cycles. The conclusion seems to be that a significant number of women are (unconsciously) looking for the best genes for their future children at the time when this matters most. But this urge towards infidelity is quite different from the rake’s more constant promiscuity.

What I’m attempting to say is that women (in general, but not all women) and men (in general, but not all men) are different from one another. The differences may often be subtle, but they are important.

I think that libertinage has rarely, in ever, benefited women. It may be that the rise of the women’s movement in the 1970s was partially fueled by a perception that the much-vaunted “permissiveness” had failed to improve the lives of women in general. (I add “in general” in case someone counters with “what about…?” but, off the top of my head, I can think of individual women who fared very badly as a result of “permissiveness”, but none who did spectacularly well.)

As a writer of fiction, I feel called-upon to imagine things. And I agree with Hodge, it is extremely hard to imagine a world of true sexual equality. Worlds I can imagine tend either to patriarchy or matriarchy.

Taking a wider view, it isn’t easy to imagine a world of true equality of any kind. Fortunately, as a writer of fiction, I don’t feel called upon to imagine such a world. Storylines arise from the tensions created by inequality.

Yeah. The political implications of libertinage are particularly interesting, and the rake really fell into disfavour during the c18th as a result of the oft-cited ‘moral middle classes’ (Richardson being the archetype). Rochester himself (arguably the ur-Rake) always seems to be using his debauchery as a political statement about nihilism (cf his poem ‘on nothing’ which is simultaneously metaphysical and, er, grossly physical, playing with a common term for a vagina) (he was also commonly thought to be an atheist), or about power– one argument for the origins of the rake is that it was a response to the civil war, and the perceived loss of aristocratic power: there was a sense that the Old World of upper-class impunity and the Divine Right of Kings had vanished and (depending on who you listen to!) either that therefore it should be nostalgically recreated or that it should be parodied and mocked, to deflate it and make everyone feel more comfortable about subscribing to it.
*tangent*
And I completely agree with your point about the emancipation of women / radical anarchist tradition, although it’s interesting (and dispiriting) how hard it is to imagine a world of true sexual equality.