Patriarchy has been defined in a variety of ways, initially set out as a concept by Millett in 1970 (cited in Bryson, 1999), and later fully developed by Walby in Theorizing Patriarchy (1990). However, the concept was widely critiqued, and fell into dis-use, although it has been the subject of attempts to re-position it as an academic concept (e.g. Hunnicutt, 2009). This essay aims to discuss the prevalent accepted definition of patriarchy, and the criticisms made of it, before analysing more recent usage of the concept and whether it may continue to be useful. The first criticism of patriarchy that this essay will briefly focus on, is that it is too abstract (Gottfried, 1998). This essay then will elaborate on the ways in which this contributes
…show more content…
Beechey 1979), critics of the concept of patriarchy have claimed that it is overly monolithic, implying that all men dominate all women, failing to account for historic and cultural variability (Kandiyoti, 1988). Kandiyoti attributes this in part to the term’s over-use by feminist authors, she instead uses the term “patriarchal bargain” to reposition the discussion on a micro level, focusing on the agency of women within systems of male dominance (Kandiyoti, 1988). She argues that this method of analysis offers a more detailed exploration of the transformation that occurs within societies (Kandiyoti, 1988). Even following Walby’s 1990 development of the concept, the critique of “patriarchy” as overly simplistic persisted (Bradley, 2007; Abbott, …show more content…
She argues that this was displaced in the nineteenth century, and a new hegemonic masculinity, which prized rationality and orderliness arose (Connell, 1990). Those who embody the hegemonic ideal, or are closest to it, occupy a greater position of power, dependent on those who occupy the levels down, often marginalised masculinities (Robinson, 2015). Men within these subordinate masculinities “jockey” for their positions within it (Hill Collins, 2004: p186). As Hill Collins argues, women are positioned as the “Other” in this ideological framework, and masculinity is defined as being “not Other”, however, women and femininity are also positioned in relation to one another in a similar manner (Hill Collins, 2004). As such, gender relations are much more complex, with male domination playing out within social groups as well between them (Hill Collins, 2004). Hill Collins examines how hegemonic masculinity is defined by the white men who have access to economic, cultural and politic power, and who use this power to subordinate other forms of masculinity, including black masculinity (2004). The narrative of hegemonic masculinity is often harmful, to those who do and do not attempt to fit the ideal (Connell, 2009). Richardson explored how the narratives of heterosexual masculinity shape young
Beechey 1979), critics of the concept of patriarchy have claimed that it is overly monolithic, implying that all men dominate all women, failing to account for historic and cultural variability (Kandiyoti, 1988). Kandiyoti attributes this in part to the term’s over-use by feminist authors, she instead uses the term “patriarchal bargain” to reposition the discussion on a micro level, focusing on the agency of women within systems of male dominance (Kandiyoti, 1988). She argues that this method of analysis offers a more detailed exploration of the transformation that occurs within societies (Kandiyoti, 1988). Even following Walby’s 1990 development of the concept, the critique of “patriarchy” as overly simplistic persisted (Bradley, 2007; Abbott, …show more content…
She argues that this was displaced in the nineteenth century, and a new hegemonic masculinity, which prized rationality and orderliness arose (Connell, 1990). Those who embody the hegemonic ideal, or are closest to it, occupy a greater position of power, dependent on those who occupy the levels down, often marginalised masculinities (Robinson, 2015). Men within these subordinate masculinities “jockey” for their positions within it (Hill Collins, 2004: p186). As Hill Collins argues, women are positioned as the “Other” in this ideological framework, and masculinity is defined as being “not Other”, however, women and femininity are also positioned in relation to one another in a similar manner (Hill Collins, 2004). As such, gender relations are much more complex, with male domination playing out within social groups as well between them (Hill Collins, 2004). Hill Collins examines how hegemonic masculinity is defined by the white men who have access to economic, cultural and politic power, and who use this power to subordinate other forms of masculinity, including black masculinity (2004). The narrative of hegemonic masculinity is often harmful, to those who do and do not attempt to fit the ideal (Connell, 2009). Richardson explored how the narratives of heterosexual masculinity shape young