Review of Brief History of misogyny

There is this book called 'Brief History of Misogyny' by Jack Holland.

I think this book is rife with historical revisionism.

He starts with the ancient Greeks, and while it is true that Aristotle was an idiotic sexist, he did not genuinely hate women. He believed that women's happiness was just as important as women's happiness, and also said that women should not be told to stay at home.

On the topic of gender in Ancient Greece, it was a brutal militaristic society. You only need to look at the severity of the Spartan School Agoge, where boys were sent at the age of 7, and beaten if they did not succeed in stealing food without being caught. That stolen food was the only one given to them. Girls were not nearly subjected to this kind of brutality.

Then there's the topic of women in Ancient Greek myths, and I do know a lot about this, because I am a huge fan of such. Women are almost always portrayed as good and kind and virtuous, while men are portrayed as stupid and evil quite often. Hera was an exception, committing horrendous brutalities against the illegitimate children of Zeus and their mothers. She is rarely ever punished for this though.

There is Pandora, who was the person who opened the box of evil, but she is never portrayed as evil or malicious, only naive and curious. Meanwhile Prometheus, who actually lied to Zeus, was confined to a freezing mountain and tortured for all eternity as a vulture tore out his liver and ate it.

Then there's tartarus, most of the people down there are men, the only exception I can think of are the 50 women who killed their husbands, who are punished with filling an endless ditch. The men's punishments are alot more brutal as their punishment seems more like labor than torture.

It is also a lie that women were confined to their homes and banned from leaving, back then the idea was more that it's better for a woman to be at home in the same way you here people today saying it's better for someone to work hard and not go to nightclubs. But women can and did go out of their homes, they went to sell their wears at the market, they went to court, they went to soothsayers, they carried out funeral rites, they saw plays. Also, middle class and poor women also left their homes to work, it's only rich women who did not have to do this, and that was seen as a privilege.

There were also several female philosophers and poets such as Sappho, who was praised as the tenth muse.

Then they talk of Christianity, they mention Eve, but forget Adam was also punished for his actions. The woman's punishment was that she to have painful childbirth and submit to her husband. However, further reading of the bible shows that it acknowledges the happiness childbirth brings women and cancels out their pain (John 16:21), and submit in the bible is akin to "respect and listen to" someone, not being enslaved. Younger people are supposed to submit to older ones, people are supposed to submit to church leaders, Christ, and god. And also, the husband's authority is severely confined, as he has to die for his wife, love her, cherish her etc (Ephesians 5:25-33) and not commit violence against her (Malachi 2:16) and respect her otherwise his prayers wont be answered (1 Peter 3:7) so essentially women's punishment is to have children which is hard but makes us happy and submit to a man who literally has to die for you.

Men's punishment is to work and toil for his food, and in the bible, a man who does not provide for his household is "worse than an unbeliever" such a condemnation is not applied to women.

Along the history of the church, they harshly condemned and persecuted gay men while ignoring gay women, sent men to die in the crusades, while not forcing women to do the same, and allowed male circumcision to flourish while harshly condemning and campaigning against FGM. In my country of Kenya, protestants successfully campaigned against FGM and today only 3% of girls under 15 are circumcised while over 90% of men are, and it has actually increased. Here, Luo men, who are uncircumcised, are denied positions of office due to it.

He, of course, writes about the witch hunts, which is wrong because most of the accusations of witchcraft were made by women against women. And he focuses on the period where it was more common for women to be accused. After the 1600s, it was more common for men to be accused. Secondly, these laws were majorly made under female leaders and removed under male ones. Thirdly, at the height of the witch hunts, women only made up 10% of those executed, 90% were still men. Fourthly, witchcraft was one crime in a bundle of religious crimes, such as blasphemy, impiety, and heresy, all of which the majority of those executed were men. Lastly, the reason why witches were seen as mostly women was because women were seen as virtuous and kind and the witch was using that form because they were more trustworthy than men. It would be like a shapeshifter taking the form of the president rather than a homeless person.

He also mentions women being told to cover up to avoid being leered at by men. Could this be because no gave a shit when a man or boy was raped or sexually assaulted?

It is also mentioned that due to Mother Mary, women were told to become virgins. This is blatantly false, the majority of women at those time periods were married and it was illegal for a man to refuse to have sex with his wife. Men who did so could be punished publicly, such as being whipped or held in the stocks, while women were rarely punished in this way.

Of course nuns were told not to have sex, but so were men who served as popes, priests etc.

It is no coincidence that angels are always portrayed as beautiful women and devils portrayed as men.

There is mention of Hitler and the nazis. It is wrong to say they hated women, because if they did, they would have thrown women in the gas chambers along with the men. But not only did they not do this, Hitler produced several programs meant to help women, working WITH women's groups. It is true that he did change the laws to not allow women in certain positions, but the women's groups he worked with saw this as a GOOD thing because it was viewed as freeing women from labor and allowing them more times with their family. Meanwhile boys as young as 14 were being gunned down in the trenches and if you managed to survive, you'd have to come back and work for 10-14 hours a day to support a woman and their children since women are too precious to work. Yippee. Such misogyny. Such male privilege.

The victorian times are mentioned, a period where unmarried women could own property, enter contracts, join guilds etc, same as men, but if she got married, the property transferred under her hubby's name. This was not done to hurt women though, it was done because men were legally held responsible for the family's upkeep, crimes, debts, etc. If you were a married man, and you didn't support your wife, you go to jail, if your wife had a debt PRIOR TO the marriage, you have to pay it and if you can't, jail. If you hit your wife, you could be fined, whipped, or you go to jail. If your wife hits you , she is issued a fine that you must pay, and if you can't, jail. If your wife commits a crime that is not murder or treason, you go to jail.

Is it any shock that 80% of those imprisoned and 95% of those imprisoned for debt were men? Who could be forced to do backbreaking labor?

All throughout this time period, men were the VAST majority of those tortured, executed, persecuted, beaten, jailed, sent to war, and committing suicide.

One commenter says that the reason women are killed and tortured is because women are viewed as less human than men. This is blatantly false. Women are the small minority treated this way, and even then, they are given sympathy.

Boys in ancient schools were beaten black and blue because they were viewed as unbroken colts, while girls weren't. To this day, boys are 70-80% of those paddled in schools.

While men accused of high treason were subjected to the brutal torture of being hanged, drawn and quartered, women were seen to be burnt at the stake. However, in the majority of cases, the woman was strangled and burnt post mortem, the men did not receive such sympathy. This was still viewed as too harsh so burning stake was outlawed in 1790s, while men could still be hanged drawn and quarted until the late 1800s.

Hypatia is also mentioned, but she wasn't killed for being an educated woman. Hypatia was highly respected and even taught in an academic institution. She was murdered by religious extremists who also killed men. There is nothing to do with her gender.

One commenter compares the status of women in the past to slavery. Which slave was loved and protected by their enslaver? Which slave was allowed to purchase niceties with the enslaver's money? Which slave was sheltered in the enslaver's accommodations? Which slave was given priority over the enslaver in case of a disaster? Which slave was doing relatively light and safe work while the enslaver was doing all the difficult and dangerous work? Which slave was themselves allowed to own slaves? Which slave could send their enslaver to prison for not supporting them? Which slave was kept safely at home while the enslaver goes to war and dies for them? Which slave was carried in wooden carriages while the enslaver drove it? Which slave could send their enslaver to prison for hitting them while the enslaver could not do the same? I could go on and on.

To conclude, imagine looking at the gender that was never forced to go to war, never forced to give up their safety for the other, always protected by the other gender, never told to die for the other gender but they must do it for you, never told to work long hours for the other gender, never the majority of those imprisoned, executed, or tortured, never the majority of those that commit suicide, never the majority of those dying at work, and thinking that is the one that is oppressed and not the other.