Concept of patriarchy

Patriarchy literally means the rule of ‘father’ or patriarch and originally it is used to describe as a specific type of ‘male-dominated family’- the large household of patriarch which included women, junior men, children, slaves, and domestic servants all under the rule of this dominant male. Now it is used more generally “to refer to male domination, to the power relationships by which men dominate women, and to characterize a system whereby women are kept subordinate in a number of ways”.

The concept of patriarchy is defined by different thinkers in different ways. Mitchell, a feminist psychologist, uses the word patriarchy “to refer to kinship systems in which men exchange women”. Walby defines “patriarchy as a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women”. She explains patriarchy as a system because this helps us to reject the notion of biological determinism (which says that men and women are naturally different because of their biology or bodies and, are, therefore assigned different roles) or “the notion that every individual man is always in a dominant position and every woman in a subordinate one“. Thus, patriarchy describes the institutionalized system of male dominance. So we can usefully define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men and women, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create independence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.

Origin of patriarchy

Regarding the existence and origin of patriarchy, traditionalists do believe that men are born to dominate and women to be subordinate. They believe that this hierarchy has always existed and will continue, and like other rules of nature, this one too cannot be changed. There are others who challenge these beliefs and say that patriarchy is not natural it is man-made and, therefore, it can be changed. In this regard, Aristotle propounded similar “theories” and called male’s active, females passive. For him, the female was “mutilated male”, someone who does not have a soul. In his view, the biological inferiority of woman makes her inferior also in her capacities, her ability to reason and, therefore, her ability to make decisions. Because man is superior and woman inferior, he is born to rule and she to be ruled. He said, “the courage of man is shown in commanding of a woman in obeying”. According to modern psychology, women’s biology determines their psychology and, therefore, their abilities and roles. Sigmund Freud, for example, stated that for women anatomy is destiny. In his view, a normal human was male.

But these theories of male supremacy have been challenged and it has been proved that there is no historical or scientific evidence for such explanations. There are indeed biological differences between men and women but these distinctions do not have to become the basis of a sexual hierarchy in which men are dominant. The analysis of many of these theories enables us to recognize that patriarchy is man-made; historical processes have created it. No single explanation of the origin of patriarchy is accepted by all.  A very important explanation for the origin of patriarchy was given by Frederick Engels in 1884 in his book, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Engels 1940). Engels believed that women’s subordination began with the development of the private property, when according to him; the world-historical defeat of the female sex took place. He says both the division of classes and the subordination of women developed historically. At that stage when private property arose in the society men wanted to retain power and property, and pass it on to their own children. To ensure this inheritance, mother-right was overthrown. In order to establish the right of the father, women had to be domesticated and confined and their sexuality regulated and controlled. According to Engels, it was in this period; both patriarchy and monogamy for women were established. According to the radical feminists (Brownmiller 1976, Firestone 1974), patriarchy preceded private property. They believe that the original and basic contradiction is between the sexes and not between economic classes. Radical feminists consider all women to be a class. Unlike the traditionalists, however, they do not believe that patriarchy is natural or that it has always existed and will continue to do so. Socialist feminists accept and use the basic principles of Marxism but have tried to enrich and extend it by working on areas which, they believe, were neglected by conventional Marxist theory. They do not consider patriarchy to be a universal or unchanging system because of their commitment to a historical, materialist method as well as of their own observation of variety in the sexual division of labor. Socialist feminists view the struggle between women and men as changing historically with changes in modes of production. Another important ‘socialist feminist view’ has been presented by Mie’s (1988) in a paper entitled, The Social Origins of the Sexual Division of Labor. She puts forward some ideas regarding the possible reasons for and the sequence of historical developments leading to the origin of gender hierarchy or patriarchy. In this paper, she says, whatever the ideological differences between the various feminist groups, they are united in their rebellion against this hierarchical relationship between men and women, which is no longer accepted as biological destiny. Their inquiry into the social foundations of this inequality and asymmetry is the necessary consequence of their rebellion.

Women’s subordination

The term ‘women’s subordination’ refers to the inferior position of women, their lack of access to resources and decision making, etc. and to the patriarchal domination that women are subjected to in most societies. So, women’s subordination means the inferior position of women to men. The feeling of powerlessness, discrimination, and experience of limited self-esteem and self-confidence jointly contribute to the subordination of women. Thus, women’s subordination is a situation, where a power relationship exists and men dominate women. The subordination of women is a central feature of all structures of interpersonal domination, but feminists choose different locations and causes of subordination. The contemporary feminist theory begins with Simone de Beauvoir’s argument that because men view women as fundamentally different from them, women are reduced to the status of the second sex and hence subordinate (Beauvoir 1974). Kate Millet’s theory of subordination argues that women are a dependent sex class under patriarchal domination (Millet 1977). Patriarchy is a system whereby women are kept subordinate in a number of ways. The subordination that we experience at a daily level, regardless of the class we might belong to, takes various forms – discrimination, disregard, insult, control, exploitation, oppression, violence – within the family, at the place of work, in society. For instance, a few examples are illustrated here to represent a specific form of discrimination and a particular aspect of patriarchy. Such as son preference, discrimination against girls in food distribution, the burden of household work on women and young girls, lack of educational opportunities for girls, lack of freedom and mobility for girls, wife battering, male control over women and girls, sexual harassment at workplace, lack of inheritance or property rights for women, male control over women’s bodies and sexuality, no control over fertility or reproductive rights. So, the norms and practices that define women as inferior to men, impose controls on-them, are present everywhere in our families, social relations, religion, laws, schools, textbooks, media, factories, offices. Thus, patriarchy is called the sum of the kind of male domination we see around women all the time. In this ideology, men are superior to women and women are part of men’s property, so women should be controlled by men and this produces women’s subordination. In this context, Gerda Lerner in her book The Creation of Patriarchy said, “The use of the phrase subordination of women instead of the word “oppression” has distinct advantages. Subordination does not have the connotation of evil intent on the part of the dominant; it allows for the possibility of collusion between him and the subordinate. It includes the possibility of voluntary acceptance of subordinate status in exchange for protection and privilege, a condition that characterizes so much of the historical experience of women. I will use the term “paternalistic dominance” for this relation. “Subordination” encompasses other relations in addition to “paternalistic dominance” and has the additional advantage over “oppression” of being neutral as to the causes of subordination.

Two Theoretical Frameworks:

Private and public: since different perspectives have been put forward by various sociologists, anthropologists, and ethnographers in theorizing patriarchy. W. Walby has distinguished two different forms of patriarchy: private and public. In the ‘private’ domain the subordination of women occurs within the household of an individual patriarch. For example, A woman has to inform her husband about the minute details of her activities whereas the husband does not consider the same as the ‘male’ and women should not question his whereabouts.  In ‘public’ patriarchy is more of a collective form. Women participate in the public sphere, such as politics, services, and so on. Even though she contributes to society, women are segregated from power, wealth, and status.Sexuality and reproduction:  Foucauldian perspective (Foucault 1979) regarding female reproduction and sexuality and the viewpoints of Sandra Bartky who worked on Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power. Foucault states that female’s sexuality and reproduction needs attention as they deal with cultural definitions of normal and abnormal behavior regulating peoples idea about their, and what should not they do with them. Bartky agreeing with the idea of Foucault states that feminine body itself is a mark of inferiority. Feminine body-discipline is deeply insidious with particular norms of diet, exercise, movement, smiles, and skin-care, and so on. Once a woman has internalized this conception of femininity, their adherence seems voluntary and natural to and any refusal to this principle seems unnatural and non-conformity to the knowledge and skills that are central to the women’s so-called ‘identity’.  For example, A mother sole commitment should be to look after her child and the development of it. She is the only one who is responsible for the upbringing of the child. Any mistake done by the child, the question arises on the mother’s upbringing but not the father.

Empirical instances of Patriarchy:

Indian feminist analysis and arguments linked the family and the economy to demonstrate, how the economic power of men and their domination of production was crucially linked to, and determined by, the organization of the family and the household. The household thus emerged as an important constituent of both production and patriarchy. The sphere of reproduction was understood in terms of a sex-gender system, which identified with concrete social structures and relationships, in this case, kinship networks. Along with the household, kin networks were seen as central to both the exercise of male power in the familial and social contexts, as well as a women’s status or the lack of it, at home and outside. Both production and reproduction were seen as involving exploitations of human labor on the one hand, and of female reproductive capacity, on the other. The caste system was seen as central to both forms of exploitation and as linking them in explicit ways, and it has been argued that distinctive caste patriarchies exist in India.

Surrogacy bill: patriarchal intervention.

The surrogacy (regulation) bill, 2016, passed in the Lok Sabha earlier, ties regulation of surrogacy to the aim of protecting women from being exploited. The bill bans commercial surrogacy, saying that a heterosexual, childless married couple within India may opt for gestational surrogacy after five years with a ‘close relative’ on an altruistic basis. Surrogacy is allowed also when the intending couple has a child challenged in some way. The surrogate mother should be married and must have permission from her husband to act as a surrogate; that, too, only once in her life. The government may be concerned, but the bill suggests that its understanding of women and of the desire for children is shallow, its approach intrusive. Why should the government dictate that the surrogate mother must be married, and must have her husband’s permission? It cannot decide, either, that a couple which knows they will be childless must wait for five years, or less, or more, before going for surrogacy. The government’s unenlightened attitude towards persons with disabilities is exposed in the implied equation of having a challenged child with childlessness. Similarly, it lays bare its discriminatory approach by banning live-in couples, homosexual and Tran’s people, and singles from opting for surrogacy. But the real elephant in the room is the prohibition of payment. Eliminating the possibility of ‘wombs for rent’, though, cannot stop exploitation — families, at least in India, exploit women most. Making the surrogate mother a ‘close relative’ not only increases the difficulties for intending parents but also reinforces familial, patriarchal networks, not least by undermining women’s autonomy of will and body. Altruism ignores the physical and emotional labor of the surrogate mother and does not take into account post-partum problems, whether mental or physical. In India, women have to be fully informed about the nature of the invasion their bodies will experience for surrogacy and the possible emotional cost of letting a gestational child go before they agree to the procedure. The bill is silent about this aspect of exploitation. All it does is suggest insurance and assume that bearing a child is a labor of love which is women’s ‘nature’ to do ‘free’. But another question arises, how parliament can decide on the consent without acknowledging the opinion of women?  Without working out the issues involved, and revising its interfering habit, no regulation will be acceptable.

Abortion law :

Nivedita Menon in her book ‘Recovering Subversion’ –  “First, the assumptions underlying the feminist demand for curbs on Sex Determination tests overlap those behind the justification of restrictions on abortion itself’. In other words, arguments deployed to support a ban on sex determination tests can also be used to support a ban on abortion. This can give rise to very serious political contradictions. Second, there is a profound philosophical incoherence involved in arguing for abortion in terms of the right of women to control their bodies and at the same time, demanding that women be restricted by law from choosing specifically to abort female fetuses. It is essential that feminists avoid being forced to counterpoise the rights of (future) women to be born against the rights of (present) women to control over their bodies.

Even though abortion reforms were introduced in this country without any obstruction, religious and cultural norms continue to act as a barrier in their effective implementation. Strong son preference and other structural facts of patriarchy limit women’s “freedom” to exercise choice even when it appears that they are doing so. A Delhi High Court judgment in 1983 held that abortion without the consent of the husband constitutes “cruelty” within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband was therefore granted divorce as, in the words of the judgment, the wife had refused to “satisfy a husband’s natural and legitimate craving to have a child.” The judgment goes on, “This is more so… where the parties to the litigation are Hindus. In this sort of case, the court has to attach due weight to the general principle underlying the Hindu law of marriage and sonship and the principle of the spiritual benefit of having a son.

In its current form, the MTP Act permits abortion after consultation with one doctor for up to 12 weeks. Between 12 to 20 weeks, a woman seeking abortion needs the medical opinion of at least two doctors. Exceptions are made to the 20-week ceiling if continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to either the mother or the baby’s life, but only after approval from courts. It is admirable that India was one of the first countries in the world to legalize abortion to encourage family planning and population control. Ostensibly, the reason for the relatively low time frame was to safeguard the girl child by preventing sex-selective abortions. While that is a noble intent, women who discover abnormalities in the fetus or develop complications later in their pregnancies, and rape victims, particularly underage ones, end up bearing the brunt of it. The court was forced to note that due to advancements in medical technology, pre-natal defects could be revealed even after 20 weeks. And because the MTP Act is out-dated and doesn’t consider these eventualities, women are forced to move court. Consequently, judgments that are doled out vary drastically due to individual interpretations of the law.

Another thing that the law fails to take into account is that often, especially in the case of underage rape victims, pregnancies are discovered very late. Due to the stigma attached to rape and the silence of the victims, underage pregnancies are often only discovered when the child develops health issues and medical intervention is finally sought. In many cases, by the time they come to light, the child is either teetering very close to the 20-week mark or has already crossed it. As a result, there is a slew of cases with young girls and women pleading before courts to allow them to terminate unwanted or unviable pregnancies that are over 20 weeks. In the case of the 14-year-old girl from UP, ‘advanced pregnancy’ (32 to 33 weeks) was the court’s reason for denying permission to abort. However, it is worth mentioning that the girl’s family lost a precious 8 weeks in the long-drawn-out legal proceedings. Today, her extenuating financial circumstances that have made it impossible for her family to support her and the baby, coupled with their ostracisation from society, have forced her to marry her rapist. All of this could have been avoided, had the law worked in favor of the victim, instead of against her.

Conclusion Despite various arguments and protests done by feminists, there is still a long way to transform society into an equalized society from a patriarchal structured society.