Prioritizing Women's Rights is How We End War
How Prioritizing Women’s Rights Can Lead to Lasting Peace
Ever since I was a kid, striving for world peace has been equal parts a serious goal for some people and a laughable idea that other people roll their eyes at. Recently, skeptic and rationalist thinker, George Styles, asked on Twitter:
It seems that most people, at least in George’s community, don’t believe it is. Now, equality is a big concept. It’s not binary. Does that include economic equality? Does that include equality in every single aspect of life? It’s a question that keeps on asking.
But what happens when we ask about making things more equal instead of absolutely equal? What about curbing the human tendency toward hierarchy?
That, it turns out, is entirely possible.
But it won’t be easy.
And the battle for equal rights across the board takes place in an unusual place: women’s sexual rights (and sexual rights in general).
You know I’ve said it a thousand times, that sexual rights are a proxy for other human rights (like the right to vote, the right to bodily autonomy, and more).
I’ve discussed my views on this in a video series with Renata Ellera here:
The full interview series with me and Renata can be found here.
This is much more than just wishful thinking—it’s rooted in many different scientific fields, from biology to anthropology, and understanding this could have profound impacts on the future of the human race.
Sex and War
Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World is a book by Malcolm Potts, Ph.D. and Thomas Hayden that discusses this very subject.
Dr. Potts is a renowned expert in reproductive health and demography, that explores the link between sexual behavior and warfare. Potts is a professor at Berkeley University, where he serves as a human reproductive scientist and Professor at the School of Public Health.
The book draws upon a vast treasure trove of anthropological, historical, and biological evidence to argue that human warfare is intimately linked with the ways in which societies regulate sexual behavior.
The authors tell us that a society's sexual norms and practices can either foster peace or contribute to the outbreak of war.
Cultures that are more sexually repressive may be more prone to conflict because they have a higher level of sexual tension, which can be redirected towards aggression. They also prioritize males which, biologically, historically, and anthropologically, have always been much more predisposed to warfare than females.
Conversely, societies that are more sexually open and accepting may be less prone to conflict because they have less sexual tension and less need for violent competition over sexual partners. Matriarchal cultures are much less likely to be violent and embrace warlike tendencies.
Much of the reason centers around the view that women’s bodies are somehow a form of property for men to own. This perspective took off after humanity discovered agriculture, gained surplus stores of value (food, money, etc.), and men turned their eyes toward women as yet another thing to be conquered and commodified.
This has been confirmed time and time again.
The authors also explore the role of gender in warfare, arguing that the traditional association of men with war and women with peace is not accurate. Women, they contend, have played a significant role in warfare throughout history, often as non-combatants who are subject to sexual violence and exploitation by male soldiers.
I’ll admit, there are some stomach-churning scenes as the authors recount horrific violence carried out by men since time immemorial.
The book offers a thought-provoking perspective on the relationship between sex and violence in human societies. It challenges traditional assumptions about gender roles and the nature of warfare, and suggests that a more open and accepting attitude towards sexuality may be key to promoting peace and reducing human conflict.
This tracks with the data gathered by countless other anthropologists over the past century.
One of those researchers is James W. Prescott, Ph.D., an anthropologist I’ve discussed from time to time.
Sex or War
James W. Prescott, Ph.D., is an anthropologist and developmental neuropsychologist who has conducted extensive research on the relationship between early childhood experiences, cultural practices, and social behaviors. His work focuses on the impact of early experiences, particularly touch and maternal care, on the development of the brain and social behavior.
In his article, The Origins of Human Love and Violence, Prescott presents a compelling case for the importance of positive parenting practices in the prevention of violence and aggression.
Prescott argues that violence and aggression are not innate or inevitable, but rather are the result of early childhood experiences, particularly the absence of physical affection and nurturing. Prescott's most notable contributions to anthropology include his studies of non-violent societies, particularly the matrilineal Mosuo culture in China, and his cross-cultural research on the role of touch in child-rearing practices.
He argues that non-violent cultures tend to place a high value on touch, and that this early tactile stimulation plays a critical role in the development of emotional regulation, empathy, and social bonding.
You’ll notice that patriarchal and violent societies also eschew touch, which is deemed forbidden. This often includes non-sexual touch.
Think about your culture. If you live in America, think about how touch-shy we are compared to other places around the world.
Prescott has also been a strong advocate for early childhood development and the promotion of positive parenting practices. He argues that social problems, such as violence and aggression, can be prevented by ensuring that children receive sufficient physical affection and nurturing during their formative years.
His research has contributed to our understanding of the importance of early experiences on brain development and social behavior, and has stimulated ongoing debates about the relationship between culture, biology, and social behavior.
The big takeaway is this: societies can either be sexual, nurturing, loving, and emphasize touch, or violent, hierarchical, strict, and otherwise destructive.
Think of it like a nurturing mother model or a strict father model, as some people have framed it.
All of this makes you wonder—are we going down the wrong path?
Finding Balance
When women have greater control over their sexual and reproductive health, they are more likely to participate in education, the workforce, and civic engagement. This, in turn, helps to build more inclusive and equitable societies that value diversity, promote social justice, and reduce the potential for conflict.
Conversely, societies that restrict women's sexual rights and access to reproductive health services often experience higher levels of violence and conflict. This is because these societies are often marked by entrenched gender inequality, limited economic opportunities, and repressive social norms that exacerbate tensions and breed resentment.
When women are viewed as objects, men make all the decisions and usually in a very self-serving manner.
We all know the saying—absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yet, it seems like so many people are hellbent on maintaining patriarchal structures that have proven to be highly destructive for humanity (and animals—poor things).
I’m not one of those people who believe that men should be locked up and given no power in society. But I do believe that the smartest way to live in just about every aspect of life is finding balance.
What will it take for us to create a more equitable society, one with less violence, war, and patriarchal destruction?
The book Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World can be found on Amazon here for those who want to check it out.
Fabulous article, really interesting, thanks.