This blog post will explore in depth whether the origins of the male-centered society that was formed after the agricultural revolution were the result of inevitable evolution or a product of culture and institutions.
Misogyny is a word that refers to contempt and hatred for women and anti-feminist prejudice, and includes sexism and male supremacy. In modern times, it is considered an ethical problem and an evil practice that should be eliminated, but such misogyny has been deeply rooted in our society since the past. After the agricultural revolution, the world began to favor men over women, and it was taken for granted that men would occupy higher positions than women. Women were perceived as being of a lower class than men, and wives were considered to be the property of their husbands. In many countries, even the act of raping a woman was not considered a crime.
Even in myths and legends, most heroes and outstanding figures were often male, and women were portrayed as negative beings that brought tragedy and nightmares. This misogyny also appeared universally across religious boundaries, including ancient Greece, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. As such, misogyny is so prevalent that it is difficult to see it as a coincidence, with a few exceptions, and has led to the establishment of a social structure based on this hatred. So what is the reason for this?
Yoram Noah Harari offers three possible answers to this question and refutes them. The first is strength. Men have stronger physical strength than women, which gave them great influence in agrarian societies and led to political power. However, Yuval Noah Harari denies the relationship between physical strength and social power, saying that men are stronger than women in certain areas only and that political rulers do not need strength. I agree with some of his arguments, but I disagree with his overall opinion. As Harari says, muscle strength does not immediately translate into power. However, it is clear that having strong muscle strength is advantageous for securing political power. As mentioned in the book, having strong muscle strength means being able to produce more agricultural products in an agricultural society. With the agricultural revolution, the concept of property was born, and many products soon led to an increase in wealth, and strong muscle strength would have been advantageous for protecting or seizing this wealth. Considering that increased wealth has a positive impact on political power, there is a significant relationship between strong muscle strength and political power. Harari tries to deny this relationship with a few exceptions, but statistically, it seems natural that people with strong muscle strength gain more power than those with weak muscle strength. Of course, there are cases where people with weak muscle strength gain more power, but this is not a basis for denying a statistically significant relationship.
The second is male violence. Men are more violent and aggressive than women, and this has led to social power in an era of many wars and battles. Harari argues that fighting does not lead to power. The argument is countered by the example that the ruler who led the army was a man, but a noble who had never participated in a battle, and that leaders with a peaceful and gentle personality gained more political power. However, this can also be countered. It is likely that a ruler who led the army had an aggressive and active personality rather than a gentle and passive personality, which would have been more suitable for leading a militant army. Harari acknowledges the violence of men, but describes leaders who did not participate in battles as men lacking in violence. He also compares Augustus, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great, and argues that Augustus, who was militarily incompetent, achieved more, thereby denying the relationship between military ability and political influence. However, it is clear that it is better to be competent than incompetent in the military. Although many factors may have influenced this, the relationship between military competence and political power cannot be denied. Harari argues that women’s cooperation is more important for political influence than men’s aggression, but if we look for examples where cooperation was advantageous, as if we were looking for examples where men’s aggression was advantageous, it is also difficult to draw a meaningful relationship.
The third is that women must conceive, bear, and raise children. During the approximately 10 months that women are physically weak due to pregnancy, they are vulnerable to external threats and are limited in their ability to find food for themselves. Therefore, women have no choice but to depend on men, which helps to raise the status of men. Harari counters this by citing examples of animals such as elephants and bonobos, which, in similar situations, have established matriarchal societies through large-scale cooperation among females without relying on males. However, these are only a very small number of examples. I do not think it is logically appropriate to counter with such a rare example.
As such, misogyny has been a global phenomenon since the dawn of the agricultural revolution. However, in modern times, the problem of misogyny has been recognized and is gradually being improved. Women are no longer seen as possessions of men, but as independent individuals who are treated equally to men. In modern society, women have gained the right to vote and have more voice and power. However, misogyny still exists in our society. In particular, in Eastern societies where patriarchy has been dominant for a long time, the roles of men and women have been conventionally defined. That is why misogyny is often not recognized. In an unequal society, housework is still considered the wife’s responsibility, and women’s external activities are sometimes restricted. We must recognize and eliminate this misogyny together.
However, there is another problem. Although we are trying to eliminate misogyny, we cannot ignore biological and genetic differences. Therefore, equal treatment that is fair and just must be provided, but there is a high risk that this could lead to misandry. Sometimes, men may experience discrimination as a result of women being given too many rights. I think this is an issue that we will have to adjust little by little in the future. We must make efforts to eradicate misogyny, but we must ensure that it does not lead to misandry.
It is unfortunate that misogyny and misandry are in sharp conflict in modern society. Misogyny is still secretly permeating our society, and it is still a difficult task to recognize the differences between women and men and treat them equally. However, compared to the past, modern society has achieved more equality, and I believe that we will be able to achieve an even more equal society in the future. To do this, we must all start by raising awareness.
