Original article is at http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/20613.php Print comments.
Understanding Patriarchy by bell hooks
by bell hooks fan
Sunday, Jul. 25, 2004 at 11:27 AM
Chapter two of "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love" by bell hooks
Patriarchy is the single most
life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our
nation. Yet most men do not use the word "patriarchy" in everyday life.
Most men never think about patriarchy-what it means, how it is created and
sustained. Many men in our nation would not be able to spell the word or
pronounce it correctly. The word "patriarchy" just is not a part of
their normal everyday thought or speech. Men who have heard and know the word
usually associate it with women's liberation, with feminism, and therefore
dismiss it as irrelevant to their own experiences. I have been standing at
podiums talking about patriarchy for more than thirty years. It is a word I use
daily, and men who hear me use it often ask me what I mean by it.
Nothing discounts the old
antifeminist projection of men as all-powerful more than their basic ignorance
of a major facet of the political system that shapes and informs male identity
and sense of self from birth until death. I often use the phrase
"imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" to describe
the interlocking political systems that are the foundation of our nation's
politics. Of these systems the one that we all learn the most about growing up
is the system of patriarchy, even if we never know the word, because
patriarchal gender roles -are assigned to us as children and we are given
continual guidance about the ways we can best fulfill these roles.
Patriarchy is a political-social
system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to
everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the
right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through
various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. When my older brother
and I were born with a year separating us in age, patriarchy determined how we
would each be regarded by our parents. Both our parents believed in patriarchy;
they had been taught patriarchal thinking through religion.
At church they had learned that God
created man to rule the world and everything in it and that it was the work of women
to help men perform these tasks, to obey, and to always assume a subordinate
role in relation to a powerful man. They were taught that God was male. These
teachings were reinforced in every institution they encountered--schools,
courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches. Embracing patriarchal
thinking, like everyone else around them, they taught it to their children
because it seemed like a "natural" way to organize life.
As their daughter I was taught that
it was my role to serve, to be weak, to be free from the burden of thinking, to
caretake and nurture others. My brother was taught
that it was his role to be served; to provide; to be strong; to think, strategize,
and plan; and to refuse to caretake or nurture others.
I was taught that it was not proper for a female to be violent, that it was
"unnatural." My brother was taught hat his value would be determined
by his will to do violence (albeit in appropriate settings). He was taught that
for a boy, enjoying violence was a good thing (albeit in appropriate settings).
He was taught that a boy should not express feelings. I was taught that girls
could and should express feelings, or at least some of them. When I responded with
rage at being denied a toy, I was taught as a girl in a patriarchal household
that rage was not an appropriate feminine feeling, that it should be not only
not be expressed but be eradicated. When my brother responded with rage at
being denied a toy, he was taught as a boy in a patriarchal household that his
ability to express rage was good but that he had to learn the best setting to
unleash his hostility. It was not good for him to use his rage to oppose the wishes
of his parents, but later, when he grew up, he was taught that rage was
permitted and that allowing rage to provoke him to violence would help him
protect home and nation.
We lived in farm country, isolated
from other people. Our sense of gender roles was learned from our parents, from
the ways we saw them behave. My brother and I remember our confusion about
gender. In reality I was stronger and more violent than my brother, which we learned
quickly was bad. And he was a gentle, peaceful boy, which we learned was really
bad. Although we were often confused, we knew one fact for certain: we could
not be and act the way we wanted to, doing what we felt like. It was clear to
us that our behavior had to follow a predetermined, gendered script. We both
learned the word "patriarchy" in our adult life, when we learned that
the script that had determined what we should be, the identities we should make,
was based on patriarchal values and beliefs about gender.
I was always more interested in
challenging patriarchy than my brother was because it was the system that was always
leaving me out of things that I wanted to be part of. In our family life of the
fifties, marbles were a boy's game. My brother had inherited his marbles from
men in the family; he had a tin box to keep them in. All sizes and shapes, marvelously
colored, they were to my eye the most beautiful objects. We played together
with them, often with me aggressively clinging to the marble I liked best,
refusing to share. When Dad was at work, our stay-at-home mom was quite content
to see us playing marbles together. Yet Dad,, looking
at our play from a patriarchal perspective, was disturbed by what he saw. His
daughter, aggressive and competitive, was a better player than his son. His
son was passive; the boy did not really seem to care who won and was willing
to give over marbles on demand. Dad decided that this play had to end, that
both my brother and I needed to learn a lesson about appropriate gender roles.
One evening my brother was given
permission by Dad to bring out the tin of marbles. I announced my desire to
play and was told by my brother that "girls did not play with marbles,"
that it was a boy's game. This made no sense to my four- or five-year-old mind,
and I insisted on my right to play by picking up marbles and shooting them. Dad
intervened to tell me to stop. I did not listen. His voice grew louder and
louder. Then suddenly he snatched me up, broke a board from our screen door,
and began to beat me with it, telling me, "You're just a little girl. When
I tell you to do something, I mean for you to do it." He beat me and he
beat me, wanting me to acknowledge that I understood what I had done. His rage,
his violence captured everyone's attention. Our family sat spellbound, rapt
before the pornography of patriarchal violence. After this beating I was banished-forced
to stay alone in the dark. Mama came into the bedroom to soothe the pain,
telling me in her soft southern voice, "I tried to warn you. You need to
accept that you are just a little girl and girls can't do what boys do."
In service to patriarchy her task was to reinforce that Dad had done the right
thing by, putting me in my place, by restoring the natural social order.
I remember this traumatic event so
well because it was a story told again and again within our family. No one
cared that the constant retelling might trigger post-traumatic stress; the
retelling was necessary to reinforce both the message and the remembered state
of absolute powerlessness. The recollection of this brutal whipping of a
little-girl daughter by a big strong man, served as more than just a reminder
to me' of my gendered place, it was a reminder to everyone watching/remembering,
to all my siblings, male and female, and to our grown-woman mother that our patriarchal
father was the ruler in our household. We were to remember that if we did not
obey his rules, we would be punished, punished even
unto death. This is the way we were experientially schooled in the art of
patriarchy.
There is nothing unique or even exceptional about this experience.
Listen to the voices of wounded grown children raised in patriarchal homes and
you will hear different versions with the same underlying theme, the use of
violence to reinforce our indoctrination and acceptance of patriarchy. In How
Can I Get Through to You? family therapist Terrence
Real tells how his sons were initiated into patriarchal thinking even as their
parents worked to create a loving home in which antipatriarchal
values prevailed. He tells of how his young son Alexander enjoyed dressing as Barbie
until boys playing with his older brother witnessed his Barbie persona and let
him know by their gaze and their shocked, disapproving silence that his
behavior was unacceptable:
Without a shred of malevolence, the
stare my son received transmitted a message. You are not to do this. And the
medium that message was broadcast in was a potent emotion: shame. At three,
Alexander was learning the rules. A ten second wordless transaction was
powerful enough to dissuade my son from that instant forward from what had been
a favorite activity. I call such moments of induction the "normal traumatization" of boys.
To indoctrinate boys into the rules
of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings.
My stories took place in the
fifties; the stories Real tells are recent. They all underscore the tyranny of
patriarchal thinking, the power of patriarchal culture to hold us captive.
Real is one of the most enlightened thinkers on the subject of patriarchal
masculinity in our nation, and yet he lets readers know that he is not able to
keep his boys out of patriarchy's reach. They suffer its assaults, as do all boys
and girls, to a greater or lesser degree. No doubt by creating a loving home
that is not patriarchal, Real at least offers his boys
a choice: they can choose to be themselves or they can choose conformity with
patriarchal roles. Real uses the phrase "psychological
patriarchy" to describe the patriarchal thinking common to females and
males. Despite the contemporary visionary feminist thinking that makes
clear that a patriarchal thinker need not be a male, most folks continue to see
men as the problem of patriarchy. This is simply not the case. Women can be as
wedded to patriarchal thinking and action as men.
Psychotherapist John Bradshaw's
clear-sighted definition of patriarchy in Creating Love is a useful one:
"The dictionary defines `patriarchy' as a 'social organization marked by
the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and
religious functions.. . Patriarchy is characterized
by male domination and power. He states further that "patriarchal rules
still govern most of the world's religious, school systems, and family systems."
Describing the most damaging of these rules, Bradshaw lists "blind
obedience-the foundation upon which patriarchy stands; the repression of all
emotions except fear; the destruction of individual willpower; and the
repression of thinking whenever it departs from the authority figure's way of thinking."
Patriarchal thinking shapes the values of our culture. We are socialized into
this system, females as well as males. Most of us learned patriarchal attitudes
in our family of origin, and they were usually taught to us by our mothers.
These attitudes were reinforced in schools and religious institutions.
The contemporary presence of
female-headed households has led many people to assume that children in these households
are not learning patriarchal values because no male is present. They assume
that men are the sole teachers of patriarchal thinking. Yet many female-headed
households endorse and promote patriarchal thinking with far greater passion
than two-parent households. Because they do not have an experiential reality to
challenge false fantasies of gender roles, women in such households are far
more likely to idealize the patriarchal male role and patriarchal men than are
women who live with patriarchal men every day. We need to highlight the role women
play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will
recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support
equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system. Dismantling and
changing patriarchal culture is work that men and women must do together.
Clearly we cannot dismantle a
system as long as we engage in collective denial about its impact on our lives.
Patriarchy requires male dominance by any means necessary,
hence it supports, promotes, and condones sexist violence. We hear the most
about sexist violence in public discourses about rape and abuse by domestic
partners. But the most common forms of patriarchal violence are those that take
place in the home between patriarchal parents and children. The point of such
violence is usually to reinforce a dominator model, in which the authority
figure is deemed ruler over those without power and given the right to maintain
that rule through practices of subjugation, subordination, and submission.
Keeping males and females from
telling the truth about what happens to them in families is one way patriarchal
culture is maintained. A great majority of individuals enforce an unspoken rule
in the culture as a whole that demands we keep the secrets of patriarchy,
thereby protecting the rule of the father. This rule of silence is upheld when
the culture refuses everyone easy access even to the word
"patriarchy." Most children do not learn what to call this system of
institutionalized gender roles, so rarely do we name it in everyday speech.
This silence promotes denial. And how can we organize to challenge and change a
system that cannot be named?
It is no accident that feminists
began to use the word "patriarchy" to replace the more commonly used
"male chauvanism" and "sexism." These
courageous voices wanted men and women to become more aware of the way patriarchy
affects us all. In popular culture the word itself was hardly used during the
heyday of contemporary feminism. Antimale activists
were no more eager than their sexist male counterparts to emphasize the system
of patriarchy and the way it works. For to do so would have automatically
exposed the notion that men were all-powerful and women powerless, that all
men were oppressive and women always and only victims. By placing the blame for
the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own
allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing
to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood.
Like many visionary radical
feminists I challenged the misguided notion, put forward by women who were
simply fed up with male exploitation and oppression, that men were "the
enemy." As early as 1984 I included a chapter with the title "Men:
Comrades in Struggle" in my book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center urging
advocates of feminist politics to challenge any rhetoric which placed the sole blame
for perpetuating patriarchy and male domination onto men:
Separatist ideology encourages
women to ignore the negative impact of sexism on male personhood.
It stresses polarization between the sexes. According to Joy
justice, separatists believe that there are "two basic
perspectives" on the issue of naming the victims of sexism:
"There is the perspective that men oppress women. And there is the perspective
that people are people, and we are all hurt
by rigid sex roles." . . . Both perspectives accurately describe our predicament. Men do oppress women. People are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns, These
two realities coexist. Male oppression
of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it-it exists. It does not erase or
lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than
the serious psychological stress and emotional
pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns.
Throughout this essay I stressed that feminist advocates
collude in the pain of men wounded by patriarchy when they falsely represent
men as always and only powerful, as always and only gaining privileges from
their blind obedience to patriarchy. I emphasized that patriarchal ideology brainwashes
men to believe that their domination of women is beneficial when it is not:
Often
feminist activists affirm this logic when we should be constantly naming
these acts as expressions of perverted power relations, general lack
of control of one's actions, emotional powerlessness, extreme
irrationality, and in many cases, outright insanity. Passive male
absorption of sexist ideology enables men to falsely interpret
this disturbed behavior positively. As long as men are brainwashed to
equate violent domination and abuse of women with privilege, they will
have no understanding of the damage done to themselves or to others, and
no motivation to
change.
Patriarchy demands of men that they become and remain emotional
cripples. Since it is a system that denies men full access to their freedom of
will, it is difficult for any man of any class to rebel against patriarchy, to
be disloyal to the patriarchal parent, be that parent female or male.
The man who has been my primary bond for more than twelve
years was traumatized by the patriarchal dynamics in his family of origin. When
I met him he was in his twenties. While his formative years had been spent in
the company of a violent, alcoholic dad, his circumstances changed when he was
twelve and he began to live alone with his mother. In the early years of our
relationship he talked openly about his hostility and rage toward his abusing dad. He was not interested in forgiving him or
understanding the circumstances that had shaped and influenced his dad's life,
either in his childhood or in his working life as a military man.
In the early years of our
relationship he was extremely critical of male domination of women and
children. Although he did not use the word "patriarchy," he understood
its meaning and he opposed it. His gentle, quiet manner often led folks to
ignore him, counting him among the weak and the powerless. By the age of thirty
he began to assume a more macho persona, embracing the dominator model that he
had once critiqued. Donning the mantle of patriarch, he gained greater respect
and visibility. More women were drawn to him. He was noticed more in public spheres.
His criticism of male domination ceased. And indeed he begin
to mouth patriarchal rhetoric, saying the kind of sexist stuff that would have
appalled him in the past.
These changes in his thinking and behavior were triggered
by his desire to be accepted and affirmed in a patriarchal workplace and
rationalized by his desire to get ahead. His story is not unusual. Boys brutalized
and victimized by patriarchy more often than not become patriarchal, embodying
the abusive patriarchal masculinity that they once clearly recognized as evil.
Few men brutally abused as boys in the name of patriarchal maleness
courageously resist the brainwashing and remain true to themselves. Most males
conform to patriarchy in one way or another.
Indeed, radical feminist critique
of patriarchy has practically been silenced in our culture. It has become a subcultural discourse available only to well-educated
elites. Even in those circles, using the word "patriarchy" is
regarded as passe. Often in my lectures when I use
the phrase "imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" to
describe our nation's political system, audiences laugh. No one has ever explained
why accurately naming this system is funny. The laughter is itself a weapon of
patriarchal terrorism. It functions as a disclaimer, discounting the
significance of what is being named. It suggests that the words themselves are problematic
and not the system they describe. I interpret this laughter as the audience's
way of showing discomfort with being asked to ally themselves
with an antipatriarchal disobedient critique. This
laughter reminds me that if I dare to challenge patriarchy openly, I risk not
being taken seriously.
Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as
they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our
collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy. I often tell audiences that
if we were to go door-to-door asking if we should end male violence against women,
most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can
only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating
patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the
many gains of contemporary feminist movement-greater equality for women in the
workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles-patriarchy
as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is
needed if humans are to survive as a species. This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially
the insistence on violence as a means of social control, has actually led to
the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.
Until we can collectively
acknowledge the damage patriarchy causes and the suffering it creates, we
cannot address male pain. We cannot demand for men the right to be whole, to be
givers and sustainers of life. Obviously some patriarchal men are reliable and
even benevolent caretakers and providers, but still they are imprisoned by a
system that undermines their mental health.
Patriarchy promotes insanity. It is
at the root of the psychological ills troubling men in our nation.
Nevertheless there is no mass concern for the plight of men. In Stiffed: The Betrayal
of the American Man, Susan Faludi includes very little
discussion of patriarchy:
Ask feminists to diagnose men's problems and
you will often get a very clear explanation: men are in crisis because women
are properly challenging male dominance. Women are asking men to share the
public reins and men can't bear it. Ask antifeminists and you will get a diagnosis
that is, in one respect, similar., Men are troubled, many conservative pundits
say, because women have gone far beyond their demands for equal treatment and
are now trying to take power and control away from men.... The underlying
message: men cannot be men, only eunuchs, if they are not in control. Both the feminist
and antifeminist views are rooted in a peculiarly modern American perception
that to be a man means to be at the controls and at all times
to feel yourself in control.
Faludi never interrogates the
notion of control. She never considers that the notion that men were somehow in
control, in power, and satisfied with their lives before contemporary
feminist movement is false.
Patriarchy as a system has denied
males access to full emotional well-being, which is not the same as feeling rewarded,
successful, or powerful because of one's capacity to assert control over
others. To truly address male pain and male crisis we must as a nation be
willing to expose the harsh reality that patriarchy has damaged men in the past
and continues to damage them in the present. If patriarchy were truly rewarding
to men, the violence and addiction in family life that is so all-pervasive
would not exist. This violence was not created by feminism. If patriarchy were
rewarding, the overwhelming dissatisfaction most men feel in their work lives-a
dissatisfaction extensively documented in the work of Studs Terkel and echoed in Faludi's treatise-would
not exist.
In many ways Stiffed was yet
another betrayal of American men because Faludi
spends so much time trying not to challenge patriarchy that she fails to
highlight the necessity 'of ending patriarchy if we are to liberate men. Rather
she writes:
Instead of wondering why men resist
women's struggle for a freer and healthier life, I began to wonder why men
refrain from engaging in their own struggle. Why, despite a crescendo of random
tantrums, have they offered no methodical, reasoned response to their
predicament: Given the untenable and insulting nature of the demands placed on
men to prove themselves in our culture, why don't men revolt? . . . Why haven't
men responded to the series of betrayals in their own lives-to the failures of
their fathers to make good on their promises-with something coequal to
feminism?
Note that Faludi
does not dare risk either the ire of feminist females by suggesting that men
can find salvation in feminist movement or rejection by potential male readers
who are solidly antifeminist by suggesting that they have something to gain
from engaging feminism.
So far in our nation visionary feminist movement is the only
struggle for justice that emphasizes the need to end patriarchy. No mass body
of women has challenged patriarchy and neither has any group of men come
together to lead the struggle. The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity.
Until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any
critique of patriarchy represents a threat. Distinguishing political
patriarchy, which he sees as largely committed to ending sexism, therapist
Terrence Real makes clear that the patriarchy damaging us all is embedded in
our psyches:
Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic
between those qualities deemed "masculine" and "feminine"
in which half of our human traits are exalted while the other half is devalued.
Both men and women participate in this tortured value system. Psychological
patriarchy is a "dance of contempt," a perverse form of connection
that replaces true intimacy with complex, covert layers of dominance and
submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unacknowledged paradigm of
relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation,
deforming both sexes, and destroying the passionate bond between them.
By highlighting psychological patriarchy, we see that everyone
is implicated and we are freed from the misperception that men are the enemy.
To end patriarchy we must challenge both its psychological and its concrete
manifestations in daily life. There are folks who are able to critique patriarchy
but unable to act in an antipatriarchal manner.
To end male pain, to respond
effectively to male crisis, we have to name the problem. We have to both
acknowledge that the problem is patriarchy and work to end patriarchy.
Terrence Real offers this valuable insight: "The reclamation of wholeness
is a process even more fraught for men than it has been for women, more
difficult and more profoundly threatening to the culture at large." If men
are to reclaim the essential goodness of male being, if they are to regain the
space of openheartedness and emotional expressiveness that is the foundation of
well-being, we must envision alternatives to patriarchal masculinity. We must
all change.