As of late, the phrase "A War against Women" has been thrown around quite liberally in American politics, often posed as a series of battles between the American Democratic and Republican parties, and while I think there is much validity in the need to still fight for women's rights in America today, we should also keep in mind that America is just one battle ground, and this is really a world war which has been going on for centuries... A women-acolypse you could even say! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9487761/Anger-as-Iran-bans-women-from-universities.html
This article reviews the move in Iran to ban women from many university courses, preventing women from getting degrees in a variety of professional fields, among which archaeology is included. As of today, women can't even vote in Saudi Arabia. Downton Abbey enthusiasts will also recognize that women did not have the right to inherit and distribute property in England until the 1920s.
While the Middle East has been a hot bed for political discussion of women's rights, historically, Egyptians were some of the most liberal countries in terms of women's rights. Herodotus even mocked Egypt for being a backwards country because women engaged in public economic exchange.
So what I wonder is when did a misogynistic attitude towards women really begin, and why has such an attitude towards half of the population succeeded to such an extent, that the majority of countries today still deal with issues surrounding women's oppression? Move your emotions surrounding the issues aside for one moment, and consider what evolutionary advantage the subjugation of women had to make it so successful? This is my thought of the day. Two-cents are encouraged.
Hi Anne!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that misogyny per se is an evolutionary impulse, but the impulse to grasp power and follow authority is. The two textbook studies on this are the Stamford Prison Experiment and Milgram's Experiment. Misogyny is all about controlling who as access to what resources and if you can control that, you have a huge advantage. There will always be enough resources for you since you can say who can and cannot receive them. The easiest way to do this is to categorize people as "others". Others are not us, so they don't need as many resources. I think that is what is going on now in our country. I hope my 2 cents make sense!
Madelynn
Hey there Anne! Here are my two cents, for what they are worth. I am not sure that this example readily applies, but I can see where the jump in logic could be made...I don't know if you have ever read the Owen Lovejoy article, "The Origin of Man" but it gives an overview of his "male provisioning model" which basically states that females hominoids/hominids as early as the Miocene began "hiding" when they were in estrous, as modern human females do today, which in turn coerced males into bringing them food at all times in attempts to mate with them. This allowed females to stay in trees (or "home bases") to take care of the young while males developed enhanced bipedal characteristics in their extensive searches for food. This early sexual division of labor led to monogamous pair bonding and nuclear families, per the model.
ReplyDeleteWhile the model doesn't say anything about more modern subjugation of women, I can see where one thing might lead to another. I think the entire thing is pretty bogus and obviously misogynistic, but it does possibly provide an example of what you were thinking about, and if it WERE right (which I seriously doubt) it would mean that this has been going on pretty much since the beginning of time. I don't know how well this example applies, but it's what I thought of when I read your blog post!
Great blog, btw, and I really like the picture you have at the top of this entry. Sorry for the rambling post, just thought I'd throw in my two cents!
An anonymous response from a friend.
ReplyDelete-------
Anne:
You wrote: "Move your emotions surrounding the issues aside for one moment, and consider what evolutionary advantage the subjugation of women had to make it so successful?"
In species where males are physically larger than females, like humans, males tend to be dominant. In species where females are larger than males, like hyenas, females tend to be dominant. And in species where males and females are of roughly equal size, like penguins, there is great equality between the sexes.
It is interesting that throughout the animal kingdom there is a correlation between (A) relations between the sexes, and (B) size differences between the sexes.
Considering this, a more provocative way to phrase your question would be: What evolutionary disadvantage would there be for a given specie if the physically larger sex *didn't* dominate the smaller sex?
I don't know the answer.
(Of course, even if mistreating the frailer sex does confer an evolutionary advantage to a given specie, that doesn't justify doing it, and it would probably be inapplicable to modern humans anyway.)