AHC: Most misogynist world?

My knowledge on the Abbasids is very limited, however I could give you examples of how the Umayyad Caliphate of Iberia in the same era was much more willing to grant women rights.

Abd-Ar-Rahman III had two great females in his court in high positions. The first being l Lubna, a former slave who became a polymath known for being a scribe, mathematician and a poet. The other being a woman named Fatema, the Caliph's translator of famous works and curator of his personal library. It has also been argued that there were more women who held administrative roles in mid to late 10th century Cordoba, but have been lost to history due to poor historiography, destruction of documents and other reasons.

I don't know enough about the history of the medeival Levant to debate your views on this, so I can't comment, I was just going off of common narratives on when the Golden Age ended.



I understand. And I am not sure as much on the Caliphate in Qurtubah and on their practices as a whole. I do know that they most likely were still not as grand as far as literature as the Mamluk period was. It is perhaps my least known area of knowledge in terms of Islamic nations.

And I understand, it is the common narrative in media of the great and immaculate Abbasid Khilafah and on how we would all be rolling around in gold and silver had they not been ravaged by the barbarous Mongols. I highly contest these views and contest the ideals of an end to the Islamic golden age in any real sense. My views are also contested. But anyway, we are off topic lol
 
I understand. And I am not sure as much on the Caliphate in Qurtubah and on their practices as a whole. I do know that they most likely were still not as grand as far as literature as the Mamluk period was. It is perhaps my least known area of knowledge in terms of Islamic nations.

And I understand, it is the common narrative in media of the great and immaculate Abbasid Khilafah and on how we would all be rolling around in gold and silver had they not been ravaged by the barbarous Mongols. I highly contest these views and contest the ideals of an end to the Islamic golden age in any real sense. My views are also contested. But anyway, we are off topic lol

So what your view is, is that there has been an unending continuum in terms of literature, arts, culture, governing, from the Islamic Golden Age to the present era?
Or do you believe that there was a later date/event/interruption which marks a distinction between the Golden Age and the current era?
 
More on topic, I should note that Classical Greece was in general quite horrifically misogynistic (Sparta less so than other places). That got slightly better in Hellenistic times, though, so "Hellenic conquest spree" probably does not work to the OP's purposes.

People often overlook that. If Hellennic culture continued on without social advancement, it would be terribly sexist.
 
The Catholic Church hating women seems a bit exaggerated given a big chunk of the work of various Papal underlings was going "uh guys...witchcraft isnt a real thing, you can't just murder innocent women because they are unpopular." and there were women saints of great renown and stereotypically (with some justification) women are more religious and better at keeping men to the faith or making new converts than men.

Hell the Renaissance which was a series of blows to the Church was apparently by some accounts a disaster for women's rights.


Not saying the Church is not by design a male dominated organisation with an interest in stifling social progress but rich men and men in general and women by preference were more than willing to stick the knife into equality without an evil cable...conclave telling them to do so.
 
My knowledge on the Abbasids is very limited, however I could give you examples of how the Umayyad Caliphate of Iberia in the same era was much more willing to grant women rights.

Abd-Ar-Rahman III had two great females in his court in high positions. The first being l Lubna, a former slave who became a polymath known for being a scribe, mathematician and a poet. The other being a woman named Fatema, the Caliph's translator of famous works and curator of his personal library. It has also been argued that there were more women who held administrative roles in mid to late 10th century Cordoba, but have been lost to history due to poor historiography, destruction of documents and other reasons.

I don't know enough about the history of the medeival Levant to debate your views on this, so I can't comment, I was just going off of common narratives on when the Golden Age ended.

John is partly right: the Mamluk age saw in many regards a considerable flourishing, as did the rule of Ilkhanids and Timurids to the East. This is, AFAIK, also very true about art (the great Iranian miniature and calligraphy traditions blossomed at this point).
Also, Mamluk era saw notable social mobility.
On the other hand, in terms of intellectual production in fields like theology and philosophy, you witness, as far as my own knowledge of the sources go, a considerably more entrenched tradition and a more compilatory attitude. It was, in many regards, a time of retrenchement and synthesis, more "conservative" than "creative". Better said perhaps, great creative minds put their considerable skills and talents primarily to the service of tradition (Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Nafis come to mind). But we have also the semi-final compilation of the Arabian Nights (on topic here, since they appear to subvert some misogynistic tropes of the time) and original thinkers like Ibn Khaldun.
It is however undeniable that the Mongols, alongisde other factors, weakened urban life in the East significantly. Population apparently fell, for reasons that can be connected with the Mongols both directly and, more importantly, indirectly (plague, and Timur). Furthermore, sources leave no doubt that the contemporary perception saw the Mongol invasion as a watershed moment (while the barely noticed the Crusades ;)).
There are presently scholars that see the "Golden Age" as lasting at least into the first phase of the Mongol period, but when talking about Egypt this should be extended by perhaps a century.
Regarding philosophy, the most creative and interesting time is roughly 1000-1300 AD. But of course it did not stop there.
I personally favor a view that would include, with some qualifications, the post-Mongol period at least to the time of Timur in the Golden Age in intellectual terms, especially if we take works in Persian (and, I suppose, Turkish, on which I am far less versed) into account.
But as said, even if Islamic intellectual life remained vibrant (vibrating at a different frequence I'd say) after the Mongols, for other aspects they were certainly a disruptive factor. However, this not the thread for this discussion.
 
The Maya sort of did though it depends on your definition of "progress": IIRC they believed that each iteration of the world improved on its predecessor.
I'm not a Mesoamericanist of course.

Nor am I. But now I recall something like that. It goes roughly that the gods get better at the whole world creation business by a trial-error learning process, more or less?
However, that "nobody" was meant, in context, within Medieval Islam. It would have been an exceedingly daring claim otherwise ;).
 
Three scenarios

First -

*Holy League follows up Lepanto with landings in Greece that provoke wider revolts in the Balkans, Habsburg (Catholic) power waxes

*Spanish Armada succeeds in taking over England then helping to bring the Netherlands to heel

*A much more entrenched Catholic church stamps out progressive ideas, the Ottoman response is an embryonic fundamentalism that ironically does more to unite the Empire than had been previously achieved


Second -

*Salic law established across Europe

*Disinheritance of powerful women, even if they are not married


Third -

*Third Great Awakening reaches fruition in the United States in late 1870s after carnage of Civil War combines with growing temperance movement

*No women's rights leadership from the United States

*Communism seen as linked to women's rights and suppressed all the more during the ensuing decades
 

Orsino

Banned
"Misogynist" is a tricky term when talking about historical societies, it suggests that you're asking how there could be more widespread antipathy towards women which is a harder thing to predict/quantify than sexual inequality within society, and the term also has all sorts of associations with feminist pseudohistory.

If you're asking for a society that has more rigid roles for women I'd suggest butterflying the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

Without industrial economies and without the notion of reason as a foundational principle for the state women would certainly have less freedom, that might very well translate into more widespread antipathy towards women
 
John is partly right: the Mamluk age saw in many regards a considerable flourishing, as did the rule of Ilkhanids and Timurids to the East. This is, AFAIK, also very true about art (the great Iranian miniature and calligraphy traditions blossomed at this point).
Also, Mamluk era saw notable social mobility.
On the other hand, in terms of intellectual production in fields like theology and philosophy, you witness, as far as my own knowledge of the sources go, a considerably more entrenched tradition and a more compilatory attitude. It was, in many regards, a time of retrenchement and synthesis, more "conservative" than "creative". Better said perhaps, great creative minds put their considerable skills and talents primarily to the service of tradition (Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Nafis come to mind). But we have also the semi-final compilation of the Arabian Nights (on topic here, since they appear to subvert some misogynistic tropes of the time) and original thinkers like Ibn Khaldun.
It is however undeniable that the Mongols, alongisde other factors, weakened urban life in the East significantly. Population apparently fell, for reasons that can be connected with the Mongols both directly and, more importantly, indirectly (plague, and Timur). Furthermore, sources leave no doubt that the contemporary perception saw the Mongol invasion as a watershed moment (while the barely noticed the Crusades ;)).
There are presently scholars that see the "Golden Age" as lasting at least into the first phase of the Mongol period, but when talking about Egypt this should be extended by perhaps a century.
Regarding philosophy, the most creative and interesting time is roughly 1000-1300 AD. But of course it did not stop there.
I personally favor a view that would include, with some qualifications, the post-Mongol period at least to the time of Timur in the Golden Age in intellectual terms, especially if we take works in Persian (and, I suppose, Turkish, on which I am far less versed) into account.
But as said, even if Islamic intellectual life remained vibrant (vibrating at a different frequence I'd say) after the Mongols, for other aspects they were certainly a disruptive factor. However, this not the thread for this discussion.



Agreed, that this isn't the thread to discuss this topic. I agree that in general the aspect of innovation in terms of scientific terms decreased slightly and the power of the Mu'Tazila was decreased as well following the events of the fall of the Abbasid, rise of the Saljuks and the eventual Mongol conquest of Iraq. But in essence my assertion is that

1. The viewpoint of Taymiyyah was already within Islam prior to the Mongols and was very widespread (just not in the courts of Baghdad).

2. Islam was more stable and might I say powerful outside the influence of the noble and might I say oppressive Mu'Tazila. At least in Iraq, I don't know the influence of Mu'Tazila in Qurtubah.

But again as you've said this isn't the thread to discuss this, perhaps another time in greater detail.
 
For a more modern example, perhaps fascism catches on worldwide, women being reduced to baby factories and home-makers. Actually, I think any system that subordinates people to the will of the state has a good chance of becoming misogynistic, whether it be fascism, communism, Confucianism, etc.
 
Third -

*Third Great Awakening reaches fruition in the United States in late 1870s after carnage of Civil War combines with growing temperance movement

How does that even make sense, since many high-profile temperance leaders were women and it is strongly linked to women's rights? A more religious society does not necessarily mean a more misogynist society.
 
Without industrial economies and without the notion of reason as a foundational principle for the state women would certainly have less freedom, that might very well translate into more widespread antipathy towards women

I'm gonna agree with this one.
 
Without industrial economies and without the notion of reason as a foundational principle for the state women would certainly have less freedom, that might very well translate into more widespread antipathy towards women

I dunno, there were plenty of "reasonable" philosophers who were also raging misogynists. I don't know if industrialization was a direct cause of female emancipation either- I think a lot of it has to do with major wars clearing out factories of working-age men, leaving those left behind with more bargaining power.
 
No world war I could also be a pod. Without it being necessary to bring women into the workforce, they may have languished in parlors. I'd also argue that butterflying the third great awakening could stop womens rights from coming to fruition. The suffragettes organized in all girls schools and universities, many of which were founded by religious leaders.
 

Orsino

Banned
I dunno, there were plenty of "reasonable" philosophers who were also raging misogynists. I don't know if industrialization was a direct cause of female emancipation either- I think a lot of it has to do with major wars clearing out factories of working-age men, leaving those left behind with more bargaining power.
Perhaps I phrased what I meant poorly, maybe I'm not talking about reason so much as rationality/humanism. When you start having revolutionary states that overthrow established orders based on tradition and religion, when you have people trying to rebuild societies along rational lines based in secular law, this allows questions about the role of women to start to come up.

And I wouldn't underestimate the role of industrialisation. When people are tied to the land social mobility is likely to be close to zero. Industrialisation creates jobs where a woman can compete with a man, it creates movement of people and fuels the growth of cities giving rise to the possibility for young women to strike out on their own.

Cheat/ASB answer to the OP: Outbreak of a virulent STD that can be contracted by both men and women but is painful and deadly to men and harmless/asymptomatic in women.
 
Last edited:
Top