Tag: Patriarchy

Accordingly to an article entitled, “More Women Are bringing Home the Bacon…, ”  heralding women’s gains in pay equity, a recent Pew study revealed that an  impressive number of married breadwinner moms reflects society’s increasing opportunities for women, while the median income for the growing population of  single mother households  is $23,000 — just 28 percent of the income of one in which the female breadwinner is married, and less than half the median household income in America.

So What Else Is New?

The wage gap between women’s and men’s individual wages is the most standard indicator used to define women’s march toward equality. In recent studies of the gender wage gap, women make between 76 to 78 cents for every dollar made by men and most literature is optimistic that the gap will disappear or even reverse in  the near future. The gender wealth gap, however, another measure of gender inequality which measures the total wealth or net worth a woman has accumulated over time,  shows that women have, on average, only 6% to 36% of the wealth owned by men and that the gap is growing.



source:http://www.cunapfi.org/download/198_Women_of_Color_Wealth_Future_Spring_2010.pdf

The stark difference between these two measures suggests two things about statistics:1) statistics on the same subject can fluctuation wildly depending on what is being measured and the methodology used and 2) One of the main functions of statistics is not to measure the reality, but as a propaganda tool to reinforce the ideology of the dominant culture.

The problem with using the wage gap . As a measure of inequality, the gender wage gap only measures an individual’s income growth in the market place and does not take into account either the worth of women’s unpaid social labor in the home(outside the marketplace) or how this unpaid labor structurally effects women’s position in the market place over time.

Because of its narrow parameter, much of the analysis of what the wage gap means in terms of the overall inequality of men versus women is merely a guess that allows for a lot of unverifiable  interpretations. For example, the recent Pew study echoes a demographic study that hit the New York Times a couple of years ago that showed  a narrowing of the wage gap, suggesting women’s wages were even surpassing men’s in some cases, especially in major cities.

The cause of women’s increased equality, the researcher suggested, was due to  increases in women’s higher educational status and increased  “feminist  consciousness.” In fact,  a closer analysis showed that the close in the wage gap was due to the outsourcing of  well paying union manufacturing jobs which had been held by men due to a sex segregated workforce. By focusing on city populations where people of color form a larger part of the database, the lower gap also reflected the fact that the wage gap is generally lower between women and men of color since men of color generally make significantly less than white men due to racism.  

An internet advice column responded to the question of a man who was uncomfortable with the idea that, assuming the two of them would marry, his girlfriend would not agree to take his last name.  The columnist deftly turns his original question around in her reply, suggesting that perhaps he should agree to take her name or that the two of them could form a new surname unique to the both of them.  Inherent in the whole of the reply is the assertion that the soon-to-be husband in question isn’t nearly as open and accepting of a woman’s right to individual choice as he thinks he is.  The major issues expressed in the column are an articulation that men who place demands upon women, especially in situations like these are speaking from a place of privilege and in so doing need to rethink their attitudes.  When politically problematic and personal choice butt heads, the two almost always clash.  

A particularly popular line of thinking states that, should a woman make a conscious decision to participate in what would at its face be a restrictive, oppressive custom, she should be allowed to do so without being criticized as somehow violating the aims of women’s rights.  Up to a point, I think this statement is justified but if one expands the application, it becomes more and more problematic.  It should be noted that not all oppressions are the same, but in an earlier post this week, I tried to draw a parallel between all systematic injustices.  If, for example, an African-American chooses consciously to dress in blackface and to participate a minstrel show, offensive and demeaning though it is, is the practice any less evil and reprehensible if it is justified by deliberate personal choice?

I write this post in response to a handful of Super Bowl commercials that I write this post in response to two or three Super Bowl commercials that aired last night.  The implication in each of them, to some degree or another, was that masculinity was under attack, the ravages of femininity were destroying machismo, or that marriage was an emasculating process that turned male virility into weak-kneed passivity.  These views are nothing new, but when they are emphasized so heavily, the general implication is quite clear.  Some must believe that men are losing control of the game and being transformed into, if not women, some hybrid form which is itself a cheap imitation to the rough and tough masculinity of the past.  Knee-jerk responses neglect to understand that in the process of achieving equality for everyone, masculinity will change in direct proportion to the way femininity has changed.  The truth is that nothing is being lost and everything is being gained, but some confuse the cause of reform with tragic destruction of the tried-and-true.

If I didn’t know better, I might buy into these wrong-headed assertions myself.  However, I happen to recognize that while an older incarnation of masculinity might have been less compelled towards public displays of sensitivity or equal deference to relationship partners, this kind of supposed supreme self-reliance also meant that men were often incapable of sharing vulnerability and thus expressing the fullest range of human expression.  Problems best talked out and shared with others were frequently kept inside, often disguised or numbed away by alcohol or other drugs.  I suppose having had a grandfather who likely struggled with bipolar himself, one who, I might add, never really ever came to terms with what he considered a shameful weakness, does makes me understand his struggle without rushing to judgment as some might do.  I don’t romanticize the masculinity of another age.  I pity it.  To me it is supremely limiting and heavily stunted.  Why anyone would wish to reinforce masculinity in such rigid, lonely terms is beyond me.    

When we talk about a Patriarchal society, we mean a societal framework designed by (usually white) men for other (usually white) men.  The scope of Patriarchy is vast and at times so invasive and omnipresent that one has a difficult time adequately stating its fullest impact upon all.  Feminist voices for years have taken much time pointing out Patriarchy’s shortcomings, especially how it callously disenfranchised women by forcing them to play by the parameters and rules of a system for which they were often ill-suited.  Their criticism, which is quite valid, states that if men were capable of designing such a fantastic system, why then does it produce so many unresolved problems?  More recently, Feminists have fought for the inclusion and incorporation of people of color, LGBTs, and other minority voices into the discussion.  It is my opinion, based on what I have observed, that any system which does not take into account multiple points of view and the unique concerns of a wide swath of people across the board will always remain imperfect and inequal.  The deepest irony of all is that the Paternalistic system as it exists now works for the well-heeled, powerful, and well-connected at the expense of almost everyone else imaginable, so many men now terrified at its supposed demise are the very same who are ground underfoot by it.  

The radical Feminists of a generation prior envisioned a superior, alternate system designed by women, but the failing in that point of view is that by being just as exclusionary as their male brethren, they managed to perpetuate only a brand new spin on the same problems.  Though I am a man, I do not find any discomfort whatsoever in spaces dominated by women, because unlike some of my same gender, I do not see gender equality as a zero sum game.  Inherent in each of those Super Bowl commercials was that belief—that in surrendering to the desires of women, they would be losing their masculinity and freedom in the process.  My hope is that other men will come to understand, as I have, that everyone’s liberation depends on maximum participation by everyone.  This includes participation in spaces, circles, and movements not often populated by white men, or, for that matter, men at all.  Still, so long as the way things have always been finds itself threatened, the same old appeals to some standard of masculine purity will be invoked.  The paradoxically unifying feature of gender inequality is that both male and female gender roles are defined as the pursuit of a kind of perfect balance that is beyond the grasp of everyone, regardless of gender identification.  Still, it is invoked frequently to chide or to lecture people to get back in line, else some kind of anarchic chaos result from it.

We know where we’re headed, and we also know that every age presents its own challenges and its own problems.  It is easier to declare a war and invoke a moral panic than to calmly examine the reality of the situation before us.  Whether it’s sexting or some perceived attack on masculine strength and independence, we ought to expect the same sorts of attacks until the end.  Names change, context differs, the sales pitch is modified slightly, but in the end, it’s really no different.  The goal is to plan for the inevitable, hope for the best, and make sure to never relinquish control of the framing.  Reform and the need for reform of any sort and in any context is ceaseless.  Let us cogently articulate our reservations, discuss our strategies, put them into action, and then wait for the next volley from the other side.  In the meantime, I fight alongside my sisters as well as my brothers and do so happily and with great purpose.      

With the slow demise of old media has also come the demise of niche media like websites which cater specifically to women’s studies and women’s interests.   Prompted by the demise of Double X, an offshoot of Slate, itself an off-shoot of the financial troubled Washington Post, one can tell  how both female-centric media and academic fields are usually the first to go in times of economic crisis, budget cutbacks, or higher education famine.  While part of me laments that such sites end up being placed first on the chopping board when revenues plummet, another part of me wonders if we are finally ready to rid ourselves of the need for specific media designed for identity group solidarity.   In another time where persecution was harsh and undeniably swift to those outside of the mainstream who dared tread into uncharted territory, I think we may be ready to draw up tentative plans for full unity.  

Last week I visited Philadelphia and the historic Arch Street Meeting House, a Quaker house of worship that prides itself as being the largest gathering in the world and the oldest still in use in the United States.   The main part of the building was separated into a larger worship space and a smaller one directly adjacent to it.   A faith committed resolutely to equality among all its members deliberately made accommodations to female attenders by giving them the option of using a women-only space during worship services.  There, ladies who would have otherwise felt constrained to speak from within their hearts and their convictions because of the close proximity of their husbands or out of fear of broaching social protocol could have a safe space of their own.  Within it they were allowed to verbalize that which they had every right to be express but too often kept inside themselves.   It need be noted, of course, that this arrangement no longer exists and that now the voices of women have been welcomed into larger fellowship.  I rejoice that progress has been made and hope it continues.

We in Western society frequently latch hold of the concerns of the Third World in a laudable desire to reform, enlighten, and correct the injustices which exists in countries who do not enjoy our same basic freedoms.  Though this impulse is meant to bring light to the darkness, we must also be careful not to let our own biases and own paternalistic impulses overshadow the good work we seek to accomplish.  When the reform we seek thinly veils our own individual internal struggles, then we are not truly working for unselfish means.  However, rather than beating ourselves up when we fall short, we would be wise to forgive our shortcomings and strive to listen more and hector less.  It is only with listening and absorbing the complete picture that truly effective change ever comes to be.  If short-cuts guaranteed successful outcomes, we’d have colonized Mars by now, viewed a time where same-sex marriage was illegal as unspeakably barbaric and nonsensical, and learned to take for granted a single payer health care system.

The controversy over women who demand the right to wear the Niqab or the burqu despite laws banning it altogether has become a highly politicized issue in Western Europe and even in our own country.  Feminist activists, particularly female feminist activists, have grabbed hold of the head scarf and veil issue as a clear-cut visual example that shows conclusive evidence of brutal Patriarchal oppression.  When sexism and anti-feminist offenses are so often disguised and ingrained within a society, the head scarf has become an endearing image to invoke due to its unquestioned visibility.  If one takes into account a purely Western point of view, nothing could be a more suitable example of the malicious intent of men harshly imposing their will upon women.  In comparing their perceived interpretation of the custom to their own lives and their own hard-fought struggles as women, they have incorporated the practice into a Raison d’etre of a particular school of thought.  This endearing symbol pushes social justice and personalizes the lack of human rights rightly due to oppressed women through the world.  The cause has been so heavily politicized and eagerly embraced that few have felt any need to examine the subtleties that sometimes contradict and frequently complicate any resounding rallying point or slam dunk.  The reality, as it so often is, is full of subtle nuances that make any black and white reading much more complicated or even impossible.

I wrote The Genocide of Matriarchal Societies in April of last year (2007), and there is some additional information I want to share along those general lines now. We’ll pick up where we left off and the answer to “Where Are All Your Women” will be made chillingly clear as to why they are “Missing In Action” after we recognize that a woman is set to be beheaded for “practicing witchcraft.” First however, we will reread the words of Archie Fire Lame Deer and relish in the scholarship of Barbara Alice Mann.