The major theory of the origin of patriarchy points to social consequences of reproduction. At the beginning of societies, life was much shorter, and in order to keep the human race from disappearing, many children had to be born. Because only women get pregnant, give birth, and nurse, they were limited to these activities the most part of their lives. Whether they had a child in their wombs, or at their breasts, women were always physically oppressed. Consequently, women performed tasks that were associated with child rearing and the home, while men took over the hunting, which required speed, strength and absence from the main camp for longer periods of time. Needless to say, men became the dominant sex. They became responsible for providing for their families, and for the weapons used for hunting and war. All these activities were contemplated as more rewarding and prestigious than the routine and ordinary ones performed by women. Eventually, society was ruled by men, and women became second-class citizens at mercy of men’s decisions. Regardless of all the anthropological conclusions drawn from these records about the origin of patriarchal societies, men openly came to think of themselves as superior, and assumed women to be inferior. Even in today’s societies, many rules, institutions and customs are designed to support and justify this belief, and to maintain gender inequality.
According to sociologist Steven Goldberg, there is a “presence of core-deep differences of temperament and emotion we call masculinity and femininity”. His argument determines that those “differences” are not acquired from the environment but inborn, giving men and women the direction to their emotions and behaviors. His grounds are based on anthropological records that show that all societies for which evidence exists are (or were) patriarchies; leaving matriarchal societies to be considered as a mere myth. He elaborates his argument stating that in most past and present societies, if not all, usually are men who hold the highest statuses and “overwhelmingly dominate those hierarchies”. Through a process of cultural evolution, societies that adopted this particular social system -which involves far more than simple male domination- maximized their population and therefore their power, whereas those that didn’t were either overrun or absorbed. [#]
In the other hand, for sociologist Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, social factors, specifically socialization and social control, play an important role in differentiating the behaviors of males and females. Her argument is based on anthropological records that show greater equality between the sexes than we had thought. In earlier societies, women, as well as men, hunted small game, made tools, and gathered food. In these hunting and gathering societies the roles of both men and women were less rigid than those created by stereotypes. This proves that, even though there was a separation of tasks, the status of women at this level of development was equal to those of men; women were not subordinated. The type of work that women and men did in these societies were determined by social arrangements rather than by biology. Of course, biology is responsible for some differentiation in human behaviors, however these are limited to those involving reproduction or body structure.
This is a patriarchal society, there is no doubt about it, but patriarchy is not an entity that manifests only under certain circumstances; it is a structure, and one that, regardless of sex, we all breathe and live by every day, everywhere.
Women have gained consciousness about their social roles when they realized that the system was not made for them. Let’s say it, this society was, since the beginning, led by men -particularly white men- and still is. The constitutionalization of women’s suffrage in 1920 was the first step, on the list of many other, women would take to have their voices taken into consideration; however, more than 80 years later, being a woman in this society means being part of its largest minority.
Historically, U.S. marriage and family customs were developed within a framework of patriarchy. Although these patterns are somehow more egalitarian, many of today’s customs still reflect their patriarchal origin. One of the most obvious examples is the naming patterns. The typical bride gets her last name changed, hyphenated, mutilated, estranged, while the groom gets to proliferate and prolong his family’s name when their children receive the father‘s last name. The mother receives zero credit for having given birth to the kids, or for later becoming their 24/7 nurse.
Patriarchal societies also have a way to “penalize” women who do not marry or have children. Just not so long ago, such women were referred to as old maids, being condemned for their “selfishness” toward society. The system simply set the incentive of taking a husband and becoming a full-time mother very high because it failed to offer women more desirable alternatives. Like women who do not get marry, society also punishes women who are “too liberated” by literally calling them names. If a woman goes out with several men (of course not with all of them at the same time) she is socially regarded as a prostitute or a ho; while men who play the role of hunks and are very popular among the ladies are regarded as “the best of the caste“ or pimps. This “pimps and hos” dichotomy is more than a frat party name; it represents this whole idea that, as hos, women still depend on men (or pimps) to survive. For generations, prostitutes were required to give a high percentage of their earnings to their pimps, otherwise, they were at risk of being attacked, abused, or killed. While many may consider that this ho concept does bring some good to the issue because it provides women with an alternative to the repression of their sexuality, I think is like keep pouring salt over the wound. Moreover, thinking that it has to be regarded merely as an expression and that in fact does do some good, is the first sign that we have been brainwashed and that we are losing the fight. Turning the TV on or grabbing a magazine at a news stand will give everybody a reason to regard women as hos and consider them as objects that have been put on earth to satisfy men‘s sexual needs. If there are some women who actually like to be denigrated like that, those do not represent the majority of the gender.
Another example comes with the work force. Today in America, the average woman age 65 and over lives six years longer than the average men, meaning that she is usually widowed, living alone and struggling to survive with a frugal income of less than $16,000; while in the case of the man being the widow, that amount would increase over 90%. The statistics show that a retired woman would receive lower Social Security benefits as a result of being about 14 years out of the work force, for having taken care of her children and her elderly parents respectively. All this without, of course, having considered the more-than-a-huge wage gap that persists among salaries earned by men and women. This wage gap exists because many women are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. Part of the wage gap results from differences in education, experience or time in the workforce. But a significant portion cannot be explained by any of those factors; it is attributable to discrimination, meaning that employers pay less because those jobs are held by women.
This society draws the line for my expectations when I come back from work dragging the groceries out of my 98 Escort, and see my male neighbor getting out of his 2007 Mercedes wearing a suit and with nothing else in his hands but the latest Blackberry and the keys. This society tells you that if you’re too liberated you’re a ho; if you get married, you lose your identity; if you’re widowed, you will live the rest of your life in poverty. This imbalance means that on the other side, someone is fattening his pockets with what you’re suppose to get, but you don’t because you were born a female. There are many perceptions so deeply embedded into our culture that society is too afraid to change them. This is what we know, and this is how things are supposed to be. If things change, so does the structure. If the system changes, that means that what we learned and knew as correct is, in fact, incorrect. Can we handle a change of such magnitude? We, women are outsiders in this. We have accomplished things, but how much can we accomplish? Every day, when we put our inner desires aside, so we can comply with one of the many roles women are expected to do, we are actually telling everyone else that they’re right. But then, at what cost do we keep paying to be a woman in this society?
