But it really seems like you do - at least to me, or you wouldn't have been fighting me on this topic for so many years. If there's another explanation, I'm open to it, and really just asking for clarification - not trying to tell you what you believe.
I'm laughing out loud however at the folks (men) who think that division of labor by gender equates to patriarchy. First of all, in modern hunter-gatherer tribes, there is division of labor by gender but it mostly isn't paid that much attention to because people in egalitarian societies value autonomy - not the rigid genderized boxes of patriarchy. Lots of highly egalitarian cultures have gender roles that mostly nobody pays all that much attention to. In addition, there's typically a lot of balance of power between men and women. For example, in most Native American tribes men had political power - that was only wielded with the consent of women. The women could, for example, oust a chief who was not meeting their standards. Women could divorce at will and have sex before marriage, and property usually went through the female line. In fact, in many egalitarian cultures, girls are encouraged to "try out" different boys before deciding on who they want to settle down with. Just because there are gender roles doesn't make these culture patriarchal. It truly is a great example of "politics" seeping in to justify beliefs that feel natural to a person steeped in patriarchy because these theories don't pay attention to the evidence, or the science, or the larger context - they just float a "feels right" narrative to justify the status quo. 🙄
And that's also not what patriarchy means from a sociological perspective. It means permanent leaders or chiefs or kings who have actual power (which is often hereditary), social classes, wealth disparity, the elites have access to greater resources and maintain that through violence and coercion. It means that the collective good of the tribe or enclave no longer matters because only the fortunes of your particular male-led family are what matter. It means social and sexual control of women in a way that has never existed before in human history. I feel like I've said this dozens and dozens of times already - both in all of my stories and in particular comments to you - which is why I wondered at the top what the issue seems to be.
Riane Eisler, an internationally known systems scientist and historian who has written extensively about the difference between these two fundamental types of societies specifically does not use the term patriarchy because it does carry some baggage in the collective consciousness. She calls it a domination based system. I do use the term intentionally - in conjunction with the qualifier that this refers to a social system that is about much, much more than a historical power imbalance between men and women. That aspect is central, but it is indicative of a larger power dynamic that applies to other power differentials as well. My purpose for doing so is primarily to demonstrate how this social system did not arise only for the purposes of controlling and disempowering women (which would make men look pretty terrible) - that this was only one part of a more complex system of control and domination that was applied culture-wide. Men certainly took an active part in continuing it and codifying it into laws that often came with severe penalties but it really didn't begin as a "secret evil plan" to oppress women and I think that is important to talk about - particularly if we want to talk about creating a more partnership-style culture. It takes the discussion out of the realm of "men are shit, and all they want is to control and abuse us" to one where we can look at the framework and the context of what is actually going on that sometimes has manifested into dynamics that fit the above description.
Then there is more room to bring in this sort of aspect, both to business and civic life but also to the concept of what a good family looks like:
Partnership-oriented organizations have trust and reciprocity-based cooperation; achievement-based (rather than conflict-based) competition; and use conflict as a tool to arrive at solutions, rather than a zero-sum win at all costs mentality. “Leadership is based on power to (woman or man who nurtures and supports productivity and creativity) AND/OR power with(encourages and participates in teamwork).” (emphasis mine)
There is no hierarchy between adults in a family. The father is not “the head of the family” and the needs and inputs of the children are taken into consideration. Children are not just taught to obey or risk painful punishments, they learn to behave well because they have learned to value being a part of an mutually supportive and enjoyable family system. Here’s an example from Eisler’s Center for Partnership Systems that is quite clear and illustrative, I think.
Here’s an example. Do you remember how the father treated his children in the movie The Sound of Music? When Baron von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) blows his whistle and his children line up in front of him, stiff as boards, you see the domination system in action. When the new nanny (Julie Andrews) comes into the picture and the children relax, enjoy themselves, and learn to trust themselves and each other, you see the partnership system in action. When von Trapp becomes much happier and closer to his children, you see what happens as we begin to shift from domination to partnership.
Again, we see this in modern hunter-gatherer tribes, where children are never yelled at or spanked, and in fact are rarely even corrected. They are quite self-directed and spend much of their time in play, leading them to grow up curious, self-assured, and happy with no need to feel better about themselves by dominating someone else.
“”Ju/’hoan children very rarely cried, probably because they had little to cry about. No child was ever yelled at or slapped or physically punished, and few were even scolded. Most never heard a discouraging word until they were approaching adolescence, and even then the reprimand, if it really was a reprimand, was delivered in a soft voice. … We are sometimes told that children who are treated so kindly become spoiled, but this is because those who hold that opinion have no idea how successful such measures can be. Free from frustration or anxiety, sunny and cooperative, the children were every parent’s dream. No culture can ever have raised better, more intelligent, more likable, more confident children.”[4]
Geez — I’m realizing that I really need to write a story about this aspect, because the converse is also quite well documented, that children who grow up ever in fear of painful punishments not only are more open to authoritarian political leaders, but they are more likely to take out frustrations on others who have less social power (bullying, homophobia, racism, etc.)
The gender roles thing needs a story as well — so thanks for the writing prompts.
