Julia Stonehouse examines the recent history of the patriarchial society and finds the male biological preference for a son to be based on a fallacy, from Darwin to Christianity.
We know human life develops from ovum and sperm. That is two seeds and fusion, and two parents. This basic idea about the facts of life only became scientifically accepted around the turn of the 20th century. Before then, and in many parts of the world still, people thought there was one seed, and one parent—the father. I think this idea made patriarchy logical and inevitable.
Seeds are singular: one seed is planted in the ground and a complete plant grows from it, laden with the seeds of future generations. With the single, male-seed, concept people thought the human seed came entirely from the man and was planted into the ‘soil’ of women.
Female chastity became men’s number one concern because the children that came out of a woman’s body would be 100% her husband’s or 100% some other man’s. Women contributed 0% to the child in terms of generative seed, and did not as such actually reproduce, which is why they had no reproductive rights.
Men treated women as sex objects because women were objects of men’s sexual reproduction. A woman’s sexuality belonged to men: either the father who was the source of her entire being; or the husband she was to serve as his baby-making machine. This helps explain why, for example as it says on a Chinese government website, “In the Chinese family system the wife lives with the husband’s family and is deemed as no longer part of her own family, but the ‘property’ of the husband’s family.”
Before 1869 in England and America, a married woman came under the legal doctrine called ‘couverture’ which meant that she was not, legally, a person. The husband and wife were considered, in law, one person – and that person was the husband. The wife couldn’t own property, take out a mortgage, enter into any legal contracts, inherit money or land, or go into education. She could work, but the wages belonged to her husband.
For centuries, a long line of venerated male thinkers said that while women provided the material, men provided the seed that gave that material form or shape, motion or action, the intellectual and creative mind, and soul or spirit. In essence, what men provided was life itself.
|
The male-seed theory of reproduction gained logic from the fact that when a woman becomes pregnant, her menstruation stops. It was thought that menstrual blood went to make the baby, and that the woman generally provided the stuff the baby would be made of. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle described it as “prime matter” and “the material”; the 18th century French naturalist Buffon said the foetus is “fashioned” from menstrual blood; while Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus said women provide “the oxygen, food and nidus” – a place to grow.
Meanwhile men were thought to be the actual creators. They had the seed, which came from a long line of forefathers, all the way back to God, who was of course male. Erasmus Darwin said in 1794, “the embryo is provided by the male”. And while Buffon said women contributed the material, comparing it to marble, he also said in 1785 that “the male semen is the sculptor”. Aristotle said “the male semen cooks and shapes menstrual blood into a new human being”, and provides the “sentient soul”, with the male standing for the “effective and active”, and providing the “form” and the “principle of movement”. Collectively, for centuries, a long line of venerated male thinkers said that while women provided the material, men provided the seed that gave that material form or shape, motion or action, the intellectual and creative mind, and soul or spirit. In essence, what men provided was life itself. Aristotle also said “the active elements are always higher on any scale, and more divine.” So, being the source of the active elements in reproduction, men were also thought more divine.
The patriarchal male-seed idea of reproduction led to a highly polarised idea of what are the ‘nature’ of men and the ‘nature’ of women. And because ‘nature’ is designed by God, to challenge these ideas was blasphemous. To suggest that women could act as intermediaries with God by holding high positions in religious organisations was ridiculous. Men alone had spiritual authority because they were creative, like God, while women were not creative and so were very distinct from God. This spiritual apartheid continues in the structures of religious organisations to this day.
Of course men wanted sons. It’s wasn’t some mini-me ‘let’s play football’ preference. It was a profound need because if a man has no sons, there’s no continuation of the forefathers seed. The family line would come to a grinding halt because only sons have the seed of future generations in their testicles. Girl-children don’t contain within them their father’s seed, which makes girls an evolutionary dead-end. King Henry 8th brought religious war to England because he was desperate for a son. It’s been estimated that in India between 1988 and 2008 ten million female foetuses were aborted. Although sex-selection abortion is illegal in China, which has a one-child policy, there are now millions of ‘bare branches’––men who cannot find wives. So, in China too millions of females are missing, presumed dead, before or shortly after birth.
Inheritance of land went the same way as biological inheritance, along the male line. A daughter would marry a man from another family, and have children who were the grown seed of her husband. Why work hard all your life just to leave it all to another man’s family? In 1776 the writer James Boswell wrote “I … had a zealous partiality for heirs male, however remote” and gave as his first reason “the opinion of some distinguished naturalists, that our species is transmitted through males only…” He was lucky that he could consider a choice because for much of history European Salic Law and Christian Canon Law expressly forbade property going to females.
Children belonged to men because they were men’s grown seed. A farmer owns the crop that grows from the seeds he plants, and a baker owns the buns he puts in the oven. The soil and the oven are helpers, and this is how women were thought of – as helpers in men’s reproduction. Today, there are still many places in the world where mothers have few rights over the children they give birth to. In the UK it took 100 years for women to be granted equal parental rights: from 1878 when they had no rights whatsoever; to 1973 when the Guardianship Act stated “a mother shall have the same rights and authority as the law allows the father.”
When scientists first started suggesting there might be two seeds and fusion they had to do so anonymously or posthumously because it smacked of occultism, and could get them killed. Women who broke the non-creative mold were like intellectual transvestites, and brought their family disgrace and danger.
Charles Darwin had no idea where babies come from. It took an army of 19th century embryologists seven decades to establish the hypothesis that the human ovum is fertilised by a male sperm. They carried out their experiments on sea urchins, starfish, frogs, worms, and other humble creatures, so there were many people in 1900 who were still reluctant to believe that human reproduction was essentially the same. The non-believers would have to wait until photographic proof was produced in 1960. The Beatles were just tuning up.
If all this comes as a surprise to you, you’re not alone. Most people think “people have always known the facts of life” because nobody talks about reproduction theory, except people like me who study the history of embryology, and anthropologists who study the ‘kinship systems’ of other cultures.
The facts of life were extremely difficult to establish, and the patriarchs were not the only ones to get it wrong. There have been at least four major theories – all of which led to very different notions about what the male-female relationship is about. The earliest were almost certainly female-centered and did not lead to men controlling women because the source of creativity – the female – was the same person as the means of production – the female.
I think of the male-seed reproduction theory as the mortar which made the towers of patriarchy strong and powerful. When the male-seed theory changed to the two-seeds theory, around 1900, it was the quietest of revolutions for a complex of reasons including the truism ‘the nature of power is to retain your power’. But, as the logic behind patriarchy evaporated, the mortar began to crumble. However, we’re still left with the institutions, habits, and mind-sets that patriarchy engendered, and they are what we need to continue changing.
interesting….
“Aristotle described it as “prime matter” and “the material”……”
There was also a two seed theory put forth during the same period that usurped the one seed theory. Also, I think you’re describing Patrilineal rather than Patriarchy. It seems you’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – pardon the pun.
Today, the best and most robust theoretical framework is best described by parental investment and kin selection. This framework explains across species and pretty much anything that is organic.
Are you are referring to Galen, who talked about female “seed”, which he associated with sexual secretions. His use of the word “seed” is often misinterpreted as describing something that was generative, because we project onto that word the same meaning we have of it. But Galen said clearly of that female “seed” (it) “contributes nothing to the generation of offspring”. He thought it gives pleasure during sex, provides lubrication during intercourse, and gives nourishment to a child growing within a woman once a child is conceived. He also said that men have an optimum amount of heat while women… Read more »
I don’t agree with your take Julia Pre-History – belief that women are impregnated by forces of nature 400 B.C. – Hippocrates posits that similar reproductive fluids in both sexes mix to create life. 200 AD – Galean takes Hippo and Aristotle theories and combines them together 1600’s – Malphighi concludes that the female egg is the source of life (deduced from chicken embryology). The beginning of the Matriarchy 🙂 1677 – Leeuwenhoek finds spermatozoa with a microscope. (The Matriarchy collapses) 1877 – Herman Fol sees sperm enter the egg Galen says in his treatise, On Seed: “These things have… Read more »
Lets go through these points in the order you have it: Prehistory: there were at least 2 major theories – please see my website for an outline of them. Basically, during the Neolithic – the seed is in the woman and the man waters it (as a perennial seed in the ground is made to germinate and grow by a fall of rain). Paleolithic – the parthenogenetic woman, who reproduces without men. Also see the second page of my website referencing people in the world today who believe that very thing. The ancient Greeks argued about reproduction not only in… Read more »
Julia, Thanks for your lovely piece. It is quite interesting, though I take issue with much of it. A very significant question for you. Why does this piece lack any discussion of Judaism? I find it difficult to talk about Christianity without ANY reference to Judaism. Clearly Christian practice was at odds with much of the teaching of Judaism. For instance, King Solomon (and King David) had hundreds of wives AND concubines. HOWEVER, this practice was abolished and a man was then limited to 17. ALL of his wives MUST be treated fairly and maintained at minimum levels but not… Read more »
I write extensively about Judaism in my book and clearly can’t cover every aspect of this discussion in an article of this size. Part Four of the book is titled “The Take Over” because it refers to situations where the male-seed idea of reproduction came in, taking over an earlier view of the male-female relationships. The Israelites fall into this category. As you know, all three monotheistic religions trace their heritage back to Abraham. His father, known as Terah in the Bible and Azar in the Qu’ran (see Sura 6:79), was an idolator. Nor only did he worship idols, he… Read more »
@Julia….
Thank you. You did a great job with the limited space.
Hi Julia
Do you think this need to control women also resulted in repression of female sexuality ?
I mean,is suppression of women’s sexuality a result of this one seed idea?
A female being overtly sexual in a society that is obsessed with female chastity is a dangerous business – for her. There’s two things here: how a woman behaves in public; and how she behaves with her husband behind closed doors. A woman behaving flirtatiously in public is going to invite criticism from at least some members of the community, and with ‘honor’ such an issue, could bring the male members of her family into conflict with other men. As for what happens behind closed doors, she may feel ambiguous about being sexual with her husband. She may fear he’ll… Read more »
There is a very simple reason why people preferred to have sons in pre-industrial societies: for farming and as expendable troops for their lords. What feminists don’t want to remember (as well as many others) is that most people were slaves, both men and women. Peasant=serf=slave. Serfdom was abolished in Eastern Europe in the second half of XIX century…
Wirbelwind – A significant point you’ve brought up there.
Moreover, it would also suggest situational pragmatism & circumstance (rather than sexism, a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific nature of parental biology, or gender-biased intellectual vanity) as explanation and motivation for the desirability of male offspring. This seems to contradict the very concept of Patriarchy, which is that it is arbitrary, irrational, and rooted in a baselessly craven desire of one gender/class (males) to coerce & to retain power over another (females).
Mostly_123: I think it is very sad that you think patriarchy was “arbitrary, irrational, and rooted in a baselessly craven desire of one gender/class (males) to coerce & to retain power over another (females).” Too many people think that men are naturally thugs and bullies and women nincompoops to put up with it for so long. I, on the other hand, think that men are out of control, because they have been given too much control. Because they thought they had to control – women. With the male-seed theory of reproduction the source of human generation (the male) was physically… Read more »
Serf is a slave. A slave that depends on his master for protection, can’t leave his village, migrate, has to have as many children as possible (because most of them will die as infants from sickness and bad health standards) to help in backbreaking work for his master and THEN maybe on his scrap of a field. It was not controlling women- having many children was the only guarantee of any kind of help when the couple couldn’t work in the fields anymore (often thanks to poor diet of poor people and hard work for entire life). Serfs were often… Read more »
“I think it is very sad that you think patriarchy was ‘arbitrary, irrational, and rooted in a baselessly craven desire of one gender/class (males) to coerce & to retain power over another (females).’ Julia, I personally do not believe in the patriarchal model as posited by feminist ideology, but I think that that was a fair summation of its nature, within feminism’s own moral & ideological framework. “I, on the other hand, think that men are out of control, because they have been given too much control. Because they thought they had to control – women.” Very… Read more »
“If you want to think of sons as being required for farming I suggest you go to Africa where you will see that most of the farming is carried out by women.” No one said ‘required’ (Someone had said ‘preferred’) – but looking at this from a purely utilitarian point of view in pre-industrial societies where manual labor/productivity/output was paramount, it would follow then that those with more upper body strength and stamina would be considered as more desired for purely physical tasks. If one breaks that down along gender lines then -on average- males had somewhat more upper body strength,… Read more »
It is preferred because a man is generally stronger than a woman, especially when both are malnourished. And it’s not like there were gyms back then.
The problem with trying to span so much divergent chronological, cultural, socio-economic & scientific history, and then link it all together with contemporary gender theory is that it inevitably falls into cherry-picking, generalizations, and hyperbole. When stymied, I have often found ideologies tend to declare victory and then regroup. On a side note, from a Catholic perspective- if, historically speaking, women were viewed as so inconsequential in the role of birth & creation, why then is the Virgin Mary so venerated by the faithful? I would be inclined to argue that, historically, her position & participation (as it has been… Read more »
Until recently (the last 100yrs approx) a nation or a civilization’s strength no matter how rich or wealthy it is was measured by how many men & boys who are armed with weapons it had at any given time & even now although the nature & amount of weaponry that comes as a result of advanced science which in it self might had tilted that dynamic somewhat nevertheless the simple fact that the number of males who are prepared to defend it is crucial still, that was the real reason for the preference of boys.
I’m not saying that sons weren’t important as hunters or warriors or anything else. All I am saying is that if you believe that human beings develop from male seed then a man who got his seed from his father, who got it from his father, and so forth back to the beginning of time, is not going to want to be the one to bring this long line to a grinding halt by himself not having sons. Especially if he has no brother to continue that male line of inheritance on behalf of the male family line. This is… Read more »
Interesting read, but do you really think everyone believed so strongly in this male-seed reproduction theory? I wonder then what people would have though of children who bore a striking resemblance to their mothers or the mother’s side of the family.
The most usual reason people gave for a resemblance between mother and child was that the child grew in her body. All aspects of the female physiology were at some time, by different people, brought into the discussion. In 1714 Nicolas Andry suggested “uterine juices” – by which he could have meant amniotic fluid. A common later theory was “pangenesis” – which imagined inherited characteristics like an ear for music or long eyelashes could be picked up in male and female bloodstreams and somehow end up in male testicles and female menstrual blood respectively. Charles Darwin called these supposed units… Read more »
Hi Julia
This was interesting read.
Only one question :
Don’t you think female chastity will continue to be one of men’s number concerns for lots of other reasons ?
Female chastity will always be important to men because while a woman always knows a particular child is hers (it comes out of her body, after all), a man can never be sure. Today we know a woman is 50% contributor to the genes of a child, and so she has reproductive rights. We might not like it if she is sleeping with every man in the village, but she has the right to do what she wants. Now imagine a situation where the child is thought to be entirely the grown seed of the man. Her chastity becomes doubly… Read more »
“We might not like it if she is sleeping with every man in the village, but she has the right to do what she wants.” Wow! So your saying a married woman is ‘entitled to sleep around ‘ on her husband? I guess woman have ‘Come a long way’.
I never said she was married.
Excellent article Julia. When I read sometimes one line jumps out at me and kinda slaps me in the face and your article contained such a sentence. “Women contributed 0% to the child in terms of generative seed, and did not as such actually reproduce, which is why they had no reproductive rights.” Now of course you are talking about the beliefs of society and those in power. This jumped out at me because in modern society it is men who have no reproductive rights and I can’t help but wonder if this is the same reason why it is… Read more »
Today we all know reproduction is equal in genetic terms and we have the equation to prove it – 23 chromosomes +23 = the 46 most people start life with. Whatever inequality there is in legal and social parental rights these days, and I agree with you that men are at a disadvantage in many cultures, nobody can argue that a man is not 50% the parent of a particular child (especially as DNA testing can prove it). This is completely different to the situation we had in the male-seed theory era (which many people around the world today still… Read more »
There is a very strong serve your wife mentality in christianity. Even the patriarchal rule in the bible basically says a man has to do good for his wife and not abuse his position. Do you honestly think all “Men” treated women as objects? That they didn’t love them and to the best of their ability and knowledge at the time try to protect them and do what they think is right? Women were largely protected from some major horrors in life such as conscription, you could think of it as they weren’t seen as good enough to be soldiers… Read more »
I get the sense that the author is one of those men oppressed women every day just because they have the ability to oppress women. There are two problems with this. First she is trying to apply 21st century morality to all of history. Keep in mind that 30 years ago the idea that homosexuals be allowed to marry was nonsensical, and 100 years ago it was loony that a husband could rape his wife, and 400 years ago there was no moral justification against slavery. Second, the people of consequence in history are the noted elites. So in thinking… Read more »
In the UK rape within marriage only became illegal in 1991. When men thought of women as their baby-making machines they got the mind-set that once married, she should make herself sexually available. Her womb was his womb. The way to her womb, her vagina, was his vagina and she couldn’t refuse her husband access. In many societies, possibly most societies, rape within marriage is still legal, I hear the 16th century Christian leader, Martin Luther, ringing in my head: “Let them bear children till they die of it … that is what they are for.” I am applying 21st… Read more »
You do realize that women raping MEN in marriages also would have been legal right? And that it did happen, or do you assume women only recently started raping men in huge numbers. Will women also work with women to stop abusing, raping, henpecking men (or women depending on partner)? Or is this another call for the demon men to be good and the women are angels already that don’t need it? You’re painting women largely as victims and men as oppressive beasts. “. Women have been abused and oppressed to a horrific degree. I am looking for reasons. Incorrect… Read more »
Elsewhere in this thread I’ve said that I don’t believe men are, by definition of their gender, thugs and bullies (or, as you say, Beasts) and that is precisely why I started researching gender issues many years ago. If you look at the history of gender, and the experience of women today all around the world, its clear that women have had, and continue to have a very hard time at the hands of men, lawmakers etc. I don’t think that’s because men are, in their nature, bad. I think it’s because of reproduction theory having been got profoundly wrong.… Read more »
Hi Julia
This was good.
I will keep this in my folder. Thank you,good analyses.
Wow. I am talking about women forcing men to have sex against their will, you know, rape??? Men get raped. Men have been raped by women since time began, rape is not always man raping a woman. I am NOT talking about financial issues at all. “I would say it is completely mad and, sorry to have to say it, men badly out of control.” Again with the misandry AND misogyny. Do you think women do not fight n kill in war? That they have zero say? Wars have been started by females in power. It wasn’t Hitler acting alone,… Read more »
Thank you Archy. It is easy and tempting to point the fingers at men and claim they are the responsible, but in reality men are the product of the society, therefore the society as whole is responsible. Exactly as you say about Hitler, he didnt exist in a vacuum, he was the product of the German reality back then. Otherwise, he would just have been a wall painter for the rest of his life. Or to use some more modern examples, only men supported Osama Bin Laden? only men supported Bush? what about the war crimes committed also by female… Read more »
Hi MrSupertypo
You write:
“Finally if patriarchy was not supported by women (and they still support it) this infamous social structure could not last a single year.”
Do you seriously think it is that easy to create social change in society?
One year?
You should go into politics Mr. supertypo and see how much you can change in society in one year even when the voters give you the power to do so,and you have acess to tax payers money to create change.
Go a head…..
I think you missed my point, perhaps due to my sloppy English. What I meant was that patriarchy is supported by men and women, not only men. If it didnt had a wide support from everybody, patriarchy could not have last through the ages…
Mr Supertypo
May I ask you a question? Do you like to live in Denmark? I think of moving there because I love bicycling but I fear they are not so happy with immigrants,even if we are Scandinavian.
“Mr Supertypo
May I ask you a question? Do you like to live in Denmark? I think of moving there because I love bicycling but I fear they are not so happy with immigrants,even if we are Scandinavian.”
Danish people are intolerant against the trouble makers, not against “normal people”. I never had any problem, and im obviously from the south. You are from Norway if I remember right? Trust me, you wont have any problem 🙂
Hi Mr Supertypo, Yes, both men and women did support patriarchy as it was logical to both men and women because everyone followed the simple but totally wrong idea that there was one parent – and it was the father. This idea made logical and inevitable the features of patriarchy we recognize: authority goes to the father; men control women because they are men’s baby-making machines; men are seen as the superior (yes, not different and equal …superior, they said that) gender, and more divine, creative, intelligent, able etc etc; men should inherit; women are denied spiritual authority; land is… Read more »
” It’s not about which gender is better – that is as ridiculous a discussion as which of a bird’s two wings is ‘better’. ” I agree but your reply to Archie goes in the opposite direction than what I quoted. But to make it short, men alone cant change anything. It most be the society as whole, not a limited portion of it. Telling men not to rape doesent make it goes away, because it’s not only men, who rape, but everybody. Therefore the ONLY way forward is everybody collaborating in stopping gendered violence, against women, girls, men and… Read more »
I always find it funny how some people always like to get so caught up in the whole “man leads the family and the woman serves her husband.” They always seem to forget the other half where the Bible makes it really clear that the greatest leader is the greatest server. Making Man the head of the household is essentially God demanding that a husband’s job is to serve his wife and children. Funny if you follow the logical conclusion then, by making the woman the servant he is saying that by serving her husband the woman is in fact… Read more »
Indeed. Love thy wife n protect her, chivalry exists/existed as men were to serve their women, cater to their needs, protect them, etc.