In a 1992 essay “Men in Feminist Struggle ­ The Necessary Movement,” bell hooks writes, “There are no books that adequately serve as maps explaining what patriarchy is, how it works, and why they should be committed to a feminist movement that opposes sexism and sexist oppression.”
Due to my relative unfamiliarity with feminist literature, I wonder, some 12 years after hooks’ article, if any such book exists. hooks notes in the same essay that the “earliest writings of the men’s movement expressed far more concern with dismantling patriarchy and eradicating male domination of women and children than more recent work.”
Given what hooks says, and regardless of any books that have been published since, there seems to be a task at hand for correction. First, I think a definition of the word “patriarchy” might be helpful. A good starting place would be the dictionary, which (according to Merriam-Webster Online) broadly defines patriarchy as “control by men of a disproportionately large share of power.” I’ll add to this, and say such control equals dominion over anything considered “less” than male — this includes women, nature and children.
The point of this discussion is not to go digging in the past, or to pigeonhole a large portion of the population, but rather to show the historical basis for patriarchy’s existence, which often allows oppression to pass by unchecked or unseen. While many of the more blatant forms of oppression no longer exist, it is the latent, or invisible, oppression that is continually cultivated by institutions and even ourselves. And this unseen oppression is just as worrisome as any overt patriarchal oppression. Unfortunately, patriarchy is continually propagated as the perverted norm. Now add to this the concept of compulsive heterosexuality.
In Barrie Thorne and Zella Luria’s “Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds,” they write, “In our culture, gender and sexuality are deeply intertwined, especially for adults; ‘woman/man,’ and especially ‘femininity/masculinity’ are categories loaded with heterosexual meanings.”
Thorne and Luria note that “the gender-divided social worlds of children are not totally asexual,” and that from the ages nine to 11 they are “largely defined as children, but they are on the verge of sexual maturity, cultural adolescence, and a gender system organized around the institution of heterosexuality.”
A child’s typical experience in elementary school establishes and solidifies a patriarchal attitude towards the world. This experience, of course, affects boys and girls, women and men, and everyone in between. Thorne and Luria note that gender segregation, while not total, is central to the daily life and organization of an elementary school. This segregation exists in the forms of gendered spaces, friendships, and spatial separation between boys and girls — with boys typically controlling areas such as large playing fields, and girls controlling smaller enclaves like hopscotch. Examples like these solidify the gendered orientation for each group.
Of course, there are exceptions to all of the aforementioned. But the point is, our sexual identities are formed through our gendered activities, and gender segregation between boys and girls forms a fundamental separation from these groups. Both sexuality and gender are formed through the process of socialization.
Biology is part of this process as well. However, to reduce someone’s sexual identity or gender role down to a purely biological cause could be to engage in a reductionist or determinist argument, which sociologist Margaret L. Anderson notes “reduces a complex event or process to a single, monolithic cause.”
Biological reductionist arguments rest on the assumption that differences between the sexes are ‘natural,’ as Anderson says. “Yet, in fact, it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish so-called natural and social events.” She also notes that while differences between male and female biological traits are emphasized, both women and men share the vast majority of human traits.
Unfortunately, America’s hetero-patriarchal structure leaves little room for the expression of diversity during the key periods of socialization: our youth. What now becomes necessary is a deviation from behavioral norms that affect everyone, not just women or other historically oppressed groups. I cannot not prescribe any single course of action, and I leave it up to readers to find ways to creatively express their dissent. Find your original core and ground yourself in creativity — not what you think others think you should be.
Or, like one of my favorite poets once said: Break free songbird, break free — break free songbird, break free.
To be continued.