Prominence of males in history and cultures

Whenever I look up how male-dominated history is, I wonder how much of that is a societal thing and how much our primate ancestors have to do with it.

Basically, which of these is more accurate than the other:

- Males have probably dominated in recorded history more because that was a trend started in the most ancient civilizations, and over time this became a norm to the point where females became lesser and lesser regarded as eligible spot-fillers.

Or,

- Males have probably dominated in recorded history because it is a ‘thing’ hard-wired into us that our pre-homo sapien ancestors had in them for x number of reasons. The ‘thing’ being anything from ‘alpha behavior’ to ‘males had more x than females did.’

Or, could you say it’s pretty even? Or perhaps too out of reach to really say either way?


Thanks for any help :]
 
There's no such thing as "male-dominated History". A male-dominated historiography, yes, but it was hardly the reality.
You always had women making history, and not only as "power behing the throne" or other clichés. Just that it wasn't "remembered" (while being recorded) by historians of contemporary or later period (depending of the social context).

Most early culture seems to not have a real hierarchical distinction but more an organisational distinction : men are responsable for everything that is outside the settlement (hunt by exemple) while women are responsable for what happen inside.

Each group having the decisional power in his own sphere.

With the apparition of agriculture, such organisation was challenged, as men had to stay in settlements to contribue to the production.

Now, many cultures kept a more or less important role for women. Etrusceans are a good exemple.
Others like Greeks were particularly misogynic.

Romans were finally in middle.

Even historically, the role of woman changed a lot : in Middle Ages, the women can had a political role particularly important. Of course it was the case in nobility (Dhuoda, Margaret, Alienor, Joan of Arc) but aslo among the lower classes with women having the right to vote and considered as juridic equals.

It mainly changed in west because of the Renaissance that carried back old roman point of view (and more the old republican, than the imperial one that was more liberal) making women eternal minors.
 

Thande

Donor
Because history is made by people going out and doing things, and for most of the existence of the human race (and still the case to some extent in the third world), lack of contraception and high infant mortality (therefore big families) meant that women spent almost the entirety of their time with child-rearing.

An interesting corollary to this is the menstrual cycle, which we nowadays consider to be somewhat emblematic of femininity: for most of human history, the vast majority of women didn't menstruate because they were always in a state of either pregnancy or lactation. Which goes some way to explaining why single women (who did menstruate) have always been viewed with some suspicion by society (the obvious example being accusations of witchcraft in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period) considering how even nowadays a lot of men are squicked out by the idea menstruation.

This goes a long way towards explaining attitudes towards women in positions of power for most of history: generally, society was willing to accept the idea of the exception--usually a spinster or widowed queen regnant--but the idea that women could generally obtain positions of power would have seemed absurd because it would (people would believe) cause the collapse of civilisation because there wouldn't be enough children being born to perpetuate the race. This isn't to say that men haven't often regarded women as being intellectually inferior or incapable of holding positions of power, of course, but this is not the primary reason (as is often mistakenly believed) why you didn't see many women in power until recently.
 
You also have to consider one major problem for women: childbirth was extremely risky for thousands of years and still is dangerous in some parts of the world. Mothers dying in childbirth was very common. This means that less women lived to old age in comparison to men.

When you combine the fact that women were dying earlier with the fact that men are on average slightly stronger physically for manual labor tasks, you have a bias towards men. Now, this bias can be minimal or it can have a major effect on society.
 
meant that women spent almost the entirety of their time with child-rearing.

Actually it wasn't really the case. The child-raising thing was or shared among the family (especially young childrens) or to people of the extended familial cercle, and what we could call "parental responsability" was considered as shared.

(the obvious example being accusations of witchcraft in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period)
What about the "refused charity model"? I know it's no longer considered as a main factor, but the menstruation factor isn't really convincing. Especially when the majority of witch burnt in Modern Age were menopaused women.

-but the idea that women could generally obtain positions of power would have seemed absurd because it would (people would believe) cause the collapse of civilisation because there wouldn't be enough children being born to perpetuate the race.
Err...That's mainly a modern feature : many antic or medieval cultures acknowledged the potential independence of women.
They had a limited possibility of using it, of course, but less due to misogyny than the limit itself of society.

I would point that the "exception" of nobility was less the presence of women with power, that their individualisation at the exemple of men. The women of peasantry had indeed a power but merged into the collective one, so less distinguishable (we have still records of some votes amongst the rural aeras that indicate vote of women though).

The main mysogynic feature in Middle Ages was established religion : the refuse of ordinance of women led to the "revolt" of some that while were used to be treated with political consideration in secular business, weren't in spiritual one. It's one of the reason of many para-organised women in the surrounding of churches, of their presence in heresies (as in catharism by exemple).

That said, the better exemple of women integration in political spiritual power came aslo from established church (with the exemple of abess ruling on feminine and masculine orders). So, it's a bit more complicated.

I maybe seems to talk a lot of MA, but many antic civilisation didn't used the romans or greek repulsion towards women's position : celtic or etruscean civilisation by exemple.

However, there are important reasons why the men were more indicated in accounts than women in Europe.
1) The model was the patrilinear line. Except some era and places, it was the deremining model.
2) Accounts were made by people with a religious view of the world, that favored the light put on men.
3) The predominance of "history-battle" that involved with some exceptions, only men.
 
Last edited:
Well the two main medieval authors I've read on this topic (and dammit I cannot remember the names of them) argued that while women could certainly act in the world and might do just fine (many parallels with animals are drawn as well as allusions to aristotle) but the human child needs much more care and instruction and if the woman is out in the world, they can't provide it.

I'm not saying that's how it was (and marriage and family altered throughout the period in terms of child rearing) but at the level of philosophical debate that was the reasoning.
 
Well the two main medieval authors I've read on this topic argued that while women could certainly act in the world and might do just fine (many parallels with animals are drawn as well as allusions to aristotle) but the human child needs much more care and instruction and if the woman is out in the world, they can't provide it.

Isn't one of them Tolomeo di Lucca? If it's that, it dates from the era in Middle Ages where roman law was reintroduced, with all the classical roman point of view on women was revigored.

At least theorically, you had to wait up to 1500 for having this penetrating the strata of the society. (You have a very long period where women's rights didn't stopped from being reduced, up to 1802 and Napoleonic Code that made women officialy minor under the tutelage of or fathers, or husbands).

For raising children, I can only quote Dhuoda of Severac and his book (really really known in MA : "Liber Manualis") that was basically a work about how raising a child.
 
Isn't one of them Tolomeo di Lucca? If it's that, it dates from the era in Middle Ages where roman law was reintroduced, with all the classical roman point of view on women was revigored.

At least theorically, you had to wait up to 1500 for having this penetrating the strata of the society. (You have a very long period where women's rights didn't stopped from being reduced, up to 1802 and Napoleonic Code that made women officialy minor under the tutelage of or fathers, or husbands).

For raising children, I can only quote Dhuoda of Severac and his book (really really known in MA : "Liber Manualis") that was basically a work about how raising a child.
Rousseau, Rousseau... I don't recall if it was Bartholomew of Lucca or not. Sorry.

I've read Dhouda, or rather, translated excerpts from her manual via Gies. They provided an important resource for the social aspects of the TL at the time. But how much of it is specific to raising male children as opposed to female?
 
I've read Dhouda, or rather, translated excerpts from her manual via Gies. They provided an important resource for the social aspects of the TL at the time. But how much of it is specific to raising male children as opposed to female?

The book put the more importance into christian education, and this was quite for both gender. (The main proof is the ability of Duhoda herself to quote an awful number of Bible quotes and theological reasoning)

Now, of course, there were specifities to male education critically concerning the vassalic respect. But that's not restrictive, you have a passage, by exemple, where she advice to pay the debts made by herself. (Showing that she had a financial personality distinct from man).
 
I don't know if it was translated : "Histoire des Femmes" (History of Women) and critically the second opus under the direction of Duby and Perrot could be really interesting as it's a study that is made trough classes, eras and ages of women during the Middle Ages.

It's an interesting book, really. I don't know if something conclusive was made since 20 years that put the whole thing in question.
 
Something I have noticed is that in Western society, even as far back as the High Middle Ages, one finds lots of publically powerful women. Elenor of Aquitaine, Hildagard von Bingam, Joan of Arc, Cathrine de Medici, Elizabeth I, etc. One does not see this on other major civilizations (sure, there are powerful women in other societies, but they are not public and open about wielding their power). There were very few openly prominent women in Classical Graeco-Roman civilization, and the ones that were well known were portrayed very negatively (Livia Drusilla, Cleopatra, Alex the Great's mom Olympias). the very few Female Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese empresses portrayed themselves as male.

In the Middle Ages, people from Muslim world and Byzantium who visited the West were often shocked and scandalized by how "out in the open" Western women were.

Also, in Catholic Europe reverence for the Virgin Mary is far more extensive than it is among Orthodox and Eastern Christians.

I find all this extremely interesting, and seems to indicate that the West has been, though it's entire history since it emerged out of the Dark Ages, one of the least patriarchal civilizations.
 
Something I have noticed is that in Western society, even as far back as the High Middle Ages, one finds lots of publically powerful women. Elenor of Aquitaine, Hildagard von Bingam, Joan of Arc, Cathrine de Medici, Elizabeth I, etc. One does not see this on other major civilizations (sure, there are powerful women in other societies, but they are not public and open about wielding their power). There were very few openly prominent women in Classical Graeco-Roman civilization, and the ones that were well known were portrayed very negatively (Livia Drusilla, Cleopatra, Alex the Great's mom Olympias). the very few Female Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese empresses portrayed themselves as male.

In the Middle Ages, people from Muslim world and Byzantium who visited the West were often shocked and scandalized by how "out in the open" Western women were.

Also, in Catholic Europe reverence for the Virgin Mary is far more extensive than it is among Orthodox and Eastern Christians.

I find all this extremely interesting, and seems to indicate that the West has been, though it's entire history since it emerged out of the Dark Ages, one of the least patriarchal civilizations.

Well, Indian civilization traditionally was fairly egalitarian in its treatment of men and women. While women were occasionally bound by certain practices like sati, and widespread misogyny, in most states women could own land, inherit property and valuables, run businesses, and obtain divorces. That changed somewhat from 1800 onwards as Indian society became more conservative, and then moved towards liberalism again from the 1930s onwards. Some parts of India, however, are still very misogynistic.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Is there much underepresentation of women in positions of power throughout history? Of course there is.

Is there still a grain of truth in the belief that women were sometimes more restricted than men in history? Yes.

Also while it remains true that in certain cultures child rearing was more of a shared occupation, you know what isnt? Pregnancy, with all its stressors, and a very high risk of death in childbirth.

Now, this is only compounded when historians focus on warfare as a vital part of history, which it is, but it is sometimes overated. However, the fact remains that men were more suited to the infantry combat present in the middle ages, and many other times, and the ability to both fight and lead in battle was often a very important role for a leader. Women, both expected to remain within their sphere of control in the home, and naturally less disposed to easily build muscle than, often lost out on the opportunity to lead men into battle and gain historical prominence in that manner.

While there are many notable exceptions, there were far many more men than women that were notable for their exercise in power, especially in the military sphere. While it remains true that many in many societies the process of child rearing was equal, the fact remains that because the male-sphere was outside of home, it often allowed men to exercise a larger amount of power in a manner that was easier than it was for many women.

Therefor, while I would never call history 'male-dominated' I would certainly admit that for the reasons above stated, women were not as often as men found in positions of power, causing history to often seem askew.
 
Chinese empresses portrayed themselves as male.

There was only one Chinese empress-regnant in history, and she certainly didn't portray herself as male. She did take the title huangdi, which translates to Emperor, but in some ways it's a gender-neutral title, so that's not the same thing as pretending to be male.
 
Well, Indian civilization traditionally was fairly egalitarian in its treatment of men and women. While women were occasionally bound by certain practices like sati, and widespread misogyny, in most states women could own land, inherit property and valuables, run businesses, and obtain divorces. That changed somewhat from 1800 onwards as Indian society became more conservative, and then moved towards liberalism again from the 1930s onwards. Some parts of India, however, are still very misogynistic.

Cheers,
Ganesha
Indian society is patriarchal and hence generally male dominated. This is more so in the Indo-Gangetic Heartland. Matriarchal societies existed in certain regions, especially in the South and the North-East.
A type of matrileniar system prevailed in Kerala until the first half of the 20th century. In that system inheritance was through the mother's side. The women remained in their households and the husbands were casual visitors whose rights over the wives was limited to sexual relations. They had no control over the wives' properties or any rights over the children. The eldest brother of the woman was in charge of the house and responsible to look after the children. The father had no responsibilities towards his children and no authority over them. The wife, if she feels so,could terminate the relationship with a simple gesture of placing the bed outside the door of the bedroom. The husband had to quit the place silently. The brother would find another man for his sister without much difficulty. The supervision of the wealth and property would be transferred from the uncle to the nephew, not from father to the son. This system of succession prevailed in the Royal Families of Kerala like Zamorin, Cochin and Travancore and the crown passed from uncle to the nephew. This system of "Marumakkathayam" gave way to the normal father to son system of "Makkathayam" only in the years before the Second World War. In the old system the birth of a daughter was celebrated, while the birth of a son was viewed negatively.
The woman leaders in the political field appear to be more domineering when compared to their male counterparts. Mrs.Indira Gandhi was the prime model.
She was termed as the "only male" in her Cabinet. Ms.Jayalalitha,the present Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, Ms.Mamatha Banerji, the C.M. of Bengal, Ms. Mayavathi, the former C.M. of Uttar Pradesh and Ms.Uma Bharati, the former C.M. of Madhya Pradesh are all leaders before whom their colleagues, followers and Government officers tremble with fear. But leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Sushma Swaraj, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Brinda Karat, the C.P.I.(M) leader etc. appear to be mild in comparison. The present and the former C.M.s mentioned are all unmarried. But the other three are all married. Could this factor have any significance in this case?
 
Lack of contraception and especially high infant mortality put huge restrictions on women that we don't see as much today. If you're going to have six pregnancies to term plus miscarriages and stillbirths and lots of nursing and lots of recovery from childbirth then that takes a lot of time from everything else. Basically take premodern birth rates and multiply that by a sane amount of maternity leave and BAM a massive chunk of your ability to work out of the home is GONE. Of course there are lots of exveptions but its hard to get around the birth rate that is needed to sustain a premodern population.
 
Top