# Analysis: How did the patriarchy start – and will [[Evolution]] get rid of it? **20 September 2022**  - [ ] 10:00 - 11:00 Organise & read more #Learn ⏳ 2025-03-09 🆔 wKuVof Writing in The Conversation, Professor Ruth Mace (UCL [[Anthropology]]), delves into the ancient behavioural origins of patriarchy, and weighs whether [[Society]] can evolve beyond it.  ### Professor Ruth Mace READER QUESTION: Many people assume the patriarchy has always been there, but surely this isn’t the case? How did it really originate? Matt, 48, London. >The patriarchy, having been somewhat in retreat in parts of the world, is back in our faces . In Afghanistan, the Taliban once again prowl the streets more concerned with keeping women at home and in strict dress code than with the impending collapse of the country into famine. And on another continent, parts of the US are legislating to ensure that women can no longer have a legal abortion. In both cases, lurking `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:` patriarchal beliefs were allowed to reemerge when political leadership failed. We have an eerie feeling of travelling back through [[Time]]. But how long has patriarchy dominated our societies? The [[Status]] of women has been a long-standing point of interest in [[Anthropology]]. Contrary to common [[Belief]], research shows that the patriarchy isn’t some kind of “natural order of things” – it hasn’t always been prevalent and may in fact disappear eventually. Hunter-gatherer communities may have been relatively [[egalitarian]], at least compared to some of the regimes that followed. And female leaders and matriarchal societies have always existed. Reproduction is the currency of [[Evolution]]. But it is not only our bodies and brains that evolve – our behaviours and our cultures are also products of natural selection. To maximise their own reproductive success, for example, men have often tried to [[Control]] women, and their sexuality. In nomadic societies where there is little or no material wealth, as was the case with most hunter gatherers, a woman cannot easily be forced to stay in a partnership. She and her partner may move around together with her relatives, his relatives, or other people entirely. If unhappy, she can walk away. That could be at a cost if she has children, as paternal care helps children’s development and even survival, but she can go and live with relatives elsewhere or find a new partner without necessarily being worse off. ### The origin of [[Agriculture]] As early as 12,000 years ago in some areas, changed the game. Even relatively simple horticulture necessitated defending crops, and thus staying put. Settlement increased conflict within and between groups. For example, the Yanomamo horticulturalists in Venezuela lived in heavily fortified group households, with [[Violence|violent]] raids on neighbouring groups and “bride capture” being part of life. Where cattle-keeping evolved, the local population had to defend herds of livestock from raiding, leading to high levels of [[War|warfare]]. As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending. As population sizes grew and settled, there were coordination problems. Social inequality sometimes emerged if leaders (usually male) provided some benefits to the population, perhaps in [[War|warfare]] or serving the public [[Value|good]] in some other way. The general population, both male and female, therefore often tolerated these elites in return for help hanging on to what they had. As [[Farming]] and herding became more intensive, material wealth, now mainly controlled by men, became ever more important. Rules of kinship and descent systems became more formalised to prevent conflict within families over wealth, and marriages became more contractual. The transmission of land or livestock down the generations allowed some families to gain substantial wealth. Wealth generated by [[Farming]] and herding enabled polygyny (men having multiple wives). In contrast, women having many husbands (polyandry) was rare. In most systems, young women were the resource in demand, because they had a shorter window of being able to produce children and usually did more parental care. Men used their wealth to attract young women to the resources on offer. Men competed by paying “bridewealth” to the [[Family]] of the bride, with the result that rich men could end up with many wives while some poor men ended up single. So it was males who needed that wealth to compete for marriage partners (whereas females acquired resources needed to reproduce through their husband). If parents wanted to maximise their number of grandchildren, it made sense for them to give their wealth to their sons rather than their daughters. This lead to wealth and property being formally passed down the male line. It also meant women often ended up living far away from home with their husband’s [[Family]] after marriage. Women began to lose agency. If land, livestock and children are the property of the men, then divorce is almost impossible for women. A daughter returning to mum and dad would be unwelcome as the brideprice would need to be returned. The patriarchy was now getting a firm grip. ### Female Dispersion and Cohesion When individuals disperse away from their natal home and live with their new husband’s [[Family]], they do not have as much bargaining power within their new household than if they had stayed in their natal home. Some mathematical models suggest that female dispersal combined with a [[History]] of [[War|warfare]] favoured men being treated better than women. Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the [[emergence]] of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves. ## Hard Times & Monogamy In some [[Farming]] systems, women may have had more autonomy. Where there were limits on the availability of farmland, this may have put the brakes on polygyny, as men couldn’t afford multiple families. If farming was hard and productivity was determined more by the work put in than by how much land was owned, then women’s labour became a key requirement and couples worked together in monogamous unions. Under [[Monogamy]], if a woman marries a rich man, all his wealth goes to her offspring. So women then compete with other women for the best husbands. This is not true of polygyny, where the family wealth is shared between numerous other wives offspring, so the advantages to women of marrying a rich man are marginal. Thus marriage payment under [[Monogamy]] is in the opposite direction than it is under polygyny and takes the form of “dowry”. The parents of the bride give money to the parents of the groom, or to the couple themselves. Dowry, which is still important in much of Asia today, is the parents’ way of helping their daughters compete with other women on the marriage market. Dowry can sometimes give women more agency and [[Control]] over at least part of their [[Family]] wealth. But there is a sting in the tail. Dowry inflation can make girls expensive for parents, sometimes with dire consequences, such as families which already have daughters killing or neglecting female babies (or now female-selective abortion). There were other consequences of [[Monogamy]] too. As wealth was still passed down the male line to children of one wife, males did all they could to ensure that those children were theirs. They did not want to unwittingly invest their wealth in the offspring of another man. So women’s sexuality became strongly policed as a result. Keeping women away from men (purdah), or placing them in religious “cloisters” such as monasteries (claustration) in India, or 2,000 years of binding women’s feet to keep them small in China, may all be the results of this. And in the current context, banning abortion makes sexual [[Relationships]] potentially costly, trapping people in marriages and hindering women’s career prospects. It is relatively rare for wealth to be passed down the female line, but such societies do exist. These female-centred systems tend to be in somewhat marginal environments where there is little wealth to physically compete over. For example, there are areas in [[Africa]] known as the “matrilineal belt” where the tetse fly made it impossible to keep cattle. In some of these matrilineal systems in Africa, men remain a powerful force in households, but it is older brothers and uncles who try to [[Control]] women rather than husbands or fathers. But in general, women do have more power. Societies with an absence of males for much of the time, due to long distance travel or high mortality risks, for example due to dangerous ocean fishing in Polynesia, or warfare in some Native American communities, have also been associated with matriliny. # Matriarchal Systems Women in matriarchal system often draw on the support of their mothers and siblings, rather than their husbands, to help raise children. Such “communal breeding” by women, as seen for example in some matrilineal groups in China, makes men less interested (in an evolutionary sense) in investing in the household, as the households include not only their wife’s children, but many other women’s children to whom they aren’t related. This weakens marriage bonds, and makes it easier to pass down wealth between female relatives. Women are also less controlled sexually in such societies as paternity certainty is less of a concern if women control the wealth and pass it to their daughters. In matrilineal societies, both men and women can mate polygamously. The matrilineal Himba of southern Africa have some of the highest rates of babies produced in this way. Even in urban settings today, high male unemployment often sets up more female-centred living arrangements, with mothers helping daughters to raise their children and grandchildren, but frequently in relative poverty. But the introduction of material wealth, which can be controlled by men, has often pushed matrilineal systems to [[Change]] to patrilineal ones. # The role of religion The view of patriarchy I have outlined here may appear to downplay the role of [[Religion]]. Religions are frequently prescriptive about [[Sex]] and the [[Family]]. For example, polygynous marriage is accepted in Islam and not in Christianity. But the origins of diverse cultural systems around the world cannot simply be explained by religion. Islam arose in the year AD610 in a part of the world (the Arabian peninsula) then inhabited by nomadic pastoralist groups where polygamous marriage was common, whereas Christianity emerged within the Roman [[Empires]] where monogamous marriage was already the norm. So while religious institutions definitely help to enforce such rules, it is hard to make the case that religions were the original cause. Ultimately, the cultural inheritance of religious norms, or indeed of any norms, can maintain harsh social prejudices long after their original cause is gone. What is clear is that norms, attitudes and [[Culture]] have a huge effect on behaviour. They can and do [[Change]] over time, especially if the underlying [[Ecology]] or [[Economics|economy]] changes. But some norms become entrenched over [[Time]] and are therefore slow to change. # Modernity As recently as the 1970s, children of unmarried mothers in the UK were taken from them and shipped to Australia (where they were placed in religious institutions or put up for adoption). Recent research also shows how disrespect for women’s authority is still rampant in European and American societies that [[pride]] themselves in gender equality. That said, it is clear that gender norms are becoming much more flexible and the patriarchy is unpopular with many men and women in much of the world. Many are questioning the very institution of marriage. Birth [[Control]] and reproductive rights for women give women, and also men, more freedom. While polygamous marriage is now rare, polygamous mating is of course quite common, and is perceived as a threat by incels and social conservatives alike. What’s more, men increasingly want to be part of their children’s lives, and appreciate not having to do the lion’s share of providing for their families. Many are therefore sharing or even taking on the full weight of child-rearing and housework. Simultaneously we see more women confidently gaining positions of power in the world of work. As men and women both increasingly generate their own wealth, the old patriarchy is finding it harder to [[Control]] women. The logic of male-biased investment by parents is gravely injured if girls benefit equally from formal [[Education]] and job opportunities are open to all. The future is hard to predict. [[Anthropology]] and [[History]] do not progress in predictable, linear ways. Wars, famines, epidemics or innovations are always lurking and have predictable and unpredictable consequences for our lives. The patriarchy isn’t inevitable. We do need institutions to help us solve the world’s problems. But if the wrong people come to power, the patriarchy can regenerate. This article was first published in [_The Conversation_](https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-of-it-189648) on 20 September 2022. ## Links - Original article in [_The Conversation_](https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-of-it-189648) - [More: BBC](https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-62969797) # historical reasons and mechanisms by which men have imposed patriarchy. The historical rise of patriarchy has been explored by numerous scholars across [[Anthropology]], [[Sociology]], [[History]], and gender studies. Below is an overview of how patriarchy developed, alongside key thinkers and texts that have analyzed its origins and mechanisms. 1. The Transition from Hunter-Gatherer Societies to Agriculture • Prehistoric gender roles were likely more [[egalitarian]], as seen in studies of hunter-gatherer societies (e.g., Marija Gimbutas, The Civilization of the Goddess). • With the rise of [[Agriculture]] (~10,000 BCE), land ownership became central to economic survival. Men, who controlled plowing and herding, monopolised land, resources, and decision-making (Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy). • Eleanor Leacock (Myths of Male Dominance) challenged the idea that patriarchy was universal, arguing that early societies had more gender balance before economic stratification. 2. The Rise of Private Property and Inheritance Laws • Friedrich Engels ([[The Origin of the Family]], Private Property, and the State) argued that patriarchy arose with class divisions, where men sought to ensure their property was inherited by their biological offspring. • Patrilineal inheritance systems developed, and controlling women’s sexuality became crucial to guaranteeing paternity (Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy). 3. The Emergence of Patriarchal Religious and Legal Systems • Many of the earliest legal codes institutionalised male dominance: • The Code of Hammurabi (~1750 BCE, Mesopotamia): Defined women as property and enforced strict punishments for female adultery. • Ancient Greek and Roman law: Restricted women’s legal rights (e.g., [[Aristotle]] considered women inferior, and Roman law placed women under the authority of fathers or husbands). • Judith Butler (Gender Trouble) critiques how gender roles have been reinforced through cultural and religious discourse. 4. Military Power and the Association of Men with Warfare • Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens) suggests that early societies were not necessarily patriarchal, but once military power became central, male warriors dominated leadership roles. • Gerda Lerner links the rise of patriarchy to the enslavement of women as [[War]] prizes, where they were treated as property. 5. Control of Women’s Sexuality and Reproduction • [[Michel Foucault]] (The History of Sexuality) argues that patriarchal societies regulate sexuality to maintain power structures. • Simone de Beauvoir ([[The Second Sex]]) discusses how women have been relegated to the “Other”, with their value tied to their reproductive role. • Practices such as veiling (Purdah), foot binding (China), and FGM were enforced as means of control, ensuring male dominance over women’s bodies. 6. Industrialisation and the Reinforcement of the ‘Separate Spheres’ [[Ideology]] • [[The Industrial Revolution]] (18th–19th century) shifted economic power further towards men, as work moved from farms to factories. • John Stuart Mill (The Subjection of Women) critiqued the exclusion of women from political and economic life, calling it unjust and unnatural. • The “public vs. private sphere” ideology confined women to domestic roles while laws restricted their access to work, education, and political rights. 7. Modern Institutions and Cultural Narratives • Betty Friedan (The Feminine Mystique) argued that 20th-century media and advertising reinforced traditional gender roles, keeping women confined to domesticity. • bell hooks (Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center) critiqued how patriarchal systems affect not only women but also men of lower social classes and racial minorities. • Pierre Bourdieu (Masculine Domination) examined how institutions and cultural practices perpetuate patriarchy through everyday norms and expectations. Yes, [[Max Weber]] (1864–1920) analyzed patriarchal authority within the broader framework of power and legitimacy in societies. His work helps explain how traditional power structures reinforce male dominance through legal, economic, and religious means. Weber’s Analysis of Patriarchy • In Economy and Society, Weber identified three types of authority: 1. Traditional Authority – Based on customs and long-standing traditions. Patriarchy falls into this category, as male dominance is often justified by historical continuity. 2. Charismatic Authority – Based on the personal power of a leader (e.g., religious prophets, revolutionary figures). 3. Legal-Rational Authority – Based on formal rules and bureaucratic structures. Modern states tend to function this way. • Patriarchal Authority as Traditional Authority • Weber argued that patriarchy is deeply embedded in traditional authority systems, where male dominance is seen as “natural” due to long-standing social customs. • These systems often justify male power through religion, cultural norms, and legal codes rather than individual merit. • In pre-industrial societies, family structures were often patriarchal hierarchies, where fathers or male heads controlled economic and social decisions. • The Role of Bureaucracy and Capitalism • Weber noted that while capitalism and bureaucratic structures could erode some traditional forms of patriarchy (e.g., by granting women economic independence), they also created new forms of gendered oppression. • Legal and economic institutions, even when modernized, often remained structured in ways that privileged male participation in politics, business, and leadership roles. Weber’s Influence on Gender Studies While Weber himself did not focus extensively on gender, his work has influenced later feminist scholars, such as: • Sylvia Walby (Theorizing Patriarchy), who expanded on Weber’s ideas to argue that patriarchy is maintained through intersecting structures of law, economy, and culture. • Carole Pateman (The Sexual Contract), who critiqued Weberian notions of authority by showing how the modern state continues to institutionalise male dominance in public and private life. Weber’s framework helps explain why patriarchy persists even as societies modernise. His analysis of traditional authority, bureaucracy, and capitalism reveals how male dominance is embedded in social institutions, reinforcing power structures that limit gender equality. Conclusion Patriarchy developed through economic shifts, inheritance structures, warfare, religious doctrines, and legal systems that granted men control over resources and social institutions. Scholars such as Gerda Lerner, Simone de Beauvoir, Friedrich Engels, Judith Butler, and [[Michel Foucault]] have explored how historical forces shaped male dominance, while modern feminist thinkers continue to critique and challenge these systems today. Yes, Sylvia Walby, in Theorizing Patriarchy (1990), built on Durkheim’s ideas about the division of labor but challenged his view that it was merely functional for society. Instead, she argued that patriarchy is an active system of oppression, embedded in multiple institutions. Walby’s Critique of Durkheim and Functionalism • Durkheim saw gender roles as necessary for social cohesion, with men in the public sphere (work, politics) and women in the private sphere (home, morality). • Walby rejected the idea that this division was “natural” or merely functional, arguing that it was a mechanism of domination that systematically excluded women from power. Walby’s Concept of Patriarchy as a System • Unlike earlier feminist theorists who viewed patriarchy mainly in terms of family structures, Walby developed a broader framework. • She identified six interrelated structures that sustain patriarchy: 1. Household Production – Women’s unpaid domestic labor maintains male dominance. 2. Paid Work – Women are segregated into low-paying jobs and face a wage gap. 3. The State – Legal and political systems historically privilege men. 4. Violence – Gender-based violence enforces male dominance. 5. Sexuality – Social norms regulate women’s bodies and sexual behavior. 6. Culture – Media, religion, and education reinforce gender norms. Key Contribution: Public vs. Private Patriarchy • Walby distinguished between two forms of patriarchy: • Private Patriarchy – Dominance within the household (e.g., male control over wives, economic dependence). • Public Patriarchy – Patriarchy shifting into institutions like workplaces, politics, and media, where women are structurally disadvantaged even when they enter public life. • This distinction helped explain why even when women gained legal rights, they still faced systemic barriers. Influence on Feminist Theory • Walby’s work was influential in modern feminist sociology, building on thinkers like: • Gerda Lerner (The Creation of Patriarchy), who explored the historical origins of male dominance. • Heidi Hartmann (The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism), who argued that patriarchy and capitalism work together. • Walby provided a more dynamic and institutional analysis, showing that patriarchy adapts rather than disappears. Conclusion By expanding on Durkheim’s insights about labor and social roles, Walby showed that gender divisions are not neutral or functional, but actively oppressive. Her framework remains essential for understanding how patriarchy operates across multiple domains of society. # Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), developed a key argument about the emergence of patriarchy and its relationship to private property and inheritance. Engels, building on the work of his partner Karl Marx, suggested that patriarchy was historically contingent and arose as a consequence of economic and class structures, particularly with the development of private property. Engels’ Argument on the Emergence of Patriarchy 1. The Transition to Private Property • Engels argued that in early primitive communism, human societies were egalitarian, with no private ownership of land or goods. In such societies, gender roles were more fluid, and both men and women contributed to survival through collective efforts in hunting, gathering, and communal labor. • With the rise of agriculture and the domestication of animals, property began to accumulate, and ownership became central to economic survival. Men, due to physical strength and the ability to perform more labor-intensive tasks, began to control land, animals, and wealth. 2. Patriarchy and the Control of Inheritance • Engels argued that as wealth accumulation became tied to private property, men sought to ensure the inheritance of their property by their biological children. • This created a need for paternity certainty. As a result, women’s sexuality had to be controlled, ensuring that children were the biological offspring of men, thus guaranteeing inheritance. • To maintain control over inheritance, patriarchy emerged as a system that subordinated women, limiting their independence and relegating them to domestic roles where they were dependent on men. • Marriage became a contractual arrangement that tied women to male heads of households, consolidating wealth and power within male-dominated family units. 3. The Rise of the State • Engels also connected the rise of patriarchy to the formation of the state. • As private property accumulated, a centralized authority (the state) was needed to regulate and protect property rights. Engels argued that state power was not neutral but rather a tool of the ruling class (initially male-dominated) that enforced laws upholding private property, marriage, and the subjugation of women. • The state’s role in legitimizing private property further entrenched the patriarchal order, as it continued to protect men’s control over wealth and reproduction. Engels’ Legacy and Influence 1. Historical Materialism • Engels’ analysis of patriarchy as a historical and material development became a cornerstone for Marxist feminism. He suggested that the economy, class structure, and ownership relations were the driving forces behind social hierarchies, including patriarchy. • Marxist feminist scholars, such as Heidi Hartmann and Sylvia Walby, have expanded on Engels’ insights to explore how patriarchy is intertwined with economic systems like capitalism. 2. Patriarchy as a Social Construct • Engels’ work influenced later feminist scholars, particularly in critiquing the idea that patriarchy was a natural or biologically determined phenomenon. Instead, patriarchy was seen as socially constructed and rooted in the economic needs of private property ownership. • Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex) took Engels’ ideas further, advocating for the abolition of the family unit and the radical reorganization of society to eliminate gendered divisions of labor. Conclusion In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels argued that patriarchy was not a timeless, universal system but a historical development linked to economic changes. As private property and inheritance became central to social organization, men sought to secure their wealth and property through the subjugation of women. Engels’ work laid the groundwork for understanding patriarchy as a system of oppression tied to economic and class relations, shaping later feminist critiques of both patriarchy and capitalism. # Raewyn Connell (born 1944) Connell introduced the concept of hegemonic masculinity in her 1987 work, Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Her concept is foundational in understanding how male dominance is perpetuated not only through economic and political structures but also through cultural norms, institutions, and interpersonal behaviors. Connell’s work significantly advanced the study of gender by focusing on how masculinity itself is constructed and how certain forms of masculinity are privileged over others. Hegemonic Masculinity 1. Definition of Hegemonic Masculinity • Hegemonic masculinity refers to the dominant form of masculinity in a particular culture, which is seen as the ideal or norm. It is culturally exalted and generally assumes the superiority of men over women and the subordination of other, non-dominant forms of masculinity (e.g., gay, working-class, or non-Western masculinities). • Hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily practiced by the majority of men, but it represents the idealized version of masculinity that society elevates and that men strive to achieve, often to gain social power, prestige, and validation. 2. How Hegemonic Masculinity is Maintained • Cultural Norms: Hegemonic masculinity is upheld by media portrayals, cultural ideals, and patriarchal ideologies that valorize specific traits like dominance, toughness, independence, and heterosexuality. These cultural representations shape what is seen as “acceptable” masculinity and enforce conformity. • Institutions: Social institutions such as the family, the workplace, and the military play a role in reinforcing hegemonic masculinity. These institutions often structure power dynamics in ways that elevate men, especially those who embody dominant masculine traits. For instance, gendered divisions of labor in the workplace often privilege men in leadership positions while relegating women to subordinate roles. • Interpersonal Behaviour: On an individual level, hegemonic masculinity is perpetuated through everyday interactions where men are encouraged to adopt aggressive or competitive behavior, to avoid traits seen as feminine (e.g., emotional vulnerability, caregiving), and to assert dominance over women and men who do not conform to these norms. 3. Subordinated Masculinities • Connell introduced the idea that there is not just one form of masculinity, but rather a hierarchy of masculinities. While hegemonic masculinity is the dominant ideal, there are other forms of masculinity that are subordinate or marginalized (e.g., working-class masculinities, gay masculinities, and racially marginalized masculinities). • These subordinate masculinities are often devalued, and men who do not conform to the hegemonic ideal of masculinity may face social exclusion, discrimination, or violence. 4. Hegemony and Power • Connell’s theory of hegemony draws on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, which explains how ruling groups in society maintain their dominance not through coercion alone, but through consent and cultural influence. In the case of hegemonic masculinity, this means that men may not always have to exert direct control over women or other men but rather, the idea of hegemonic masculinity is so ingrained in the culture that it becomes self-reinforcing. • This concept also allows Connell to argue that patriarchy is not monolithic; it is contingent upon the social construction of masculinity and femininity in different times and places. Impact on Gender Studies 1. Broadening the Scope of Masculinity Studies • Connell’s work was groundbreaking because it shifted the focus from women and their oppression under patriarchy to the dynamics of male dominance itself. By emphasizing the construction of masculinity, Connell helped to create a more nuanced analysis of gender inequality that included how masculinity, as a social construct, is interwoven with power. • She also highlighted that masculinities are not homogeneous; rather, multiple masculinities exist within society, each competing for social validation. 2. Influence on Feminist and Queer Theories • Connell’s work is influential in feminist and queer theory, especially in how it addresses masculinity not as a fixed biological category but as a socially constructed identity that is performed and negotiated. • Feminist theorists, such as Judith Butler, who theorizes about the performativity of gender, have drawn from Connell’s work to discuss how gender roles and identities are enacted and policed through cultural norms. 3. Practical Implications for Social Change • Connell’s work has been used by activists and scholars to challenge rigid gender roles and the masculine ideals that underlie many forms of gendered violence. • For example, the idea of hegemonic masculinity has been applied to critique masculine norms that contribute to toxic behaviors such as aggression, emotional repression, and gender violence. Efforts to deconstruct hegemonic masculinity aim to promote more inclusive and egalitarian forms of masculinity, which can challenge male violence and social inequality. Conclusion Raewyn Connell’s hegemonic masculinity theory remains a central framework for understanding how male dominance is maintained in society. By analyzing the intersections of culture, institutions, and interpersonal behavior, Connell showed how gender norms construct idealized forms of masculinity that uphold patriarchy and marginalize alternative masculinities. Her work continues to influence feminist, sociological, and gender studies, providing valuable insights into how masculinities are shaped by and contribute to larger structures of power and inequality. # Judith Butler (1956–) A pivotal figure in contemporary gender theory, particularly known for her groundbreaking work in queer theory and feminist philosophy. In her 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Butler argued that gender is not an innate, fixed attribute, but rather a social construct that is created through repeated performances and cultural practices. This work has had a profound influence on how gender is understood and theorized, particularly challenging traditional, binary notions of male and female. Key Ideas from Gender Trouble (1990) 1. Gender as a Social Construct • Butler famously argued that gender is not something one is, but rather something one does. She posited that gender identity is not an expression of a pre-existing reality, but is instead something that is constructed through repeated actions and performances. In this way, gender is performative—it is not a stable identity but an ongoing series of acts, gestures, and behaviors that are culturally associated with masculinity and femininity. • The concept of performative gender suggests that the roles and behaviors traditionally associated with “men” and “women” are not inherent traits but socially regulated performances that occur within specific cultural contexts. 2. Critique of the Binary Gender Model • One of Butler’s central critiques in Gender Trouble is the binary model of gender (i.e., the division of people into strictly defined categories of male and female). She argued that this binary system is restrictive and artificial, reinforcing a limited understanding of gendered identities and excluding those who do not conform to these categories. • Butler’s queer theory rejects the idea that gender can be understood through binary oppositions (man vs. woman, masculine vs. feminine). She argued that gender is fluid, and the insistence on binary categories upholds heteronormativity and patriarchy. 3. Performativity and Repetition • Central to Butler’s theory is the notion that gender is performed. She borrowed from the philosopher Michel Foucault, who emphasized that power is not just repressive but also productive. Similarly, Butler suggested that gender is not something one has but rather something one does repeatedly. Gender is constituted by ritualized actions, and these performances are repeated over time, creating the illusion of a stable gender identity. • This repetition of gendered behaviors (like the way people speak, dress, or act) solidifies gender norms and makes them seem natural, when in fact they are contingent and socially constructed. 4. Subversion of Identity • Butler argued that if gender identity is a performance, it can also be subverted. By disrupting and challenging the normal practices that enforce traditional gender roles, individuals can open up spaces for new and more diverse forms of gender expression. • Drag performances are a well-known example Butler uses to illustrate how gender norms can be undermined. In drag, individuals perform exaggerated versions of gender that challenge the very idea of authentic gender and highlight the constructed nature of gender identity. 5. Implications for Feminism and LGBTQ+ Theory • Butler’s theory of performativity had significant implications for feminist and LGBTQ+ theory, as it offered a way to think beyond the traditional categories of woman and man, encouraging a more inclusive understanding of gender identity. • By rejecting the idea of a stable gender identity, Butler’s work opened up possibilities for gender fluidity and non-binary identities, which had historically been marginalized or excluded in mainstream gender discourse. Influence and Legacy 1. Deconstruction of Gender Norms • Butler’s theory of gender performativity has been a critical tool in deconstructing rigid gender norms and challenging the conventional understanding of gender roles. It has influenced a wide range of academic fields, including sociology, political science, philosophy, and queer theory. • Her work encourages social change by recognizing that gender norms are not inevitable but rather socially enforced. If gender is performative, it means there is potential for social transformation through different performances of gender. 2. Queer Theory and Non-Binary Identities • Butler’s ideas have been influential in the development of queer theory, especially in its critique of heteronormativity—the assumption that heterosexuality is the only natural, normal, and legitimate sexual orientation. By focusing on the fluidity of gender and sexual identities, Butler’s work has opened the door for more inclusive, non-binary, and gender-expansive identities to be recognized. • Her theory challenges the conventional categories of male/female, masculine/feminine, and heterosexual/homosexual, encouraging a more open and diverse conception of human sexuality and identity. 3. Controversy and Critique • While Butler’s work has been immensely influential, it has also been the subject of criticism. Some scholars argue that her emphasis on performativity neglects the material realities of gender, particularly the ways in which biological differences may influence gendered experiences. Others critique her work for being too abstract and difficult to apply in practical terms. • However, despite these critiques, Butler’s ideas remain central to contemporary discussions of gender and identity, particularly in academic and activist circles. Conclusion Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble revolutionized the way we think about gender. By challenging the notion that gender is an inherent trait and instead proposing that it is a performative act constructed through repetition, Butler has radically reshaped feminist and queer theory. Her work encourages a more fluid, inclusive understanding of gender and opens the door for challenging traditional gender norms and embracing a broader spectrum of gender identities. Through her work, Butler has contributed to the destabilization of gender binaries and provided a framework for thinking about gender as something that is constructed, not given. # Gerda Lerner (1920–2013) In The Creation of Patriarchy (1986), Gerda Lerner explored the historical roots of patriarchy, arguing that male dominance has been institutionalized over centuries through the development of laws, religion, and cultural narratives. Lerner’s work was pivotal in showing how patriarchy was not a natural state but a historical process that evolved as societies shifted from matrilineal to patrilineal systems. 1. The Emergence of Patriarchy • Lerner traces patriarchy’s origins back to early civilizations, especially in the transition from matrilineal societies (where lineage and inheritance were passed through women) to patrilineal systems (where inheritance and power were transferred through men). • She contends that private property, the formation of class structures, and the rise of state systems helped establish male dominance. 2. Cultural and Religious Roles • Religion played a key role in the institutionalization of patriarchy by codifying gender roles. Judeo-Christian teachings, in particular, reinforced the subordination of women and promoted male authority as divinely ordained. • Cultural narratives, myths, and laws were used to normalize the idea that men were natural rulers and women were destined for domestic roles. 3. Patriarchy as a Social Construct • Lerner argued that patriarchy must be understood not as an innate system but as a constructed social order. The legal and economic systems of Western civilization were specifically designed to exclude women from holding power, perpetuating male dominance in all areas of life. # Carole Pateman (1940–) In The Sexual Contract (1988), Carole Pateman extended the social contract theory and examined how the foundational contracts that shaped Western political thought and society have historically excluded women. She argued that these contracts—written by and for men—legitimized male control over women and provided a framework for gendered subordination. 1. The Social Contract and Gender • The social contract, often associated with philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, [[John Locke]], and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, outlined the relationships between individuals and the state. However, Pateman showed that these contracts were never meant to apply to women, who were viewed as subordinate. • The contractual basis for society was predicated on male freedom and autonomy while women were excluded from these rights and privileges. This exclusion served to perpetuate male control over women’s bodies, labor, and sexuality. 2. The Sexual Contract • Pateman introduced the concept of the sexual contract, which she saw as a hidden dimension of the social contract. It argued that men’s domination over women is not only political and legal but also sexual. • She focused on how the institution of marriage and the sexual division of labor were legitimized through social contracts, making patriarchy an intrinsic part of modern political systems. 3. The Legacy of the Sexual Contract • Pateman’s work is foundational in feminist political theory, particularly for analyzing how liberal democratic systems historically entrenched male authority through legal frameworks and cultural norms. She challenged traditional political theory’s assumptions about equality, liberty, and the social order by showing that gender was always a central factor in shaping these concepts. # bell hooks (1952–2021) bell hooks was a leading feminist thinker who critiqued how patriarchy is not only a system of male dominance but also how it intersects with race and class. In works like The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love (2004), she discussed how patriarchy harms men by imposing narrow definitions of masculinity and limiting their ability to express emotions and build meaningful relationships. 1. Patriarchy and Intersectionality • bell hooks was a pioneering voice in intersectionality, the concept that gender, race, and class do not function independently but are deeply intertwined. She critiqued how white patriarchal structures often marginalize Black and working-class men, who experience oppression both within patriarchal systems and through racism and economic inequality. • Her work in Feminism is for Everybody (2000) emphasized the need for a feminist vision of justice that acknowledges and confronts the complexities of race, class, and gender. 2. Masculinity and the Patriarchy • In The Will to Change, hooks addressed how patriarchy harms men by dictating a rigid script of masculinity that demands emotional repression, aggression, and dominance. This leads men to suffer from emotional isolation, violence, and emotional illiteracy. • She argued that true masculinity must be redefined to include the ability to love, express vulnerability, and form equitable relationships with women and other men. 3. Feminism and Social Change • hooks framed feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression, advocating for a society that is more compassionate, inclusive, and equitable. She linked feminist principles with broader social justice movements, emphasizing how patriarchy cannot be dismantled without addressing the interconnected forms of oppression based on race, class, and sexuality. Conclusion The works of Gerda Lerner, Carole Pateman, and bell hooks represent foundational contributions to feminist theory and the study of patriarchy. Each scholar critiqued how male dominance is institutionalized and legitimized in society, whether through laws, cultural narratives, sexual contracts, or race and class dynamics. • Lerner provided a historical analysis of how patriarchy was constructed and maintained over centuries. • Pateman exposed how social and sexual contracts were designed to exclude women and legitimize male control. • bell hooks illuminated the intersectional nature of patriarchy, highlighting how race and class contribute to different experiences of gender oppression. Their combined works provide a nuanced understanding of how patriarchy operates and its pervasive effects across society, culture, and politics. --- # Some key figures include: Classic Sociologists & Early Theorists • • Historical & Institutional Studies Would you like research focusing on a particular era or mechanism (e.g., legal systems, economic structures, or cultural narratives)?