Feminism Battles Patriarchy: Overcoming the False Social Construct and Institution that is Patriarchy

 

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.

Issues with the Term "SEXISM"

While the term "sexism" is sometimes applied to institutional conduct, it is more typically associated with individual acts and intentions, obscuring the underlying processes and effects. 

The term also frequently separates gender-specific forms of ill-treatment and bad behavior from the other structural inequalities with which they intersect, focusing on the insults and discriminatory incidents faced by relatively privileged women rather than the constant abuse and exploitation faced by those who are more vulnerable. Another issue with the term "sexism" is that it is gender-neutral. 

Men, too, are often treated unfairly because of their sex, and they, too, experience sexism. 

However, as she also points out, such sexism differs significantly from that faced by women in terms of "frequency, intensity, and context." It's also different because of the larger gendered power structure in which sexist occurrences or behaviors occur, as explained in the next paragraph. In this larger context, there is a world of difference between jokes mocking rich males and jokes mocking impoverished women, for example. 

This is the difference between 'punching up,' which aims to undermine existing inequities by puncturing wealthy people's unreflective and self-satisfied worldview, and 'punching down,' which humiliates those who are already disadvantaged. 

This context is frequently overlooked, leading feminists to be accused of lacking a sense of humor if they fail to find misogynistic jokes amusing, as well as being accused of sexism if they make a joke at the expense of men; this accusation may tempt them to invoke Margaret Atwood's oft-quoted observation, "Men are afraid that women will laugh a lot." 

Women are frightened of being killed by males.' When sexism is discussed in isolation from larger patterns of male authority, the difficulties of making substantial change might be underestimated. 

Men dominate positions of power and authority in the judiciary, politics, culture, and the media, she did not really investigate the relationship of institutionalized public power to sexism or other forms of male privilege, such as men's generally higher financial resources. 

Instead of perceiving male vested interests as making eliminating sexism both hard and difficult, Bates was thrilled to learn that many men supported her effort, and she argued that ending sexism is a relatively easy matter of cultural change. 

‘This is not a men against women issue.' It's about individuals versus prejudice, and sexism. 

A more analytical approach, on the other hand, would recognize that the overall preference for males over women is a complex, multidimensional system including a variety of interconnected and mutually reinforcing economic, political, legal, physical, and cultural aspects. Support from well-intentioned men is welcome in this situation, but it must take the shape of action as well as words. 

These critiques do not imply that the label "sexism" be dropped. Indeed, it continues to give an accessible and politically extremely effective starting place for feminist consciousness and political action by highlighting discriminatory practices and attitudes and labelling them as wrong. 

It is, however, descriptive rather than analytical, and it should be utilized as part of a larger analysis of ‘patriarchy,' which is explored in the next section.

You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.

What is Sexism TODAY?

 

 

The term "sexism" was coined in the late 1960s in the context of the civil rights struggle in the United States. Many young women found that supposedly ‘progressive' anti-racist and left-wing groups, as well as anti-war, new left, and student movements in North America, Europe, and Australia, were not immune from the ‘feminine mystique' identified by Betty Friedan, and that they were expected to act as sexually available secretaries and housewives rather than equal partners or decision-makers.

Men's behavior was labelled as 'sexist' to emphasize the political gravity of women's demands and complaints, implying that prejudice, discrimination, and ill treatment based on gender were just as important and unacceptable as those based on race.

In the decades after, the terms 'sexism' and 'sexist' have proven to be extremely helpful shorthand for describing a wide variety of ideas, attitudes, and behavior that reflect, sustain, or produce an environment or results that disadvantage one sex, generally women.

Examples include deliberate acts of discrimination, intimidation, or exclusion, such as refusing to hire or promote women or sexually harassing them on the street, as well as the uncritical acceptance of gender stereotypes, such as boys don't cry and women are naturally suited to housework, and the use of non-inclusive language, such as referring to all potential students at a school open day as "he," Sexism, like racism, isn't only about individual acts of discrimination; it can also take institutional forms:

An organization may be full of well-intentioned individuals who want to treat everyone fairly, but it may also be riddled with beliefs that favor males over women.

For example, when choosing a candidate for a parliamentary election, political activists may search for someone with trade union or commercial expertise, while overlooking the fact that establishing a play program for local children also requires politically relevant abilities.

Computer algorithms learn from people's prior patterns of behavior, thus institutional sexism can now exist without explicit human participation; for example, adverts for particularly well-paid or typically masculine positions have been targeted to males on Facebook and Google.

Although the term sexism is most often used to ‘call out' individual acts of bad or inappropriate behavior, it can also help us understand their larger social context:

To describe our society as sexist is to see the connections between different instances of discrimination, not just to say that some people do or think discriminatory things.

Laura Bates, who created the online ‘Everyday Sexism' initiative in 2012 in reaction to her own low-level, negative experiences, such as being yelled at on the street and grabbed on a bus, obviously saw this link.

The steady drip-drip-drip of sexism, sexualization, and objectification is linked to the assumption of ownership and control over women's bodies, and the background noise of harassment and disrespect is linked to the assertion of power that is violence and racial profiling, according to Bates.

Bates was able to clarify her findings and, by defining the problem, take the initial steps in confronting it by labelling a variety of different situations as "sexism." She believes that grassroots activism is critical in changing the culture of sexism, and she worked with others to encourage companies whose Facebook ads appeared on pages that appeared to condone or encourage sexual violence to leave the platform. After fifteen advertisers, including Nissan, left, Facebook promised several changes, including improved moderator training.

The term 'sexism' is still frequently used today, and it plays an important role in shaping a worldview that represents and expresses many women's experiences, as well as informing practical feminist politics.

It can be difficult for a woman to use the word without being stereotyped as an old-fashioned, pessimistic, humorless whiner who invents issues where none exist and sees the world through a distorted, feminist lens. This implies that, although silence or involvement in sexist society generally goes unnoticed, sexism criticism is frequently penalized, resulting in a situation in which "when we name what we come up against, we come up against what we label."

Sara Ahmed argues that, in this setting, female academics have frequently stopped doing the hard and often fruitless job of detecting sexism wherever they find it, and that as a result, "sexism appears to have "fallen out" of feminist theoretical vocabulary."

In some ways, academic apathy toward the term may appear to be a good thing, because feminist academic theory can appear almost deliberately obscure at times, a way of signaling membership in an elite group whose language is impenetrable to "outsiders," a category that includes most black and/or working-class women.

Feminist theory, on the other hand, may, at its finest, bring seemingly disparate ideas together and infuse greater rigor into public debates.

My impression is that the term "sexism" has become almost too simple to use, and that it is being thrown around to the point that it is losing its potency; it's possible that a lack of academic interest contributes to its seeming lack of analytical or critical edge.

You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.

Goddesses and Eco-warriors Need Eco-Activism and Feminism

 

As previous ideological divides have blurred and the prominence of direct action for protesting environmental issues has grown, the gap between theory and action has deepened. While feminist and ecological studies are increasingly focusing on theory, action is becoming more common.

Has feminism made such inroads into politics that their contributions have been considered in curtailing the need for special feminist theory or politics in connection to our experiences of eco-activism?  

Pam is a feminist scholar and part-time activist, while Sarah is an environmental activist who has studied Women's Studies.

We agree that feminist theory, including ecofeminism, is a poor resource for modern eco-activism, but we equally believe that waiting for theoretical difficulties to be resolved might stifle action. Sarah believes that feminist analyses are significant historically and have contributed to shape eco-activism as it is now, thus they are included into ecological studies, but she avoids utilizing explicit feminist criticisms for fear of being regarded as "oldhat" and alienating co-activists.

Pam admires how activist coalitions may liberate political action from identities or unitary theories, but she is wary of depending on feminist analysis inside a 'grand theory,' even one that revalues the traditionally feminine and undervalued. We couldn't help but distinguish various constituencies of environmental demonstrators as we discussed our opinions of and thoughts on the popularization of feminist concepts.

When the focus is on a specific location, it frequently draws together campaigners who have used formal political tactics, such as public meetings and petitioning the council, with 'eco-warrior' activists who may occupy land or buildings and live in tree-houses or tunnels.

Local residents and activists visited, lived on, and farmed abandoned urban land at PureGenius, whose politics spanned shades and combinations of anarchist, socialism, and deep ecology, or none of these, and whose identities ranged from Pagan to punk to professional and beyond.

Prioritizing action means acting together without the necessity for shared identities or theoretical ideas.

Pam has had a mixed experience with male co-activist’s gender politics. At a Newbury By pass protest-camp, she learned ways of diffusing aggression diffusing aggression from men at house occupations protesting the M motor-way link-road.

Many serious eco-activists with a radical ecological analysis incorporate gender analyses into their criticisms of power and 'progress.'

We can critically explore the traditional gendered identities that eco-activism might mobilize, such as warriors battling for the Earth or the celebration of feminine vitality and creativity, with them.

We take pro-feminist convictions for granted among these activists perhaps because they frequently reflect features of our own political lives, but not among the many others drawn to each one demonstration. 

Is our assumption that eco-activists are feminists accurate, or are we allowing identity politics in via the back door?

The term "patriarchy" is outdated.

Pam relates this to a growing focus on the local, which means she only uses the word infrequently, but when she does, it's to emphasize the breadth of analysis in an almost exasperated gesture to 'capitalist patriarchy' or 'hetero-patriarchal relations,' which she sees as a critical counterpoint to a focus on the local. 

Sarah agrees, but is concerned that putting too much focus on such huge ideas might lead to feelings of impotence in the face of them, and points out that decisions are made by real people, with names and addresses, in the institutions and organizations that support them.

The concentration on action rather than philosophy permits eco-activists to be portrayed as thoughtless in the mainstream media. While certain concerns, such as violence, will be addressed as practical concerns of living and acting together, other events such as Earth First! rallies will focus on more theoretical debate. 

Because we haven't all 'come through feminism on-site, feminist analyses are required to challenge appropriations of feminism on and off-site where images of ‘active' women are used to sell us beauty products and designer combat gear, and when journalists want 'cute' women protesters to be the vulnerable victims of burly bailiffs.

If 'first-wave' Western feminists fought for equality and integration, and 'second-wave' feminists criticized dominant values and sometimes inverted value-hierarchies to revalue qualities associated with the feminine in this century, 'third-wave' feminism goes beyond such reversals, stepping outside the existing terms of debate, such as by deconstructing the presumption of a gender binary or the convexity of a gender binary.

We respect feminist studies for demonstrating who profits the most from corporate 'development' both locally and worldwide and for contesting dominant presumptions about desired 'progress' such as ecofeminist criticisms of integrationist/'catch-up' international development models.

These are the first and second waves of arguments, respectively. On-site, we see second-wave feminist analyses being drawn on implicitly by men and women to challenge daring machismo, which the emphasis on action sometimes elicits from male or female activists; to identify bailiff aggression and intimidation, and to challenge the devaluation of nurturance and passivity.

Pam is more ambivalent than Sarah about some revaluing, particularly where women's connection to the Earth is understood as intrinsically gendered, because she shares especially third-wave feminist theorists' distrust of essentialism and skepticism of the discourse of the natural' for its ability to undermine women's reproductive choices and sell us anything.

Our various reactions to women activists employing and loving the sexualization of their bodies, such as the Sacred Harlots of Gaia, who striptease to distract security guards/police from the acts of other activists, demonstrate the contradictions of striving to reclaim or disrupt traditional meanings.

Such attempts to recover or use sarcastic or strategically gendered meanings can sometimes be indistinguishable from or reinforce pre-second-wave sexist beliefs, necessitating the inclusion of second-wave analysis e.g.to remain critical about women being defined by their bodies or reproductive status. Pam can join Sarah in celebrating women's sexuality in a specific local intervention while questioning if it reflects women’s' true sexuality,' according to third-wave studies. Because eco-activism employs both second and third-wave feminist tactics at the same time, it seems more useful to think of them as distinct tactics rather than stages.

Is feminist philosophy necessary for today's eco-activists?

Feminism, Sarah believes, isn't relevant as a separate analysis and is already a component of the pot. Pam would want to have distinct feminist analyses even when working within larger coalitions, so that she could add to the flavor. Our various replies reflect our various locations, and the challenges we had in writing together were like those confronted by coalitions.

Our theoretical disagreements, however, haven't stopped us from working together or being friends. So, although Pam thinks 'third-wave' analyses are useful for thinking about activism, Sarah wonders if they help her do it.

You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.

COVID-19 Pandemic's impact on Global Politics

 

A slew of international and domestic political issues has arisen because of the worldwide epidemic. The COVID-health crisis is an external shock to the global system, affecting international politics and causing new tensions between foes and friends. It will likely have far-reaching repercussions and long-term consequences for geopolitics.

Political leaders from major countries such as the United States and China may try to use the crisis to gain an advantage in the global political order's continuous battle for hegemony. 

States have been left scrambling to gather enough supplies and resources to properly combat the virus in many cases, prioritizing national interest and the well-being of their own populations.

The US, for example, asked to stop supplying protective masks to Canada and Latin American nations so that they could keep them for domestic usage. In the rush to produce a vaccine for the virus, a type of "vaccine nationalism" emerged, which erected hurdles to collaboration and favored local delivery once mass manufacturing began. The pandemic has the potential to intensify existing inter-state political tensions. COVID, for example, has the potential to exacerbate tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

We might witness greater entrenchment of the armed status quo, as well as local initiatives to emphasize the weakness of Indian administration in Kashmir, while political leaders in both nations focus on battling the virus. 

Hardline Indian nationalist initiatives might potentially be utilized to shift public attention away from the COVID situation. The magnitude of the pandemic danger, on the other hand, is likely to focus attention in India and Pakistan on the urgent needs for public health services and the need to alleviate domestic economic distress. Politicians in countries with supranational governance institutions, such as the European Union, have had disagreements over new policies.

Despite disagreements during the negotiating process, EU member states finally reached an agreement on an economic recovery plan in July, despite reservations from so-called "frugal" nations about the plan's cost. 

However, debates over seasonal migrant labor have fueled tensions inside the EU, with certain businesses, particularly farmers, seeking access to foreign workers and populist leaders advocating for tougher immigration controls. The epidemic has also exacerbated pre-existing international issues around people migration.

Asylum seekers and refugees have been hit especially hard, especially as the epidemic threatens to exacerbate current humanitarian situations.

Temporary economic migrants have also been affected by the epidemic, particularly because of the economic crisis, which has led many businesses to lay off workers. Even though governments have implemented economic measures to help enterprises, temporary migrants are frequently left out of these programs.

Some governments are also contemplating changing migration restrictions and drastically altering how they handle asylum applications, such as limiting face-to-face interviews, erecting additional physical obstacles, or even encouraging asylum seekers to bring their own black or blue ink pens. 

Internal migration has also been impacted by the epidemic, with several countries imposing travel restrictions. In a variety of ways, the public health issue is impacting internal political conflicts.

Some politicians, for example, used the outbreak for partisan political benefit during post-Brexit discussions between the UK and the EU. 

In certain circumstances, politicians have questioned experts' authority, eroding voters' faith in evidence-based understanding.

To further their beliefs, they have often mischaracterized or usurped scientific expertise on problems such as mask wearing. 

In several nations, political division has fueled and worsened debate about the epidemic, creating tensions between regional/state and national/federal political authorities. Calls for unity and concerted action, on the other hand, have occasionally served to bridge ideological and party divisions.

The pandemic offers distinct threats to state stability, potentially amplifying the dangers of political violence, internal armed conflict, and state failure. 

Rebel organizations and other militant players have taken advantage of chances to expand their power, further political goals, and demonstrate their ability to administer and enforce norms. 

Armed groups operating along Colombia's southwest coast, for example, have publicly said that curfew offenders will be viewed as "military objectives."

In some situations, COVID- has given armed opposition groups the opportunity to ramp up assaults and target government opponents, while in others, the opportunity has been used to enhance claims of legitimacy and demonstrate their ability to deliver public services and rule.

To combat the pandemic, the Islamic State, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda affiliates, for example, have all offered instruction and local support. The pandemic has also had an impact on political engagement. Protest politics, for example, has been a hot topic of discussion.

On the one hand, residents in certain nations have turned to the streets to protest government measures aimed at containing the virus, such as lockdown and stay-at-home orders.

Protests like as those organized by Black Lives Matter activists throughout the world, on the other hand, were a source of debate as people and political leaders debated whether such events led to fresh COVID outbreaks.

Election politics are also affected by the consequences on political engagement. Local and national political leaders in several nations, for example, have opted to postpone elections or rethink voting rules and practices.

Governments have taken efforts to ensure social separation, health, and safety during the voting process, such as expanding the use of postal voting or establishing measures to ensure social distance, health, and safety during the voting process.

Traditional customs and behaviors such as shaking hands have been restricted, which has had an influence on campaign activities.

Furthermore, political gatherings pose a significant health danger for the virus's transmission. This aspect becomes particularly salient after former US President Donald Trump started large-scale political campaign activities immediately after his COVID treatment hospitalization.

Other politicians used virtual rallies and events to commemorate significant campaign milestones, such as the Democratic Party's announcement of a presidential candidate in August. COVID- has also influenced the substance of political campaigns and party politics. Issues like as public health and socioeconomic and racial inequality, for example, have grown increasingly prominent, and historically split parties have converged on more similar viewpoints on fiscal prudence and public expenditures.

When it comes to politicians, law enforcement, and the media, among others, TRUST is a critical component of political life.

High-profile instances of politicians disobeying their own stay-at-home directives, or openly contradicting or undermining health professionals can cause widespread misunderstanding and erode public faith.

The politicization of topics such as obligatory mask wearing demonstrates how a lack of consensus and diverse approaches may thwart public health initiatives and foster suspicion not just of politicians but also of law enforcement authorities entrusted with enforcing compliance.

In some situations, lawbreakers have retaliated violently against cops executing the new legislation. 

Members of an extreme militia were detained in relation to suspected intentions to abduct Michigan's governor and put her on trial for draconian pandemic policies in a particularly spectacular instance.

Furthermore, by adopting framing strategies or prioritizing certain material as they disseminate information to the public, the media can have a compounding influence on public trust (or lack thereof). 

Political trust can be exacerbated using social media by politicians to promote disinformation regarding COVID and associated legislation.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

\

Lack of Civility and the Spread of COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 is examined through the prism of civility. 

For two causes, an emphasis on civility is important. For starters, the idea of civility is often discussed in public forums. 

In a variety of situations in public life, society wants individuals to behave in a certain way. Some people are fast to accuse those who are found to have broken these rules of conduct of being uncivil. 

As American football player Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem to demonstrate economic and social inequality, US President Donald Trump deemed the gesture uncivil and insensitive. 

'You have to stand respectfully for the national anthem otherwise you shouldn't be performing, you shouldn't be there, maybe you shouldn't be in the world,' Trump suggested. ‘[t]hat is a complete disrespect to our heritage,' he said. 

That is a complete betrayal of everything we stand for.' Trump was enraged by Kaepernick's words, and he voiced his approval when former Vice President Mike Pence and his wife left the stadium in Indianapolis as part of a counter-protest before an ers-Colts NFL game. 

Accusations of incivility have been levelled at Kaepernick on a regular basis. However, his situation raises a crucial question: can we all be polite to one another? ‘When civility leads to suicide, revolting is the only moral reaction,' Kaepernick recently argued. 

Often it's necessary to be uncivil in order to bring attention to and combat inequality, particularly when other methods aren't (or are no longer) efficient. Another high-profile US event occurred recently when the owner of a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia begged former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to quit. Several LGBTIQ+ waitstaff members objected to her support for President Trump's anti-transgender policy. In an era of outrage and polarized politics, the event posed critical concerns about moral and pragmatic decision-making. 

Those in favor of the move saw it as justified in light of the administration's breach of moral values of fair respect for all citizens—a central level of civility. 

Right-wing commentators, on the other hand, saw the restaurateur's behavior as uncivil, though telling Huckabee Sanders to leave the premises went against generally accepted politeness norms. This breakdown of civil trade has the potential to have far-reaching consequences. 

Both sides identified the other's violations of civility standards, but both centered on a different aspect of civility. This leads to the second explanation for emphasizing civility: the concept's disputed existence in academic literature, especially in political theory and philosophy. 

Second, there is controversy about what civility entails (and therefore incivility). Second, even though people agree on the definition of (in)civility, they can disagree on whether individual incidents of speech or behavior should be classified as civil or uncivil depending on that definition. 

So, what does civility entail? 

Existing scholarly work offers a variety of conceptions of the term, all of which are at odds with one another. However, there are two key points of view. 

On the one hand, civility is often correlated with courtesy and politeness standards: to be respectful in this context means speaking and acting in accordance with these standards. 

In the other hand, it is related to the concept of high-mindedness: to be civil in this second sense implies to demonstrate a devotion to the public benefit, rather than only one's own personal or sectarian interests, and to regard others as free and equal. 

When we defend political laws, we have a "duty of civility" to only refer to public motives (i.e. reasons that our fellow citizens can recognize and find persuasive). 

This second understanding of civility is famously captured by John Rawls' argument that we have a "duty of civility" to only appeal to public reasons (i.e. reasons that our fellow citizens can understand and find persuasive). 

Although, as we'll see, civility as public-mindedness can also be interpreted in a non-justificatory context, implying that we don't treat people in discriminatory or hateful ways. 

We consider politeness and public-mindedness aspects of civility, which will help concentrate on how COVID-19 tests our desire to be respectful while still providing chances for people to discover new ways to be civil to one another in these trying times.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 Pandemic presents Risks and Threats to Civility and Public-Mindedness

At both the local/national and international levels, various actors and organizations have reacted to the pandemic in ways that have sometimes fallen short of the demands of normative and justifiable civility. 

1. First, members of oppressed communities have been subjected to different types of bigotry and hate, violating their identity as free and decent people in morally reprehensible ways. 
2. Second, a variety of political figures have used COVID-19 to further sectarian political interests or to overprioritize some political ideals in comparison to others, in ways that defy justifiable civility criteria. 
3. Third, certain policymakers have enacted policies that place unfair ‘commitment burdens' on some classes of people, especially those who are already marginalized and disadvantaged structurally. This, we concluded, risks weakening the legitimacy of these measures in the eyes of the public. 
4. Finally, challenges to justificatory civility have arisen as a result of a lack of scientific knowledge of COVID-19 and its social and cultural aspects, as well as the politicization of research by certain actors for personal or partisan benefit. 

If we wish to avoid an eruption of moral and justifiable incivility, we must act quickly to address these issues. 

We proposed a variety of options for governments and people to pursue this goal. Where it comes to moral civility, policymakers should take action toward more equitable measures that reduce inequality and strengthen the lives of those who are disadvantaged. 

This may include multi-pronged techniques such as clear messaging, localization, collaboration, and policy co-design. Identifying the roots of racism and hate speech, tracking and gathering evidence, working with civil society actors, using media and emerging tools for program implementation, and strengthening legal processes such as hate speech legislation are also ways that lawmakers can better combat the rise of racism and hate speech. 

Responding to COVID-19's obstacles to justificatory civility necessitates a variety of interventions. First, sectarianism can be averted through structural bulwarks against incivility such as judicial processes that can help to deter religious convictions from encroaching on political laws. 

Governments should foster justificatory civility at the same time by promoting the virtues of solidarity, other-regardingness, and reciprocity through educational institutions and the use of consultative and deliberative bodies. 

Furthermore, the implementation of ethics structures may assist governments and people in better articulating the requirements for determining when and how those political values should be prioritized over others in public policy justification. 

Furthermore, policymakers should gain a better understanding of the social and political realities that characterize their society, especially structural inequalities that place additional burdens on marginalized groups; develop more tailored policies that prioritize marginalized groups; and engage in greater activism to reduce the strains of commitment that certain policies may impose on those groups. 

Finally, policymakers must ensure that strategies are not implemented based on faulty or unreliable scientific data. This will necessitate encouraging and financing further scientific studies on COVID-19 (both medical research and research on the virus's social and cultural dimensions), as well as ensuring that governments and the scientific community have open and reliable lines of communication. 

In order to stop using scientific facts in ways that are unsound and unjust, and therefore endanger justificatory civility, policymakers would need to improve their scientific literacy.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 Pandemic's Impact on the Elderly

Older citizens are a third demographic group that has been disproportionately affected by policy responses to COVID-19. 

We already stated in the article that older people are more likely to contract COVID-19 and die from it than children and younger adults. Large outbreaks have occurred in aged care homes, with elevated fatality rates. 

When we consider the consequences of some of the policy reactions to the pandemic, though, we see that older populations are more vulnerable. 

For example, figures suggest that unemployment rates for jobs aged and older have been higher than in recent recessions. 

Furthermore, many elderly adults have had their retirement plans disrupted, and they will not have the same chances to continue travel until the pandemic has passed. 

One recent retiree in the United States expressed his dissatisfaction with the pandemic's timing: These were the years that we had set aside between, you know, and maybe the early s, that we were trying to do all of the stuff that we had put off since we were raising a family because we were nearing the end of our most fruitful years of our careers. 

Since our jobs were hard and our careers were demanding, we didn't enjoy long breaks or do a lot of stuff. We mentioned that we will retire at a younger age than any others... We had a couple of nice years where we [travelled] across Europe, Australia, and most of the United States, and now it's all gone. Around the same time, we're getting older, and these are the years we'll never get back. When you're, it's not that you can fly [in the same way]. 

The social alienation caused by interventions like stay-at-home directives and social distancing laws, on the other hand, is a far bigger issue. 

These interventions have also discouraged older people from participating in social encounters that are important to their well-being, such as those with their relatives and family, as well as those that take place in shops, within neighborhood groups, in places of worship, and during other daily activities. 

For example, we spoke with an Italian woman who explained the precautions she took during the first phase of the pandemic: ‘[t]o try to protect the health of my elderly mother, who lives one floor above me, I only met with her for a few minutes [every day] while wearing a mask for two months.' Isolation like this can lead to or intensify loneliness, despair, and, in the case of older adults with dementia, more cognitive loss. 

Owing to major restrictions on the number, timing, and modalities of visits by friends and family, older adults in long-term care (LTC) facilities have been especially affected. 

Visitors are often expected to undergo testing prior to visiting LTC facilities, and the visits are often brief and performed outside. All involved must keep a safe distance and wear masks and other safety gear. This has an unavoidable effect on the meeting's efficiency. 

In the Canadian context, health researchers and practitioners note that [t]he impracticalities of such visits are obvious: spouses of residents are often older adults who face mobility challenges getting tested, residents have hearing and vision loss, making communicating during a physically distanced visit outside challenging, and masking visitor faces is not helpful or advisable. 

Due to COVID-19 outbreaks, some inhabitants have been socially segregated for months, spending every day and every meal alone in their apartments, kept captive by ill-conceived policies... 

These initiatives are out of step with residents' interests and cause emotional distress. This means that some of the main measures put in place by policymakers in reaction to COVID-19 have placed undue pressures on the elderly. 

This risks undermining their public legitimacy and necessitates lawmakers' awareness of the policies' disparate social effects, particularly given the precarious role several older people already occupy. There are, however, ways to mitigate the effect of such measures on the elderly. 

For example, in long-term care facilities, this could include [refocusing] care on the occupant and reintroducing person-centered care into countermeasures... 

This includes embracing and campaigning for creativity, user-friendly emerging tools that foster interactions with loved ones, and using [nurses'] intimate partnerships with residents to lobby for more person-centered policies. 

Online services have also been used in ways that aren't exclusive to LTC services. 

For example, in addition to Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, older people in the United Kingdom have access to the Next-door App, which allows neighbors to communicate and connect socially.

 Older citizens have also used internet outlets to attend worship events, play online board games, and attend virtual music concerts. 

Some also suggested alternative means of care, such as letters, notes, and parcels, telephone calls, and cognitive behavior training, since many elderly adults do not have high levels of IT literacy. 

Justifiable civility should not need governments to always reject COVID-19 policy responses simply because they might have a disproportionate impact on older citizens. 

After all, these policies are needed to slow the spread of the virus and save lives. 

Policymakers must, in the very least, recognize the disparities in outcomes and, where possible, make a sincere attempt to either change their strategies or introduce and encourage interventions to reduce the disparities. 

This may be achieved directly, such as supplying older people with the financial and technical means to access internet services from the comfort of their own homes, or indirectly, such as coordinating public awareness programs urging residents to follow any of the above supportive behaviors in their everyday encounters with older people.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 Justificatory Civility, Science, and Health

The relationship between science and justificatory civility.

Scientific methodology and observations can play a vital role in public justification, as we found out in article and as Rawls himself emphasizes. This is only on the condition that the procedures and results are not contentious. 

Politicians, for example, who use conspiracy theories to defend such rules or practices are clearly violating the obligation of civility. 

From a justification standpoint, though, those who focus on flawed or imperfect scientific data, or who purposely pick some bits of (sound) scientific evidence while disregarding others for political convenience, are often being uncivil. COVID-19 is especially interested in the relationship between scientific experience and societal justification. 

The ongoing pandemic has elicited perhaps more controversy about the role of science in public policy than any other policy question in modern memory, emphasizing the need for a convergence of science and policy. 

Social distancing laws, mask-wearing policies, and lockout or stay-at-home directives all depend extensively on science knowledge and data to prevent the virus from spreading. Without such facts, it is unclear how governments might legally enforce such burdensome rules on their people, particularly given the considerable toll these policies take on rights and liberties. 

The politicization of experimental evidence is one of the most significant issues facing the science/policy intersection during COVID-19. 

According to Fauci, scientists who counsel politicians should follow a common motto: "[y]ou remain totally apolitical and nonideological, and you stick to what it is that you do." I'm a surgeon and a biologist. That's what there is to it.' 

Scientists must focus on evidence and data, even though they conflict with decisionmakers' political agendas. 

This is particularly critical as evidence-based strategies will save lives. However, this is not a simple credo to live by. ‘[W]hen you walk into the White House, you should be prepared it that is the only time you will ever go there,' Fauci remembers being told. 

And if you head into it thinking, "I'm going to tell someone what they want to know," you've already shot yourself in the foot." It's no wonder that strains between Fauci and Trump arose during the pandemic, with the former US President often proposing potential COVID-19 therapies only to see them immediately rejected or debunked by Fauci. 

We need to focus on three specific issues posed by COVID-19 to the connection between science and policy: 

1. the first is the scientific community's ongoing limited understanding of the virus and its long-term health effects; 
2. the second is the lack of scientific research on how COVID-19, and the policies that implement it, work; 
3. and the third is the lack of scientific research on how COVID-19, and the policies that implement it, work.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 Spread and Long-term Impact

COVID-19's theoretical interpretation. 

When politicians use factual findings to validate laws, justificatory civility requires that the evidence and the procedures used to gather it are uncontroversial. It's uncertain if these conditions were followed in the COVID-19 science report. 

Since the onset of the pandemic, scientists have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to studying COVID-19. However, experts continue to disagree on core aspects of the virus, such as the feasibility of wearing a mask in stopping its transmission, the extent to which individuals who have been exposed to it become resilient to it, and how cases can be estimated and registered. 

The investigation of COVID-19 in real-world settings has resulted in more open questions. 

The majority of COVID-19 clinical research has concentrated on researching the virus in laboratory settings, rather than in the real-world contexts where it lives and spreads. 

This is a challenge since a complete knowledge of how the virus spreads necessitates an understanding of how it deals with ordinary things like furniture, elevators, and doorknobs. 

For example, a recent study found that several governments' implementation of the -meter social distancing law to minimize COVID-19 transmission could be based on insufficient evidence. ‘[s]afe transmission reduction strategies are dependent on various variables applicable to both the person and the environment, including virus load, length of exposure, number of people, indoor versus outdoor environments, amount of ventilation, and if face coverings are worn,' according to the report. This has far-reaching policy ramifications. 

According to the findings, healthy social distancing limits vary greatly depending on the setting, with outdoor areas possibly having a lower chance of transmission at a given distance. To recognize the role of the environmental background in assessing transmission risk, staggered social distancing laws, in addition to other public health strategies, may be needed. 

More research on COVID-19 in relation to air, water, and unique types of surfaces is also required, according to scientists. 

Although an increasing number of studies have started to fill in these holes, such as examining how COVID-19 spreads in restaurants, airlines, and humid vs. dry conditions, further research is needed.

The analysis of COVID-19 propagation on aero planes makes for a fascinating case study. The US Department of Defense collaborated with United Airlines and university experts to investigate the dangers of COVID-19 transmission on aero planes while stationary and in flight. 

The study found that a person would have to sit next to an infectious passenger for over hours to become infected by aerosol transfer, which is good news for those who want to see more regular air travel. In these regulated settings, continuous use of a surgical mask, along with seat structure and efficient air filtration devices, eliminates much of the chance of transmission. 

However, the study's shortcomings and many of its conclusions remain. ‘You cut the aspect of human nature out,' one researcher at Johns Hopkins University said of the report. Passengers are not expected to remove their mask, take a meal, use the restroom, or communicate with other passengers or flight crew, according to the report. 

Anecdotal proof of reported cases of onboard transmission seems to include actions such as using the restroom. Other researchers are optimistic about the possibility of longitudinal trials, but they are skeptical of some of the evidence included in a larger effort to present air travel as comparatively risk-free. 

Finally, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about COVID-19's long-term health consequences and their precise origins, such as in connection to the heart or the brain. 

Excessive exhaustion, muscle exhaustion, failure to focus, memory lapses, and trouble sleeping are among the long-term problems posed by former COVID-19 patients, according to a new report published in The Lancet. 

The authors stress the importance of more research in this field, citing their inability to provide patients with straightforward answers to a number of questions about the virus's long-term effects, such as 

• "does acute COVID-19 induce diabetes?" 
• Or are there any other metabolic issues? 
• Is it possible that patients will develop interstitial lung disease? 

We are only in the early stages of the pandemic, and we are unsure what to tell our patients as they inquire about the course and prognosis of their persistent symptoms.' 

Many experimental studies of COVID-19 are surrounded by doubt and confusion, but this does not mean that the data presented by these studies can be ignored or that their results are always unsuitable for public justification. 

And if scientific research is debatable, it can also be used to justify public policy. 

Expecting all scientists to agree with any scientific discovery and procedure used in scientific inquiry would be unrealistic, considering that scientists often disagree with one another and that disagreement is a healthy part of scientific study. In this way, adhering to more general science principles that are widely accepted within the scientific community, such as Thomas Kuhn's five desiderata of hypothesis choosing, could be adequate in principle to yield scientific conclusions that can be used in public justification. Public reasoning, on the other hand, should not be seen in black-and-white terminology. 

There are different levels of public rationale, and the more contentious and ambiguous research studies are, the more complex it would be for politicians to justify public health policies based on them, especially when such policies restrict human rights and liberties. 

In contrast, policymakers can find it easier to justify public health interventions if they focus on less controversial research studies. For example, if clinical evidence reliably shows that COVID-19 will have serious long-term effects for certain individuals who contract it, including those from groups with lower mortality rates (e.g., young adults and children), this may escalate the stakes and have major repercussions for COVID-19 policy responses. 

The possibility of a generation of serious long-term health conditions, as well as the burden on public health systems that would result, would increase public justification for demanding COVID-19 policy solutions, even those that severely restrict people's rights and liberty. 

However, in some circumstances, the experimental analysis of COVID-19 can be not only debatable or doubtful, but also potentially inaccurate. 

Some researchers, for example, concluded that ‘several diagnostic and prognostic models for COVID-19...are all at high risk of bias, mostly due to non-representative control patient selection, omission of patients who had not witnessed the case of concern by the end of the trial, and model overfitting.' Other experiments were discovered to be dependent on erroneous evidence. 

In such circumstances, we are seeing what might be characterized as "gross epistemic mistake," rather than healthy empirical disagreement. The scientific conclusions arising from such shoddy studies cannot be used to explain public policy; doing so would be uncivil in the justification sense.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.