This blog post deeply explores whether the origins of the male-dominated society formed after the Agricultural Revolution were the result of inevitable evolution or a product of culture and institutions.
Misogyny refers to contempt, hatred, and anti-female prejudice toward women, encompassing gender discrimination against women and ideas of male supremacy. While it is now considered an ethically problematic, outdated practice that should disappear, this misogyny has been deeply entrenched in our society since ancient times. Following the agricultural revolution, a global preference for males over females emerged, and it was considered natural for men to occupy high positions unavailable to women. Women were perceived as belonging to a lower class than men, and wives were regarded as 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 exceptional figures were male, while women were often depicted as negative entities bringing tragedy and nightmares. Furthermore, this misogyny transcended religious boundaries, appearing universally across ancient Greece, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. Thus, misogyny appears so universally across the globe—with few exceptions—that it is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Ultimately, social structures based on this hatred became entrenched. So, what is the reason?
Yuval Noah Harari proposes three anticipated answers and refutes them. The first is physical strength. It suggests that men, possessing greater physical strength than women, wielded significant influence in agricultural societies, which translated into political power. However, Yuval Noah Harari refutes the link between physical strength and social power, arguing that men are only stronger than women in specific areas and that political rulers do not require physical strength. While I partially agree with this argument, I do not fully concur with his overall position. As Harari states, physical strength does not directly translate into power. However, it is clear that greater physical strength provides an advantage in securing political power. As mentioned in the book, greater physical strength in an agricultural society meant the ability to produce more agricultural goods. With the Agricultural Revolution came the concept of property; increased production led to greater wealth, and strong physical strength would have been advantageous for both protecting and seizing this wealth. Considering that increased property positively impacts political power, a significant relationship exists between strong physical strength and political power. Harari attempts to refute this relationship by citing several exceptions, but statistically speaking, it seems natural that individuals with greater physical strength would attain more power than those with weaker strength. Of course, there may be cases where individuals with weaker physical strength attain greater power, but this does not provide grounds to negate the statistically significant relationship.
The second factor is male violence. Men exhibit greater violence and aggression than women, which translated into social power during eras marked by frequent wars and conflicts. Harari counters this by arguing that fighting does not necessarily lead directly to power. He counters with examples where rulers commanding armies were men, yet they were nobles who never participated in combat, and leaders with peaceful, gentle personalities often gained more political power. However, this too can be refuted. A ruler commanding an army would likely be better suited to lead a combat-ready force if they possessed an aggressive and proactive personality rather than a gentle and passive one. Harari acknowledges male violence while portraying leaders who did not participate in combat as lacking violence. He also compares Augustus, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great, citing Augustus’s greater achievements despite his military incompetence to deny a link between military ability and political influence. However, it is clear that military competence is preferable to incompetence. While multiple factors may have influenced outcomes, the relationship between military capability and political power cannot be dismissed. Harari argues that women’s cooperativeness is more important for political influence than men’s aggressiveness, but just as it is difficult to find cases where cooperativeness was advantageous, it is equally hard to find cases where male aggressiveness was advantageous to establish a significant relationship.
The third factor is that women must conceive, bear, and care for children. During the approximately ten months of pregnancy, women become physically weaker, making them inherently vulnerable to external threats and limiting their ability to gather food independently. Consequently, women had no choice but to depend on men, which helped elevate men’s status. Harari counters this by citing examples like elephants or bonobos, which established matriarchal societies through large-scale cooperation among females without relying on males in similar situations. However, these are extremely rare cases. I believe using such exceptionally uncommon examples for rebuttal is logically inadequate.
Thus, misogyny has been universally entrenched worldwide since the very distant past when the agricultural revolution occurred. However, in modern times, the problems of misogyny are being recognized, and efforts are gradually underway to improve this situation. Women are no longer possessions of men but independent individuals, deserving equal treatment. In modern society, women have gained the right to vote and acquired greater voice and authority. Yet misogyny still persists in our society. Particularly in Eastern societies, where patriarchy has long dominated, the roles of men and women have been conventionally defined. Consequently, misogyny often goes unnoticed. In societies that remain unequal, household chores are still often seen as the wife’s responsibility, and women’s external activities may be restricted. We must collectively recognize and work to eliminate this misogyny.
However, another issue arises. While striving to eradicate misogyny, biological and genetic differences cannot be ignored. Therefore, equitable and equal treatment must be achieved, but there is a significant risk this could inadvertently lead to misandry. Sometimes, granting women too many rights can result in men facing discrimination. I believe this is an issue we must gradually adjust going forward. We must strive to erase misogyny without allowing it to lead to misandry.
It is regrettable that in modern society, misogyny and misandry are sharply conflicting. Misogyny still pervades our society covertly, and acknowledging the differences between women and men while ensuring equal treatment remains a difficult challenge. However, compared to the past, modern society has achieved greater equality, and I believe we can build an even more equitable society in the future. To achieve this, we must all begin by awakening our awareness.
