Patriarchal thinking
A sure fire way to repel someone from your cafe table is to get out a copy of bell hooks’ ‘Will to Change’. It becomes a sort of “man repellent” from how it appears on the cover, but the substance inside is not antithetical to their lives. Indeed, in reading her work it becomes apparent that hooks is arguing for masculine acceptance rather than condemnation. While I do not fully agree with all of her phrasing, this book is essential reading, and herein we will feed off of its ideas, as well as the ideas of others, guiding us towards the ever elusive answer: what do we do about patriarchy?
where we stand
Perhaps this is redundant in our time, but in definition, patriarchy represents the society in which we all live. From its inception to the current moment, patriarchal thinking has ruled each of our lives in invisible and apparent ways. Concerning the latter, we may consider acts from casual workplace misogyny to grievous acts against those socialised or presenting as women, leading to long-lasting effects. But patriarchy is not just detrimental for these individuals. Rather, those socialised or presenting as men come just as unstuck under this system. As hooks says: ‘patriarchal culture…does not care if men are unhappy’.
Recent news shows us that patriarchal, misogynistic violence is ongoing and recurring. The death of Olympic athlete Rebecca Cheptegei, an Ugandan marathon runner who competed at the 2024 Games, is a case of extreme violence and a tragedy that cannot be explained away by toxic partner dynamics. Gender-based violence is deeply entrenched in society, and there is much work to be done before we can call it a thing of the past. It is infuriating to see the repetitions of these crimes in spite of the volume of messaging against it; the power of the patriarchy is infused into us from birth, and it will take meaningful action to unwind it.
Quoting Donald Dutton’s The Batterer, ‘teenage males have nowhere to go where grief is accepted’. This can, in turn, guide these boys into the realms of a swelling yet suppressed need to release, resulting in the expulsion of this feeling in fits of anger or violence. The most freeing time of a human’s life, their childhood, is the only place where males can show a true ‘feeling of exuberance’, before eventually succumbing to a ‘rupture’, where ‘that feeling of being loved was gone’. Whether parentally, environmentally, or culturally enforced, ‘masses of boys and men have been programmed…[that at] some point they must be violent, whether psychologically or physically, to prove that they are men’.
a media storm
A point that peaked my interest in hooks’ collection of essays, her brief yet insightful consideration of the Harry Potter series is a thought-provoking contemplation of modern media. Not only do J K Rowling’s ever popular books (and the accompanying movies) involve tirades of violence and war to gain resolution, glorifying these events under the glossy film of “magic”, hooks argues that the central character serves as a ‘mini patriarch’, encompassing the typical white and gifted picture of the perfect young boy. Indeed, in leading a group of ‘equally smart’ pupils, Harry takes control while remaining an all round “nice guy”, cementing his place in a society which is now only accepting of patriarchal agenda when it runs under the surface. Of course, I think it important to note that Harry is not advantaged in all ways — he is an orphan and suffers a terrible experience with his adoptive parents. While the hardship of these circumstances should not be waylaid, one could question whether these very events are the goading points for an audience’s sympathies; without them, Harry would be a classic straight white character. This links back into the emotional repression that teenage boys in particular feel they must enforce on themselves in order to serve the patriarchy. By suppressing his feelings of grief towards his parents, Harry’s anger and resentment at their killer is allowed to swell, surfacing in his aggressive outbursts and him expending most of his energy and his life on the pursuit of one person. The need to take revenge is pushed upon him because of the very fact that he is male; if Harry was a woman, he would not be expected (and in fact may be frowned upon) for taking such action. In fact, when women are shown to take revenge, such as in the cult film ‘Peppermint’, they are presented as masculinised, revealing how femininity is not associated with either strength or self-drive.
Colin Stokes, in his TEDtalk ‘How Movies teach Manhood’, notes how it is only girls who traditionally get shown strong female characters, and that male children are shown how violence leads to reward — how strong males may (even by working together) come to a common goal — with heterosexual love usually being a prize. By allowing boys to identify with strong heroines, Stokes argues, they can see the advantages of being a team player rather than becoming indoctrinated into a gender-based contract of inherent conflict. Adding to this, I believe that seeing emotional and diverse males in young boys’ and teenage media would help to reinforce these teachings. While we cannot change the views of those already infused with patriarchy, we can begin somewhere with the next generation.
what have women got to do with it?
An important antithesis to the toxic male, Madisyn Brown speaks on the phenomenon of “toxic femininity”, saying that ‘women are not exempt from critique because they are suppressed’. Importantly, this phenomenon is nothing new: hooks mentions a similar concept. Since ‘women can be as wedded to patriarchal thinking and action as men’, due to our very existence within a male-dominated world, we may begin to internalise and enforce these beliefs onto those around us, and this is not isolated to other women. Typical traits of “toxic femininity” include “man hating”, abiding by female gender roles, and harming the relationships of other women, but also extend to the ways we speak to men. Some mothers are as patriarchal as fathers, insisting on the “good strong boy” narrative or not embracing them as closely as female siblings. The key to the toxically feminine is the dictating of others’ actions: “women must not wear trousers”, “women must be ignorant”, “women manipulate during conflict, and men are physically violent”. Both Brown and hooks emphasise the need to face our own biases in order for men to be ‘more open to critique and conversation’. While the work cannot be placed on one group’s shoulders, it is imperative to co-work in order to co-exist.
Female tropes have existed for decades, but we must also acknowledge the other side of this supposition. Women may also perpetuate male expectations through film tropes such as the “bad boy”. As the antithesis of the “nice guy”, this ‘strong, silent…anti-social’ character is a cliche that has become an archetype, transcending his James Deanian origins to become a repeating feature on our screens. Since they stopped ‘getting their comeuppance’ in the 1950s, The Take states how there is always a seeming ‘hidden reserve of good’ within the vindictive exterior, giving a female love interest a positive resolution to her obsession. Concerned with “fixing him”, the female wishes to take the brooding exterior and combine it with a softer soul. In this way, boys and men are made to reframe themselves, retaining what they believe to be kindness while also adopting some more “negative” traits or habits, from smoking to manipulation. By forcing males into a stereotype, they may feel caged, resulting in an outburst or personal disembodiment.
The role of man-exclusionary branches of feminism cannot be ignored. By ‘taking on the mantle of victimhood’, these groups ‘mask[ed] their longing to be dominators’, placing the entirety of the blame and accountability on the men just as trapped by the system as women. It is natural in any binary relationship for their to be a ‘superior’ and an ‘inferior’ agent, therapist and author Terrence Real notes, and the patriarchy chose males as the dominant class. It is right and necessary for women to contribute to the abruption of patriarchal practice and the wrongs in male behaviour, and while there is undoubtedly those who cannot be spoken with, there is also a mass of males who, with the correct interventions and conversations, can contribute to the pursuit of equality.
what did daddy do?
The classic patriarch, and the first we are exposed to, is the father or father figure. Harry Potter, via his adoption, is taken into a family with an outwardly patriarchal father, who dominates through threat and command. One could argue that, since he is in his formative years, that Harry adopts his violence (no matter how subconsciously) from this very man. This may be the case for many, because in seeing their father as a role model, many young boys will embody his characteristics because that is what they see as truly “manly”. On the other hand, if a boy’s father is kind or even “soft”, he may be ridiculed if acting in the same way or see the mocking of his father, leading the son also into a need to dominate. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that, no matter a male’s own will to be kind or compassionate, the worldly masculine requirement to dominate is so intensely projected when stepping into the wider world, particularly in the school environment, that it becomes impossible for a male to “make it” in a world where ‘greater respect and visibility’ is given to the classically patriarchal male. If not fulfilling these characteristics (and therefore being “womanly” in our binary society), a man is devalued.
In a video essay, ‘Shanspeare’ discusses the relevance of the father to our society both in the present and in the past. Fatherhood, she states, is closely intertwined with religious practice and in our every day language, with classic phrases such as ‘founding fathers’ and ‘fatherland’. The father is seen as authoritative and firm, an active agent compared to the more passive mother figure. As the ‘saviour’, the father is the first place in which heterosexual females and homosexual males gain love from the representation of their future partners, perhaps influencing what we begin to expect from partners. hooks echoes this, saying ‘heterosexual girls and homosexual boys can and do become the women and men who make romantic bonds the place where they quest to find and know male love’. This seeking for love ‘from Dad’ is ‘rightfully’ done, she continues, but if the father does not encompass the idealised social idea of the male, it can become discordant for the child.
violence
Significantly, even the most ‘passive, kind, quiet men can come to violence’ when time requires. Since aggression is hard-wired into the masculine state, men who are genuinely caring can feel forced into acting in a violent manner in order to reinstate their “manliness”, or otherwise to protect themselves from outside ridicule. Many women have been taught be patriarchy that their role is to abide by the rule of the primary male in their life, whether that be the father or the heterosexual partner, resulting in the culturing of a belief where women accept emotional or physical abuse as simple consequences of loving someone. ‘Women feel,’ hooks states, ‘that to choose to be with a patriarchal man is automatically to sign up for some level of abuse’.
In fact, it is essential to discuss the role of the mother in the indoctrination of boys with patriarchal standards and expectations. Many women ‘embrace [the] logic’ of patriarchy, standing by as sons are ‘brutalis[ed]’ by the patriarchal father. In this passivity — their “failure” to stand up for the child — the son begins to see his mother, and by default other intimate women partners, as the enemy. Becoming Mum’s ‘little man’ or a “Mommy’s boy” add extra layers to this conversation, with boys being emasculated and feminised (respectively) at an early age. In the first case, the ‘little man’ adopts the role of ‘mini patriarch’, ultimately becoming violent towards the mother figure. It becomes a contradictory atmosphere, where the primary woman in his life is both a caregiver and a discipliner, brewing feelings of rebellion in the boy towards women that he may only express with intimate partners. Within the home, the mother is powerful, but without he acknowledges that she should be the subservient individual, delegitimising her and making her a focus for resentment. Alarmingly, hooks quotes a study in which boys, when asked what they would do if they could transform as in The Incredible Hulk, told researchers they would ‘“smash their mommies”’. There is something seriously wrong here.
Female violence towards sons escalates this issue further, with emotional abuse being more common than physical. Since the home is her only place of power (as aforementioned), the mother targets her son, using him as a focus for her grievances with the patriarchy. This not only highlights our need to intervene with these systems, but also to recognise the role women can play in its upkeep.
sex
Sex is seen as a necessary facet of the masculine condition. While women are said to prioritise love, men prioritise the physical, creating an antithetical goal in a heterosexual dynamic. Similarly, in male homosexual relationships, one man is the inferior of the other, taking on the role of the ‘woman’. Since sex is presented as a ‘natural desire’, while we are not told whether or not we are ‘programmed for love’, the male’s needs (no matter if they accord or not) in a relationship are prioritised. In this way, it is through this intimate activity that men may ‘confirm [their] manhood’, prompting anger at women ‘for…saying no’. By telling men and boys alike of their requirement, while simultaneously praising women for their chastity, we culture a society in which no one may feel safe from the furious hold of sex and, dangerously, the will that individuals adopt that leads to sexual violence.
Importantly, sex cannot ‘completely fulfil [men’s] needs’, as it is so professed to do. Contrary to what they are told, in spite of multiple efforts or experiences, the status of ‘manhood’ is never met and rather continues to be questioned throughout one’s life. It is not in single actions that one may prove their “manliness”, but rather in the continuation of a manner of acting — the indoctrination into patriarchy.
transphobia
Another essential layer to this conversation is the experience of trans-men and trans-women. In both cases, the individual must adopt overt modes of gender expression in order to be accepted, and even then some choose to see this as individuals mocking the gender they have transitioned to. It becomes a “catch-22” situation, in which trans-identity is diminished and ignored, leading to social exclusion and, even worse, abuse.
The devaluing of feminine qualities leads some anti-trans activists to question why men would want to become women in the first place, and this is not confined to the cis- straight men of the movement. Furthermore, some argue that trans-women are sexually suppressed or “creepy” men, transitioning only to gain access to women-only spaces. These viewpoints are highly prejudiced, and do not account for the trans individual’s own emotions and sense of being. Rather than supporting the up-keep and creation of women’s only spaces, for example, energy is put into the demonisation of those simply trying to live. A large fraction of anti-trans sentiment is targeted towards trans-women due to the presumptions of what a typical patriarchal man would do in such a position, but it must be said — through the act of transitioning, of denying the binary and prioritising their selfhood, trans people are perhaps the most a-patriarchal in our modern society.
The categorisation of trans-men as ‘traitors’ is also just as harmful. Extreme feminist thinkers like J.K. Rowling take on this viewpoint, pushing their prejudiced agenda by concealing hatred within a claim to the rights of others. By calling trans-men ‘traitors’ to the feminist cause, the sentiment not only automatically excludes any men from the feminist conversation, but also sets a boundary between women and masculinity, reinforcing the gendering of traits characterised by the patriarchy.
where do we stand?
Having covered only a part of the patriarchy debate, the aim of this article is to act as a “springboard” for a continual conversation, leading us towards methods by which we can abrupt these socialisations. By being born and raised within the patriarchy, these teachings are difficult, if not impossible, to undo, and from this viewpoint the case seems hopeless. However, through recognising our state, we drive our way towards noting our behaviours and actively subverting them, gaining a less biased way of thinking, even if we continue to live in patriarchal surroundings. As we break down the binary and pass into a new age, the priority is three-fold: teach men that they have the license to not obey, support all in their abruption of the dogma, and work together.