Patriarchy is reinforced by fraternal solidarity. The Athenian demos, German guilds, Tswana kgotla, Chinese imperial dynasties, Muslim Brotherhood and Indian caste panchayats all reinforced male dominance. As long as men are united, bound in collective loyalty, women are secondary.
The multi-generational Oedipus Complex. Because these mothers were denied romantic relationships with their own husbands, they project their desires for affection and romance onto their sons. I'm not saying it crosses the line over into sexuality, that would be extremely rare (I hope), but the way these mothers and sons deal with each other are parallel to the way you see couples deal with each other in other cultures.
You would think an older woman would be like, "I was deprived of an affectionate marriage by my mother-in-law, but let me break this generational curse and not deprive my own dear daughter-in-law. But instead they double down and go full throtal into the weirdness. It's a mental illness and really disgusting.
So here's a question: Why isn't Amal downstairs with her husband and in-laws enjoying family bonding time with all of them? A possible answer is that in spite of living in a typical South Asian mutli-generational joint family household, Pakistanis are Muslim (the vast majority) and such a family structure runs contrary to Islamic rulings, traditions and norms because of the non-mahram rules. All of her husband's male relatives, excepting only his father, are non-mahram to her and thus she cannot be around them without being fully covered. As it is very uncomfortable for a woman to fully cover in abaya, hijab and niqab all day and night within their own homes, they often cloister in their rooms or their husbands and in-laws force them to cloister. She is not considered an intergral part of the family since upon death of her husband she is legally marriageable by any of the men in the family excepting her father-in-law. This is clearly stated in Quran. Now I doubt that most Pakistani families take it this far and many probably socialize with the wife of their brother, wife of uncle, wife of cousin, wife of nephew, etc. But for those that follow Islamic rules to the letter, they simply would not be around their brother's wife without her being fully covered in Islamic "modesty gear". And even fully covered she wouldn't be openly talking and laughing and bonding with them. This is a matter of cultural divide in the wider Islamic world. See this video where this Malaysian sheikh, stationed in Saudi Arabia, discusses how this South Asian/Desi/Sub-continental cultural custom of joint family living is not an Islamic practice at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXUyMKCDBo8
Do you ever plan to do a trip to North Korea? As a gender scholar you might the place very interesting. Because the men had to work in shitty, low paid government jobs, the women became breadwinners since they were able to participate in capitalism. North Korea might become the first society to transform from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal one.
It is pretty widely known that under extreme cultural oppression and economic deprivation we get gender "equality". What I was responding to was your suggestion that there is something to learn from. What do you imagine that could be?
My suggestion wasn't that's something you want to emulate but rather this is a super interesting data point for analysis. From what I have read North Korean women are just super sexist against men which, as a man, I don't find particularly appealing.
Under oppression there is no place for ethics, loyalty and therefore romantic love. What's happening there would not have any relevance to us living under relative freedom.
In the US, university educated women are more likely to identify as feminists, and they are also highly likely to marry. Moreover, it's usually for loving companionship (not economic insecurity, or social obligation). Lower rates of marriage are not among self-declared feminists.
It is a meaningless statistic, as the women are likely to be status-seeking (a reason why they are feminists in a culture that affirms feminism) and marriage is still something that confers status in the middle class (where people tend to go to university). Working class marriage is a thing of the past and marriage as a whole has been destroyed by feminism.
After all, feminists did say out loud this is what they wanted to do - destroy marriage.
This doesn't follow statistically, since it assumes feminist identity and likelihood of getting married are independent. It is begging the question.
This also ignores that the marriage rate has fallen dramatically, so you'd just basically be saying "in the current era after feminists changed a bunch of stuff some well-educated feminists are getting married but nobody else is" which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Not to mention that romantic love and marriage aren't synonymous.
You repeatedly use the word "gender" in reference to humans.
Provide a definition. What does the word "gender" mean? You clearly must mean it is different from "sex" (of which there are two, female and male, so that is easily defined), so you must provide a definition of "gender."
I always enjoy reading your well-researched posts, Alice. Thank you. I think romantic love could be one precondition to male support and empowerment of women, which might then lead to more gender equality (along with legal rights and cultural supportive ideals), but I’m not sure promoting it alone leads to gender equal outcomes.
The reason I say that is, Paul’s text, the Protestant Reformation, and the emergence of the nuclear family, especially in Christian spaces, has not necessarily eliminated sexist attitudes or gender hierarchies in Christian homes.
In my experience and observation as a couples therapist, “I I hypothesis that a man who cherishes his female partner will put her first” and “A potentially powerful driver of gender equality may be loving men who want women to thrive and be happy” are two different ideas.
My husband does (and many other husbands do) both, which has led to mutual empowerment and gender equality in our home. Other husbands stop at the cherishing a wife as the object of his affection, leading him to desire her general happiness, but not her thriving or empowerment.
So, wondering if romantic ideals (along with legal rights and social supports) would be a starting point in the some of the countries you mentioned …followed by efforts by equality-affirming men to further effect change in their specific cultures over time (agreeing with your assessment that women’s movements can spark cultural reaction and backlash).
Thinking out loud. Thanks again for your research!
I think the thesis makes sense. It does make me wonder how we could find a proxy/measure of romantic love in a country and how it has evolved in the west over the years.
As an Iranian born living in Europe, I could clearly see the toxic interfering patterns of behavior in mother-in-law/sister-in-law relations in Iran. Luckily as individualism progressed, this also decreased and men and women in Iran put their partner as their primary family and priority not their parents/previous family. I disagree with any form of welfare on principle and the issue here at core has to do with ethics/lack of them. A new code of ethics must emerge that objectively teaches us about the importance of romantic love in human happiness and flourishing. What has been very inspiring to me was "The Selfish Path to Romance: How to Love With Passion and Reason: How to Love with Passion & Reason".
Yes! A different side to the same coin is that no functional society has zero powerful women. Because powerful men (at least some) will love some women (who want to be powerful and are gifted in intellect etc.). Be it mothers, lovers or daughters. So even in societies where it is hidden there are way for women to practice power. Personally I’m a big fan of freedom from violence as being most important so I don’t favor those societies but I think it’s important to see them clearly. Even what you describe - it can be described as women hold power and exercise it through their sons - sons who see how oppressed their beloved mothers are are loath to deny them anything - including control over their, the son’s, own lives. I wonder how else mothers with grown sons exercise power. It is hard - you have to put up a lot of barriers - to prevent men from loving women and vice versa. Now some people are more selfish even when they love but a significant percentage really do want to make their beloved happy.
What a refreshing and enlightening read - it was an intriguing historical piece I didn't know I needed. Your analysis resonates deeply with me, especially in the context of my own experiences and observations living in Bangkok, where patriarchal notions are still very much prevalent. But I'm also beginning to blurred line in gender because it's also the women up top who seem to continue enabling the toxic narrative unknowingly (or maybe knowingly!).
In my recent writing, I explored similar themes - the interplay between love and psychological wellbeing. Just as your post highlights, I've observed how familial and societal expectations can profoundly influence romantic relationships. The mother-in-law exerting control? Yep, witnessed that firsthand. It often feels like a silent and invisible competition of "who do you love more?"
The suppression (or not prioritising) of romantic love not only stifles individual happiness and fulfillment but also perpetuates a cycle of unmet emotional needs. I have introduced Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to the piece as I think it captures the essence of human desires well.
It's heartening to see this conversation unfolds. Thank you for sharing your insightful analysis. I hope to get your thoughts on my recent piece too!
The section on America is pretty weak. Your most recent example is from 1816. It would be interesting to understand better how America today is extremely patriarchal.
The multi-generational Oedipus Complex. Because these mothers were denied romantic relationships with their own husbands, they project their desires for affection and romance onto their sons. I'm not saying it crosses the line over into sexuality, that would be extremely rare (I hope), but the way these mothers and sons deal with each other are parallel to the way you see couples deal with each other in other cultures.
You would think an older woman would be like, "I was deprived of an affectionate marriage by my mother-in-law, but let me break this generational curse and not deprive my own dear daughter-in-law. But instead they double down and go full throtal into the weirdness. It's a mental illness and really disgusting.
So here's a question: Why isn't Amal downstairs with her husband and in-laws enjoying family bonding time with all of them? A possible answer is that in spite of living in a typical South Asian mutli-generational joint family household, Pakistanis are Muslim (the vast majority) and such a family structure runs contrary to Islamic rulings, traditions and norms because of the non-mahram rules. All of her husband's male relatives, excepting only his father, are non-mahram to her and thus she cannot be around them without being fully covered. As it is very uncomfortable for a woman to fully cover in abaya, hijab and niqab all day and night within their own homes, they often cloister in their rooms or their husbands and in-laws force them to cloister. She is not considered an intergral part of the family since upon death of her husband she is legally marriageable by any of the men in the family excepting her father-in-law. This is clearly stated in Quran. Now I doubt that most Pakistani families take it this far and many probably socialize with the wife of their brother, wife of uncle, wife of cousin, wife of nephew, etc. But for those that follow Islamic rules to the letter, they simply would not be around their brother's wife without her being fully covered in Islamic "modesty gear". And even fully covered she wouldn't be openly talking and laughing and bonding with them. This is a matter of cultural divide in the wider Islamic world. See this video where this Malaysian sheikh, stationed in Saudi Arabia, discusses how this South Asian/Desi/Sub-continental cultural custom of joint family living is not an Islamic practice at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXUyMKCDBo8
Damn, that's messed up
Do you ever plan to do a trip to North Korea? As a gender scholar you might the place very interesting. Because the men had to work in shitty, low paid government jobs, the women became breadwinners since they were able to participate in capitalism. North Korea might become the first society to transform from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal one.
Yes it turns out that with sufficient oppression we can overcome culture. Nothing like a bit of starvation to get the ball rolling.
Really odd that the people keep leaving those countries for the west and not the inverse.
Were you under the impression that I was defending North Korea?
It is pretty widely known that under extreme cultural oppression and economic deprivation we get gender "equality". What I was responding to was your suggestion that there is something to learn from. What do you imagine that could be?
My suggestion wasn't that's something you want to emulate but rather this is a super interesting data point for analysis. From what I have read North Korean women are just super sexist against men which, as a man, I don't find particularly appealing.
Under oppression there is no place for ethics, loyalty and therefore romantic love. What's happening there would not have any relevance to us living under relative freedom.
Their TFR hasn't collapsed either. A comparative study of gender relations in North and South would be very interesting
I sure appreciate your cross-cultural takes on the relations between men & women
Romantic love is no longer possible thanks to modern feminism. As a man i see a very grim future.
In the US, university educated women are more likely to identify as feminists, and they are also highly likely to marry. Moreover, it's usually for loving companionship (not economic insecurity, or social obligation). Lower rates of marriage are not among self-declared feminists.
You have no idea it is for loving companionship.
It is a meaningless statistic, as the women are likely to be status-seeking (a reason why they are feminists in a culture that affirms feminism) and marriage is still something that confers status in the middle class (where people tend to go to university). Working class marriage is a thing of the past and marriage as a whole has been destroyed by feminism.
After all, feminists did say out loud this is what they wanted to do - destroy marriage.
Are men not status seeking?
Most feminist are not against marriage or partnership per se.
And nuclear family, I e. Babies.
And men in general.
Where?
My country has the 5th lowest birth rate. Sure, feminists have higher rates of marriages... I am not feeling it
This doesn't follow statistically, since it assumes feminist identity and likelihood of getting married are independent. It is begging the question.
This also ignores that the marriage rate has fallen dramatically, so you'd just basically be saying "in the current era after feminists changed a bunch of stuff some well-educated feminists are getting married but nobody else is" which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Not to mention that romantic love and marriage aren't synonymous.
Or course. This is the Taylor Swift effect: feminist mess all women excepto themselves.
Taylor Swift? Very feminist, but her partner is the full encumorance of an alpha male.
She msy be very feminist, but he has chosen the prototipe of Patriarcal alpha male.
Where did you get this data from? Source, thanks
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/
You repeatedly use the word "gender" in reference to humans.
Provide a definition. What does the word "gender" mean? You clearly must mean it is different from "sex" (of which there are two, female and male, so that is easily defined), so you must provide a definition of "gender."
Go ahead. Define "gender."
The words gender and sex are still sometimes used as synonyms for one another as they have been for many decades.
I always enjoy reading your well-researched posts, Alice. Thank you. I think romantic love could be one precondition to male support and empowerment of women, which might then lead to more gender equality (along with legal rights and cultural supportive ideals), but I’m not sure promoting it alone leads to gender equal outcomes.
The reason I say that is, Paul’s text, the Protestant Reformation, and the emergence of the nuclear family, especially in Christian spaces, has not necessarily eliminated sexist attitudes or gender hierarchies in Christian homes.
In my experience and observation as a couples therapist, “I I hypothesis that a man who cherishes his female partner will put her first” and “A potentially powerful driver of gender equality may be loving men who want women to thrive and be happy” are two different ideas.
My husband does (and many other husbands do) both, which has led to mutual empowerment and gender equality in our home. Other husbands stop at the cherishing a wife as the object of his affection, leading him to desire her general happiness, but not her thriving or empowerment.
So, wondering if romantic ideals (along with legal rights and social supports) would be a starting point in the some of the countries you mentioned …followed by efforts by equality-affirming men to further effect change in their specific cultures over time (agreeing with your assessment that women’s movements can spark cultural reaction and backlash).
Thinking out loud. Thanks again for your research!
Sure, so romantic love is not the only driver, but it's one important variable that is widely overlooked.
How do you reconcile equality with “putting her first”? Those are at odds.
I think the thesis makes sense. It does make me wonder how we could find a proxy/measure of romantic love in a country and how it has evolved in the west over the years.
As an Iranian born living in Europe, I could clearly see the toxic interfering patterns of behavior in mother-in-law/sister-in-law relations in Iran. Luckily as individualism progressed, this also decreased and men and women in Iran put their partner as their primary family and priority not their parents/previous family. I disagree with any form of welfare on principle and the issue here at core has to do with ethics/lack of them. A new code of ethics must emerge that objectively teaches us about the importance of romantic love in human happiness and flourishing. What has been very inspiring to me was "The Selfish Path to Romance: How to Love With Passion and Reason: How to Love with Passion & Reason".
I hope you take a look!
Yes! A different side to the same coin is that no functional society has zero powerful women. Because powerful men (at least some) will love some women (who want to be powerful and are gifted in intellect etc.). Be it mothers, lovers or daughters. So even in societies where it is hidden there are way for women to practice power. Personally I’m a big fan of freedom from violence as being most important so I don’t favor those societies but I think it’s important to see them clearly. Even what you describe - it can be described as women hold power and exercise it through their sons - sons who see how oppressed their beloved mothers are are loath to deny them anything - including control over their, the son’s, own lives. I wonder how else mothers with grown sons exercise power. It is hard - you have to put up a lot of barriers - to prevent men from loving women and vice versa. Now some people are more selfish even when they love but a significant percentage really do want to make their beloved happy.
What a refreshing and enlightening read - it was an intriguing historical piece I didn't know I needed. Your analysis resonates deeply with me, especially in the context of my own experiences and observations living in Bangkok, where patriarchal notions are still very much prevalent. But I'm also beginning to blurred line in gender because it's also the women up top who seem to continue enabling the toxic narrative unknowingly (or maybe knowingly!).
In my recent writing, I explored similar themes - the interplay between love and psychological wellbeing. Just as your post highlights, I've observed how familial and societal expectations can profoundly influence romantic relationships. The mother-in-law exerting control? Yep, witnessed that firsthand. It often feels like a silent and invisible competition of "who do you love more?"
The suppression (or not prioritising) of romantic love not only stifles individual happiness and fulfillment but also perpetuates a cycle of unmet emotional needs. I have introduced Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to the piece as I think it captures the essence of human desires well.
It's heartening to see this conversation unfolds. Thank you for sharing your insightful analysis. I hope to get your thoughts on my recent piece too!
Is there scope for an outreach to these men who struggle to find mates, teaching them how to care and have confidence etc?
The section on America is pretty weak. Your most recent example is from 1816. It would be interesting to understand better how America today is extremely patriarchal.
Anthony Giddens has a chapter on this in Runaway World. It has huge implications.
Fantastic historical and sociological summary.
Interesting hypotheses at the end.
Very well constructed post. Allways enjoy learning but rarely does it feel this effortless.