Creating a baby female is relatively simple. In the developing zygote, you take two X sex chromosomes, or allosomes, and put them together, and you've got a lovely baby girl. Creating a baby male is just as simple- take one X allosome and one Y allosome, and you've got a wonderful baby boy. Which brings me straight to the question everyone has pondered about, or will ponder about, at least once in their lifetime;
Why is it that males are, or even were, considered the superior gender?
Of course, due to rising awareness about female rights, and feminism becoming increasingly popularized and accepted all around the world, female voting rights are taken for granted in the 21st century, no one bats an eye when a woman becomes a Supreme Court judge, and had Hillary Clinton become the 45th President of the United States, no one would have thought her capabilities lessened because of her gender. But why should have awareness about female rights risen in the first place? Why were women considered the submissive gender at all? Shouldn't they have been seen as nothing less than equal to men ever since history started being recorded?
Recently, I began to think that there may plausibly be a biological reason for this unfair bias. After all, not long before the start of the 21st century, it was a given that women were- as much as it pains me to type it- less than men. Or more accurately, considered less than men. There was no questioning it, no arguing against it. It simply was. Surely, there must be a biological reason for that to have happened? (And yes, I'm talking genetics here, people).
It can be ascertained that in, say, the 19th century, before female rights were made widespread, the superiority of men over women (since biologically, there is no way a female is less than a male) was spread by behavioral patterns, attitudes, and general opinions that proclaimed a woman to be unequal to a man. As children were born, they 'learned' from every person around them that girls were submissive and boys dominant, and accepted it as a salient fact. However, as behavioral patterns are not a biological reason, and a somewhat disappointing answer in any case, we need to dig deeper.
Yuval Noah Harari, author of 'Sapiens- A Brief History of Humankind', has three reasonably biological theories set in place. They are as follows:
Why is it that males are, or even were, considered the superior gender?
Of course, due to rising awareness about female rights, and feminism becoming increasingly popularized and accepted all around the world, female voting rights are taken for granted in the 21st century, no one bats an eye when a woman becomes a Supreme Court judge, and had Hillary Clinton become the 45th President of the United States, no one would have thought her capabilities lessened because of her gender. But why should have awareness about female rights risen in the first place? Why were women considered the submissive gender at all? Shouldn't they have been seen as nothing less than equal to men ever since history started being recorded?
Recently, I began to think that there may plausibly be a biological reason for this unfair bias. After all, not long before the start of the 21st century, it was a given that women were- as much as it pains me to type it- less than men. Or more accurately, considered less than men. There was no questioning it, no arguing against it. It simply was. Surely, there must be a biological reason for that to have happened? (And yes, I'm talking genetics here, people).
It can be ascertained that in, say, the 19th century, before female rights were made widespread, the superiority of men over women (since biologically, there is no way a female is less than a male) was spread by behavioral patterns, attitudes, and general opinions that proclaimed a woman to be unequal to a man. As children were born, they 'learned' from every person around them that girls were submissive and boys dominant, and accepted it as a salient fact. However, as behavioral patterns are not a biological reason, and a somewhat disappointing answer in any case, we need to dig deeper.
Yuval Noah Harari, author of 'Sapiens- A Brief History of Humankind', has three reasonably biological theories set in place. They are as follows:
- Men had naturally greater muscle power than women, which they used to dominate their supposedly weaker counterparts;
- Men were naturally more aggressive than women, and thus they became the dominant gender;
- Women were normally stay-at-home creatures due to childbirth problems and the like; which left men to develop and sharpen their skills further and thus become dominant.
----------
It is acknowledged in 'Sapiens' itself that each of these theories have several holes in them. Let us take the first theory, for example. Certainly, it has been widely accepted that men were always naturally more muscular and fit than women. Given that it was men who always worked as hunter-gatherers in the Stone Age and were responsible for gathering food, and that their newfound tendency to develop a better physique could have been passed down genetically to the men of today, the theory may indeed hold some water at first glance. Also, it is perfectly plausible at first glance to assume that men bullied their female counterparts into submission using their naturally greater strength inherited from their hunter-gatherer ancestors- I mean, phenomena such as rape and subsequent forced impregnation are still a (very, very sad) reality today. So this theory is possible, right?
Notice that I said 'at first glance'.
While the theory of men being naturally fitter than women does still undeniably hold a bit of water (as in certain aspects, they are naturally stronger), it has been proven that women have greater hunger tolerance, pain tolerance, disease resistance and the like, overall. It must be acknowledged as well that during the Industrial Revolution, women also worked much harder than men (as males were usually engaged in work that wasn't physically demanding, like politics- which women were also kept out of) in the fields, the household and the crafts- and there's also the matter of their menstrual cycle. All of this would have created highly pain, disease and hunger resisting genes, passed on from female to female. And what's more, women can also become capable of running faster and lifting heavier weights than men.
Besides, societies and societal positions are not built on strength. Donald Trump did not become President of the U.S.A by punching Hillary Clinton's lights out in a boxing match. The next headmaster of a prestigious school is not decided by a wrestling bout. The don of a mafia gang is rarely the strongest man; he is usually the most intelligent and experienced man- and more often than not, he is someone a younger gang member could (physically, but not mentally) overpower in a trice.
We homo sapiens are at the top of the animal kingdom- but when it comes to strength, we would only be in the middle order. It is our intellect and cooperation that has brought us where we are now. That is why this theory is, more likely than not, implausible.
----------
Let us now consider the second theory of men being much more aggressive than women. And before someone tries to say that it may be possible that women are, in actuality, more aggressive than men, it has been scientifically proven that men are indeed more aggressive than women due to higher testosterone levels- and of course, millions of years of evolution. That is, of course, why men are more associated with wars than women are.
It's a rather distasteful thing to imagine, but when one thinks of the word 'soldier', it is more than likely that one would imagine a male rather than a female. However, when an army wins a war, do the soldiers get recognized for their bravery? Discounting some exceptional cases, no. If an army wins a war, is it because their commander was smart, rather than strong? Indeed. And does that mean it is reasonable to imagine a large army of men commanded by five or six strong (as mentioned above), smart women? Yes!
The point I'm trying to make here is that, especially back in history, common soldiers hardly got any recognition for winning wars- that went to the smart people, the aristocracy that actually dictated the plans of attack, base defense and the like; and it still does, for war is not a street fight. Women are often framed as better manipulators than men, and have a superior ability to empathize and put themselves in other people's shoes. They are more likely to think, "If I were the enemy, which plan of offense would I use to cripple the Indian base?"
So, it makes more sense that women lay out plans and hash out stratagems that the relatively simple-minded males can employ on the battlefield- which, of course, cancels the second theory of men becoming dominant just because they were aggressive.
----------
The third theory is, of course, the most likely option. In the Stone Age, before women could properly develop and pass on pain-resistant genes, procreation was already a reality. Women, who had not yet developed a sense, or protocol, on dealing with such hardships like carrying a child, labor and the like, were left very vulnerable. A woman could not continue her role in society while with child; to put it simply, she needed a man. Thus, women became somewhat dependent on men to run the household and be its head; and at the same time, men could develop and sharpen their skills in fields such as hunting, farming, industrial activities, and later politics and war.
There's more to this theory than just that, of course. In the early centuries, the life span of an average homo sapiens was, according to meticulous research, a pathetic 41. This, of course, greatly magnified the importance of gestation and procreating- which women were an integral part of, especially since a woman could have been with child from any man she wished (it was the men who competed for that honor). Life was greatly challenging, with disease running rampant and each day bringing the possibility of death.
All of this only served to magnify the importance that a woman remain safe and stay-at-home. It wasn't fully due to masculine assertion of authority; but also the requirement of society to continue, and subsequently grow and develop. For this, babies were, and still are, essential. That made women essential- and that got them kicked out of the arduous and dangerous hunter-gatherer life. Men were left to compete with each other, grow stronger from the experience, and sharpen their skills in order to survive, while women, who were always disallowed from the 'men's life', were left to be dependent on them, to earn for the household and raise their child.
However, Harari has pointed out a hole in this theory. The society of the elephants is very much the same way, except that it is a matriarchal society, not a patriarchal one. The cows, who remain impregnated and unable to move about as much as the bulls, spend that time nurturing their social skills, their cooperation tactics and such- therefore creating a strong, united front capable of leading the entire herd. In sharp contrast, bull elephants compete with one another, constantly fighting and 'sharpening their tusks', so to speak; thus becoming loners. The cows, though less strong individually than the bulls, are united as one- and can exert this influence over the loner-type, uncooperative male elephants. Us homo sapiens are at the top of the animal kingdom for very much the same reason; cooperation and teamwork combined with intellect. So why didn't this happen with us? Why didn't the women all unite from the start and present a strong front- and become the dominant gender?
Why, in essentials, were women ever considered less than men?
The answer: We don't know!
There could literally be a million different reasons, ranging from some decisive, historical event to the fact that we aren't elephants. However, what we all must consider is the fact that what has passed is now in the past, and we can't change that. What we must do, and are doing, is provide for the equality of females and their rights. That is what, I feel, society now requires, and women are rightfully demanding. The changes in this regard are, while still not at a worldwide level, are astounding. In the twentieth century, the idea of a female Supreme Court judge was laughable, the idea of giving voting rights to women was outrageous, and anyone who even intimated women as being equal to men, absolutely and unquestionably, would probably have been shunned by society as a whole. Look where we are now. Given that this idea has persisted
since the Stone Age, the fact that we have substantially turned it around in
only about half a century is quite a feat.
And that is why the history of gender is so perplexing!
Comments
Post a Comment