Table of Contents
Women in history were not powerless
Due to a recent event that I experienced first-hand, I decided to write this article focusing on one claim in particular:
Women in history held no power.
Iâll elaborate on this later, but letâs get a few things out of the way first.
Also, while my main inspiration was that recent eventâŚthis is something I have been thinking about and wanting to put into writing for a long while now.
Notes
What I am NOT arguing
Here Iâll list a few of the things I am not claiming, just to be clear.
- Women throughout history were equal to men.
- Women had just as many political rights as men.
- Women had the capacity to hold formal power to the same degree as men.
- Women are lesser than men.
And to reiterate, these are things that I am not claiming and which I donât believe. Though I will note that both the claim Iâm arguing against, these claims and the claims I am makingâŚare generalizations.
My thoughts
Now, ignoring the obvious fact that the exemplary time period used to point out that women were powerless was the Victorian Era which is suspiciously named after a ruling monarch who had breasts, Iâm going to tackle this in an alternate form.
This claim is utterly undefendable because itâs way too broad and way too generalized which means that, if you want to defend it, youâll find yourself shifting the goalposts a lot (as happened during a real conversation I had). Itâs the Motte and Bailey fallacy, basically.A)
Generally, my focus will fall onto political power but it should be noted that when people argue the above, they are usually referring to formal political power which isnât the same as informal political power and is not equivalent to political power and, importantly, isnât the same as power.B)
Formal Versus Informal Power
The difference between these two is that formal power is power that is formally held: such as by a head of state, a bureaucrat or legal office. Informal power is power that is not formally held. The latter is much broader than the former, but a good example would be a celebrity. Celebrities have influence over the public as a result of their fame and (theoretical) popularity.
Informal power is more fluid than formal power which is why, generally, people probably prefer sticking to formal power. Who actually holds all the offices in the government, who passes the laws and so on.
But informal power doesnât stop existing just because itâs harder to seeâŚor just because we ignore it.
Women's Informal Power
An unavoidable fact is that the people around you tend to influence you even if you donât see those influences directly.
Going off of that logicâŚthose politicians that hold all those offices and pass all of those laws typically have women in their immediate vicinity. YâknowâŚwives, daughters, mothers and even mistressesâŚall of whom influence that politician. That influence can vary from âplease pass this lawâ to âare you really sure about this?â though both cases are influence. They donât even need to talk, really, as they can simply be observed.
It sounds silly, but that is how it is.
Though we can be less pretentious about it too: women have immense power over their own children. Theyâre the ones who raise them, while the man goes off to work (this applies generally throughout history).
While this power is wielded directlyâŚit doesnât really have to be? The influence they hold alone (and informal power by extension) is already immense.
âNot formal political powerâ
The disagreement I had in real life ultimately boiled down to this one crucial fact: I was wrong because women did not hold formal political power, even if they held informal political power (as Queen-Dowagers for example) or influence over men (as their wives).C)
This is a fair-ish point because it is true that women usually didnât have the same formal political rights as men, but this is also moving the goalposts.
The difference between formal and informal power is, practically speaking, actually pretty meaningless. To give a hypothetical example: are we going to argue that a bandit lord is powerless because he doesnât hold the official position of âlordâ within the area he controls? That is absurd and I argue the same should be extended towards these examples.
Are we really going to argue that Hatshepsut, Nefertiti, Empress-Dowager Cixi, Queen Victoria, Catherine of Russia, Empress Theodora, Cleopatra and so on didnât hold real political power because their positions were dependent upon a man? That is, quite bluntly, pretty sexist.
Minor aside: blame game
This is a minor aside and more something amusing that I realized.
If women were truly a non-factor in political lifeâŚhow, then, could women find themselves being blamed for major political issues? Daji is pointed at as one of the more influential reasons for the collapse of the Shang Dynasty.
Now, I consider this a weak argument on my part because there can be any number of reasons why women are blamed for problems - in Dajiâs case, you could argue that she was simply âhot womanâ who was argued over but if you are arguing that, you donât know who Daji is.
Armchair Psychology
Putting aside the fact that feminist historyD) has an inherent bias in portraying women as victims, I think that the idea that women historically held no power stems from two (three including the victim mentality) main currents.
The first is the belief that men and women are equal. The second is the belief that women should be independent from men.
Equality
This one seems pretty unassuming on the surface. Men and women should be treated equally, right? This is a modern and very liberal belief which is almost certainly tied to the Christian soul, but thatâs not relevant right now.E)
The question that gets raised here is why should they be treated equally and, while Iâm not gonna go in-depth on that whole thing,F) I will focus on the main argument raised to counter this idea that men and women should be equal: men and women are inherently different.
This is an unavoidable biological fact that also extends into psychology, though itâs up for debate how much that is. Although, just for fun, Iâll bring up one biological fact that does determine gender dynamics a little: labor. A pregnant woman is undeniably weaker than a man, who lacks the capacity to become pregnant and, when going into labor, a woman requires protection and help. This immediately places her in a position where, well, she will have to rely on the man for help. I donât think itâs necessary to bring anything else up, as this proves my point enough.G)
The deal here is that the differences between men and women mean that they cannot be equal in all matters but what all those matters are is up for debate - and, crucially, was up for debate throughout history as well. The idea that men and women are entirely equal and should be treated equally is a very modern invention. This modern invention, in turn, clouds modern perceptions of the past.
Thereâs also a certain irony in the fact we are looking at periods in history where the majority of people - female and male - lacked formal political rights. A nobleman could murder you in medieval Europe and all he had to do was pay a fine.
Independence
This is the feminist ideal that everyone makes fun of: âa woman donât need no man!â. While I agree with that on the surface, itâs clear that the ideal is a bit more than the simple acknowledgment that a woman doesnât need a man to live.
This ideal has shifted from âshe doesnât needâ to âshe shouldnât needâ which is a key difference. The âshouldnâtâ attitude expresses itself in analyses of the past where women are pointed to as being powerless. The labor example I gave above actually exemplifies the ultimate counter to the idea that women donât need menâŚalthough a woman doesnât necessarily need a man in that example, her husband is the most convenient helpful person in her vicinity to provide what she needs.
Letâs take the example of Empress-Dowager Cixi, probably the forefront example of a very powerful woman. Now, ignoring the fact her position of power could be considered informal rather than formal, she would be discounted due to the keyword âDowagerâ in her royal title. Her position of power was still directly dependent on an official male ruler and, thus, this canât be considered a valid counter to the claim that women were politically powerless. She was, effectively, still politically powerless and exploited a loophole. Marrying up in society, being the influential wife of a ruler and being related to a ruler are all thus invalid counter-arguments to the claimâŚbecause in all those situations, the woman is still dependent upon a man.
Even an example like Catherine of Russia wouldnât be considered valid under this logic as, while she took control of Russia from her husbandâŚshe was still married to her husband and wouldnât be in that position if she didnât marry him. Actually, even Queen Victoria might not be considered a valid counter-example, because she wouldnât have held that position if it werenât for her father dying, right?
The absurdity here should be self-evident, but the logic can be flipped as well. Is a man considered âeffectively powerlessâ if he marries a rich noblewoman and then, via her position, starts influencing society?
Itâs also the case that menâs power was oft directly dependent upon womenâŚtry being a King without a Queen, see how that goes.
All three together: Conclusion First
Taking these biases into account, I think I can say that the claim that women were powerless is a conclusion that was reached before the evidence was analyzed. Instead, history is being used to justify and support the pre-made conclusion.
The claim that women were powerless throughout history falls apart under actual scrutiny. Individual counter-examples of overt political power (Catherine of Russia, Queen Victoria, Empress-Dowager Cixi) already make the claim sound ridiculousâŚand thatâs not even getting into more subtle influence, which is how the majority of women projected power. The very fact that the over examples are dismissed indicates that people making this claim made their minds up beforehand.
These biases do something even worse though in that they eliminate all nuance from history.
Food for thought: Equivalent, not Equal
My thinking as to the power dynamics between men and women, throughout history, is that they were not equal but usually equivalent.H) The difference being that equality suggests theyâre the same, while equivalent suggests they are not the same butâŚwell, equal in a different sense.
Because men and women are different (biologically)âŚthey approach problems differently and, consequently, they will project power in different ways as well. Women, in particular, prefer to be more subtle: as the wives, mothers, daughters and mistresses of the more overt men.
Even if we consider historical realitiesâŚwell, take the right to vote. From a modern perspective, it just makes sense that women should have been allowed to vote and this was simply a means to deprive them from political power. Counter-argument: the draft.
Part of the justification for why women couldnât vote is because the right to vote was tied directly to the draft. Men could vote, but they could also be drafted in times of war. This was the duty that came together with the vote. In fact, some women opposed the right to vote specifically to avoid being drafted. The matter was eventually settled by making an exception for women: women could vote, but they wouldnât be drafted. I could be annoying and point out how this is a case of unequal treatment, but I digress.
Itâs possible that a lot of rights throughout history relating the men and women were based around these kinds of practical concerns, alongside the simple fact men and women are different. Men ruled, sure, but women guaranteed the continued rule of the dynasty, for example.
Biases just cloud the truth that women did project power throughout history in many different formsâŚeven if it wasnât as overtly visible.