FAQ: Isn’t "the Patriarchy" just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women’s woes?
Last Updated: 2009-11-03
Patriarchy: one of the most misunderstood critical-theory concepts ever, often wilfully misunderstood. Patriarchy is one form of social stratification via a power/dominance hierarchy – an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a ranking of inferiorities) and its privileges. Societies can be (and usually are) patriarchal, oligarchal and plutocratic all at the same time, complicated by current and/or legacy features of sectarianism, imperialism and colonialism, so the gender hierarchy is only one source of social disparity. Because of the limited capacity of the word “patriarchy” to describe the full operation of intersecting oppressions, some now prefer to use the word “kyriarchy” instead, but it is not yet in common use.
Kyriarchy – a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.
Patriarchy – Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men to not have control over white wo/men and some women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men (slaves).
- Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001
Historically, patriarchy operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterised by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess (unless there are exceptional circumstances resulting from intersections with other social hierarchies conferring high status that gives rare women political authority e.g. the royal lineage of Elizabeth I, or the divine claim to authority of Joan of Arc). This view of women normalises the restriction of women’s opportunities and choices throughout the whole of society via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions.
Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies, taking the physical strength disparity between the sexes as signs of a general female inferiority, a “natural order” that indicates women are meant to be subordinate.
Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy.
Non-elite men do not generally actively conspire with Patriarchs (although they may aspire to become one): the patriarchal pattern however means that subordinate men are ranked above subordinate women in the traditional socioeconomic hierarchy from which Patriarchs skim the cream, meaning that men (as a group) benefit more from the injustices of Patriarchy than women do (as a group). This does not mean that superordinate women (by virtue of lineage/wealth) do not have concrete advantages and social privileges compared to subordinate men – this is where the intersecting rankings and dominations of the kyriarchy come in.
In primitive and lawless some pre-industrial or isolationist societies rigid patriarchal organisation has survival benefits for women and children, at a price: subjugation and often misogynistic abuse. Polygamy for the plutarchs and categorising surplus subordinate men as disposable pawns often goes hand in hand with the sequestration of women in these cultures. Civilisation (generally) has advanced a long way from the days of the ancient ruthless patriarchs who held the power of life and death over their extended families/clans, and survival is (generally) no longer dependant on formal subjugation to a Patriarch, either for men or women.
However, despite other circles of superordination, society is still structured along patriarchal lines of subordination in nearly all forms of organisations, to the great benefit of those at the top. The male elites, the magnates (currently white, but who knows what the next century will bring?), continue to wield disproportionate influence and power over the situations of other men and especially women.
“So, there is no one Patriarch, leastaways not outside of Constantinople. There’s no single dude in a nifty hat (or not) at the top of the power structure, surrounded by scantily clad women whom he feeds to tigers for his kicks and giggles. If it were only that simple, we could off the old wanker, free the women and give them some trousers, find loving homes for the tigers, and have a great party around the bonfire of his palace (after salvaging all the good art, books, and chocolate). Alas, because the patriarchy is instead a very very old system that has warped everyone’s thinking right down to the sub-rational, axiomatic, non-verbal ideological level, it’s much more difficult to overthrow. (We’ve seen how well wars against ideas work.)”
[jennie (zingerella): Who Are The Patriarchs, Anyway?]
Extra-Credit Reading (not a feminist primer):
“patriarchy is a violently tyrannical but nearly invisible social order based on an oppressive paradigm of class and status fetishizing dominance and submission. Patriarchy’s benefits are accrued according to a rigid hierarchy at the top of which are rich honky males and at the bottom of which are poor women of color.”
[Twisty Faster (I Blame the Patriarchy): Patriarchy-Blaming the Twisty Way]
Even in modern-rule-of-law countries with full legal sexual equality, there are still many patriarchal remnants in the way that men (as a group) seek to discourage women (as a group) from social independence and independent financial security. These remnant patriarchal traditions do more harm to women, on balance, than good.
The continuing subjugation and abuse of women in more traditional societies, along with the continued inequity even in rule-of-law societies, is why feminism seeks to dismantle patriarchy. Which is why some of those who are privileged under Patriarchy are so antagonistic towards feminism:
Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
[Pat Robertson, multi-millionaire televangelist and former presidential candidate, 1992]
Related Reading:
Introductory:
- jennie (zingerella): Who Are The Patriarchs, Anyway?
Clarifying Concepts:
- Patriarchy and sexism intersect and buttress each other:
“It’s using a male default as the standard and then because (well, duh) women are different from that standard, we are found lacking.”
- High Status Women defending the Patriarchy [emphasis added]:This phenomenon doesn’t mean that Patriarchy isn’t unjust, it only means that such women like the benefits they derive from high status and wish to keep them.
“student, it seems to many of us that the people you mention are actually anti-feminists in feminist clothing. essentially they say they care about equality in the workplace, and that we’ve already gotten there; and that all the other stuff is not important because the sex-differences there are meant to be. frequently they dismiss feminist concerns about sexual harrassment, about women being forced out of their careers and back into the home, or about date-rape, saying that these things are not about equality and are oppressive to MEN. it’s frustrating for these women to call themselves feminists because it seems like they’re just trying to dismantle what many of us think are legitimate equality-related concerns “from the inside”.”
[roula (in comments here) responding to questions about Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young et al]
As usual, please feel free to add your favourite links to articles about the subject to the comments thread.
tigtog
tekanji
shakesville
LMAO at Tigtog: Why is there a need for robert to post his email? He gave an account of his lifestory and how women relate to the patriarchy as though all men are in it.
I dont see why he must post his real email on this site. Is there a need to bash him for it? “Maybe thats why he sucked with the ladies”.. God.
Maybe this entire site is also based on your unhappy experience with one man? Ridiculous isnt it? The same goes with your claim.
I was rather more polite than that, MansVoice. Robert told us of his lack of female companionship himself, so it’s not like we were assuming something out of thin air, unlike your assumptions about me.
Asking for posters to use valid email addresses is standard practice. Hotmail like yours, or yahoo or gmail with a pseudonym are all fine, just so long as they are actual valid addresses where mail can be delivered.
Standard netiquette, that’s all.
Just a note, MansVoice, if you’re going to object to someone being bashed on this site, it doesn’t help your case to contribute to the bashing. Ridiculing Tigtog by laughing at her suggestion of a valid e-mail address is not good form.
As for why she said what she did, the first reason is that using valid e-mail addresses is a fundamental part of netiquette. She also specifically made the connection between his “contrarian assertions” and the lack of a valid e-mail address, because many trolls use fake e-mail addresses in order to avoid taking responsibility for their words. Thus she was politely asking for him to respect the space she has put up by, at the very least, taking responsibility for his arguments by providing a valid e-mail address.
So in this view of patriarchy, is there any difference on how power is acquired and exercised?
As it stands I fail to see how this argument distinguishes itself from a black and white pronouncement that any man who has power must have acquired it unjustly. The idea that there is a plot subconsciously or consciously held that intentionally works against women is a claim which requires support.
Is it because there are male leaders? Is the act of leadership unjust in itself, or is maleness unjust in itself, or when mixed do they then produce this evil patriarchy?
If this is in fact case, I offer an example, the Canadian Military, it is assuredly male dominated, filled with men who have power. If we apply the theory of the patriarchy as it is explained here, it should be working to keep women out, and keep women from being promoted.
Yet the reality seems the exact opposite, the military specifically encourages women to join, has lower physical requirements for women, allows them to serve in any capacity with the current exception of submarines*. Further women are openly preferred for promotion by the military.
Now all of this seems in direct contradiction to the patriarchy hypothesis. Why, under the patriarchy hypothesis, would a group which is predominantly, white, male, and anglophone, which is the paragon of hierarchies be so intent on attracting and promoting the exact people who are not representative of the institution? Wouldn’t this be the antithesis of the hypothesis?
I have to ask, it is a wonderfully complex, and seemingly completely unexplained theory, but in to borrow Karl Popper’s theory of science, where is the falsifiability? How precisely would one need to go about disproving the patriarchy. The fact that something cannot be falsified does not make it more credible it makes it more akin to theology.
I could spend hours chipping away at various claims and we could probably get down into the weeds of which statistical analysis is most appropriate for a given study, but if this is not actually falsifiable, to be perfectly honest its not worth the time.
*This is due to the submarines not having been constructed to accommodate co-ed facilities, and a lack of women precludes designating one of them as having an all female tour.
TD, couldn’t we just note all the obvious social forces (from girlhood on) that might discourage females from joining the military? I mean, that stuff isn’t exactly subtle, is it? I take it it’s things like that that make up the patriarchy, often enough anyway, rather than some explicit exclusionary rules. Or am I missing your point?
As far as the example of the Canadian Forces I’m looking at specifically why the Canadian Forces operates the way it does. If the gist of the theory is that men who have power are patriarchs, and patriarchs oppress other people. Then why is it that the Canadian Forces is so strongly interested in recruiting and promoting the Women/Francophones/Visible Minorities/Native Peoples?
Looking at the entire world is too broad and the point is not why women in general don’t join the military. The point is that this is a hierarchical institution which apparently acts in direct contravention to this theory. So I offer it an example that might appear to falsify the theory of the patriarchy*.
The second part of my question is if this does not falsify the theory , then what test would potentially prove this theory wrong. Now this is not a request for actual falsification, but a concept of what would it would take for the supporters to view it as wrong, at least in part.
For example, rational actor theory has been falsified by tests which showed that peoples preferences can change based on how a question is asked, which led to the concept of ‘bounded rationality’. Or alternatively democratic peace theory would be falsified should two democracies go to war with each other.
*Now I’m not claiming that it necessarily falsifies the entire thing, that would require significantly more effort, but it appears to falsify it in part
“Then why is it that the Canadian Forces is so strongly interested in recruiting and promoting the Women/Francophones/Visible Minorities/Native Peoples?”
Perhaps the answer to your question lies with another question:
Why hasn’t there always been a strong presence of women, Francophones and other minorities in the Canadian Forces starting from the time of its inception?
In historical terms, targeted recruitment of certain groups is usually not indicative of a changed system; it is usually an imperfect but often necessary solution to a problem, which otherwise takes a very long time to solve.
Other example: In India some preferences are given to lower castes for university spots. To paraphrase you, this apparently acts in direct contravention to the hierarchical institution of the Hindu caste system. Yet, the last time I checked this institution is still very much in place.
“Why hasn’t there always been a strong presence of women, Francophones and other minorities in the Canadian Forces starting from the time of its inception?”
But that question doesn’t get to the merits of mine. I’m asking the predictive value of this concept. If men with power in hierarchical situations seek to promote those like them, why would they do the exact opposite? Now there might be numerous reasons why a woman isn’t particularly interested in the military. For the sake of debate lets say that all the external factors are the result of sexism, discrimination, etc. But I’m interested at looking at the institution as it stands.
According to the theory, the armed forces leadership should not be attempting to solve it. They shouldn’t be leading the push to get more women in uniform, they shouldn’t be promoting them faster, and they shouldn’t be lowering the physical requirements in order to get more women even when legally they do not have to.
Yet they are, they’re trying to convince women that not only can they serve in the forces but its a good career or at least a good launching platform for a career.
Why would Forces Leaders, the ‘Patriarchs’ go so strongly against this theory of human behavior?
And of course I must repeat, I would like to hear the grounds of falsifiability for this theory (if the above is not accepted). Because as it stands it sounds too much like Marx’s “all struggles are class struggles” an interesting narrative but in so many cases untestable and as a result discredited. I’m sorry for being repetitive, but this is a fairly crucial issue in my opinion.
TD, it seems to me you are having big trouble understating the concept of institutionalized privilege and the power of classes.
Economical and political power are related with social power, but aren’t the same thing. Or will you claim that racism doesn’t exist because white powerful people ‘promote’ position of power to racial minorities?
You see, Patriarchy is about social interaction, is about paradigms and deep-roted believes our cultures have. Of course that discrimination isn’t politically correct, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So trying to ‘prove’ that patriarchy doesn’t exist by ONLY trying to analyze the “public stand” of the authorities is… ingenuous as its best.
Women are ‘allowed,’ as you said (HAH), to power position, but they will get taunted as leaders, they will be underestimated and probably sexual harassed in military, they will face a lot more of obstacles that have to do with their gender at work than their male counterparts will do. Because the Patriarchy is social power, is about having PRIVILEGES that make the men raise more easily over the women. It’s a social hierarchy, it doesn’t work as ‘political leaders trying the best for their people’.
So women aren’t in positions of power as men are because… women don’t like them? Huh.
I feel kind of silly explaining all this, I mean… try to see the social interaction in whatever society you live. How women dress? How men dress? What is gender? Why does these differences exist? How has history affected society? Who was always in power in the past? How that beneficed them? Or, you know, read the blog.
What I meant was… if you see there is a difference of power in society, wondering why that difference exist in first place is good. Now, of course the privilege and powerful people will tell you they are like that because all is just, but…
Try to listen to the least-beneficed end, at least if you want to KNOW the true facts. I think it’s more… effective.
The FAQ says quite clearly that some societies are more patriarchal than others, and also that there are intersectionalities of prejudice and oppression which complicate the situation. Attempting after that to present such an oversimplistic analysis is disingenuous in the extreme.
For a start, you assume without evidence that the Forces Leaders are Patriarchs themselves, rather than simply senior minions of Patriarchs. Patriarchs are heads of dynasties, not merely heads of heirarchical institutions, although those institutions certainly serve the dynasties.
One of the best ways that the Patriarchs have developed over the millennia, probably mostly by trial and error, to control the masses on non-patriarch men who don’t share their power, is to give them a smaller share of power at lower social levels. The legal subjugation of women has been a large part of that.
So why is it that our Western culture over the last century has dismantled de jure legal subjugation and is moving towards better de facto gender equity without being overtly opposed by the Patriarchs tooth and nail? Because consumerist capitalism is a better tool for channelling the ambitions and frustrations of post-industrial society’s non-patriarch men than merely allowing them to subjugate women, thus freeing women to join the ranks of productive cogs in the economic machine. That this still mostly sucks for all us who aren’t actually in the Patriarch class should hardly come as a surprise.
Hi. I’m not sure I’ve got this idea of patriachy quite right – it sounds like is a collection of cultural assumptions and values passed down by society which pushes people towards particular roles? (in a way which is, overall, detrimental to women?)
But I’m wondering, is *some* system of that kind is not necessary? It seems like these cultural values are the way society encourages people to fill necessary roles – such as in feudal societies, bravery tends to be highly valued, pushing the young men towards fighting, and equipping them to help defend their town/village/thing.
Granted, the particular cultural assumptions are unfair and discriminatory and should be changed. But I’m wondering, when feminists talk about “overthrowing the patriarchy”, is the aim to replace it with a fairer system, or simply to do away with all the cultural assumptions that constrain people entirely?
Then again, maybe this is another of those “feminists may vary” situations?
Thanks for your help,
Hugh.
Hugh,
so this may be a naive post. Someone who knows, feel free to set me straight.
I think that’s a great question. Feminism is a value system. I’m not versed in socio-cultural anthropology (or whatever
It seems that any value system will frame values as 1) explicit or implicit, and 2) positive, negative, or neutral. These are all my terms, so to explain, explicit values are stated outright; implicit values flow from the explicit ones, either logically or as a side effect of enforcing them. For neutral values, an implicitly neutral value is simply not addressed by the system, whereas an explicitly neutral value is one where positive or negative judgments are discouraged.
Much of feminism (or progressivism in general) deals with explicitly neutral values. I think that this can throw people who are looking for positives and negatives, which are precisely the opposite of the intent.
On “feminists may vary”, indeed, all individuals have their own set of values, and they fluctuate over time. The only answer to “what do feminists believe in” comes in a multitude of voices. What *I* would love to see, and suspect you would too, Hugh, is a discussion in terms as clear as those stated above. I accept that there are many answers, but my poor brain can’t always get though the language, especially since discussions of value tend to piss people off.
I came across this post in the course of googling “patriarchy” in my ongoing research on the subject. I am an anthropologist at the National University of Singapore.
While the account of patriarchy in this post is correct on some counts (e.g. the relationship between patriarchy and hierarchy) it is flawed on numerous other ones (e.g. the anthropological record shows ‘primitive, lawless societies’ to be less prone to patriarchy than more complex ‘civilizations’). But then again, if you go to Patriarchy on Wikipedia you will find an even more deeply flawed account! I’m rather amazed at how poor the quality of information on patriarchy is on the web, especially when it is such a crucial issue in feminism and gender studies.
I am in the process of compiling and presenting a broad spectrum of the many explanations offered for patriarchy as well as developing one missing piece of the puzzle. For those interested follow the link below. Comment and criticism (constructive criticism!) is most welcome!
http://sc6214.wetpaint.com/page/Patriarchy
To the specific post regarding sources, see the following:
http://sc6214.wetpaint.com/page/Sources+on+Patriarchy
At the moment, this list of sources is very, very incomplete… but a work in progress.