Articles
How the Neolithic Revolution Led to Gender Inequality
Or
A Story of Wealth and Modesty and A Voice From a Different World
4/9/2015
The Source of gender inequality, maybe of the very concept of oppression in and of itself, can be traced back to money and wealth, and arguably, what many would call 'civilization'.
At one point in prehistory, most likely for thousands upon thousands of years, men and women lived together with seemingly equal division of labour and food, and the evidence points to one culture at least that did not live in the genetically linked family units that we consider normal today. Perhaps children here were brought up by the community, or fostered out at an early age, possibly bringing the whole community closer together.
The Artefacts that we find from these peoples would seem to suggest that their gods were female, they likely had no priests or priestesses, as we find no temples, no evidence of any 'elite' of any one person having power over another, and all of their houses were of similar size to one another.
Their goddesses were most likely fertility gods, the success of the crops and the birth of the animals and children being so vital to a society right in the earliest days of the Neolithic agricultural revolution.
But it was most likely the development of agriculture and it's enormous success that lead to a change in attitude toward the sexes.
With the cultivation of grains in early Mesopotamia, and the domestication of animals, people put down roots, and were more likely to stay in one place. Farming is a more efficient use of time than hunting and gathering on the move, allowing more time for the further development of culture and innovation. This was when mankind really hit the ground running, and we never looked back. This was all great, the human race marched forward into the future.
But, with the abundance that mankind now enjoyed, came wealth, and presumably at some point the concept of money. Soon, through mankind's seemingly inherent capacity for greed, this wealth is unevenly distributed amongst the people, and as has been repeated many times - money is power.
You may be forgiven at this point, for thinking that I blame men rather than women for this greed. I do not. Because what comes next, with power and money and greed, is armies and battles and war; and the simple explanation then is that men, being generally predisposed to a stronger physical body, will win in war. The strongest men will do well, and will appoint other strong men to fight for them, gaining more and more power for themselves. But the damage is not yet done, for if it were as simple as men being the rulers we could solve it tomorrow, clearly men have shown throughout history that while they are capable of great acts of cruelty and barbarism, many of them can make good and just rulers, as far as any person ruling another could be called 'good'. I am fairly certain that had history somehow have been turned on its head, and 99% of the world's powerful people had been women, that whilst history would have been very different indeed, it would similarly have produced both well loved rulers and much feared ones.
But what happens next, when these men in power have amassed and secured their wealth, is that they start to look to producing strong male heirs, to carry on their name and power and glory. The instinct for the immortality of our genes. And so with the need for good genes, and strong and healthy progeny, the reproductive rights of women become a valuable commodity.
So the balance of power shifts, from individuals within a community as a whole, equally heard and regarded, to the wealthiest elite, who win in battle, and in whose interest it is to consider women in terms of their fertility, their beauty (a manifestation of perceived notions of health and strength to pass on) and ultimately as a possession to be traded and sold and discarded.
Women's clothing is of interest here, because now that sexuality is the defining characteristic associated with women, it is to be coveted and therefore needs protection, and covering up.
This can be seen throughout history in the traditions of women's clothing; whilst men's attire, though often culturally prescribed with greater or lesser severity, has rarely been the source of so much control, controversy and attention. Women have fought and died for what they dared to wear.
From the many and various guises of the hijab, the Orthodox Jewish tradition of the sheitel - a wig worn to cover the hair, to the wimple of medieval Europe. Even well into the twentieth century it was expected that women wore a hat to church. Perhaps harmless enough as a Sunday custom, like having fish on Fridays, but it ultimately has it's roots in the very sinister practice of categorising women based on their sexual availability, and at the same time, in trying to cover up any evidence that women might in fact be sexual beings at all.
(The history of head covering in general is very interesting, and I shall have to write again about the Christian tradition in particular, as at this point my research rather branched off, and I fear I have more to say than needs to be put here, and this article is already more than long enough for my liking.)
The very oldest written evidence of laws on women's attire is from twelfth century Assyria, far predating the custom within any of the modern religions, or even the practice within the cultures of the Romans and the Greeks. It prescribes different forms of attire for five different categories of women which it lays out - the privileged wives and daughters lucky enough to be born in the right house, and then concubines, temple prostitutes, harlots and slave girls. It also dictates some pretty brutal punishments for women who failed to comply.
I have no issue whatsoever with any woman who chooses to cover her head - be it for Religious, Spiritual (yes that can be different) or cultural reasons, be it for obedience through fear or be it that that's just what she wanted to wear when she got dressed this morning.
There are many good reasons for women to cover their heads in the modern world. But for me it is a symbol of the historic and continued oppression of women across the globe.
I would like to say that it is an archaic tradition, just the leftovers of a different world that we haven't got round to sorting out yet. But to say so would at best be derogatory to cultures across the world in which it is still very much prevalent, and perhaps, within context a relevant practicality. But fundamentally I think, to call it an archaicism is a misunderstanding of context.
I believe the key is not whether it is right or wrong for a woman to cover her head, but the way attitudes have changed so that women are considered as sexualised objects.
In the Prehistoric world before wealth and rulers, before strong sons were such an economic and power maintaining necessity, women's sexuality would surely have been entirely their own, rather than something that needed guarding like property from thieves.
I have heard it argued that Muhammad ordered his wives be covered because he conducted his business from his home where his wives lived and slept. He would have had many men pass through, and stay for many days within his walls. In this context - his wives are presumably valuable to him - it is logical for him to consider protecting his 'assets'.
Similarly, it may be logical for a woman to choose to cover up for herself, particularly if she lives in a culture where not doing so may bring attention in some way.
Of course this isn't just about head covering, and is arguably just as relevant to white western women as others across the world who must cover up in some way for fear of retribution (Though undoubtedly it is a more immediate and pressing concern for them) At different times in history, and still across the world, different areasof the body have been the source of this concept which we call 'modesty'.
I consider myself very fortunate to live in a society where the worst I'm likely to get for wearing a short skirt is mutterings from my grandmother, many women have dared risk controversy to get us here today, from the flappers of the twenties to the swingers and hippies of the sixties; yet the reality is that we still live in a world where the female body is considered in some way 'immodest'. We just think we're all incredibly daring and 'modern' because we broadcast it on the television and advertisements, seemingly without shame. This is a society obsessed with wealth and beauty, where slut-shaming is an everyday part of casual conversation, and where women still need to campaign for their right to use their breasts for their intended practical purpose in public.
How to change all this then? Well it all began with an uneven distribution of wealth, and it is interesting here to note that a link has been made between the general happiness level of the populace, and the gap between rich and poor. As societies become more equal, with fewer exceedingly rich and fewer desperately poor, so it would seem, their happiness level is increased.
When you think about it this is obvious, if the 1% owns 99% of everything, then the 99%of people left are going to be pretty unhappy, making average happiness potentially pretty shit. Whereas if most people had more or less the same amount of stuff, some of them might be happy and some of them might be miserable, but it seems more likely to average out at a better score.
Similarly, perhaps if everyone was on a more or less equal level of wealth - in other words - if everyone had more of less what they actually needed and not much else, perhaps we could recapture an attitude from the prehistoric age, or rather shed one that has plagued us since.
There was a woman once who lived in a transitional time between the old world of equality and the new age of man. Her name was Enheduanna, and she was the high-priestess daughter of a Sumerian king in around 2300BC. She was the first known poet - the very first, and oldest writer that we have, who signed her work, and one of the first women in history whose name we actually know. In a hymn to the goddess Inanna she wrote:
"I am Enheduanna"
and
"I am who I am"
Powerful words of confidant self-affirmation from a woman who lived 4300 years ago, when so many have been denied the right to use those simple sentences in such a way. Hers is a voice from a time when maybe the most revolutionary and ubiquitous social concept was still in it's infancy. A woman between the worlds. Perhaps the closest we will ever get to the voices of thousands of upon thousands of years of prehistoric women who may have lived free from the shackles of this concept.
But I am very proud at least, to be able to end this passage with the words:
I am Hannah.
and
I am who I am.
