The concept of 'patriarchy' arose in the late 1960s from the same ferment of
left-wing ideas and experiences as 'sexism,' as young women in a number of
western countries, often white and privileged, discovered that many seemingly
egalitarian and progressive men did not extend their political principles to
their treatment of women.
These women came to realize that their seemingly particular
and personal difficulties were widely shared when they related their terrible
experiences in "consciousness-raising groups," and that they had
grown up into a broad pattern of male exploitation and abuse of power.
In this environment, they began to claim that women were
oppressed as well as black people, and that women should take urgent action to
free themselves from what they came to refer to as "patriarchy."
The term "patriarchy" goes beyond "sexism" in identifying men's collective dominance over women.
"Connecting the dots" between many elements of women's
experiences in both their political and private lives and tying these
individual experiences to larger societal structures and institutions.
If we see the world not only as "gendered," but
also as "patriarchal," we can see that the gender disadvantages and
inequities listed in the Introduction are cumulative and interrelated, as well
as taking less physical or quantifiable forms.
It's not just that women earn less and are more likely to
live in poverty than men in the same class or race; it's also that they're
under-represented in economic and political decision-making positions; their
experiences, needs, and perceptions are frequently marginalized or ignored; and
they're all too often subjected to sexual harassment.
Individual and/or seemingly isolated instances of
discrimination, exploitation, or injustice, on the other hand, add up to a more
general picture of a world marked by a gender hierarchy that is so pervasive
and pervasive that it can, paradoxically, appear as unremarkable and invisible as
the air we breathe.
Some far earlier feminists were also aware of the
multidimensional character of women's injustices and disadvantages, the
necessity to advocate on a wide variety of topics, and some of men's more
subtle tactics of maintaining power. When John Stuart Mill, a
nineteenth-century philosopher, contended that women had the right to
education, work, and the vote, he also claimed that they had the right to be
protected from violent spouses.
‘Men don't only want women's obedience; they want their feelings, too'.
As a result, they have put everything in place to imprison
their brains.' At the same time in the United States, Elizabeth Cady Stanton
was campaigning on the same public issues as Mill; she also argued that men
used all forms of organized religion to oppress and manipulate women, she
refused to listen to male ‘experts' on how to raise her children, she asserted
her right to dress for comfort and convenience rather than male approval, and
she insisted on equal pay for equal work.
She also stated that “when I think of all the wrongs that
have been piled upon womankind, I am ashamed that I am not eternally in a state
of chronic rage, stark insane, skin and bones, my eyes a torrent of tears, my
mouth overflowing with curses.” Stanton, like Mill and other feminists of the
day, lacked a term to express her beliefs or to analyses as well as identify
the various wrongs she observed.
Feminists did not have an accessible and systematic means of conceptualizing the links between seemingly unconnected concerns until 1970, when Kate Millett's Sexual Politics was published.
Millett argued in ‘Notes towards a theory of patriarchy'
that all known societies have been structured around the power of men over
women, that this patriarchal power extends into every aspect of human life, and
that it appears natural rather than political precisely because it is so
universal and all-pervasive.
She argued that the family is ‘patriarchy's chief institution,' and that it is primarily maintained through a process of socialization, in which women are taught about their own inferiority and insignificance from a young age; this early ‘interior colonization' is then confirmed by education, literature, and religion. Patriarchy is thus based on the agreement of both men and women.
It is, nevertheless, anchored by governmental authority, the legal
system, and women's economic exploitation, and, like other systems of
dominance, it ultimately relies on the use or threat of physical force; this
danger often extends into private life in the form of sexual assault and rape.
With male dominance, love can only be a confidence trick that hides the power that is inescapably present in all female-male interactions.
Many women at the period discovered that labelling their
society as "patriarchal" gave them with a strong new way of viewing
the world and making sense of their lives, and many experienced a "click
moment" in which disparate parts of knowledge and experience came into
place.
Since 1970, a number of feminist writers have developed the
term, which has been extensively criticized by others; it was somewhat out of favor
at the turn of the twenty-first century, but it is now commonly utilized in
popular debate of #MeToo or the gender pay gap. While it can be misused or
exploited to make exaggerated assertions, I believe that the notion of
patriarchy continues to give vital insights into effective feminist politics.
Before looking at its limits, I highlight three major situations where it appears
to be very useful.
You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.