Hello to you and Happy New Year 😁
Let’s kick off 2023 with the results of the patriarchy survey that I shared in December. The 54 responses have made for very interesting reading because they showed exactly what I expected and also not at all what I expected 😂 You’ll see what I mean later on.
The first question on the survey was a yes/no:
So, the majority *can* define patriarchy, which is what I expected. But here is where it gets interesting: not one person defined it in the same way. Of course, there were some common themes that emerged:
Nearly everyone agreed that patriarchy involves men and women.
People noted that patriarchy is a “system.”
Some people talked about “gender roles.”
Most described how patriarchy is “oppressive.” Specifically, towards women. The idea of “male dominance” also showed up more than once.
Several people also talked about privileges or special rights that belong to men as a result of this system.
The word “power” turned up in 29 of the 54 responses.
Some people also used the word “historic” to describe patriarchy.
How do Scholars Define Patriarchy?
Surely, the scholarly folk can put us to rights on the definition of patriarchy? I mean, if anybody knows, it’s gonna be them, right?
Errr …
Sorry to burst your patriarchal bubble, dear reader, but don’t be getting those hopes up.
Like SO MANY of those deep, philosophical questions, the answer really depends on who you ask.
If we ask bell hooks, for example, she’d say:
“Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.”
This definition comes from her 2010 essay, ‘Understanding Patriarchy.’
So, here we have repeated those references to a “system,” to men and women, to “rights” and domination. But we also have the addition of more diverse genders (“everyone deemed weak”), along with violence and psychological/emotional harm.
If we back-track to ‘86, here’s what Gerda Lerner had to say in ‘The Creation of Patriarchy:’
“In its wider definition, (patriarchy) means the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society, in general.”
Lerner does expand on this quite a bit, but what I want to highlight to you is an additional point that she makes on the subject of definition:
“One of the most challenging tasks of Women’s History is to trace with precision the various forms and modes in which patriarchy appears historically, the shifts and change in its structure and function, and the adaptation it makes to female pressure and demands.”
Over the last half-century or so, many, many scholars have defined patriarchy, as I’m sure you’re aware. Even the dictionary has its own definition. Though I’ve only shared two with you here today, I encourage you to take note whenever you come across one because they’re always different. There are some similarities., of course, but it’s difference that has become the historic constant.
What Happens When You Can’t Define Patriarchy?
The biggest problem that we have with patriarchy is not that it exists. (Seriously, it’s not).
The single biggest problem is that we cannot agree on a way to define it.
Why?
Until we are in agreement about what we’re dealing with, we will never challenge it.
We might scratch around the surface a bit … we might give patriarchy a headache, but I promise you it ain’t going anywhere.
And I think this is one of the reasons why it has existed for as long as it has: it’s got this almost magical ability to shapeshift before our eyes.
Towards A Working Definition of Patriarchy
Until this survey came along, I had never attempted to define patriarchy, either. I think I had this vague and broad notion of male dominance, encased in and legitimised by a wider social system. Coming out of that system are all sorts of problematic aspects, like violence against women and girls, the sexualisation of women and girls, gendered language, the pay gap and glass ceilings - to name a few.
I also understood that patriarchy worked in tandem with other systems, like racism.
But there is definitely more to it than that. Clearly, it’s also time for uniformity, folks.
Know your enemy, right?
So, let’s move toward a working definition:
Patriarchy is a historically constructed social, political, economic and cultural system. At its heart is the notion of inherent male superiority, which gives men advantages over resources and creates an expectation of their leadership, both in the home and the wider world.
If that’s a snapshot, then something more comprehensive also has to include:
The emphasis on women’s inherent inferiority.
The focus on competition. Patriarchy implicitly encourages women to compete with one another for access to greater rights and advantages. Likewise, men also compete with one another for the top spot.
People who do not have a fixed and/or binary gender identity will have a different experience entirely as this system does not make allowances for their inclusion.
Patriarchy works alongside other systems, like racism and classism.
No two societies have identical experiences of patriarchy, making its impact dependent on time and place.
And we could go *even* further and start to talk about the damage that patriarchy does to EVERYONE. (Yes, everyone).
Stick around next week for some more results from the survey but, for now, I think I’m patriarchy’d out.
Until next time,
Kaye x
I was interested in the idea that patriarchy could go right back to our neolithic ancestors (detailed in the next blog post). On that basis, can I suggest an amendment to your definition:
"Patriarchy is a historically constructed social, political, economic and cultural system. At its heart is the notion of inherent male superiority, which gives men advantages over resources and creates an expectation of their leadership, both in the home and the wider world, when there is no longer a clear survival dependent reason for men to have that advantage."
Whilst our neolithic ancestors may have found the split between roles a useful survival mechanism - once that dependence on survival is removed, there is no longer any reason for men to have the advantages etc, in your definition - and it would be, at that point, that it became the Patriarchy?
So important Kaye and so relevant today.I am beginning to think that the terms 'Cancel Culture: and 'Woke' need such an examination too.