There is another reason these travel accounts are so valuable: outsiders do not merely notice differences; they notice things insiders have stopped noticing.
A Frenchman is unlikely to record every occasion on which a man gives up his seat to a woman, because the behavior has already become ordinary. An Englishman is unlikely to note each time his wife speaks with an unrelated man. But a traveler arriving with a very different set of gender norms may find these behaviors astonishing, offensive, or even cosmically backwards—and therefore record them.
This suggests that the hardest parts of a culture to observe may be precisely its most stable ones. Once a norm becomes sufficiently established, participants stop experiencing it as a “norm” at all. It simply becomes the way things are.
That makes cross-cultural travel writing valuable for more than providing an alternative perspective. It can make a society’s invisible defaults visible again.
I would distinguish, though, between evidence for the difference and evidence for its cause. These accounts provide striking evidence that norms surrounding unrelated men and women differed. Explaining why those norms emerged—weak kinship, commerce, or something else—requires another layer of evidence.
Long ago, I read that a Muslim ruler sent a team to Europe to figure out why his domain was getting left behind in economics and science. The team came back with only observations about how the women mouthed off, or something. Put differently, apparently they couldn't "see" what was going on in the West post-Renaissance ...
Here's the whole anecdote, redundant now to Prof. Evans' post, from Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong: ...", 2003. [Retrieved from Claude] That anecdote is indeed in *What Went Wrong?* — it's about the Ottoman envoys Lewis describes as being sent to Europe in the 18th century (he specifically discusses Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi's embassy to Paris in the 1720s as the archetype). Rather than bringing back useful intelligence on European military technology, administration, or science, these envoys' reports fixated on incidental social oddities — chief among them the startling (to them) freedom and assertiveness of European women in public and mixed society, which they treated as a symptom of Western moral disorder rather than something worth understanding.
Lewis uses this as an early example of a recurring pattern in the book: the Islamic world's official observers repeatedly noticed *that* something in Europe was different, but focused on the wrong signals — surface-level social customs — instead of grasping the underlying institutional, scientific, and economic shifts that were actually driving Europe's rise. It's part of his broader argument about the centuries-long lag in accurately diagnosing "what went wrong." Years after reading this I spoke to a graduate student who critiqued Lewis' treatment; so I never pursued the hypothesis ...
This is why I love your substack. I also want to note that, even if someone completely disagrees with your work or worldview (which they shouldn’t!), your blog is still a goldmine of interesting information for any curious person. That is the mark of a great writer.
I like how, in this post and others, Alice Evans is brave enough to point out the positive aspects of Europe's distinctiveness. The spirit of this reminds me a bit of recent Nobel Prize winner Joel Mokyr's book "A Culture of Growth," which documents the particular style of sharing information among elites in Europe that led to the formation of modern economies and scientific progress. Neither Evans nor Mokyr attempt to be apologists for colonialism. But they are willing to point out distinctive, even revolutionary aspects of Western societies that made them so successful and still make them relatively free.
Love and devotion to Virgin Mary seems to have played an important role in elevation of women's role in society as attested by the above foreign observers themselves.
Yes many objections can be raised, like Protestant Europe arguably being less patriarchal, pagan societies(with women goddesses) being more patriarchal, or the Catholic Church itself being dominated by men.
But Saint Mary was one of the most important person in the lives of most Western Europeans for at least 1000 years (500 - 1500 AD) and that can't not have a played an important role in the gradual improvement during the same period of European women's status.
Don't Muslims venerated Fatima and Miriam? Also, afaik Nordic Europe always had more female freedom due to men going fishing and trading overseas (and pillaging). Conversely, in pagan Athens women (notoriously cloistered) had their own festivities such as running in the woods like bears.
When the Portuguese — including quite a few Jesuits — reached Sengoku Japan in the mid 16th century, they found the autonomy, and social status of Japanese women deeply shocking. E.g.,
· unmarried Japanese women could engage in premarital sex, did not care too much about preserving their virginity and were fond of abortion.
· married Japanese women could leave their house without informing their husbands, could get divorced if unhappy, etc.
In the late 16th century, Father Luís Fróis wrote "Treatise on the contradictions and differences of customs between the people of Europe and this province of Japan". Worth noting that Portugal was and still is extremely Marian.
It seems like some of the Chinese or Muslim guys who actually liked women seemed impressed with the proto-feminism of Western society in these times, but the misogynistic ones were horrified.
The most interesting thing for me is how a traveler’s description can be misleading—like saying, “women control men and society in general.” My critical thinking, when faced with travelers’ descriptions in general, rises enormously.
While you are correct on the recent figure, the cause is far more complex than "misandry". Tech, housing, and a change in hiring discrimination seem to have more of an efffect than "man-hating". Also more women are finishing education than men, which make more of them hireable, especially in fields like medicine, where many men wont apply to available jobs because they see care as a "feminine" persuit.
There is another reason these travel accounts are so valuable: outsiders do not merely notice differences; they notice things insiders have stopped noticing.
A Frenchman is unlikely to record every occasion on which a man gives up his seat to a woman, because the behavior has already become ordinary. An Englishman is unlikely to note each time his wife speaks with an unrelated man. But a traveler arriving with a very different set of gender norms may find these behaviors astonishing, offensive, or even cosmically backwards—and therefore record them.
This suggests that the hardest parts of a culture to observe may be precisely its most stable ones. Once a norm becomes sufficiently established, participants stop experiencing it as a “norm” at all. It simply becomes the way things are.
That makes cross-cultural travel writing valuable for more than providing an alternative perspective. It can make a society’s invisible defaults visible again.
I would distinguish, though, between evidence for the difference and evidence for its cause. These accounts provide striking evidence that norms surrounding unrelated men and women differed. Explaining why those norms emerged—weak kinship, commerce, or something else—requires another layer of evidence.
Long ago, I read that a Muslim ruler sent a team to Europe to figure out why his domain was getting left behind in economics and science. The team came back with only observations about how the women mouthed off, or something. Put differently, apparently they couldn't "see" what was going on in the West post-Renaissance ...
Here's the whole anecdote, redundant now to Prof. Evans' post, from Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong: ...", 2003. [Retrieved from Claude] That anecdote is indeed in *What Went Wrong?* — it's about the Ottoman envoys Lewis describes as being sent to Europe in the 18th century (he specifically discusses Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi's embassy to Paris in the 1720s as the archetype). Rather than bringing back useful intelligence on European military technology, administration, or science, these envoys' reports fixated on incidental social oddities — chief among them the startling (to them) freedom and assertiveness of European women in public and mixed society, which they treated as a symptom of Western moral disorder rather than something worth understanding.
Lewis uses this as an early example of a recurring pattern in the book: the Islamic world's official observers repeatedly noticed *that* something in Europe was different, but focused on the wrong signals — surface-level social customs — instead of grasping the underlying institutional, scientific, and economic shifts that were actually driving Europe's rise. It's part of his broader argument about the centuries-long lag in accurately diagnosing "what went wrong." Years after reading this I spoke to a graduate student who critiqued Lewis' treatment; so I never pursued the hypothesis ...
“Old. Ugly. Why naked??” Lolllll
This is so interesting, thank you for writing and sharing.
Fascinating insights, as ever, Alice.
This is why I love your substack. I also want to note that, even if someone completely disagrees with your work or worldview (which they shouldn’t!), your blog is still a goldmine of interesting information for any curious person. That is the mark of a great writer.
Wonderful, what an interesting angle!
I like how, in this post and others, Alice Evans is brave enough to point out the positive aspects of Europe's distinctiveness. The spirit of this reminds me a bit of recent Nobel Prize winner Joel Mokyr's book "A Culture of Growth," which documents the particular style of sharing information among elites in Europe that led to the formation of modern economies and scientific progress. Neither Evans nor Mokyr attempt to be apologists for colonialism. But they are willing to point out distinctive, even revolutionary aspects of Western societies that made them so successful and still make them relatively free.
Very interesting. Thank you
Love and devotion to Virgin Mary seems to have played an important role in elevation of women's role in society as attested by the above foreign observers themselves.
Yes many objections can be raised, like Protestant Europe arguably being less patriarchal, pagan societies(with women goddesses) being more patriarchal, or the Catholic Church itself being dominated by men.
But Saint Mary was one of the most important person in the lives of most Western Europeans for at least 1000 years (500 - 1500 AD) and that can't not have a played an important role in the gradual improvement during the same period of European women's status.
Don't Muslims venerated Fatima and Miriam? Also, afaik Nordic Europe always had more female freedom due to men going fishing and trading overseas (and pillaging). Conversely, in pagan Athens women (notoriously cloistered) had their own festivities such as running in the woods like bears.
When the Portuguese — including quite a few Jesuits — reached Sengoku Japan in the mid 16th century, they found the autonomy, and social status of Japanese women deeply shocking. E.g.,
· unmarried Japanese women could engage in premarital sex, did not care too much about preserving their virginity and were fond of abortion.
· married Japanese women could leave their house without informing their husbands, could get divorced if unhappy, etc.
In the late 16th century, Father Luís Fróis wrote "Treatise on the contradictions and differences of customs between the people of Europe and this province of Japan". Worth noting that Portugal was and still is extremely Marian.
We love the Virgin Mary
This is so interesting! Well done!
It seems like some of the Chinese or Muslim guys who actually liked women seemed impressed with the proto-feminism of Western society in these times, but the misogynistic ones were horrified.
"Men are slaves to women here."
No, but I wish
Max!!
Oops, did I type that instead of thinking it?
Lol
Really like these posts. Culture is so often a prison rather than something to celebrate.
The most interesting thing for me is how a traveler’s description can be misleading—like saying, “women control men and society in general.” My critical thinking, when faced with travelers’ descriptions in general, rises enormously.
True. It's so crazy. Europe was quite regressive too and yet these other misogynists were shocked.
There is a lot of misandry in the USA. The August jobs report stated that women were placed in 98% of new jobs.
While you are correct on the recent figure, the cause is far more complex than "misandry". Tech, housing, and a change in hiring discrimination seem to have more of an efffect than "man-hating". Also more women are finishing education than men, which make more of them hireable, especially in fields like medicine, where many men wont apply to available jobs because they see care as a "feminine" persuit.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/women-filled-98-percent-of-jobs-created-in-august-what-happened-to-the-men/amp/
Bullshit. Male nurses face discrimination, They are assigned the heaviest and most combative patients.