06The Creation of Patriarchy: A Discussion of Origin
The Creation of Patriarchy: A Discussion of Origin The exact year is unknown, but the time existed thousands of years ago. Tribes of humans have begun to populate different parts of the world all having origins back in Africa. Men, women, and children make up these groupings that all work together as a community. Their main goal: Survival. At this point in time, the means for survival were hard to come by and each person within the group held great responsibilities in order help propagate the survival of their group and ultimately the species. It is in this point of time that I believe the beginnings of patriarchy can be seen. In the following pages, I will use the story of a specific tribe of people to illustrate where I think the origins of patriarchy began while using reference to Gerda Lerner’s (1986) The Creation of Patriarchy. From this story, I will demonstrate why I believe that the biological functional differences between men and women were the beginnings of patriarchy. These biological differences will include female menstruation, pregnancy, and child-rearing as the basis of discussion. This tribe or community of people are located in the harsh environment of Africa among the dangerous wild animals near a rainforest. Men and women divide the laborious tasks which must be done to foster the wellbeing and survival of the community. Men became the hunters and women became the gathers along with the main parent in child-rearing. Even though there was a distinct divide in tasks among men and women within these groupings, Gerda Lerner (1986) states: “The tasks performed by both sexes are indispensable to group survival, and both sexes are regarded as equal in status in most aspects. In such societies, the sexes are considered ‘complementary’; their roles and status are different, but equal” (p. 18). In this tribe like many others, the women in their gathering provide on average 60% or more food for the tribe than men (p. 21). Even so, the men hold the more dangerous job that puts them right in the front of the battle against the wild. When the hunters bring back meat, it is like a celebration—-eating meat is a special occasion when most of their diet is from gathering. When the men come back from a hunting expedition successful and unharmed, it should receive great congratulation. The division of the “dangerous” jobs is strictly divided between the sexes, putting them men in the position of having a duty to do a specific job (such as hunting) in order to provide for and protect the women and children. This division is not just an arbitrary creation, it has origins, and those origins are in biology. When men and women grow to maturity, their bodies which were once very similar become drastically different. Both sexes grow more hair, become taller, grow permanent teeth and become stronger. Men grow more lean muscle and carry a small amount of fat on their bodies; women grow breasts and carry more fat on their bodies. But the biological difference between men and women at puberty that has the most implication is female menstruation. Every 28 days, women begin to bleed from their vaginas as their uterus gets rid of the tissue that was created during the last cycle. This tissue is created on the lining of the uterus each month to facilitate in pregnancy if an egg is fertilized. This bleeding, contemporarily called a “period,” can range from light to heavy. In modern times, women have disposable sanitary napkins and tampons and even have certain types of birth control which can stop menstruation completely. However, back during this time when this tribe of the story takes place, these types of conveniences did not exist. Women would improvise in order to continue on with their routine even when menstruating. However, as it is today, it is a hindrance, but even more so back then. But this was more than merely an annoyance, it also put women in danger. The scent of blood is an alluring scent to some predators. When animals in the wild are bleeding from injury, they become a target not only because they are weak but because some predators can smell the blood. The same goes for women when they are menstruating. There are modern day stories of women being killed by animals because the scent of blood lured the predator to them. These stories include a woman and her friend were mulled by a bear in their sleep when it smelled blood. Thousands of years ago when people lived in the wild and were not guaranteed survival against predators with the use of modern technology such as guns, this type of worry was probably very real and held significant implication upon the creation of divisions in the sexes and ultimately patriarchy. When hunting, hunters do their best in order to sneak up on their prey. Usually the prey is weaker than the hunter, like a gazelle, and does not pose too much threat. However, it is the other animals which could be hunting the hunters that pose the most threat. Lions, tigers, leopards, certain types of primates, and etc all can make the hunters the hunted. If a woman were hunting and menstruating, it puts her at a heavy disadvantage as the scent of her blood, which was probably more potent than it is today without contemporary protection with sanitary products, can attract dangerous animals. Women every month from puberty to probably death (since they did not live that long) save months of pregnancy, had a time between 3-7 days when she became a target for predators. Also, as some women suffer from today, menstruation can bring physical discomfort that can range from mild to severe. Even women who are not taking care of children were not usually hunters, it was purely a mans job. I think because women go through the natural process of menstruation that created this division in labor. Not only that, but that because women were more vulnerable to attract predators, the men or the tribe may have felt they needed to protect the women from harm as they became more susceptible. This sentiment probably extended past the division of labor and into the creation of warriors (men) who protected the tribe from harm. But the hindrance of biological nature doesn’t stop there. When women become impregnated as well do they become more vulnerable. In this tribe, when women became pregnant, they continued on their duties as they did before. In the beginning of the pregnancy, the women do not show much change in their abilities. However, as it is today, pregnancy can cause dramatic changes in a woman’s health. Pregnancy can make women nauseous and throw up (sometimes all throughout pregnancy), headaches, backaches, tender breasts, fatigue, bladder and kidney infections, leg cramps, dizziness, weakness, changes in sleep, and a myriad of other symptoms that can be unique to every women. Pregnancy is not easy and can even cause death in some women from such problems such as pre-eclampsia infections, ectopic pregnancies, poor nutrition, anemia, and etc (Maternal Morality). As women get closer to delivery, their abilities can become hindered especially by her growing girth. This is a process of life that men do not have to go through which keeps them constantly within good health (or “feeling good”) as long as they are not suffering ailments from illness or injury. Because men do not have the possibility of becoming pregnant thus becoming more weak and vulnerable, they are prime candidates for dangerous jobs such as hunting and protecting including from animals and other tribes. It is also in the process of childbirth that shows the ultimately and unfortunately vulnerability that women have. In contemporary times, mortality rates of the mother during childbirth is still a statistic, even with modern medicine. In documented history, the amount of deaths during childbirth is sometimes staggering, being one of the most commons ways women died. Back in time where this story takes place, there was nothing that helped women through childbirth. It is the most painful process the human body has to go through, though it is one of the most natural. However, even though it is the most natural, the amount of complications that exist is staggering. Here a few common examples of situations that endanger the mother and babies life: A baby is not position right (is breeched); a woman’s pelvis is not big enough for the head to pass through; and hemorrhaging (Maternal Mortality). This type of vulnerability which was obviously evident in society could be a great factor for the creation of patriarchy. Not only in the fact that men maybe felt the need to protect women, but that women may have been seen as weaker because of their biological hindrances which could cause their death. If a mother does survive childbirth, then she exists as the child’s primary caregiver. Women do most of the childrearing in this tribe. Even during their normal duties such as gathering, they’ll have a baby strapped to them to be attached to her breast when the baby cries. Because the woman has the breast the gives the nutrients to the babies, this natural process as well may have determined her expectation to be the primary care-giver of the child. At this point, the mother becomes the main protect of the baby (and the men the protects of the women). Because babies are very vulnerable, even nowadays, the mothers have to be more careful and protective; the vulnerabilities that the babies have may have been transferred to the women. So women and children may have been distinguish as the most vulnerable, and outside of women’s biological hindrances of menstruation and pregnancy, the fact that they are attached to the care and protection of the child may put them in the same grouping of vulnerability as the children. Another reason why women did not hunt is because many of the women would have an infant with her at all times which was fussy and unpredictable. In hunting, the hunters must be quiet and swift, and with a baby coming along, the cries of an infant would surely scare away any prey and possibly attract the attention of predators. Therefore, because women were the main parent in childrearing, the vulnerabilities attached to a child are transferred to the women who is now in charge of the child as their protector and provider, especially during infancy. It is through these biological factors determined by nature that I believe patriarchy was created. Because women have hindrances upon their bodies that men do not have, women may have been more vulnerable in nature. Women do not escape this vulnerability at any point in their lives: As children they are small, weak, and in need of a caregiver; at puberty they begin to bleed and create the scent of blood every month which could attract predators; during pregnancy they become strained by the growing fetus and are vulnerable to pregnancy complications that could result in death; at birth, women have a high probability of complications that could result in death of herself and/or the infant; during childrearing, the vulnerabilities of the child they care for makes themselves vulnerable; in old age (if they live that long), they become weak with age and more susceptible to bone breakage from menopause. With the natural process that women have to create life comes some fallbacks. In ancient societies, these fallbacks became innate vulnerabilities that probably determined their roles and created patriarchy. The process of patriarchy was probably created as way to protect the women and help the tribe survive; nowadays, when these natural process are not as much of a hindrance, the continuation of patriarchy is outdated and has through thousands of years created an unfair social balance. In no way do I believe as the traditionalists do that women were determined to be weaker therefore should be held back from contemporary opportunities such as work and schooling. However, I can see that “Menstruation and menopause, even pregnancy, [can be] regarded as debilitating” because these processes can make women more susceptible to health problems that can make them physically weaker and even die (p. 18). Even though women do have these natural processes that sometimes make them more vulnerable, it is no reason for women to be considered inferior or incapable in a society that has more than the goal to survive in a harsh environment from attacks from animals.
Lerner (1986) does not go into much detail into the issues I have presented here thus I was unable to incorporate much of her ideas that dealt with societies past ancient ones such as the one in my example. In my story, this reason for the creation of patriarchy seems to make sense, however, it would not in modern societies as we’ve mostly evolved past these archaic vulnerabilities to harsh environments and have (mostly) restructured the process of childrearing to not hinder women as much. Therefore, I believe it was the combination of biological function that intersected with the need to survive that created patriarchy. At first it was created to protect the women for survival, but now it is not appropriate to modern society and has become a way to control women and society. Therefore, it is an institution that now must be changed to foster progress.
“The Feminine Mystique”
By Betty Friedan
When it comes to feminism, this book is the first piece of feminist literature that comes to everyone’s mind. It is referenced to in pop-culture to create the stereotypical feminist woman (see “10 Things I Hate About You”) and is a major piece of literature that helped fuel the second wave feminism of the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, Betty Friedan, the author, founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) which was the first women’s organization to unite a nation of women in the pursuit for equality and civil liberties. This is the quintessential book of feminist literature which is why it was so important that I read it.
The main concept of this book is introducing and analyzing “the problem that has no name.” This problem encompassed a generation of women who went back to the kitchen in droves to raise children and become “Occupation: Housewife.” She explains how the average age of marriage dropped to 20 years old by the end of the fifties and how millions of 17 year old girls were engaged already. She also explains how college attendance among females dropped by more than 10 percent between 1928 and 1958 and how most of those that did go to college dropped out in order to marry or “because they were afraid too much education would be a marriage bar” (16). The statistics in itself already point out a fundamental problem in society as women so early and so eagerly gave up their own ambitions to become a supportive wife to her husband and a mother to her children. Millions of women became engrossed in their own worlds that revolved around their family leaving little time for a woman to pursue her own passions or to even figure out who she is. “The problem that has no name” is the loss of identity in women and the depression-like symptoms that this problem created. In her book she analyzes the culture with statistics and massive amounts of quotations to back up her claims on how society encouraged women to lose their identity and become obsessed with getting married and having children as their only life goal. This book is a great example of a good rhetorical argument with fantastic persuasion methods.
The first half of the book reads like a history lesson that explains how great of need there was for change in society in the mid-20th century. The last half included some insights into female society that today has value and resonates still. Sex and sexual identity for women is a tricky subject as women are objectified from a young age to be sexual. Women are prepared to be good, feminine women so a man one day will marry her. In the end, we’re talking about sex. Girls are and have been sexualized in society because their most defining factor in culture is their sex. A common problem then and now is that young women suffer from some sort of identity crisis and use their sexuality to create a fake identity:
These victims of the feminine mystique start their search for the solace of sex at an earlier and earlier age…Talking to these girls and to professional workers who are trying to help them, one quickly sees that sex, for them, is not sex at all. They have not even begun to experience sexual response, must less “fulfillment.” They use sex—-pseudo-sex—-to erase their lack of identity; it seldom matters who the boy is; the girl almost literally does not “see” him when she has as yet no sense of herself (276-277).
Though this book was an analysis of culture in the 50’s, certain passages such as this one were as pertinent today as they were back then. This type of critique of sexual behavior of young women is something that would be said about today’s youth. However, I think a major difference between back then and now is that women, I believe, can be promiscuous but not vacuous. This idea is a major one that I will be questioning throughout my process of research in the idea of feminism:
Does sexualization of a woman make her a victim of her society and a bad feminist? Or can a woman be sexualized in society and express her sexuality freely and use it as empowerment?
In “The Feminine Mystique” the sexualization of women is a negative that has controlled their lives. Women who sleep with multiple men suffer from identity problems and are using the men as tools in order to define themselves in a world that has given them nothing else to define them by. As an analysis of society in the mid-20th century, it seems appropriate to be generalized because most of the women who are in the discussion of promiscuity are either very young women or are housewives and both groups have a handicap in their identity—-young women haven’t had the time to create an identity while housewives were denied an identity by the “Occupation: Housewife.”
In this incredibly important piece of feminist literature is a major history lesson about the start of second-wave feminism that gives insight into the catalyst of the values created by this movement. It is a hard book to argue with because it is an intelligent analysis of statistics and facts backed up by an impressive amount of research. It is also hard to reflect upon my own view of feminism because most of the problems presented within the book are not part of our society anymore. Though it hasn’t provided me with much insight into my own views on feminism, it was an incredibly valuable read that has expanded my understanding of the second-wave feminist movement.
An Introduction
This blog will be dedicated to my quest for feminist enlightenment. My name is Amanda Deschamps and I am an Oakland University student studying Writing and Rhetoric with a minor in English. Though I am not a Women’s Studies major, my own quest for feministic values has long been of importance to me ever since I became aware of my sex (which has been for quite a long time). This blog is dedicated to my fervid search for truth and meaning in a world of confusing messages regarding my sex in all that it encompasses. The terrain of the feminist movement is muddled with contradiction and generational feud where the second wave feminists of the 60’s and 70’s and the third wave feminists, which could be considered the contemporary feminism, contradict and even fight against one another. With messages of equality and sexual freedom spanning generations, the definitions of each have gotten confused and lost. The “old” feminism feels as if it has been thrown under the bus and looks down the new brand of “feminism” as a sort of anti-feminism that is undoing all that they had worked for. The “new” feminism has a notion of “girl power” and a sexual freedom that is ever expanding and all encompassing. The “old” feminism saw Hugh Hefner as an enemy to the feminist movement while the “new” feminism embraces sexualization as a form of empowerment. As feminism has progressed, the ideals and beliefs have gotten confusing and contradicting. The “old” feminism sees the “new” feminism as a sort of anti-feministic movement that has deluded a generation into believing that they have control when really they’re just being control by the patriarchal society. But then, conversely, the new generation sees the “old” feminists as women who burned their bras, didn’t shave their legs, and metaphorically castrate men in order to prove their strength and dominance. In the “old” feministic days, feminism was a movement that had real motivation and power behind it because there was a lot of sexism and denied civil liberties that were guaranteed through the Constitution. The “new” feminism basks in the days of “post-feminism” (as it is called by some) enjoying the rights their mothers fought for, enjoying a new form of empowerment. But which version of feminism is right? Should the “old” feminism be used as a form of history to be looked back upon as a part of the movement and the “new” feminism be embraced as the new production of the movement? Or is the “new” feminism a fake movement that is distracting the real feminist movement that happens to have the ideals from the “old” feminism? Society and feminists themselves argue and contradict one another on what the real feminist movement is all about in the 21st century. So I am on a quest to analyze both sides and to become enlightened in the ways of feminism to truly define my feministic values. Though I already feel like I have strong values that define what feminism means to me, it is possible that I am just ignorant and caught up in my own personal experiences that are often defined by the society that I grew up in. In order to become enlightened, I am reading various feminist literature in order to have an all encompassing view of the movement and it’s defined values from generation to generation. In this blog, I will analyze the ideas introduced in the books and reflect upon it’s value to the feminist movement and to how it affects my point of view of feminism and myself.
As a woman I cannot escape my sex, so I might as well try to understand what my sex stands for and what exactly is for and against it.
