Why Does Patriarchy Persist?
-
-
3.5 • 2 Ratings
-
-
- $14.99
-
- $14.99
Publisher Description
The election of an unabashedly patriarchal man as US President was a shock for many—despite decades of activism on gender inequalities and equal rights, how could it come to this? What is it about patriarchy that seems to make it so resilient and resistant to change? Undoubtedly it endures in part because some people benefit from the unequal advantages it confers. But is that enough to explain its stubborn persistence?
In this highly original and persuasively argued book, Carol Gilligan and Naomi Snider put forward a different view: they argue that patriarchy persists because it serves a psychological function. By requiring us to sacrifice love for the sake of hierarchy, patriarchy protects us from the vulnerability of loving and becomes a defense against loss. Uncovering the powerful psychological mechanisms that underpin patriarchy, the authors show how forces beyond our awareness may be driving a politics that otherwise seems inexplicable.
Customer Reviews
This book should have been SO MUCH better!!
Here are my key concerns:
1. In the first chapter Gilligan/Snider state: “Our thesis points to a paradox: we give up relationship in order to have “relationships,”…”
Isn’t this “thesis” originally Jean Baker Miller and Irene Stiver’s description of the “central relational paradox” from 1991? I expected Miller and Stiver to be given credit somewhere in this book. Did the authors appropriate Miller and Stiver's concept without giving them credit?
DESCRIPTION of the “central relational paradox" — “In the face of repeated experiences of disconnection, we believe people yearn even more for relationships to help with the confused mixture of painful feelings. However, they also become so afraid of engaging with others about their experience that they keep important parts of the themselves out of relationship, i.e., they develop techniques for staying out of connection...Thus we see the central problem as the paradox that in our deep desire to make connection, we keep parts of ourselves out of connection” (Miller & Stiver, 1991, p. 2).
2. Why would the authors rely so heavily on John Bowlby’s work? In a significant way, his work can be used to pathologize mothers! One would think a book about patriarchy would rely more heavily on the wealth of knowledge developed by women theorists, researchers, and clinicians.
This book should have been SO MUCH better!!