While I feel the term of 'patriarchy' is a vital feminist tool, I also feel it is frequently misunderstood. This article provides a series of interlinked cautionary statements against naïve interpretations that might distort our knowledge and be politically unproductive.
First, the term "patriarchy" should not be used in isolation.
It is not the sole type
of oppression, and it must be considered as part of a larger investigation of
how male dominance intersects with other forms of inequality and exploitation,
as well as how they are linked to the logic of the global capitalist system.
I advocate for broadly socialist solutions, expand on the
ramifications of such a multidimensional approach.
Second, I disagree with some of the concept's early
proponents, such as Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich, and Robin Morgan, as well as
Millett. These writers have appeared to suggest that, because all known
civilizations are patriarchal, they are all basically ‘the same,' that all
women are joined as victims of global patriarchy, that patriarchal power must
trump class and race barriers, and that, as a result, ‘sisterhood is global.'
There are similarities to be identified, and women from fundamentally diverse civilizations typically share sexual exploitation, lack of reproductive choice, economic exploitation, and/or exclusion or marginalization from mainstream social, cultural, and political life.
Some women oppress other women, and over-generalized accusations run the risk of trivializing the depths of anguish and humiliation imposed on some by comparing them with minor annoyances.
The problem with generalizing is not just that women's
experiences are vastly different, but that relatively privileged women assume
the centrality of their own concerns in much the same way that men have assumed
the centrality of theirs, so that "there are disturbing parallels between
what feminists find disconcerting in Western political thought and what many
black women have found troubling." However, I believe that if the notion
is linked with race and class analysis and utilized to investigate the links
between various types of discrimination, inequality, and oppression, it may be
saved from oversimplification and generalization.
A third cautionary note derives from the erroneous
assumption that patriarchy is eternal and unchangeable. A moment's thought
reveals this to be nonsense. Although patriarchy remained in force generally,
Millett said that by 1970, it had become "significantly transformed and
weakened" in the United States and Europe. She credited this to previous
women's efforts, and her own effort was driven by the hope that her writing may
help bring about more change. At first glance, it appears that the roots of
western patriarchy have been rocked, if not yet overturned, in the half-century
since Millett established the notion.
Most obviously, the western world described by Millett, in which women were virtually absent from political life or high-status employment, most were economically dependent on a husband, and ‘nice girls' did not have sex before or outside marriage, is not a world familiar to most young women today, despite the fact that the sexual double-standard still exists.
There has also been a significant shift in
official attitudes, with many national and international organizations now
declaring gender equality and/or the abolition of violence against women as
their declared goals.
In 2017, feminist writer Naomi Wolf said that the #MeToo
movement's capacity to hold prominent men accountable had "ripped the
fabric of patriarchy," while a headline in the Guardian newspaper posed
the question, "Is the patriarchy over?"
As other feminists have pointed out, recent advances do not
signal the end of patriarchy, but rather a shift in its character. Patriarchy,
for example, is a system — a dynamic web – of specific beliefs and
interactions, according to Enloe. That system is neither fragile nor stagnant.
Patriarchy may be modernized and modified. It's adaptive. In many parts of the
globe, such adaptation has historically entailed a shift away from private
patriarchy, which is based on individual authority within the house, and toward
public patriarchy, which is based on structures outside the family.
Most western women are no longer financially dependent on
their husbands, but many are reliant on the male-run state for employment or
benefits; similarly, most are no longer sexually controlled by family members,
but the rising use of pornography represents a "more collective,
impersonal, male control of women's bodies." Sylvia Walby has succinctly summarized
such arguments:
‘Women are no longer restricted to the domestic hearth, but have the entire society in which to roam and be exploited,'
There is no clear distinction between private and public forms of patriarchy
We must fully examine the complex gains and
losses experienced by various groups of women in various aspects of their
lives.
One factor for patriarchy's evolution is the evolution of the capitalist economic system with which it is inextricably linked.
Our era of
global capitalism, as Beatrix Campbell has argued, is witnessing a new type of
patriarchy, which she dubs "neopatriarchal neoliberalism, an ugly word for
an awful bargain."
At first glance, this new system appears to have responded
to feminist pressures by allowing girls to become astronauts, bankers, or
whatever they want, but in practice, it resists any genuine change in the
gender division of labor, it exploits women on a global scale, and, in line
with neoliberal economic theory, it dismantles welfare provisions and state
benefits.
While this may sound depressing, it serves as a reminder of the complexity, rather than the impossibility, of the task ahead of feminists; here, Enloe, who shares many of Campbell's concerns, also insists that "updated patriarchy is not invincible," that feminist campaigns are having some success around the world, and that what we need now is "organized, cross-race, inter-gene activism."
Because patriarchy is a dynamic and
complicated structure, we should avoid using the term "the
patriarchy." This phrase, which has just lately entered feminist lexicon,
appears to imply a steady, monolithic domination by a unified group.
I feel it is overly simple, and that talking about ‘the
patriarchy' makes no more sense than talking about ‘capitalism' or ‘democracy.'
Finally, claiming that patriarchy can aid our understanding of the world does not
imply that all women are hapless victims and all males are active oppressors.
This is obviously not the case: many courageous women have always fought for
their own rights as well as the oppression of others, and many feminist women
have received personal and/or political encouragement and support from males.
When we label society patriarchal, we're pinpointing men's collective authority as the root of the problem, and we need to focus on that rather than individual men's poor behavior.
We can't eliminate misogyny
"individually," as Jessa Crispin puts it, while "casual
demonization of white straight men follows the same pattern of bias and hatred
that fuels misogyny, racism, and homophobia... the same lazy thinking, easy
scapegoating, and pleasurable anger that all other forms of hatred have."
At its most fundamental level, the prioritization of men's
interests and concerns is systematic, not arbitrary.
Patriarchy, on the other hand, lacks the same essential
energy as capitalism, which is founded on the ruthless pursuit of expansion and
profit as goals in themselves. Because of this dynamic, it is difficult to be a
decent, non-exploitative capitalist in the long run without going out of
business.
In a patriarchal culture, however, it is theoretically possible
to be a nice guy, even a feminist or pro-feminist man – but this is not easy,
and many men are more privileged than they know (not least because of their
comfortable, unreflective sense of their own ‘normality'). It is also apparent
that living in a patriarchal culture does not benefit all men equally.
Many men, are unable to meet Western society's ideals of
masculinity; for those whose lives have been blighted by poverty, racism,
and/or homophobia, any suggestion that their interests are systematically favored
may feel like a cruel joke.
You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.