Patriarchy

Patriarchy describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, in which fathers have primary official responsibility and rulership for the welfare of these units. In some cultures slaves were included as part of such households. The concept of patriarchy is often used, by extension, to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office (in anthropology and feminism, for example).

The feminine form of patriarchy is matriarchy, but there are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history. Encyclopædia Britannica says it is a "hypothetical social system". The Britannica article goes on to note, "The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed."

Numerous examples of women heading households, and gaining positions in politics, are attested throughout history, however these are seen as "exceptions that prove the rule". Some researchers do attempt to show that "patriarchy is not a universal feature of human societies." For more information see the appendix Patriarchies in dispute.

The anthropologist Margaret Mead said, "All the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed. ... men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. ... men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." For moral comment on this see Feminist criticism below; for a scientific explanation of why, see Biology of gender below.

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). The basic meaning of the Greek word archē is actually "beginning" (hence arche-ology) – the first words of Genesis in Greek (see Septuagint) are En archē ("In the beginning"). However, archē is also used metaphorically to refer to ruling, because rulers are perceived to "start" things. This use of archē is especially common in compound words, for example hier-archy and an-archy.

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 or, 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.



Some social customs reflect what is termed patrilineality or patrilocality.

Patrilineal describes customs where family responsibilities and assets pass from father to son. By contrast, contemporary Judaism considers people to be Jewish if their mothers were Jewish, which makes this aspect of contemporary Judaism matrilineal. Biblical Judaism is, however, a classical example of a patriarchal society. Matrilineal is a particularly useful term in genetics, where some genetic features are more or less passed via the maternal line, notably Mitochondrial DNA and severe X-linked genetic conditions. An X chromosome from the mother is always passed to offspring, male and female. However, daughters do not receive a Y chromosome, and sons do not receive an X chromosome from their fathers (see Sex-determination system, Heredity and Genetic genealogy).

Patrilocal describes the custom of brides relocating to the geographic community of the husband and his father's family. In a matrilocal society, a husband will relocate to the home community of his wife and her mother (see also Marriage). Matrilocality can substantially increase the social influence of women in a culture, however, given that tribal and family leaders are still men in all known matrilocal societies, matrilocality is not equivalent to matriarchy, see main entry Patriarchy (anthropology).

By contrast with these other customs, patriarchy can be seen to be distinctly about gender and the nuclear family, gender and public office, and about female-male relationships in general.

Feminist criticism


Most forms of feminism have challenged patriarchy as a social system that is adopted uncritically, due to millennia of human experience where male physical strength was the ultimate 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. 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, "The current feminist movement, which really started about five or six years ago [1970-71], did not really know [The Second Sex]". 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 capitalized and used with the definite article (the Patriarchy), likely best understood as a form of collective personification (compare "blame it on the Government" to "blame it on the Patriarchy"). The use of the word patriarchy in feminist literature has been arguably overused as a rhetorical device, becoming so loaded with emotive associations, that some writers prefer to use an approximate synonym, the more objective and technical 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."

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.

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.

Steven Goldberg


Feminism has so far failed to achieve its goals regarding executive positions and income parity. This was predicted by Steven Goldberg (born 1941). He was chairman of the department of sociology at City College of New York, and is probably the only author to have written two whole 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.

His first book was published in 1973 – the early days of second wave feminist activism. Like feminists (and this article), 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. Another analogy is psychology, it seeks to identify both what constitutes a pathology and what causes it, in order to work out both what to treat and how. In the case of patriarchy, feminism largely provides moral comment, Goldberg tries to provide the scientific explanation. It is important to note that Goldberg's aim is neither to recommend nor to condemn patriarchy, he simply provides a hypothesis to explain it. It is also important to note that science is neither superior nor inferior to ethics. They 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 but go 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


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

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. Brain differences also have a statistically measurable effect on an array of abilities. In particular, on average, women are more capable in nearly everything to do with sensory processing (a bit like comparing the red group to the purple group in the diagram). On the other hand, male brains seem to be "pushed" towards extremes of low ability or high ability in various forms of mental abstraction, especially those related to space and logic. This means the average scores of young women and men in mathematics, for example, will be close, but there will be more men than women in the very low scores and in the very high scores (like red and green, or red and blue). There is evidence to suggest that forms of autism may be essentially extreme expressions of certain typically male characteristics. Hormones have also been linked with male aggression.

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. 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
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 not mentioned here.
 * Patriarchies in dispute

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.

Literature

 * Andelin, Helen. 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.

Patriarchát Patriarkat Patriarchat (Soziologie) Patriarhaalsus Πατριαρχία fa:مردسالاری Patriarcat (sociologie) 가부장제 משפחה פטריארכלית 家父長制 Patriarki Patriarchat (ustrój) Патриархат Патријархат Patriarkaatti (yhteiskuntatieteet) Patriarkat 父權