“We tell women to communicate better, or take a self-defense class, or ask for a raise at work, as if there are individual solutions to oppression. Then it becomes the woman’s fault if a man mistreats her. Women, it seems, are responsible for everything.”
No, we’re responsible for better communication. Also responsible for men’s violence. Also responsible for not pushing for higher pay, when the comparison of the pay between the two is glaringly obvious. Add to that the responsibility of the household and emotional labor and the children? Responsible for *everything*
I understood it as women being responsible for everything. Whether it’s not communicating enough, or not protecting ourselves. Not that abusive relationships can’t be communicated out of. Or that men aren’t responsible for their own violence.
I understood it, as originally written, as tongue-in-cheek.
Definitely with Andrea Dworkin on this and what she wrote in the 80’s pertaining to Intercourse and the female condition. She was a great gift to women everywhere. If, we as women can realize it’s ALL women and not just some unlucky woman or women, we might make better progress. The oppression of the female sex is all about exploitation and objectification. This is the model that all other oppressions are formed from and under. Also, IMHO men hate women not only do they hate women they are extremely jealous of women. But who am I? I’m just a crack head junkie, lol…kidding ;)
Can I say something else? Dworkin said this in 1987, ‘The significance of the human ceases to exist as the value of the object increases.’ When you use women to your benefit, you exploit and objectify them. Can you not hate anyone you do those things to? Because that definitely isn’t love. Going further in thought if this were the case, we would already see these longer term gains for women. Now it seems as women get a sliver more of agency the pushback is something fiercely monstrous.
Andrea Dworkin also said, "Have you never wondered why it is we are not just in armed combat against you? It is not because there is a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence." - I Want A 24 Hour Truce In Which There Is No Rape
Every time shit goes sideways, or its sideways nature is incisively observed, this quote pops to mind and I wonder how much longer women, collectively, are going to continue extending to men, individually, the benefit of the doubt.
"How many times will my neighbor beat his wife?
Somewhere in that house, there's a butcher knife
Fucking drunk, swinging his fists about
Why don't she wait til he sleeps and take him out?"
I recently started asking myself who does the benefit of the doubt historically benefit? It’s oppressors and abusers. I’ve stopped giving the benefit of the doubt in power dynamic situations. Of course I apply judgement and freely give the benefit of the doubt to people who are marginalized, but not to anyone who is traditionally benefits from power structures. This shift is serving me well and taking the guess work out of situations!
Wow. One of your best and most expansive pieces, Zawn.
And the reverse is also true: feminism is not about hating men (or about making them perform to some imaginary "standard"), but about making women's lives better and easier.
Something I have to keep explaining to my husband: making things more equitable is not about making him do "more" or forcing him to tick off some "good husband" checkbox (a genuinely bizarre twist on my insistence on more equity); the point is dividing the work that already exists so that everyone has a chance at a satisfying, safe, and meaningful life. That's it.
This is so smart and also so poignant: all but the very stupidest men having deathbed regrets! It is so sad for everyone. But I do think the analysis is spot on. Thank you, Zawn, for another superior essay.
There are real consequences to the way that men treat women. But it is important to focus on the real everyday life diminishing consequences on women’s lives. We have this weird ability in our society to overstate the effects of other peoples trauma on us while diminishing their actual trauma. Eg ‘me saying something like the war in Palestine is really making life hard for me.’
Yes! Fantastic. There are so many aspects to this that can bear more exploration.
"Their primary goal isn’t to harm women; it’s to gain unearned benefits like leisure, free time, and higher wages. Harming women is the means to the end, not the end in itself."
True -- and yet, I would offer another benefit that from what I have seen in my life seems to be even more powerful than those. The primary goal is to **gain status with other men**. Men get status with other men with more money, free time, and the boast that their wife is a good cook and great mother. They get status by sleeping around, having expensive gadgets, not demeaning themselves with certain kinds of labor, not having to do "girl" things, accumulating professional accolades, being physically strong, or whatever is the trend in their age group and set. The desire to preserve their status is why the men who will openly criticize other men who are abusive are very, very rare. I have watched a dozen or so "good" men, who I believe honestly meant well, support women in private, and yet refuse to speak against the man who was perpetrating harassment. One even went so far as to say "If we refused to treat him as usual, the climate in this group would be awful".
Hello. The climate in your group is already awful --FOR WOMEN. But you are more concerned with not disturbing your social clique and possibly losing power in this group.
In my opinion, almost all of it has a basis in social competition and the desire for greater status than the rest.
Haven't read the book yet, but now would love to...however, just wanted to ask here, is this a comment that Zawn is copying/using Manne's argument, or are we recognizing that Zawn is developing a separate argument that is similar to and influenced by Manne's? I ask because I value Zawn's particular niche-writing on this subject. Just hoping to understand or bring clarity.
I'm assuming Zawn hasn't heard of Manne and is independently developing very similar arguments, but it's generally useful for people in that position to acquaint themselves with the other person's work, if only so that they don't get accused of plagiarism!
For heaven's sake, I specifically said I WASN'T accusing you of anything untoward! (Though I apparently completely missed any reference to Manne, which is my fault for reading too fast.) I was just struck by the similarity.
I'm certain Zawn is **not** plagiarizing any of this. I recognize in Zawn's text some of the exact phrases I myself invented and used some twenty years ago, when I was freshly acquainted with Twisty Faster and Nine Deuce and others. It's not plagiarism. It's the radical feminist collective consciousness, and of course the arguments are evolving in tandem. That's actually a really good sign. It means we're recovering back to where we were, as a collective with a consciousness, before men successfully pony nuked the Second Wave.
Zawn and Manne, in my opinion, are two of the most brilliant writers in this vein currently. “Down Girl” is a classic, along with so many others from our sisters like “The First Sex”, “Feminism is for Everybody”, “Heartbreak”, and the book I expect Zawn to publish in the future. There’s more than enough space for all these creators and the truth they bring to us
Thank you for putting something into words that's been on my mind for most of the last year. I feel like I've quiet quit men and society in general because I'm tired of being harmed and having to do all the work to prevent that harm
I love this piece. I keep thinking 'where does it all come from?' How is it possible that half of the population is like this and the other half just have to live with it? When did the patriarchy start? What is the root? Is it men? Was it always like this? At this point in my life I don't have the time and brain space to read books but articles like this makes me long for answers...it is just so confusing..
Yes the amount of misogyny visible in a relationship with a man at any time is like a volume dial. It is turned down when they are trying to impress or when they have their needs met. It is turned up once they have secured their victim and when that woman needs reciprocity of care. The amount of cruelty a man can display towards a woman asking for reciprocity is sociopathic. The actual misogyny is a constant.
"Oh, he can't. Hes been completely gelded by the patriarchy. Yes, very tragic, but he really believes he wanted it. I can't help him, neither can you - don't waste your time. Other women have tried."
I still remember watching the Duggars, 19 Kids and Counting, years ago, being so enamored by their lifestyle. I remember in an interview, Jimbob said, "I don't hate women, I believe that women should be valued and cherished, and treated like queens." I've heard that from other similar types of men.
Similarly, in another episode, he talked about how it's important for men to step up for the fatherless in the community, so that the kids aren't negatively effected by a "Tragic situation".
Does he really care about the well-being of women and children? Or does he only care insofar as it supports his agenda?
Hi Lila, I think what you’re talking about is what’s called “Benevolent” Sexism in the literature. (Note that the term itself is sarcastic since it is anything but benevolent in practice).
I used to study sexism in intimate relationships using Ambivalent Sexism Theory, coined by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.
Basically the theory goes that there are two types of mutually reinforcing sexist attitudes: Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism. Zawn here is primarily talking about Hostile Sexism I think.
Hostile Sexism (HS) is overt derogation of, dismissal of, and negative attitudes towards women, often especially towards career oriented women, but can show up in all relationships as the idea that women are inherently manipulative, critical, uncaring, unreliable, scheming, conniving, untrustworthy, over-emotional, in short “bad”. This is used to justify men’s mistreatment of women including violence, “she was asking for it” type of attitudes, etc. Think witchcraft allegations.
Benevolent Sexism (BS) is the belief that “women are wonderful” (you can find papers on the harmful nature of the “women are wonderful” effect by Alice Eagly). But BS is a trap. It is the idea that women are “wonderful” IF they confirm to traditional gender stereotypes such as being kind, nurturing, empathetic, caring - and ideally also a homemaker and caregiver. It is used to subtly reinforce women’s lower power position by denying them the trait of competence or agency (that’s what “aggressive” career women do / that’s the world of men) while reinforcing women’s complementary but lower-status trait of communality/ caring (see also Cecilia Ridgeway’s book on this called Framed by Gender). It disarms women by promising them relationship benefits of “protection and provision” in return for conforming to gender stereotypes of women as more nurturing and relationally oriented. It basically says, women OUGHT to be caring (or else).
BS is characterised by attitudes like women and men being “destined” for each other, but casts women as “weak” and “in need” of men (protective paternalism) and reinforces that women are there to meet men’s relational needs. Men endorsing BS tend to romanticise relationships, idealise their partners, act more friendly, devoted, chivalrous, open to influence etc.
But women are seen as amazing and worthy of care, relationships etc, as long as they act nice. If they have any feelings/needs of their own or are not completely subservient or challenge men’s behaviour or want to pursue their own career goals, it’s game over. This reinforces men’s competence / agency and overall men’s superiority since competence/agency is viewed as a higher status trait than communality.
(Think of the subjectively “positive” view people have of Black and indigenous people, people with disabilities, the elderly, children — it’s the same idea that they are nice and kind but not competent, used to justify paternalistic behaviour and policies).
Benevolent Sexism is the carrot (promising women with a gallant charming man who will “treat her like a queen” and “cherish” her as long as she does what he wants), while Hostile Sexism is the stick (punishing women who do not conform to traditional gender norms). Both work in concert to oppress women by forming subjectively positive (BS) and subjectively negative (HS) views of women depending on whether or not they confirm to traditional gender roles.
This has alternatively been termed the “Madonna-Whore” complex / putting her on a pedestal then throwing her in the gutter. The Velvet Glove is another good book on BS - the velvet glove of BS covers the iron fist of HS.
The tl;dr is to run away from men who claim to “looooooove women” or see them as “queens” etc. while they may appear to be more open to influence (and therefore potentially more open to a feminist relationship), it’s often a mask for misogyny that lies underneath.
As for the hand-wringing about “fatherless” kids, this is smoke and mirrors too. The underlying message is one of hostile sexism - women are bad, selfish, uncaring, heartless if they break up their families by filing for divorce because the dude refused to treat her like an equal. The message behind the “fatherless” kids is actually all about mothers: ie that mothers are to blame for kids not having a male figure in their lives.
The “tragic situation” assumes that single mothers won’t be able to bring up their kids well, hence why it’s “tragic.” The fact of the matter is that men add hardly anything to women’s lives so it doesn’t matter if they’re bringing up the kids with a guy or not - he’s absent from kids’ lives either way, and in worse cases, abusive. It’s likely to be more of a “tragic” situation when the couple are together tbh.
Yes. Benevolent sexism treats women as appliances just as much as hostile sexism does. Benevolent attitudes are reserved for well behaved objects. In both frameworks, women are still tools for men
Yes, this is very helpful, it helps to have these terms elaborated.
It says that women are worthy of care, so long as they behave. But what I sensed Jimbob saying, was not just "so long as they behave," but "so that they will behave." That if men would treat women better, then they will become more submissive. They will be more likely to fall in line.
The tragic situation was discussed regarding a family that they were close with, and the father died suddenly in an accident. I've heard the Bates say similar things, too. "Tragic situations" are more likely to drive children into bad decisions, a life of addiction, divorce, etc. I got a strong sense that love is conditional, given so long as people's lives fit into the neat little boxes that they prescribe. Not because he truly loves and cares about the kids. (or maybe he does, too, but you know.) I think that Bill Gothard taught alot on that.
People's lives are not perfect. And loss of a parent definitely does affect children. Even when handled well, the pain will always be there. Grief is messy, doesn't usually fit into IBLP boxes.
This theory is well etched in almost every piece of yours I have read till now; and it explains every act & agenda of patriarchy. Thank you for sharing this. Asking this powerful question 'how does it benefit men or a particular man' is very beneficial to women & girls. Infact, it's necessary to ask this question if one is to take logical sane decisions uninfluenced by patriarchy.
This is a fascinating way to think about it. For patriarchy and all other kinds of oppression. The idea that the goal is to keep the power in the ones with power — not necessarily “hatred” of the others (although that is a by-product). Anyone who needs to oppress others to keep power, or even just anyone who needs to brag, prove themselves, lie, etc is most likely doing that because a lack of their own self-worth and out of fear. I wonder what could happen if we began to address that? I think as a society we’ve done a good job of that with girls — at least over my lifetime (I’m 51) there has been a lot about increasing self-worth of girls (I know—inside a patriarchy that’s slightly counterproductive), but as a mother of a daughter (16) and a son (19) what I see is my daughter having a true positive self-worth and my son having one merely because he’s a man. Patriarchy has most definitely denied him opportunity for true self acceptance and self love. I realize once my daughter gets out into the world, life will likely be more difficult for her, but I just wonder if there’s something here. How do we get men to recognize their true worth not just the one thrust upon them by being in a patriarchy?
I agree with your theory. I'm a post-colonial scholar. I have been thinking about this theory for a while too, not coincidentally as I'm reading your work. As I'm living the experience of being severely and brutally punished for calling out a misogynistic man through divorce (my ex) and watching MY 15 yo DAUGHTER experience the same now that I've left, on a whole other level, I have reflected daily on the fact that we are treated like chattel. (Myself and my children, are all treated and seen this way, by the state, court, attorneys, systems, schools, even therapists). It is such a painful connection to make, because as a white scholar I do not want to layer white people's problems onto a past of slavery, but the same dynamic is at play. It's not slavery, nor could anyone make a full comparison, however, the *dynamic* you describe, which is underneath the actions - a disregard for lives other than those of powerful, often white (but not always white) men, and ultimately a skillful and complex, matrix-like constant protection of the men - is at play. So yes, your theory is supported by a lot of scholarly theories around how power operates, and especially racial power and gendered power. I'm sure many other readers know the scholarship as well and would agree. Your articulation of this theory is strong and useful!
It's a work in progress! I started my career in philosophy, before essentially running screaming from academia. I still consider what I'm doing to be philosophy, and I do think there's a significant body of research pointing to this as the origin of patriarchy.
I ran from pursuing a PhD too… was not my thing. So glad I made that choice. I look forward to seeing what happens with you (hopefully) publishing a book someday! 🙌
Did you mean to say, “Women, it seems, are responsible for nothing.”?
Eh?
“We tell women to communicate better, or take a self-defense class, or ask for a raise at work, as if there are individual solutions to oppression. Then it becomes the woman’s fault if a man mistreats her. Women, it seems, are responsible for everything.”
No, we’re responsible for better communication. Also responsible for men’s violence. Also responsible for not pushing for higher pay, when the comparison of the pay between the two is glaringly obvious. Add to that the responsibility of the household and emotional labor and the children? Responsible for *everything*
I don't understand what you mean by this comment.
I understood it as women being responsible for everything. Whether it’s not communicating enough, or not protecting ourselves. Not that abusive relationships can’t be communicated out of. Or that men aren’t responsible for their own violence.
I understood it, as originally written, as tongue-in-cheek.
That no matter the outcome, or who should actually be accountable, we’re still responsible to fix it.
Can you further expand on what you mean by this?
Thanks for pointing out the typo. Fixed!
Definitely with Andrea Dworkin on this and what she wrote in the 80’s pertaining to Intercourse and the female condition. She was a great gift to women everywhere. If, we as women can realize it’s ALL women and not just some unlucky woman or women, we might make better progress. The oppression of the female sex is all about exploitation and objectification. This is the model that all other oppressions are formed from and under. Also, IMHO men hate women not only do they hate women they are extremely jealous of women. But who am I? I’m just a crack head junkie, lol…kidding ;)
Can I say something else? Dworkin said this in 1987, ‘The significance of the human ceases to exist as the value of the object increases.’ When you use women to your benefit, you exploit and objectify them. Can you not hate anyone you do those things to? Because that definitely isn’t love. Going further in thought if this were the case, we would already see these longer term gains for women. Now it seems as women get a sliver more of agency the pushback is something fiercely monstrous.
Andrea Dworkin also said, "Have you never wondered why it is we are not just in armed combat against you? It is not because there is a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence." - I Want A 24 Hour Truce In Which There Is No Rape
I have been thinking for the past few days. Hope is one of our greatest liabilities. We are the only humans.
Every time shit goes sideways, or its sideways nature is incisively observed, this quote pops to mind and I wonder how much longer women, collectively, are going to continue extending to men, individually, the benefit of the doubt.
"How many times will my neighbor beat his wife?
Somewhere in that house, there's a butcher knife
Fucking drunk, swinging his fists about
Why don't she wait til he sleeps and take him out?"
- ICP, How Many Times
"Strong enough
To drag your body
To the woods."
- anonymous, Misandry in Haiku
!!!!!!!!
I recently started asking myself who does the benefit of the doubt historically benefit? It’s oppressors and abusers. I’ve stopped giving the benefit of the doubt in power dynamic situations. Of course I apply judgement and freely give the benefit of the doubt to people who are marginalized, but not to anyone who is traditionally benefits from power structures. This shift is serving me well and taking the guess work out of situations!
Wow. One of your best and most expansive pieces, Zawn.
And the reverse is also true: feminism is not about hating men (or about making them perform to some imaginary "standard"), but about making women's lives better and easier.
Something I have to keep explaining to my husband: making things more equitable is not about making him do "more" or forcing him to tick off some "good husband" checkbox (a genuinely bizarre twist on my insistence on more equity); the point is dividing the work that already exists so that everyone has a chance at a satisfying, safe, and meaningful life. That's it.
This is so smart and also so poignant: all but the very stupidest men having deathbed regrets! It is so sad for everyone. But I do think the analysis is spot on. Thank you, Zawn, for another superior essay.
There are real consequences to the way that men treat women. But it is important to focus on the real everyday life diminishing consequences on women’s lives. We have this weird ability in our society to overstate the effects of other peoples trauma on us while diminishing their actual trauma. Eg ‘me saying something like the war in Palestine is really making life hard for me.’
Yes! Fantastic. There are so many aspects to this that can bear more exploration.
"Their primary goal isn’t to harm women; it’s to gain unearned benefits like leisure, free time, and higher wages. Harming women is the means to the end, not the end in itself."
True -- and yet, I would offer another benefit that from what I have seen in my life seems to be even more powerful than those. The primary goal is to **gain status with other men**. Men get status with other men with more money, free time, and the boast that their wife is a good cook and great mother. They get status by sleeping around, having expensive gadgets, not demeaning themselves with certain kinds of labor, not having to do "girl" things, accumulating professional accolades, being physically strong, or whatever is the trend in their age group and set. The desire to preserve their status is why the men who will openly criticize other men who are abusive are very, very rare. I have watched a dozen or so "good" men, who I believe honestly meant well, support women in private, and yet refuse to speak against the man who was perpetrating harassment. One even went so far as to say "If we refused to treat him as usual, the climate in this group would be awful".
Hello. The climate in your group is already awful --FOR WOMEN. But you are more concerned with not disturbing your social clique and possibly losing power in this group.
In my opinion, almost all of it has a basis in social competition and the desire for greater status than the rest.
Great post, more like this please!
🎯🎯🎯
This is basically Kate Manne's argument in her book DOWN GIRL.
Haven't read the book yet, but now would love to...however, just wanted to ask here, is this a comment that Zawn is copying/using Manne's argument, or are we recognizing that Zawn is developing a separate argument that is similar to and influenced by Manne's? I ask because I value Zawn's particular niche-writing on this subject. Just hoping to understand or bring clarity.
I'm assuming Zawn hasn't heard of Manne and is independently developing very similar arguments, but it's generally useful for people in that position to acquaint themselves with the other person's work, if only so that they don't get accused of plagiarism!
That's a really serious allegation.
I love Manne, and referenced her work in the piece, but I don't think she's making the same argument as me.
My academic background is in philosophy, and it's really common for philosophers to build upon one another's arguments.
For heaven's sake, I specifically said I WASN'T accusing you of anything untoward! (Though I apparently completely missed any reference to Manne, which is my fault for reading too fast.) I was just struck by the similarity.
Yeah I assumed maybe you missed her reference to Manne here… so I was a little confused about the comment. Hooray for building on each other’s work.
I'm certain Zawn is **not** plagiarizing any of this. I recognize in Zawn's text some of the exact phrases I myself invented and used some twenty years ago, when I was freshly acquainted with Twisty Faster and Nine Deuce and others. It's not plagiarism. It's the radical feminist collective consciousness, and of course the arguments are evolving in tandem. That's actually a really good sign. It means we're recovering back to where we were, as a collective with a consciousness, before men successfully pony nuked the Second Wave.
Zawn and Manne, in my opinion, are two of the most brilliant writers in this vein currently. “Down Girl” is a classic, along with so many others from our sisters like “The First Sex”, “Feminism is for Everybody”, “Heartbreak”, and the book I expect Zawn to publish in the future. There’s more than enough space for all these creators and the truth they bring to us
Imo, your most important piece ever ❤️
Thank you for putting something into words that's been on my mind for most of the last year. I feel like I've quiet quit men and society in general because I'm tired of being harmed and having to do all the work to prevent that harm
I love this piece. I keep thinking 'where does it all come from?' How is it possible that half of the population is like this and the other half just have to live with it? When did the patriarchy start? What is the root? Is it men? Was it always like this? At this point in my life I don't have the time and brain space to read books but articles like this makes me long for answers...it is just so confusing..
Yes the amount of misogyny visible in a relationship with a man at any time is like a volume dial. It is turned down when they are trying to impress or when they have their needs met. It is turned up once they have secured their victim and when that woman needs reciprocity of care. The amount of cruelty a man can display towards a woman asking for reciprocity is sociopathic. The actual misogyny is a constant.
"Oh, he can't. Hes been completely gelded by the patriarchy. Yes, very tragic, but he really believes he wanted it. I can't help him, neither can you - don't waste your time. Other women have tried."
I still remember watching the Duggars, 19 Kids and Counting, years ago, being so enamored by their lifestyle. I remember in an interview, Jimbob said, "I don't hate women, I believe that women should be valued and cherished, and treated like queens." I've heard that from other similar types of men.
Similarly, in another episode, he talked about how it's important for men to step up for the fatherless in the community, so that the kids aren't negatively effected by a "Tragic situation".
Does he really care about the well-being of women and children? Or does he only care insofar as it supports his agenda?
Hi Lila, I think what you’re talking about is what’s called “Benevolent” Sexism in the literature. (Note that the term itself is sarcastic since it is anything but benevolent in practice).
I used to study sexism in intimate relationships using Ambivalent Sexism Theory, coined by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.
Basically the theory goes that there are two types of mutually reinforcing sexist attitudes: Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism. Zawn here is primarily talking about Hostile Sexism I think.
Hostile Sexism (HS) is overt derogation of, dismissal of, and negative attitudes towards women, often especially towards career oriented women, but can show up in all relationships as the idea that women are inherently manipulative, critical, uncaring, unreliable, scheming, conniving, untrustworthy, over-emotional, in short “bad”. This is used to justify men’s mistreatment of women including violence, “she was asking for it” type of attitudes, etc. Think witchcraft allegations.
Benevolent Sexism (BS) is the belief that “women are wonderful” (you can find papers on the harmful nature of the “women are wonderful” effect by Alice Eagly). But BS is a trap. It is the idea that women are “wonderful” IF they confirm to traditional gender stereotypes such as being kind, nurturing, empathetic, caring - and ideally also a homemaker and caregiver. It is used to subtly reinforce women’s lower power position by denying them the trait of competence or agency (that’s what “aggressive” career women do / that’s the world of men) while reinforcing women’s complementary but lower-status trait of communality/ caring (see also Cecilia Ridgeway’s book on this called Framed by Gender). It disarms women by promising them relationship benefits of “protection and provision” in return for conforming to gender stereotypes of women as more nurturing and relationally oriented. It basically says, women OUGHT to be caring (or else).
BS is characterised by attitudes like women and men being “destined” for each other, but casts women as “weak” and “in need” of men (protective paternalism) and reinforces that women are there to meet men’s relational needs. Men endorsing BS tend to romanticise relationships, idealise their partners, act more friendly, devoted, chivalrous, open to influence etc.
But women are seen as amazing and worthy of care, relationships etc, as long as they act nice. If they have any feelings/needs of their own or are not completely subservient or challenge men’s behaviour or want to pursue their own career goals, it’s game over. This reinforces men’s competence / agency and overall men’s superiority since competence/agency is viewed as a higher status trait than communality.
(Think of the subjectively “positive” view people have of Black and indigenous people, people with disabilities, the elderly, children — it’s the same idea that they are nice and kind but not competent, used to justify paternalistic behaviour and policies).
Benevolent Sexism is the carrot (promising women with a gallant charming man who will “treat her like a queen” and “cherish” her as long as she does what he wants), while Hostile Sexism is the stick (punishing women who do not conform to traditional gender norms). Both work in concert to oppress women by forming subjectively positive (BS) and subjectively negative (HS) views of women depending on whether or not they confirm to traditional gender roles.
This has alternatively been termed the “Madonna-Whore” complex / putting her on a pedestal then throwing her in the gutter. The Velvet Glove is another good book on BS - the velvet glove of BS covers the iron fist of HS.
The tl;dr is to run away from men who claim to “looooooove women” or see them as “queens” etc. while they may appear to be more open to influence (and therefore potentially more open to a feminist relationship), it’s often a mask for misogyny that lies underneath.
As for the hand-wringing about “fatherless” kids, this is smoke and mirrors too. The underlying message is one of hostile sexism - women are bad, selfish, uncaring, heartless if they break up their families by filing for divorce because the dude refused to treat her like an equal. The message behind the “fatherless” kids is actually all about mothers: ie that mothers are to blame for kids not having a male figure in their lives.
The “tragic situation” assumes that single mothers won’t be able to bring up their kids well, hence why it’s “tragic.” The fact of the matter is that men add hardly anything to women’s lives so it doesn’t matter if they’re bringing up the kids with a guy or not - he’s absent from kids’ lives either way, and in worse cases, abusive. It’s likely to be more of a “tragic” situation when the couple are together tbh.
I hope that helps!!
Yes. Benevolent sexism treats women as appliances just as much as hostile sexism does. Benevolent attitudes are reserved for well behaved objects. In both frameworks, women are still tools for men
Yes, this is very helpful, it helps to have these terms elaborated.
It says that women are worthy of care, so long as they behave. But what I sensed Jimbob saying, was not just "so long as they behave," but "so that they will behave." That if men would treat women better, then they will become more submissive. They will be more likely to fall in line.
The tragic situation was discussed regarding a family that they were close with, and the father died suddenly in an accident. I've heard the Bates say similar things, too. "Tragic situations" are more likely to drive children into bad decisions, a life of addiction, divorce, etc. I got a strong sense that love is conditional, given so long as people's lives fit into the neat little boxes that they prescribe. Not because he truly loves and cares about the kids. (or maybe he does, too, but you know.) I think that Bill Gothard taught alot on that.
People's lives are not perfect. And loss of a parent definitely does affect children. Even when handled well, the pain will always be there. Grief is messy, doesn't usually fit into IBLP boxes.
Which bits are you still trying the flesh out? I've been thinking about this post since you sent it! 🙃
This theory is well etched in almost every piece of yours I have read till now; and it explains every act & agenda of patriarchy. Thank you for sharing this. Asking this powerful question 'how does it benefit men or a particular man' is very beneficial to women & girls. Infact, it's necessary to ask this question if one is to take logical sane decisions uninfluenced by patriarchy.
This is a fascinating way to think about it. For patriarchy and all other kinds of oppression. The idea that the goal is to keep the power in the ones with power — not necessarily “hatred” of the others (although that is a by-product). Anyone who needs to oppress others to keep power, or even just anyone who needs to brag, prove themselves, lie, etc is most likely doing that because a lack of their own self-worth and out of fear. I wonder what could happen if we began to address that? I think as a society we’ve done a good job of that with girls — at least over my lifetime (I’m 51) there has been a lot about increasing self-worth of girls (I know—inside a patriarchy that’s slightly counterproductive), but as a mother of a daughter (16) and a son (19) what I see is my daughter having a true positive self-worth and my son having one merely because he’s a man. Patriarchy has most definitely denied him opportunity for true self acceptance and self love. I realize once my daughter gets out into the world, life will likely be more difficult for her, but I just wonder if there’s something here. How do we get men to recognize their true worth not just the one thrust upon them by being in a patriarchy?
I don’t think we should waste one more minute on mem and getting them to do anything.
Our foremothers paid entire lifetimes into that ponzi scheme. We can only honor their efforts by refusing to squander our own.
You cannot make men or anyone else do anything. Your actions are the only thing men can hear.
I agree with your theory. I'm a post-colonial scholar. I have been thinking about this theory for a while too, not coincidentally as I'm reading your work. As I'm living the experience of being severely and brutally punished for calling out a misogynistic man through divorce (my ex) and watching MY 15 yo DAUGHTER experience the same now that I've left, on a whole other level, I have reflected daily on the fact that we are treated like chattel. (Myself and my children, are all treated and seen this way, by the state, court, attorneys, systems, schools, even therapists). It is such a painful connection to make, because as a white scholar I do not want to layer white people's problems onto a past of slavery, but the same dynamic is at play. It's not slavery, nor could anyone make a full comparison, however, the *dynamic* you describe, which is underneath the actions - a disregard for lives other than those of powerful, often white (but not always white) men, and ultimately a skillful and complex, matrix-like constant protection of the men - is at play. So yes, your theory is supported by a lot of scholarly theories around how power operates, and especially racial power and gendered power. I'm sure many other readers know the scholarship as well and would agree. Your articulation of this theory is strong and useful!
And Zawn, after reading this, my question is, when are you going to publish a book? I hope you are moving toward it.
It's a work in progress! I started my career in philosophy, before essentially running screaming from academia. I still consider what I'm doing to be philosophy, and I do think there's a significant body of research pointing to this as the origin of patriarchy.
I ran from pursuing a PhD too… was not my thing. So glad I made that choice. I look forward to seeing what happens with you (hopefully) publishing a book someday! 🙌