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.
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!
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 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.
We need to change the subject on campus, and everywhere from Israel-Palestine, not engage deeper in it, get "good trouble" about other things, women's rights, freedoms, health:
Background: We haven’t yet seen the kind of coordinated, deliberately staged acts of civil disobedience that can sometimes transform politics, on the abortion issue. But this topic is well suited to this kind of aggressive strategy. People hate the rules Republicans are making Republicans themselves are embarrassed to talk about enforcing them, and the biggest substantive risk to abortion rights isn’t that people don’t agree with the cause, it’s that many people may just not be thinking about it enough. Anything that forces more attention to the issue and prevents it from fading from view is constructive, and dramatic events that make real-word news are much more impactful than paid television ads. The fact is, we *are* seeing deliberately staged acts of civil disobedience to try to transform politics on the Israel-Palestine issue, that will not succeed in doing so, in the intended manner at least. (ie, electoral effect would be to help elect Trump who would tell Netanyahu to just do what he wants in region, while he tells religious wrong to do what it wants at home) And Republican politicians and the Republican message machine sense the opportunity in playing it up in fissuring the Democratic coalition so much they play up coverage, and, like Mike Johnson at Columbia, bodily throw themselves into the controversy. And non-conservative media can’t strategically control its substantive fascination with the issue. Democrats or anyone interested in the prospering of center-left politics desperately need to change the subject, and abortion rights would fit the bill perfectly to be the new story to change it to.
Question: What types of acts of civil disobedience have “the groups” and citizens that care about reproductive freedom, women’s rights and health been forgetting to do in the half dozen or so prosecutorial or regulatory nightmare stories going on at any given time downstream of Dobbs that make Republicans at state, federal, local, judicial or activist levels look terrible, keep the story alive in national media, and "unignorable"? What events and stories could Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and other politicians and candidates throw their whole bodies into, to reinforce and direct news media eyeballs, whether inclined or not, onto Republican responsibility for the anti-abortion and anti-woman prosecutions and decisions?
Or could a bigger campaign posing a threat to the prospect of romantic love be made, a Lysistrata strategy? Women on a campaign to wear no make-up, revealing or form-fitting clothing until state laws on reproductive rights are changed? Mass short-term migration of a "freedom nomad" force of menopausal women and vasectomied men to move into states with the most restrictive abortion and anti-contraception laws, to establish residency, and get their laws changed, and send different people to Congress and get Roe enacted into federal legislation?
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.
100% agree but isn't the most effective tool we have to achieve this economic development? Ultimately, romantic love is a good people pay to consume -- the family gives up some degree of economic benefit so people can marry who they want. If you make people richer they are likely to make this choice!
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!
Boom. Wonderful historical summary. I have a chapter on this very topic in my new book… The Triumph of the Romantic Couple…late 20th century phenomenon…
There are also plenty of men who lash out on women just because they don't get romantic love though. Incels, for example, don't seem to be entirely driven by the lack of sex. Romantic love is really nice, people know it.
Yes it's a boost for gender equality, but I doubt a society can count on promoting romantic love to enact widespread changes.
I actually suspect Romantic love is a result, or side effect of gender equality, not the other way around.
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.
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!
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."
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.
We need to change the subject on campus, and everywhere from Israel-Palestine, not engage deeper in it, get "good trouble" about other things, women's rights, freedoms, health:
Background: We haven’t yet seen the kind of coordinated, deliberately staged acts of civil disobedience that can sometimes transform politics, on the abortion issue. But this topic is well suited to this kind of aggressive strategy. People hate the rules Republicans are making Republicans themselves are embarrassed to talk about enforcing them, and the biggest substantive risk to abortion rights isn’t that people don’t agree with the cause, it’s that many people may just not be thinking about it enough. Anything that forces more attention to the issue and prevents it from fading from view is constructive, and dramatic events that make real-word news are much more impactful than paid television ads. The fact is, we *are* seeing deliberately staged acts of civil disobedience to try to transform politics on the Israel-Palestine issue, that will not succeed in doing so, in the intended manner at least. (ie, electoral effect would be to help elect Trump who would tell Netanyahu to just do what he wants in region, while he tells religious wrong to do what it wants at home) And Republican politicians and the Republican message machine sense the opportunity in playing it up in fissuring the Democratic coalition so much they play up coverage, and, like Mike Johnson at Columbia, bodily throw themselves into the controversy. And non-conservative media can’t strategically control its substantive fascination with the issue. Democrats or anyone interested in the prospering of center-left politics desperately need to change the subject, and abortion rights would fit the bill perfectly to be the new story to change it to.
Question: What types of acts of civil disobedience have “the groups” and citizens that care about reproductive freedom, women’s rights and health been forgetting to do in the half dozen or so prosecutorial or regulatory nightmare stories going on at any given time downstream of Dobbs that make Republicans at state, federal, local, judicial or activist levels look terrible, keep the story alive in national media, and "unignorable"? What events and stories could Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and other politicians and candidates throw their whole bodies into, to reinforce and direct news media eyeballs, whether inclined or not, onto Republican responsibility for the anti-abortion and anti-woman prosecutions and decisions?
Or could a bigger campaign posing a threat to the prospect of romantic love be made, a Lysistrata strategy? Women on a campaign to wear no make-up, revealing or form-fitting clothing until state laws on reproductive rights are changed? Mass short-term migration of a "freedom nomad" force of menopausal women and vasectomied men to move into states with the most restrictive abortion and anti-contraception laws, to establish residency, and get their laws changed, and send different people to Congress and get Roe enacted into federal legislation?
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.
100% agree but isn't the most effective tool we have to achieve this economic development? Ultimately, romantic love is a good people pay to consume -- the family gives up some degree of economic benefit so people can marry who they want. If you make people richer they are likely to make this choice!
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!
Romantic love is no longer possible thanks to modern feminism. As a man i see a very grim future.
You are on the right track. Strongly suggest you also read Marriage and Love in England: Modes of Reproduction 1300-1840 by Alan Macfarlane.
This was a wonderful contribution, very insightful and thought provoking. Thank you.
Boom. Wonderful historical summary. I have a chapter on this very topic in my new book… The Triumph of the Romantic Couple…late 20th century phenomenon…
There are also plenty of men who lash out on women just because they don't get romantic love though. Incels, for example, don't seem to be entirely driven by the lack of sex. Romantic love is really nice, people know it.
Yes it's a boost for gender equality, but I doubt a society can count on promoting romantic love to enact widespread changes.
I actually suspect Romantic love is a result, or side effect of gender equality, not the other way around.