Was it inevitable that the male-dominated societies that followed the Agricultural Revolution were built on misogyny, or was it a mere coincidence?

Misogyny is deeply entrenched in the social structures that favored men after the Agricultural Revolution. Yuval Noah Harari argues that misogyny is not inevitable, citing three factors: strength, violence, and women’s biological roles. However, he emphasizes that misogyny still persists in society and that efforts to eliminate it need to be balanced so that they don’t lead to misogyny.

 

Misogyny is the contempt, dislike, and anti-female bias toward women, including sexism and male chauvinist ideas. While it’s often viewed as an ethically questionable practice that should be abolished in modern times, misogyny has been deeply embedded in our society since the past. After the Agricultural Revolution, there was a global preference for men over women, and it was considered natural for men to hold high positions that women did not. Women were perceived as a lower class than men, and wives were considered the property of their husbands. There were even many countries where raping a woman was not a crime.
Even in myths and legends, most heroes and outstanding figures were often male, and women were often portrayed as negative, bringing tragedy and nightmares. This misogyny was universal across religious boundaries, including ancient Greece, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. With few exceptions, misogyny is too common around the world to be a coincidence, and it has led to social structures built on it. But why is this so?
Yuval Noah Harari offers three possible answers, and then refutes them. The first is strength. The idea is that men were physically stronger than women, which gave them greater influence in agricultural societies, which translated into political power. However, Yuval Noah Harari denies the relationship between physical strength and social power, arguing that men are only stronger than women in certain areas, and that political dominance does not require strength. While I agree with some of his arguments, I disagree with him on the whole. Harari is right that strength does not directly translate into power. However, it is clear that being strong is an advantage in gaining political power. As he points out in the book, having strong muscles means being able to produce more agricultural products in an agrarian society. As the Agricultural Revolution gave rise to the concept of property, more production meant more wealth, which would have been better defended or taken away. Considering that increased wealth has a positive effect on political power, there is a significant relationship between strength and political power. Harari tries to deny this relationship with a few exceptions, but statistically speaking, it seems natural that stronger men would gain more power than weaker men. Of course, there may be cases where a weaker person gains more power, but this is not a basis for denying a statistically significant relationship.
The second is male violence. The idea is that men are more violent and aggressive than women, and that this translates into social power in a time of many wars and fights. Harari argues that fighting does not lead to power. He counters with the example that although the rulers in charge of the army were men, they were nobles who never fought in battle, and that peaceful and gentle leaders gained more political power. However, this too can be refuted. An aggressive and aggressive personality, rather than a mild and passive one, would have been better suited to lead a combative army. While Harari acknowledges male violence, he portrays leaders who do not engage in combat as men who lack violence. He also compares Augustus to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, and negates the relationship between military ability and political influence by arguing that Augustus, who was militarily incompetent, accomplished more. However, it is clear that being militarily competent is better than being militarily incompetent. While many factors may have played a role, the relationship between military ability and political power cannot be denied. Harari argues that women’s cooperativeness is more important to political influence than men’s aggressiveness, but it’s just as difficult to find examples where cooperation was an advantage as it is to find examples where men’s aggressiveness was an advantage.
The third is that women have to conceive, bear, and care for children. Women are physically weakened for about 10 months during pregnancy, which makes them vulnerable to external threats and limits their ability to forage for food on their own. This makes them dependent on men, which helps to increase their status. Harari counters this by pointing out that animals like elephants and bonobos have similar situations where women have established matriarchal societies through large-scale cooperation among themselves, rather than relying on men. However, these are only a handful of examples. I don’t think it’s logically appropriate to rebut a very rare example.
As you can see, misogyny has been prevalent around the world since the agricultural revolution, but in the modern era, we have recognized the problems with misogyny and are gradually improving it. Women are no longer the property of men, but independent individuals who are treated equally with men. In modern society, women have gained the right to vote and have more voice and power. However, misogyny still exists in our society. Especially in Eastern societies, where patriarchy has long been dominant, the roles of men and women have been customarily defined, which is why misogyny often goes unrecognized. In societies that are still unequal, housework is considered the wife’s job, and women’s outside activities are sometimes restricted. We need to recognize and eliminate this misogyny together.
But there’s another problem. Even as we strive to eliminate misogyny, we cannot ignore biological and genetic differences, so we need to treat people equally, which can lead to misogyny. Sometimes, giving women too many rights can lead to discrimination against men. I think this is an issue that we will have to adjust little by little. We should strive to erase misogyny, but we shouldn’t let it lead to misogyny.
It’s unfortunate that misogyny and masculinity are at odds in modern society. Misogyny still creeps into our society, and it’s still a challenge to recognize the differences between women and men and treat them accordingly. However, compared to the past, modern society has achieved more equality, and I believe we can achieve more equality in the future. It will start with us all raising awareness.