Patriarchy

For other uses, see Patriarchy (disambiguation).

Abraham & Son

Patriarchy describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls. This circumstance of male dominance is reflected in correlative inequities throughout the society. In the sphere of the family, the father or eldest male is considered the patriarch or "head of the household". Patriarchal societies have customs or laws, or have had customs or laws, where wives and children in a family are owned by the father or nearest male relative. In patriarchies at large, women are absent from or are in the minority of positions of government and religious institutions and have less access to economic wealth.

Patriarchies are patrilineal (patrilineality), meaning that upon marriage, the wife's family name is changed to that of her husband, or, the family name of the husband is added to the name of the wife. The husband's name is unchanged. Similarly, children are given the family name of their father. Slaves in some societies were likewise given the family names of their owners.

The reciprocal of patriarchy is matriarchy, in which women are the heads of household and of state. The reciprocal of patrilineal is matrilineal (matrilineal succession), meaning the family name is passed on from mother to child and property is passed on from mother to daughter.

Etymology

The word patriarchy comes from two Greek words – patēr (πατήρ, father) and archē (αρχή, rule). In Greek, the genitive form of patēr is patr-os, which shows the root form patr, explaining why the word is spelled patr-iarchy. The letter i in patr-i-archy occurs because patēr comes into English via Latin, which had a different vowel flavour to Greek in the genitive (pater/patris). For example, the abbreviation DVP stands for Decessit Vita Patris (literally, she died in the life of the father).

Related words

A patriarch is a man who has great influence on his family or society. Some historical societies claimed descent from one great man. For example, the Romans believed they were descended from Romulus who founded Rome. The traditional founder of Athens is Erectheus, and of Sparta Lacedæmon. Similarly, the Jewish tradition in the Torah says Jews are descended from Abraham through Isaac. Both the Torah and Qur'an say Arabs are descended from Abraham through Ishmael,  Abraham's first son, Isaac's half-brother. Traditional founders are often called patriarchs. The feminine form of patriarch is matriarch, for example see Matriarchs (Bible). Patriarch is also a name for the most senior leaders of Eastern Christianity, roughly comparable to the western arch-bishop (archē as above).

The adjective for patriarchy is patriarchal; and patriarchalism and, more commonly, paternalism refer to the practice or defence of patriarchy. Patron is a related word used generically (that is, it is not gender or sex specific). Women and men who provide financial support to activities within a community can be termed patrons. The verb form patronize can be used positively, to describe the activity of patrons, or negatively, to describe adopting a superior attitude. If the superior attitude is adopted by a man, he can be called paternalistic.

Related customs

Patrimonalism uses the Greek word monos (μόνος, sole) to describe the view of a state as the extended household of a mon-arch (sole ruler, archē as above) or deity. There are records of patrimonalism almost as far back as the earliest writing itself (about 5000 years ago). In fact, this is probably because patrimonalism directly facilitated the invention of writing – the first hereditary monarchs gained so much wealth as to need to keep accounts, and enough to pay those accountants. The earliest records of patrimonalism come from Ancient Near Eastern legal documents, the best known being the Code of Hammurabi and the Torah. Some aspects of patrimonalism can still be found in the few remaining monarchies in the world today, for example, British law concerning real estate (see Crown lands), especially in Australia. For more detail regarding patrimonalism see Traditional authority.

Feminist criticism

File:Beauvoir.jpg

Simone de Beauvoir

John Stuart Mill

Main article: Patriarchy in feminism

Most forms of feminism have challenged patriarchy as a social system that is practiced unwittingly by the majority of the human population. Beyond feminists, most human beings do not benefit from living under patriarchy. Some have attributed its sustained practice over the last 5,500 years to the idea that male physical strength is the only way of settling social conflicts – from war to disciplining children. John Stuart Mill wrote, "In early times, the great majority of the male sex were slaves, as well as the whole of the female. And many ages elapsed ... before any thinker was bold enough to question the rightfulness, and the absolute necessity, either of the one slavery or of the other."

During the democratic and anti-slavery movements of early 19th century Europe and America, kingdoms became constitutional monarchies or republics and slavery was made illegal (see abolitionism). The civil rights movements of 20th century America also sought to overthrow various existing social structures, that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt. Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men (see Mill above). The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes referred to as first-wave feminism, although this term is debated by some, including many feminist groups. The late 20th century debate has produced far ranging social restructuring in Western democracies – second-wave feminism. Although often credited with it, Simone de Beauvoir denied she started second wave feminism. More likely is that, as with any social movement, resistance begins to build up to oppressive forces and ideas from many differing places at once, and no one person can be entirely credited with its origins. Among those who discuss feminism in terms of "waves", some consider the "second wave" to be continuing into the 21st century, others consider it to be complete, still others consider there to be a "third wave" of feminism active in contemporary society.

In feminist theory, the opposite of feminism is not masculism but patriarchy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the word patriarchy has a range of additional, negative associations when used in the context of feminist theory, where it is sometimes used with the definite article (the Patriarchy), likely best understood as a form of collective personification. In place of the word "patriarchy," some writers prefer to use an approximate synonym such as hierarchy or androcentric (also from Greek – anēr, genitive andros, meaning man).

Fredrika Scarth (a feminist) reads Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex to be saying, "Neither men nor women live their bodies authentically under patriarchy." Mary Daly wrote, "Males and males only are the originators, planners, controllers, and legitimators of patriarchy." Carole Pateman, another feminist, writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection." Terence McKenna and John Lamb Lash consider patriarchy to be "maladaptive": McKenna speculated it may be "evolutionarily maladaptive," while Lash characterises it as "a maladaptive form of social organization that asserts force over cooperation and exploits gender difference."

Most feminists do not propose to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, rather they argue for equality (though some have argued for separation). However, equality is a difficult idea (see Egalitarianism), "People who praise it or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or disparaging." It is particularly hard to work out what equality means when it comes to gender, because there are real differences between men and women (see Sexual dimorphism and Gender differences). Recent feminist writers speak of "feminisms of diversity", that seek to reconcile older debates between equality feminisms and difference feminisms. For instance, Judith Squires writes, "The whole conceptual force of 'equality' rests on the assumption of differences, which should in some respect be valued equally."

For a leading feminist who writes against patriarchy see Marilyn French; and for one who is more sympathetic see Christina Hoff Sommers.

Average Income USA (2005 Census Data)

In summary, recent feminist writers have shown a tendency to admit misandry among some members of the movement, and acknowledge real differences in men and women that make diversity a more meaningful aim than reductionistic equality (for example Judith Squires above). However, the basic issue stands out even more clearly now than at the peak of second wave activism in the early 1970s. Decades of legislation and affirmative action have not yet changed the fact that western culture is male dominated, and that it remains patriarchal. Women can vote in most countries of the world, and they outnumber men in higher education in many countries.

In terms of academic achievement, international education figures from 43 developed countries, published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2003, showed a consistent picture of women achieving better results than men at every level, particularly in literacy assessments.

However, heads of state, cabinet ministers and the top executives of major companies are still mostly men (see glass ceiling). Also, women's average income is still significantly lower than men's average income. Sally Haslanger claims women are still marginalized within academic philosophy departments.

Patriarchal criticism of feminism

While some feminists have provided critical discussion of the movement's views regarding patriarchy, as noted above, most criticism of feminist views has come from outside the movement.

Steven Goldberg

File:Inevitability.jpg

First Book

To date, feminists have failed to achieve many of their goals (for example, those related to executive positions and average income, see above). This was predicted in 1973 by Steven Goldberg.

In every society a basic male motivation is the feeling that the women and children must be protected. But the feminist cannot have it both ways: if she wishes to sacrifice all this, all that she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose.

Goldberg (born 1941) was chairman of the department of sociology at City College of New York, and has written two books on patriarchy. In his second book on patriarchy he wrote:

There is nothing in this book concerned with the desirability or undesirability of the institutions whose universality the book attempts to explain. For instance, this book is not concerned with the question of whether male domination of hierarchies is morally or politically 'good' or 'bad'. Moral values and political policies, by their nature, consist of more than just empirical facts and their explanation. 'What is' can never entail 'what should be', so science knows nothing of 'should'. 'Answers' to questions of 'should' require subjective elements that science cannot provide. Similarly, there is no implication that one sex is 'superior' in general to the other; 'general superiority' and 'general inferiority' are scientifically meaningless concepts.

File:WhyMenRule.jpg

Second Book

His first book was published in 1973 – the early days of second wave feminist activism. Like feminists, he started with the data that all known societies have constructed patriarchies. This data requires both moral comment and scientific explanation. Consider the theory that "all power corrupts". If all known cases of people with power result in some form of corruption, we need to study both the moral question of eliminating corruption, and the scientific question of how power leads to corruption – perhaps a just society should eliminate power structures; perhaps it only needs to modify them. In the case of patriarchy, feminism largely provides moral comment, while Goldberg tries to provide the scientific explanation. Goldberg's aim is neither to recommend nor to condemn patriarchy. He simply provides a hypothesis to explain it. Science is neither superior nor inferior to ethics. Science and ethics advance human knowledge in different directions by asking different types of question. Ideally the two assist one another.

In Goldberg's first book, he seeks an explanation for three specific aspects of male dominance behaviour in human societies. Patriarchy is the first of these. He also considers the phenomenon of male status seeking, which he calls "male attainment". He is influenced by Margaret Mead in identifying this phenomenon. She says, "Men may cook, or weave or dress dolls or hunt hummingbirds, but if such activities are appropriate behavior for men, then the whole society, men and women alike, votes them as important. When the same occupations are performed by women, they are regarded as less important." Finally, he considers the way men seem to dominate in one-to-one relationships with women. Marriage is just one example of such relationships. Goldberg comments, "A woman’s feeling that she must get around a man is the hallmark of male dominance."

Goldberg proposes the hypothesis that the statistical averages of all these forms of behaviour are partly explained by the necessary (but not sufficient) condition of neuroendocrinological effects – namely, testosterone. The title of his first book makes his hypothesis very clear, it was called The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference between Men and Women always Produces Male Domination. At the time he wrote (1973), there were only very limited results from biological researchers to support his hypothesis. The situation has changed a lot since then.

For other writers who make similar points to Goldberg see Steven Pinker and Donald Brown in the literature below.

For current feminists and writers with considerably more biological knowledge than Goldberg, who accept his hypothesis, but consider issues beyond the biological, see Helena Cronin and Louann Brizendine.

It all stems from muddling science and politics. It's as if people believe that if you don't like what you think are the ideological implications of the science then you're free to reject the science – and to cobble together your own version of it instead. Now, I know that sounds ridiculous when it's spelled out explicitly. Science doesn't have ideological implications; it simply tells you how the world is – not how it ought to be. So, if a justification or a moral judgement or any such 'ought' statement pops up as a conclusion from purely scientific premises, then obviously the thing to do is to challenge the logic of the argument, not to reject the premises. But, unfortunately, this isn't often spelled out. And so, again and again, people end up rejecting the science rather than the fallacy.

Biology of gender

Female-Male Differences

Main article: Biology of gender

The biology of gender is scientific analysis of the physical basis for behavioural differences between men and women. It is more specific than sexual dimorphism, which covers physical and behavioural differences between males and females of any sexually reproducing species, or sexual differentiation, where physical and behavioural differences between men and women are described. Biological research of gender has explored such areas as: intersex physicalities, gender identity, gender roles and sexual preference.

It has long been known that there are correlations between the biological sex of animals and their behaviour.   It has also long been known that human behaviour is influenced by the brain.

The late twentieth century saw an explosion in technology capable of aiding sex research. John Money and Milton Diamond made great progress towards understanding the formation of gender identity in humans. Extensive advances were also made in understanding sexual dimorphism in other animals. For example, there were studies on the effects of sex hormones on rats. The early twenty first century started producing even more amazing results concerning genetically programmed sexual dimorphism in rat brains, prior even to the influence of hormones on development.

Human Brain

Genes on the sex chromosomes can directly influence sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour, independent of the action of sex steroids.

Skuse, David H (2006). "Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes". European Journal of Endocrinology. 155: 99–106.

Some specific relevant results are as follows. The brains of many animals, including humans, are significantly different for females and males of the species (Goy and McEwen, 1980). Both genes and hormones affect the formation of many animal brains before "birth" (or hatching), and also behaviour of adult individuals. Hormones significantly affect human brain formation, and also brain development at puberty. Both kinds of brain difference affect male and female behaviour.

In short, science has caught up with what feminists, Goldberg and common sense have said for a long time – on average, men are more aggressive in social behaviour. This does not justify patriarchy, it merely partially explains it. The explanation is only partial because there is a lot of variation in women and men that is not yet understood. It cannot be proven that female-ness or male-ness is 100% biological (in fact it almost certainly isn't), but what has been shown is that female-ness and male-ness are certainly not 100% determined by upbringing and culture (social determinism). These things are an exciting area of future research, with profound relevance for people of many different types.

Chimpanzee

For an illustrated description of clear differences between female and male brain response to pain see Laura Stanton and Brenna Maloney, 'The Perception of Pain', Washington Post (19 December 2006).

For those who can understand technical biological language, Alexandra M. Lopes and others, recently published that:

A sexual dimorphism in levels of expression in brain tissue was observed by quantitative real-time PCR, with females presenting an up to 2-fold excess in the abundance of PCDH11X transcripts. We relate these findings to sexually dimorphic traits in the human brain. Interestingly, PCDH11X/Y gene pair is unique to Homo sapiens, since the X-linked gene was transposed to the Y chromosome after the human–chimpanzee lineages split.

The important thing to note about the biological research is that most of it was generally motivated by seeking the causes of diseases in human beings, and ways of treating or preventing those diseases. Research results are relevant to gender issues, but that is not their direct concern. Sexual dimorphism in the brain is important to study, because we may need to apply different kinds of treatment to women and to men.

Appendix

Patriarchies in dispute

The table shows all societies that have been claimed at one time or another to be matriarchal. The list, that follows the table, provides quotes from the first western women and men who studied these societies. In every case the ethnographers report that the societies were patriarchal not matriarchal, even before changes brought by contact with western culture. What some of the societies do typify, however, is matrilinearity or matrilocality, not matriarchy, because of clear features of male dominance, see the main entry Patriarchy (anthropology). This is the evidence that supports the statements made by Encyclopædia Britannica, Margaret Mead, Cynthia Eller and Steven Goldberg elsewhere in this article, and has been mainly located using their bibliographies. There are a lot of cultural groups in this appendix. No bias is intended against the more than 1,000 uncontroversially patriarchal groups, nor against the matrilocal or matrilineal cultural groups, whose patriarchal system of government has never been disputed.

Note: "separate" in the marriage column, refers to the practice of husbands and wives living in separate locations, often informally called "walking marriages". See the articles for the specific cultures that practice this for further description.

Table

Patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal

Autonym	Continent	Country	Marriage	Property	Government	Ethnographer	Date	F/M
Alor	Asia	Indonesia			patriarchy	Cora du Bois	1944	female
Bamenda	Africa	Cameroon	patrilocal	only Kom matrilineal	patriarchy	Phyllis Kaberry	1952	female
Bantoc	Asia	Philippines			patriarchy	Albert S Bacadayan	1974	male
Batek	Asia	Malaysia	patrilocal		patriarchy	Kirk Michael Endicott	1974	male
Boyowan	Australasia	Papua New Guinea	patrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	Bronisław Malinowski	1916	male
Bribri	North America	Costa Rica	matrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	William Moore Grabb	1875	male
Çatalhöyük	Asia	Turkey	na	na	na	James Mellaart	1961	male
Chambri	Australasia	Papua New Guinea			patriarchy	Margaret Mead	1935	female
Filipino	Asia	Philippines			patriarchy	Chester L Hunt	1959	male
Gahuku-Gama	Australasia	Papua New Guinea			patriarchy	Shirley Glasse (Lindenbaum)	1963	female
Hopi	North America	United States of America	matrilocal	both	patriarchy	Barbara Freire-Marreco	1914	female
Iban	Asia	Borneo	both	neither	patriarchy	Edwin H Gomes	1911	male
Imazighen	Africa	North Sahara			patriarchy	George Peter Murdock	1959	male
Iroqois	North America	North East North America	matrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	Lewis Henry Morgan	1901	male
Jivaro	South America	West Amazon			patriarchy	R Karstan	1926	male
Kenuzi	Africa	Sudan			patriarchy	Ernest Godard	1867	male
Kibutzim	Asia	Israel	neither	neither	patriarchy	Judith Buber Agassi	1989	female
!Kung San	Africa	Southern Africa			patriarchy	Marjorie Shostak	1976	female
Maliku	Asia	India	separate	matrilineal	patriarchy	Ellen Kattner	1996	female
Minangkabau	Asia	Indonesia		both	patriarchy	PJ Veth	1882	male
Naxi	Asia	China	only Mosuo separate	only Mosuo matrilineal	patriarchy	Joseph Francis Charles Rock	1924	male
Nayar	Asia	India			patriarchy	E Kathleen Gough	1954	female
Tlingit	North America	United States of America	matrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	Aurel Krause	1885	male
Vanatinai	Australasia	Papua New Guinea	matrilocal	matrilineal	no government patriarchy	Maria Lipowsky	1981	female
Wemale	Asia	Indonesia			patriarchy	Adolf E Jensen	1939	male
Woorani	South America	Ecuador			patriarchy	John Man	1982	male
Yegali	Africa	Madagascar	na	na	na	na	na	na

See also

• Anti-feminism
• Chinese patriarchy
• Domitius
• Gender role
• Homemaker
• Masculinity
• Men's movement
• Nature versus nurture
• Pater familias
• Patriarch magazines
• Patriarchs (Bible)
• Sociology of fatherhood

External links

• Jonathan Marks. 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior'. In The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology. Unpublished, 2007.
• 'Matriarchy'. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 2007.
• 'Cattle ownership makes it a man's world'. New Scientist (2003).
• Bible. Various translations.
• Qur'an. Translated by M.H. Shakir. New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Incorporated, 1983.
• Mary Wollstonecraft. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Boston: Peter Edes for Thomas and Andrews, 1792.
• Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex. Translated by H M Parshley. London: Penguin, 1972.
• 'Equality'. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 2001.
• Times Literary Supplement review (by Mark Ridley) of The Inevitability of Patriarchy and reply by the author (Steven Goldberg).
• Same text as above, without formatting, at archive.org.
• Phyllis M Kaberry. A Study of the Economic Position of Women in Bamenda, British Cameroons. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1952.
• Steven Webster. 'Was it Matriarchy?' New York Review of Books (1972): 37-38.
• Phillip Longman. 'The Return of Patriarchy'. Foreign Policy (2006).
• Francesca Lunzer Kritz. 'Not Feeling Each Other's Pain: Men and Women Hurt Differently – and Some of The Difference May Really Be in Their Heads'. The Washington Post. 19 December 2006. Page HE01.
• International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society
• Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
• Regional Masculinities Bibliography Project

Literature

• Adeline, Helen B. Fascinating Womanhood. New York: Random House, 2007.
• Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2003.
• Beauvoir, Simone de. Le Deuxième Sexe. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1949. (original French edition)
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. London: Jonathan Cape, 1953. (first UK edition, in translation)
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953. (first USA edition, in translation)
• Bourdieu, Pierre. Masculine Domination. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
• Brizendine, Louann. The Female Brain. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2006.
• Brown, Donald E. Human Universals. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991.
• Jay, Jennifer W. 'Imagining Matriarchy: "Kingdoms of Women" in Tang China'. Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 (1996): 220-229.
• Konner, Melvin. The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit. 2nd edition, revised and updated. (Owl Books, 2003). 560p. ISBN 0805072799 [first published 1982, Endnotes
• Lepowsky, Maria. Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
• Mead, Margaret. 'Do We Undervalue Full-Time Wives'. Redbook 122 (1963).
• Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. Palgrave MacMillan, 1999.
• Moir, Anne and David Jessel. Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women.
• Ortner, Sherry Beth. 'Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?'. In MZ Rosaldo and L Lamphere (eds). Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974, pp. 67-87.
• Ortner, Sherry Beth. 'So, Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?'. In S Ortner. Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, pp. 173-180.
• Pilcher, Jane and Imelda Wheelan. 50 Key Concepts in Gender Studies. London: Sage Publications, 2004.
• Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: A Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books, 2002.