Why has patriarchy proved such a contentious issue for feminism Essay Example
Why has patriarchy proved such a contentious issue for feminism Essay Example

Why has patriarchy proved such a contentious issue for feminism Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
Topics:
  • Pages: 12 (3208 words)
  • Published: March 11, 2017
  • Type: Essay
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Those who confront patriarchy from a societal perspective are not looking to annihilate the traditional family structure, but rather, they aim to transform it from an authoritarian model to something less dictatorial. Similarly, the emerging rights participant (the modern civilian) who questions the traditional tribal authority structure isn't trying to dissolve the family, tribe, nation, church, or state.

Essentially, when they join human society, they are involved in a mission to change various social institutions to recognize them as carriers of fundamental human rights. In conclusion, becoming part of human society doesn't require or involve extreme actions such as divorce, detribalization, nation-refusal, or immigration. People seek change rather than success. A key characteristic of human society is its ability to create an environment where both participants and non-participants can engage in a particular kind of politics - a type of po

...

litics that predates the city-state or the state itself.

The basic rights that civilians extend to each other and to non-participants, provides everyone a safe haven where they can openly debate about the societal structures they inhabit. This space facilitates them to contemplate different social and political structures. The varied social arrangements that could be part of the discussion may encompass social entities like families, businesses, religious establishments, national and international organizations.

From a civil society perspective, every societal structuring, even human society itself, can be scrutinized openly within the platform created by this society. It is human society that generates the opportunity for politics as a guaranteed form of action. This creates room for politics as a critical dialogue had between people about the fundamental association rules that exist between them. Such an understanding of politics aligns

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

with the perspectives of several individuals, including Aristotle, Bernard Crick, and Michael Oakeshott, among others. I hold the belief that this interpretation of politics is consistent with how we commonly use the term in our language.

The word 'politics' is typically reserved for instances in which individuals involved in different activities initiate discussions, which often includes disputes, about the fundamental rules that govern their relationships within these activities. While we do not categorize all familial interactions as political, when patriarchal values are questioned and women strive to alter the inherent power dynamics, we tend to acknowledge this as a political endeavor - it is considered politics because it pertains to questioning and challenging the underlying guidelines of such relationships.

Similarly, a company's typical operations are generally non-political, but when issues about employee involvement in management arise, we view this as organizational politics. Common governance within states can also be seen as non-political. However, when it comes to making decisions about the country's laws (be it in the realm of standard law-making or constitutional matters), politics inevitably becomes involved.

Likewise, on the global front, a lot of everyday interactions such as trade, communication, sports, tourism and so forth are devoid of political intent. However, when the less developed countries strive to establish a fresh international economic arrangement, it should be regarded as an endeavor to alter the fundamental norms of association, and as such, may constitute political maneuvering. The book Sexual Politics (1970) by Kate Millett holds significant importance. It predominantly features in-depth analysis of instances of power imbalance in sexual relationships between men and women, as demonstrated in the works of Norman Mailer and Jean Genet.

Millett's research goes

beyond the ordinary. It offers a comprehensive analysis and, by formulating a 'Theory of Sexual Politics,' she gives a beneficial guide to comprehend power dynamics amongst men and women (as well as between men), concentrating on the techniques these power dynamics are established and sustained. She demonstrates how these power dynamics are explicitly played out during sexual activities.

Millett’s work is considered foundational for radical feminist theories that strive to understand the societal formation of male and female sexual behaviors, how these constructs contribute to women's societal power, and directly connected to these aspects, the issue of violence towards women. These topics have become more prevalent in recent feminist literature. Specifically, Millett's work motivates the structure of thought pertaining to women's subjugation which radical feminists have embraced and further expanded.

Millett starts her examination, dubbed 'notes toward patriarchy theory', by characterizing the connection between the genders as a political one. She argues it's political since it constitutes a power dynamic that embodies the concept of 'authority over others' (Millett 1970:24). According to Millett, men naturally have authority over women due to their innate male status. This condition is almost unparalleled when contrasted with other disparities like economic class or race and is notably lasting.

However, the idea of male dominion is derived from ideology, not biology or 'nature.' This is pivotal because, even though societal systems might suggest that male dominance is founded on physical prowess, it is primarily rooted in a specific set of values: the political belief where men are seen as more powerful and superior to women, either biologically or in other terms. Millett clarifies that political dynamics are not influenced by superior physical

strength— taking race and class relations as examples.

Throughout history, civilization has consistently found alternatives (such as advanced technology, warfare, and knowledge) to physical strength. Modern society no longer relies on this aspect. Historically and currently, physical labor is often associated with lower socio-economic classes, regardless of their physical prowess (Millett 1970:27). Male dominance as a political system persists either through acceptance, coercion, or ideological influence.

The system gets approval through the social indoctrination of males and females into specific 'character, function, and rank' (Millett 1970: 26). Derived from these classifications are corresponding gender roles that position women in the household environment linked to her biological encounter. The concept of status stems from character and role, accentuating all else. Millett attaches importance to both male and female sexuality in her examination, with the dynamic of power between men and women being demonstrated through heterosexual acts.

She showcases through anthropological references how male and female sexualities are perceived distinctively. Women's sexual aspects often receive a label of being 'impure', negative, and in need of control. In stark contrast, men's sexuality is generally depicted as positive, with a specific emphasis on its genital aspect relating to the penis: 'The penis, a symbol of male dominance in both uncivilized and civilized patriarchal societies, is given utmost importance, becoming a topic of continuous pridefulness and constant apprehension' (Millett 1970: 47).

In comparison to other systems of supremacy, male preeminence uniquely features 'interior colonization' (an apparent reference to penile penetration). This significant concept has made a comeback in recent feminist literature, especially among revolutionary feminists (refer to Johnston 1973; Barry 1981; Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group 1981). The idea of interior colonization is closely linked

with another facet of male sexuality—the notion of the penis as a tool of aggression. Employing the penis—which is arguably the most vulnerable part of a man’s body—as an instrument of assault may seem absurd. However, this action is specifically what occurs during rape. Millett doesn't state it outright, but the potential to employ the penis as a weapon exists as it invades a woman's body, causing feelings of degradation, humiliation, and powerlessness. Millett cites men's houses in certain cultures like Melanesia as an example: The atmosphere and spirit of these men's house societies is cruel, power-driven, and holds latent homosexual tendencies, often displaying narcissistic energy and motives. The inference from men's houses that the penis is a weapon, constantly compared with other tools of force, is also transparent (Millett 1970: 50). Moreover, patriarchal frameworks define sexuality as strictly heterosexual—even when enacted between men—because only heterosexuality is deemed significantly unequal.Millett discusses men's houses as an example, stating: The presence of homosexuality in such men's houses, characterized by negative and militaristic connotations, does not fully represent the essence of homosexual sensitivity. In reality, the mindset of the warrior caste, which is characterized by extreme masculinity and solely male centricity, demonstrates a more implicit form of homosexuality rather than an explicit one.

The incidence of Nazism is a prominent example in this context. The persistent participation in heterosexual role-play, together with the evident disdain for younger, softer, or more feminine perceived individuals, serves as clear evidence that the actual doctrine is misogynistic, or conversely rather than positively heterosexual. Consequently, the primary motivation of men's house associations draws from the patriarchal setup rather than any conditions inherent in same-sex

romantic relationships. (Millett 1970: 50)

Contrastingly, Carole Pateman's "The Sexual Contract" revolves around what she perceives as the contractual foundations of 'the key institutional bonds of civil society like citizenship, employment, and marriage' (Pateman,1988: 180) that delineate Western capitalist democracies. Pateman posits that contemporary social contract theory narrates a tale of 'male political emergence', where the organic paternal body of Filmer's patriarchy is metaphorically executed by contract theorists. However, the fabricated body that succeeds it is a mental construction rather than the establishment of a political community by real individuals.

The emergence of a human baby can result in either a boy or a girl, but the construction of a civic society creates a societal entity modeled after just one of the two genders or, to be exact, after the depiction of the civic member who is made up through the foundational contract. Pateman poses an objection to the notion that the societal agreement establishes freedom and fairness for everyone. Highlighting the third component in the Enlightenment slogan, she contends that the new system is an order of brotherhood.

The prominence of Locke in this historical context as opposed to Filmer should not make us think that patriarchy has been vanquished. Instead, the triumph of the sons over their father signifies a new version of patriarchy. Pateman states that 'modern patriarchy exhibits a fraternal structure and the initial agreement is a fraternal accord' (Pateman,1988: 77). Drawing upon a range of historical references (such as Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, Kant, and Freud), Pateman posits that a crucial piece is absent from the tale of the brothers defeating the father.

The bond shared between brothers goes beyond fellowship, it involves another form

of agreement that guarantees each brother the privilege of a woman companion, thus upholding patriarchal sexual rights that were once the father's domain, but are now freely available to all brothers through the principle of exogamy, a kinship term which signifies the contractual sexual relationship. As Pateman implies, these rights, referred to as 'patriarchal right', 'sex-right' or 'conjugal right', are prerequisites for fraternities, as it is only those men who freely oversee their families can participate in the social contract (Pateman, 1988:49).

However, Pateman's interpretation of the social contract tale, correlating its origins with modern patriarchal fraternity, clashes somewhat with her evaluation of extant modern societies that are grounded on free contracts. There is ambiguity in whether Pateman's retelling of the sexual/social contract can always be construed in essentialist terms. Instances exist in her representation where she appears to describe others' viewpoints in these terms rather than expressing an immutable and inherent sexual difference herself.

Moreover, in her writing, she substantiates other points about the varying public and intimate roles of women and men based on individual biological differences. Our perspectives on whether current distinctions between genders are largely fabricated or predominantly natural, have (or at least ought to have) significant influence on how we create policies that strive to ensure equitable treatment of women within key societal institutions such as citizenship, employment and marriage.

Undeniably, a central component of Pateman's argument is the notion that contractarianism consistently and universally disadvantages women, for they are not incorporated as 'individuals' into the civic structure, but rather integrated as 'women'. (Pateman, 1988:181). This quote aptly depicts the multifaceted nature of the term 'women' in context. The use of 'incorporated' suggests

that an established entity, 'women', already exists prior to any particular civil system.

A contrasting perspective could argue that being a woman in today's world significantly involves having a specific relationship with the social structure. This standpoint could assert that the definition of 'woman' is shaped, at least partially, by her economic, social, and political position in relation to men. This argument might have already been addressed by Pateman, who argued that '[t]o draw out the way in which the meaning of “men” and “women” has helped structure main social institutions is not to fall back on merely natural categories'.

Maybe, but failing to challenge the category of gender difference itself (men/women) could be an oversight. This idea implies a straightforward causation sequence where gender difference, gender relations, and the sexual contract are sequential elements that collectively bind us in the oppressive regime of our current social and political institutions. However, if 'women' and 'men' are viewed as fluctuating historical constructs rather than fixed categories, it brings into question the significance of the 'helped structure' component.

Our interpretations of masculinity and femininity, or the notions of 'men' and 'women', largely influenced by our cultural and traditional variability, are further shaped by the leading societal institutions that constitute our daily lives. Moreover, our history is not rigid, rather it is amenable to constant reinterpretation and reiteration as our comprehension of our evolution fluctuates. In this context, the connection between our past and present is not best described as a 'chain of necessity', but more aptly as competing 'narrative sets' susceptible to challenge.

The concept of the sexual contract by Pateman, intertwined with the idea that women are consistently integrated

into the civil society as females and not as individuals, heavily relies on theories of sexual difference that are fundamental in nature. This understanding allows her to critique contractarianism outright, rather than confining her argument to the historical assertion that contractarianism has served during definite periods and locations to prevent women from fully realizing their citizenship (a right inherent to individuals), despite accepting them into the political community (as females, or more specifically as wives).

Pateman's interpretation of the initial scenario appears relatively credible in relation to what is being suppressed in the narrative of the social contract. However, this does not necessarily unravel the concealed genesis of our (hidden) history, as she intermittently suggests. The tale of the social contract is essentially a male-centric imagination of our beginnings. It could be convincingly stated that Pateman has disclosed this fact. Nonetheless, after bringing it to light, there is a high risk of it being misconstrued as a fundamental truth, rather than an indication of the desires of those who have historically been recounting this narrative.

Pateman concludes her argument by asserting that the narratives and fabrications of social/sexual agreements ought to be 'discarded' to 'build a liberated society where women are independent citizens.' She makes this claim because 'modern patriarchy wasn't initiated with a significant contract act' (Pateman, 1988: p. 220). Here, the connection between the text and the real world, between mythology and realism, is fractured – the text symbolizes what should be relegated. The Sexual Contract is a perplexing text as Pateman fails to connect its two major components: the part relating to the narratives of social contracts and history, and the part about contemporary

social institutions.

It is assumed by the reader that the primary scene connecting these two segments highlights a significant gender disparity. However, can we disregard these tales? Are they just fictional narratives that can be accurately removed from reality? I believe that the two components of The Sexual Contract could be connected by embarking on the second phase of genealogy. Moreover, Millett's "Sexual Politics" broadens her investigation to include all social interactions. Through consideration of both socioeconomic class relations and racial analysis, she asserts that while sexual relations are fundamental, they are often the least conspicuous.

Intersectionality plays a role on matters of race, gender, and economic class, however, it can lead to misleading assumptions. For instance, a middle-class woman may be perceived to have more power and status in comparison to a working-class man due to her economic standing. Nevertheless, the man may still be regarded as superior owing to his association with the male group; which is often seen as 'dominant'. In extreme cases, he may resort to force to affirm this perceived 'dominance'. An assertion posited by Millett (1970:36) states that ‘a man in a lower socioeconomic position such as a truck driver or butcher can always rely on his “masculinity”. If this last refuge is threatened, he might consider more aggressive tactics’.

Similarly, sexual elements have an inherent role in the stratified relationships among males, pertaining to both socio-economic class hierarchy and racial hierarchy. Millett infers that males of lower status assert their masculinity as a tool to indicate their deviation from inferiority - a station usually associated with women. Conversely, upper-class males tend not to emphasize their masculinity as much. In her viewpoint,

Millett portrays these manifold relations as follows: The operation of class or ethnic norms within patriarchy primarily depends on the degree of openness or intensity with which the overarching code of male dominance allows itself to be expressed.

Millett's 1970 analysis presents an intriguing contradiction: in lower social classes, while men tend to assert their power based on their gender status, they often have to share this authority with the economically productive women in their class. In contrast, in the middle and upper classes, men enjoy more power already, and there is less urge to uphold outright patriarchal dominance.

Moreover, economical class differences amongst women do exist, but Millett suggests that these disparities are not as crucial as those among men. This is because a woman's class status may be in a precarious position, dependent on a man, and without such reliance, she would unlikely exceed a working-class status and reputation. Recent research into subjects like income distribution within marriages, women escaping violent relationships, and the prevalent 'feminization of poverty' validate this component of Millet's analysis.

In conclusion, Millett asserts that 'The primary establishment of Patriarchy is the family' (ibid. : 33). Regrettably, her arguments are mostly reliant on The Family (1964) by William Goode. This approach results in a somewhat functionalist assertion that the family's principal contribution is to condition the young to conform to aspects such as 'temperament', 'role', and 'status'.

In her examination of the family structure, she overlooks her profound study of gender interactions through the lenses of sexuality and power. As a result, she fails to notice how women in the familial setting are subjugated through heterosexual power dynamics, something she usually finds

noteworthy. Despite this oversight in her analysis of the family, Millett's exploration of sexuality, particularly focusing on how male sexuality exercises dominance over women and amongst men themselves, is an incredibly important study of personal matters as political ones.

She proposes that these associations go beyond just mere individual conduct and consequently provides a conceptual structure for comprehensively examining women's subjugation within the context of male-female interactions. This supersedes any existing frameworks. She rectifies Walby's defect, which highlights a 'dominant way of production', by replacing it with a more universal and fundamental understanding of male-female power dynamics.

Millett's framework can also be feasibly utilized in Walby's 'economic' scenario. This analysis by Millett is specifically social, bearing in mind the importance of material interests, ideological variables, and the potential for transformation.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New