On Patriarchy
I was reflecting the other day upon the Patriarchy, the feminist concept of the inherent societal forces that work against gender equality. I’ve never really much liked the word – I suppose in my mind, it sounds rather too much like ‘paternal hierarchy’, and imparts visions of some grand and complex structure where orders are given and suppression occurs in a planned and calculated manner. It is a phrase that can smack of the conspiracy at times.
Much of the misogyny one encounters on a day-to-day basis isn’t well-ordered, or planned, or controlled. It’s simply a messy soup of blind tribe-minded bigotry and ridiculous assumptions, instances (often repeated in self-reinforcing patterns) of exchanging dignity for power and control. It’s a kind of frothing, ranting madness that infects like-minded individuals and draws them to attack anything they see as attempting to escape the clutches of their lop-sided control.
Hardly a hierarchy. But then, when you get down to thinking about it – how did the conditions for this sort of thought process come about, if not handed down by some superior power? The truth is that it’s so much more sinister than that – it’s not orders imposed on others by a single controlling figure. Rather, it is a self-constructing society, with self reinforcing rules that strive to keep a concept of ‘manliness’ on top and in its own comfort zone of control and familiarity. And it can be unbelievably subtle things that enforce the idea – not all misogyny takes the form of screaming at women to stay in the kitchen.
It can be well-intentioned, but ultimately limiting: “When are going to get around to having children? Clock’s ticking, you know!”
It can be self-defeating and self-reinforcing: “Why bother trying to get the executive role? Everyone knows it’s a boys’ club up there.”
It gets into the fabric of society, through small groups and interactions, that add up and add up and multiply and weave their way into bigger, more destructive and restrictive patterns. It’s an established mindset, caused by years of clinging to masculine power, with rules that have been set by consensus rather than by authority – thus rendering them much harder to break down.
Tearing down the Patriarchy is a cherished goal for many different people, but both the task and the concept are so deep-rooted as to make it difficult. But, I suspect, not impossible – it will just take a good deal of subtlety to unpick the ties that bind it to society, rather than flashy, high-visibility action.
But then, I’m just one person philosophising!
M.
I think you’ve more or less figured out the nu-feminist narrative. At the same time, though, I think that’s a load of self-serving(!) bunk, concocted so as not to have to admit it’s time to smell the coffee and grow up.
Of course, that’s a terribly unfeeling and insensitive thing to say, but perhaps it’s interesting to look at what the (first-wave) feminists tried to do and whether they have succeeded.
Back when the only career options for women were teacher and nurse, more or less, perhaps at the cost of having children yourself. Or look at the assumed gender roles expressed and implied in, say, 50s advertising materials.
By contrast, there are very few jobs still effectively closed to women, mostly those requiring lots of upper body strength (builder, brick-layer, farmer, that sort of thing), something that women tend to have less of than men, and so it isn’t surprising to see less women in such occupations.
So in that sense, women are really only limited by their own prowess and inclination, just like men. And that, I think, is a major win. In fact, if you go over the numbers from over here (small European country), it turns out that if you correct for hours worked, women earn the same or just a bit more than their male counterparts. The kicker is that women tend to work less hours per week.
Seeing that I think feminism is pretty much done: The arbitrary job restrictions are pretty much gone and the pay is just about the same too. The rest, I think, is up to the women themselves. Just as men have to fend for themselves. You know, equal opportunity and all that.
Seen in that light it’s tempting to put down the remaining nu-feminism as whining for equal outcome for clearly less work. For have you looked at how the men in the top jobs got there? That’s twenty or thirty years of sixty to eighty hours a week of work work work work work work work work work.
Even discounting maternity leave for a year or two, if you only work 20 or 30 hours a week you’re simply not going to put in enough hours to get close to the top.
So I think that the nu-feminism with its railing against “patriarchy” and subtle this and sneaky that and most of all pointing at others to change their evil ways is really just failure to grow up and make good use of the playing field. Because that playing field is pretty much level.