ADVANTAGES OF PATRIARCHY! MAYBE MATRIARCHY?
msriniva
Namashkar/Vanakkam,
An intelligent eighteen year old freshman said, with a bored and
nonchalant attitude that only an adolescent can carry so well, that
"post-modernism" was theoretically obsolete and "Marxism" was in! I was
impressed with his observation of academic faddishness. Those in the
intellectual ivory towers know that many research interests are based on
what gets identified as "the flavor of the month" and "what will appeal
to the public" - translation: what is politically correct!
(This kid, son of two professors, had also been part of a
middle-class gang in his neighborhood. They threw stones into people's
gardens and broke into their garages. He and his gang friends never stole
anything, he assured me. I liked this kid. He had spunk and he had an
uncanny combination of street experience mixed with critical intelligence.
Congratulations to his parents - part of the flower-children generation!)
Anyway, he is not the center of this discussion but the subject he
raised is. When I asked him, " whether Marxism and feminism were
complementary or contradictory?" His answer surprised me! He said, "I
think women are tired with feminism. They want something new." He
explained that post-modernism gave reasons for people like Madonna to
exploit their own sexuality and allowed for lesbian pornography. It also
helped the growth of female corporate capitalism. He is absolutely right.
Yet in that process we created a class structure among women, not unlike
what exists in industrializing countries like India and the South
Americas. So he concluded by saying that post-modernists have come full
circle and have embraced Marxism. At this point I disagreed with him!
Marxist feminists have forgotten that what got legitimized by the
proletariat was male version of work and community. Women donned pants
and went to work in the farms. Nobody bothered to find out if men assisted
their wives at home. Nobody calculated the cost of house-keeping and
child-rearing. Nobody saw the value of community that women had already
built among themselves. The other argument that was not addressed which
does not involve women alone, is the "growth of the middle-class"!
Marx dealt with only two classes - not three or multiple layers of them.
I certainly believe that women's status is not very much higher in
Cuba or the ex- Soviet Union than here. We know the rewards "super moms"
got from Stalin. We know the double shift work (one in the field and one
at home) that Chinese peasant women had to endure. We know the total
subjugation of women's sexuality and everything artistic in the name of
collective competency and effeciency. Women were expected to work
like men, act like men, dress like men and they ended up looking like men!
No, Marxism was not really sensitive to women's issues or womanly
concerns.
So, if we throw away feudalism, capitalism, Marxism, post-modernism
what do we have? Not much. How about "socialism?" That will be a lengthy
discussion. But the fundamenatal question is: will patriarchy really
disappear whatever "ism" we choose? The other question is: do men and
women want it to really disappear?
I saw a paper by a Latino sociologist (sort of expected) about the
advantages of patriarchy - much of which we already know. Patriarchy
assures protection, guidance, firmness, order, decisiveness and of-course
warm benevolence. Why have some women feared feminism? For the simple
reason that someone else won't protect us but we have to protect
ourselves. Imagine having to walk the streets alone; or having to hunt for
food ourselves; or having to face insults on our own; or having to ward of
rapists by ourselves! Very scary! This may explain why women in the
cross-roads are very aggressive - not just assertive! We are walking into
the male competative world with no support or protection. Sort of like
being on the net!
We, women, also have to make decisions ourselves. No one can tell
us what to do and no one will even try. No one will guide us through
difficult choices either. We make our own mistakes and we face the
consequences. We can't blame fathers, husbands, brothers or men in
general for pushing us or for making up our minds. We have to create our
own order or live with the chaos we create. Part of growing up and
becoming an adult is doing this. If women have been looked after, many
have been infantilized too. So, we resent having power taken away from
us but we all have not been taught how to empower ourselves and
execute our own power.
Is all wrong with patriarchy? Absolutely not! We all need firm and
clear leadership. But this does not have to be always from a male! We all
need support and guidance in decision-making but we don't have to let
only the men in the family and community do this. We all should be allowed
to make mistakes. Women need mentoring to be independent and confident.
That is a journey.
I have just started paying attention to my chaotic
financial situation. I wan never taught about money, my father did it for
me. I grew-up believing, somewhere in the back of my mind, my husband
would do it for me! Well no husband and no financial back-up. I am poor
but I am learning. By the time I am fifty, I won't have a BMW but I
hope I will be able to afford a duplex. People like Madonna and Oprah are
to be truly admired. They are self-made women who have done what men
have done for centuries but with very few women role-models and male
guidance. Applause, applause!
So can we have a system that carries all the strengths of
patriarchy but without control, malevolence, fear and force! How
about matriarchy? Something to think about! I'd like to see a discussion
on this.
Meera Srinivasan
msriniva
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.