The foundation of the ancient Greeks’ project for civilization was their determination to turn the female sex into a subject population. But there were unintended consequences. Plato’s war on women helped bring about the end of monarchy.
Philo
There is evidence that the Greeks were toying with the idea of subjecting women before Plato. But it was Plato who influenced Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher born in 25 BC. Philo used allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy.
If we were to judge Plato by today’s standards for hate speech we would conclude that he was a hater of women. However we don’t judge Plato or any other misogynist by that standard. The world accepts Plato’s animosity toward women because Philo enshrined it in the Bible’s creation story.
Aristotle
This story led some religious leaders to conclude that nothing is due women for their role in reproduction. They are merely repaying their debt to God. This seems to have been the goal of Plato’s student Aristotle who denied women credit for their part in the creation of life. (This points to the importance of childbearing in the status of women.)
The suspicion that certain influential people claimed God as a partisan gendered being with the sole aim of ruling will disturb many readers. But for those who merely want to defend biblical religion there is a solution.
The Bible
There are three ways to read the story of the Fall of Man: It’s a model for the way society should work; it’s a description of the way things are; or it’s warning or a prediction about a human tendency. The second and third possibilities are more revealing than Plato could have imagined. In practice, this myth reveals patriarchal intention.
Unfortunately, these last two possibilities are never used to interpret the Fall of Man. They are, however, used to interpret other biblical stories. The Tower of Babel for example is interpreted as an explanation for different languages and a warning against hubris.
We are told the Fall of Man is a lesson in how things should be. But a literal reading of the story perfectly describes human behavior as it is.
Customs that Guard Against the Subjection of Women
It’s likely that human societies have always had some degree of patriarchal authority. However ancient cultures purposely remedied the disadvantages of women. For example, according to the biblical creation story, equality between men and women is established in marriage. (I recently discovered that this sentence said ‘inequality between men and women is established in marriage’, which is the opposite of my meaning. Sometimes I suspect my wording is changed without my knowledge.) In ancient times, equality was accomplished through customs honored by the extended family.
Bride Wealth
The fundamental understanding of ancient cultures was the value of children (and their mother) to the marriage and to the extended family. Society acknowledged this in various ways. One was the custom of bride wealth. Another was the dowry. (Hardship can lead to a breakdown in this custom. In some parts of the world today the dowry justifies the abuse of women).
Matrilineal Kinship
Another custom that has been shown to benefit women and their children is matrilineal kinship. This is a system in which lineage and inheritance are traced through women.
The structure of matrilineal kinship systems implies that, relative to patrilineal kinship systems, women have greater support from their own kin groups and husbands have less authority over their wives. 1
Sara Lowes tested the hypothesis that matrilineal kinship systems reduce spousal cooperation. She found that men and women from matrilineal ethnic groups cooperate less with their spouses in a lab experiment. However she also found that matrilineal kinship has important benefits for the well-being of women and children.
The children of matrilineal women are healthier and better educated, and matrilineal women experience less domestic violence and greater autonomy.
Royal Succession in Egypt
Matrilineal kinship is not only a remedy for the inequality of women in marriage (Lowes didn’t measure for the effect of bride wealth or bride price), I believe it was the original system for royal succession in Egypt. Consider the tendency of pharaohs to marry their sisters.
Marriage to sisters was not a natural part of matrilineal succession. I believe it was a way for an ambitious pharaoh to escape the limits of matrilineal succession. Dynasties are impossible in a matrilineal system. The only way around this obstacle would have been for the son of a pharaoh to wed an heiress.
They obviously considered the daughter of the Pharaoh eligible to inherit royalty from her father, otherwise there would have been no motive for marriage to her brother. However this would have gone against custom, if not law. Traditionally, a sister’s offspring (the child of the daughter of the former pharaoh) would not be legally eligible to succeed him.
This patriarchal strategy can be demonstrated in other countries besides Egypt. The Achaean invader Menelaus married Helen, a kidnapped heiress, because without her he had no right to be king. That’s why Helen’s rescue by Paris led to the Trojan War 2.
Finally, Patrilineal systems inevitably lead to a narrowing of the gene pool for succession. This narrowing of the gene pool has played out in the lineage of European kings. This breakdown in the system of royal succession points to a departure from ancient custom and law.
Plato’s Anti-Democratic Focus
Plato did not only weaken the monarchal ideal. His writings are anti-democratic. He literally condemned democracy, but he condemned it figuratively by his hatred of women. Patriarchy weakens participation by women.