Does patriarchy exist in the West today, except as a lazy slogan?

Aug 31

The premise of men’s rule over women, for the benefit of men alone, is limited and unhelpful in social scientific research. Reasoning this point, in this article I highlight a systematic evaluation of what patriarchy used to mean, through the influential work of sociologist Prof Sylvia Walby, showing that her analysis, while once appropriate, is no longer fully applicable. I argue that the mandates of first and second wave feminism have been achieved and that the modern conception of patriarchy exists, not as a sophisticated, deft, and nuanced theoretical tool to understand the social world, but instead as a mere partisan philosophy with limited utility in the modern age.

“The term ‘patriarchy’ [is] a concept, not a theory. For something to be a theory, it should be testable, empirical, and capable of making predictions.”

Patriarchy as a Non-Descript Concept
Linguistically, the term ‘patriarchy’ originates from Greek and has been widely adopted in modern social sciences. It was mostly used in the study of cultural anthropology as a descriptor to label the family structure in which the male patriarch makes decisions — similar to its first usage.

The term ‘patriarchy’ has, however, been overly and incorrectly used for years. It is, I argue, a concept, not a theory. For something to be a theory, it should be testable, empirical, and capable of making predictions. It should also be falsifiable. I argue that patriarchy, as either previously or currently used, is none of those things.

“…scholars have made the mistake of assuming that if something is controlled by men, it must also always favour men. Yet, ‘controlled by’ is not the same as ‘controlled for’.”

Today, the term patriarchy is used within social sciences, more broadly, and particularly in gender studies, to denote the framework by which men are advantaged as a group in society. Mary Holmes (2007, p. 2), for example, defines it as ‘a social system in which men have come to be dominant in relation to women.’ This is an inadequate definition because scholars have made the mistake of assuming that if something is controlled by men, it must also always favour men. Yet, controlled by is not the same as controlled for.

A salient and current example of this comes from the all-male central government of Ukraine, who have permitted all females to flee the Ukraine upon Russia’s February 2014 invasion, but all males up to the age of 60 are legally obligated to risk their life in the fight for their country’s survival. The BBC was complete with harrowing images of women fleeing the country, none to my knowledge highlighted the privilege men in power gave them the right to life.

Other patriarchal institutions benefit women over men. Data from the United States Sentencing Commission (2001-2003) has been used to examine the role of gender in the sentencing of defendants in federal courts. Overall, it has been found that female defendants receive more lenient sentences, even when extra-legal factors are considered. Similarly, data collected from the now disbanded South Carolina Sentencing Commission (1982 to 2003) found women were consistently sentenced more leniently than men for similar charges. Likewise, in juvenile justice systems, results again indicate that girls were more likely to be sentenced to group homes and boys were more likely to be sentenced to correctional facilities in Los Angeles County for first time offences. This nuance is not how the concept is utilised in academic literature, however.

Feminist views of patriarchy
Not all feminists support the idea of patriarchy. Many influential feminists do not find the concept of patriarchy helpful. Joan Acker highlighted that patriarchy was applied by radical feminists in a manner that saw it as a “universal, trans-historical and trans-cultural phenomenon”. Even in 1975, Gayle Rubin argued that patriarchy had been used too broadly, applied to most societies, and as such lost its utility.

One interesting framing of gender inequality beyond patriarchy is to consider gender as a social structure. A social structure, or social institution, is central to how a society is ordered and used by individuals to process their experiences and go about their lives. A social structure is also held to be systematic – change is difficult to achieve as structures are bolstered by social norms and rituals. A similar term to gender as a social structure is “gender regime.”

This approach is more systematic. And, in exemplifying one approach to patriarchy this way, I turn Sylvia Walby’s (1990) influential book, Theorizing Patriarchy.

In Theorizing Patriarchy, Walby argues that there are six structures which restrict women’s freedom in society and reproduce male dominance: paid work, household production, culture, sexuality, violence and the state. In the following sections, I give a basic overview of each structure.

I think this kind of systematic framing is more sophisticated than patriarchy, principally because it enables an understanding of how gender impacts upon both men and women. As Gayle Rubin argued, patriarchy presumes men’s dominance over women and does not allow for social change.

“…for the most part, pilots are men and cabin crew are women, but who can credibly argue that pilots be paid the same as cabin crew?”

Paid Work
Walby’s paid work clause has largely been watered-down, replaced, by claims of unequal pay in the workforce – the gender pay gap. There is limited merit in suggesting that, in some sectors, women and men do the same task under different titles, with varying pay. However, the concept of the gender pay gap is the suggestion that women make 70% of what men make, for the same job, is not true. It is, in fact, illegal to pay women less than men for the same job. What the gender pay gap does is to examine an entire industry, and all the roles within, to then average the pay. Take airlines, where there is a gender pay gap differential that needs further analysis: for the most part, pilots are men and cabin crew are women, but who can credibly argue that pilots be paid the same as cabin crew? This makes the gender pay gap an illusion of patriarchy. What counts is not the gender pay gap, but the question: are women paid the same for the same level of education, experience, and competency as men? If they are not, a lawsuit surely awaits.

This is not to suggest that women (as a whole in any industry) earn the same as men. In many industries they do not. A meta-analysis of the gender pay gap literature, however, shows that this is not a matter of discriminatory policy as the first wave of feminists fought against. It is mostly a reflection of the fact that more women than men take time away from their careers when they have children.

“Many of these studies of housework do not, however, examine the amount of outdoor labour men do at home, home repairs, financial planning, car maintenance and so forth.”

Household Production
The second area where men have traditionally been advantaged, concerns how men have maintained economic control over the household, limiting how women can spend family income. Walby argues that family men benefit from women’s unpaid labour. For Walby, instead of the family being a source of rich support, security, and equality for women, it is instead ‘…central to women’s lives and to the determination of gender inequality’ (p. 61). This is a long-standing feminist proposition: patriarchy begins at home.

Arguments for this not only concern economic agency, but the fact that studies, then and now, continue to show that women do most of the housework and childcare, in heterosexual relationships. Many of these studies of housework do not, however, examine the amount of outdoor labour men do at home, home repairs, financial planning, car maintenance and so forth. Such feminist studies instead depict men lying around waiting for women to serve them without having served women by making the household’s money.

However, much has changed for women since Walby wrote this. Today, most heterosexual couples work and they pay to export much of the household labour: the grocery store delivers food, they pay to have their houses cleaned, and they put their children into nurseries or they get state-funded nursery vouchers. This has meant we have a very serious decrease in the number of children being born to middle class families, as women work to establish careers before family. This trend begs the question, was it peril or privilege to be able to stay at home and take care of the children. I wish my husband made enough money for me to stay at home with our two young kids – if only I had such privilege.

Culture
Walby suggests various ways in which patriarchal culture oppresses women, for example, through the discourse on masculinity and femininity. Religion is seen as a way of policing the conduct of men and women, with women who assume too much power being – at one time in history - burned at the stake as witches. Education is seen as a way of advantaging men over women.

There is of course a cultural discourse on masculinity and femininity, but this is not simply the product of culture, but reflections biological – and especially reproductive – realities, than exist beyond discourse. If religion is a way of policing conduct, it hardly polices women only, leaving men to follow whatever urges they experience. Walby’s claim regarding witches is flawed too, overlooking the significant proportion (20-25%) of executions during the witch trials that were male, and that many of the accused were male (e.g. in Russia, Finland and Ukraine, up to 80%). Walby’s argument regarding education has not aged well, because since the late 1980s boys have been falling behind girls at all levels of education.

“No longer is pornography just male-on-top-of-female. There is now a democratization of the porn industry […] and OnlyFans is a thing.”

Sexuality
Walby is not referring to sexual minorities or sexual orientation when she uses the word, instead, she uses sexuality as a node of power that structures experience. Hence, I note that since Walby’s writings, LGBTQ social and legal equality have emerged. I also note that, to my knowledge, gay and lesbian couples have not been examined for patriarchy in the domestic sphere. That is because studies of those families would show that everybody works, in one way or another, to keep the household running. In essence, the study of patriarchy is also heterosexist.

Walby highlights that women’s bodies are objectified in multiple cultural capacities, including the workforce, and that this serves the pleasure of men while simultaneously undermining the talent of women in the workplace. No place is this more salient, Walby argues, than in pornography. She argues that pornography is a central site for debates about the regulation of sexual expression in society. One needs only think of the word ‘porn’ and imagine ways in which, despite its prominence, society tends to view it negatively. In the 1970s and 1980s, feminists developed a critique of pornography that claimed it perpetuated social issues, such as rape and wider gender inequality. Porn was seen as equivalent to violence against women. Perhaps none were more famous/infamous for their activism than Dworkin, who seemed to know no limits to her claims of the evils of pornography, even titling a book chapter: Pornography: The New Terrorism.

Yet, this provoked heated debate among feminists with arguments against this position (see Gayle Rubin’s Misguided, dangerous, and wrong: An analysis of antipornography politics). Indeed, a broad body of academic research continues to focus on the negative effects of pornography. There is hysteria around porn; it is blamed for all forms of social ills, even when the evidence for this is weak, easily refuted or non-existent.

Pornography has radically changed since Walby’s time. No longer is pornography just male-on-top-of-female. There is now a democratization of the porn industry which is diminishing rapidly, as free pornography and user-made pornography dominates and OnlyFans is a thing. This is a user-driven democracy with equal opportunity to click, shoot, and post resulting in major porn websites having varying categories; so we can all find what we desire.

“Walby argues that violence against women is a form of male privilege [yet men] are more likely to be physically assaulted by a stranger, or murdered.”

Violence
Walby argues that violence against women is a form of male privilege and male control over women. Male violence against women comes in numerous forms, including rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment in the workplace, etc. Although there is a global trend of decreasing violence, there is still a gender issue in regard to recognizing violence by men, over women. I will not diminish that fact.

I do however highlight that it is not women alone who are victims. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated in 2020 that there are approximately 1.6 million female victims of domestic abuse a year, compared with 757,000 male victims, who may also be less likely to report violence. Women are, statistically, more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in the US and across most other Western nations. Men are more likely to be physically assaulted by a stranger, or murdered. And there is no doubt that men far outnumber deaths in war, then women.

A mainstream feminist argument here is that these issues are less important because it is also men doing the damage. But this evades the complexity of the issue: on violence, some women are perpetrators, and many women are victims. More men are perpetrators, and many men are victims.

Above all, we contest stereotypes about certain racial groups being more violent, because of the actions of some, but we permit general proclamations about men without qualification. When reporting on men’s violence, it must be reported as ‘some men’s’ violence. Most men are not violent criminals.

The State
Walby (1989) defines ‘the state’ as a specific set of social institutions which maintain social cohesion and control. Evidence of patriarchy here is the exclusion of women from a direct presence in the state and a lack of power to influence the state. ‘Women are excluded from access to state resources and power as part of a patriarchal system’.

However, this is hyperbole today as women are not denied access to any state resource; and they are free to vote more women into office. However, women choose not to run for public office in disproportionate numbers to their gender (i.e., less than 50%) and when they vote, they tend to vote for men over women. Pew Research shows that women turn out, on average, in 4% larger numbers to vote than men. If they voted for female candidates over male, Hillary Clinton would have been the 45th President of the United States.

If there was ever a modern figure that symbolised ‘patriarchy’ it is Donald Trump, and women voted him into office. Thus, if state run patriarchy exists, it is partially the wilful result of American women’s choice.

Nevertheless, I wish to highlight that women are increasingly running for and being elected into office. In 1990 Walby noted that only 6% of Members of Parliament in the UK were female, similar statistics were true in the US Congress. Today, about 32% are female in the UK Parliament; 20% of the US Congress is female; and 21% of the American Senate are women.

Conclusion
The idea of patriarchy exists as nothing more than a platitude in the context of modern western nation states. It served as a rallying call for women, and like a campaign slogan, may have had some impact on promoting legal equalities. I argue that we need a movement of gender equality activists. This term indicates that what one desires is equality in law and culture for any and all genders. Who can disagree with that?

Scroll down to join the discussion

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.