There’s so much amazing detail here and one thing I love in particular is how you put men back into the mix of caregiving relationships — relationships historically reserved as “women’s sphere” — and show how fathers and sons and brothers are so impacted and damaged by patriarchy. Thank you!
Thanks for this, I don’t think men’s health as a consequence of patriarchy is talked about as much as it used to be.
Back it the heady days of early 1990’s feminism, men’s health and happiness were very much topics of concern. It was observed that our current economic system actively discouraged men from having the types of relationships that might fortify them against the dehumanizing forces of corporate capitalism.
It seemed so obvious to me that men were being used up by other men to line the pockets of still other men. Economic growth practically depended on successfully discouraging men from directly caring for and nurturing their families, because care isn’t profitable. Get a wife to do all that for free and you can devote all your time and energy to making $ for the company, or something like that.
It was so surprising to me back then that men didn’t see the call to connect emotionally with, and share responsibility with, women as subverting their own exploitation. Instead many saw it as dangerously emasculating. So much so that some of them ran off into the woods with a copy of Iron John by Robert Bly in search of a Wild Man to initiate them into true masculinity. It could have been a great movement that empowered men to be agents of change, to reshape society for the better, and to be fully connected to themselves and others. Sadly, the message that resonated the most was reject your mother-soul, turn away from women - they will feminize you, loneliness is a small sacrifice to make at the altar of masculinity.
And here we are, over thirty years later, in the midst of a loneliness epidemic, with hollowed out men feeling unloved, unappreciated, and disconnected. And sadly some men are still so afraid of being “feminized” in the eyes of other men that they will willingly buy a one way ticket to loneliness rather than take the leap and embrace connection.
I think the real culprit is not patriarchy, per se, but a system that leverages the masculine longing for competitive individualism that is so profitable in the private sector. It rewards domination over collaboration, recognizes only winners and losers, and is rigidly hierarchical.
We call it patriarchy, but I strongly suspect it is actually all driven by a relatively few men, greedy for money and power, who have other men in their thrall, with no intention of making good on an explicit promise to share that power and wealth. They are little concerned with the status of men in general as per the rules of domination and highly individualistic competition. Patriarchy is a useful tool for increasing men’s productivity and securing an ample supply of free domestic labor, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s much more insidious…
We’re Karen, , thanks for all your well-written thoughts here. Really thoughtful!
This especially struck me as well put:
“It seemed so obvious to me that men were being used up by other men to line the pockets of still other men. Economic growth practically depended on successfully discouraging men from directly caring for and nurturing their families, because care isn’t profitable. Get a wife to do all that for free and you can devote all your time and energy to making $ for the company, or something like that.“
I agree that’s it’s not just patriarchy of course, it’s systems of patriarchal capitalism. Or as the great bell hooks said, “White-Supremacist Colonialist Capitalist Patriarchy”
Great piece! Reminds me of some of the ideas in 'Bitch' by Lucy Cooke. It's so easy to think of patriarchy as the natural state of human society rather than an ideology that has been pushed on us to the detriment of almost everyone. Chimes with some of my thoughts on motherhood too. The insane pressure we put on mums isn't just bad for mums, it massively devalues dads and the importance of their care and nurturing.
IMO patriarchy is an illness that a few sick men foisted upon the rest of humanity. Entangling it with just enough cultural and religious dogma to make it nearly impossible to disentangle.
If we work together, intentionally and strategically, I think we can at LEAST reduce it's hold on the world.
Thanks, Lane, this is such a great and important piece. It comports to so much of what I found in researching my forthcoming book on the radicalization of American boyhood, and the problems for and danger of young white men and boys - something that affects me deeply as a mom of white boys, too.
Amen to that! Well-said overall. Patriarchy has a very nasty habit of backfiring on men. It may seem like a zero-sum at first, but it is really quite a NEGATIVE-SUM game (lose-lose) in the long run. Thus ending that toxic system once and for all will be a net positive for everyone. Whether it is karma or ubuntu or whatever you want to call it, we ultimately rise together, and we fall together as well.
You are right. Patriarchy is not good for men, just as it is not good for them to die in war, or run into burning buildings to save the women and children inside. But that is what they do. Those are their chosen roles. And somebody has to perform them. And as you describe it in this insightful piece, those aspects of patriarchy are good for society, even as you suggest they may not be good for the men themselves. But shouldn’t men be allowed to decide what is best for them?
So it seem to me the question that needs to be asked, is what does that leave for the role of women? That is the question society has been asking for the last half-century. And I would argue, what has happened over that time, in an attempt to answer that question, has been a dismal failure, in education, in the political realm, in the corporate sphere, and within families – for men AND women.
The result can be seen most explicitly in the political realm, which is now totally dedicated to the issues of women. When, for example, has a political issue been debated, which was as particular to men, as reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action are particular to women?
And the failure of this era of politics can be seen most glaringly in two events – the supreme court’s Dobbs decision and the rise of Donald Trump – who made that decision possible. When the supreme court instituted universal reproductive rights in 1973, there were no women on the supreme court, and congress was almost exclusively male. Whereas today, nearly half of the supreme court is female and there are ten times as many women in congress. And Dobbs and Donald Trump are the primary result.
So it seems to me that women should stop telling men what they should do (and boys what they should become), and start to figure out a role for themselves which they are capable of executing. Because trying to be better men than men is clearly not working.
I don’t suggest going back to the stone age. Thanks to men of industry, and their inventions and other accomplishments such as refrigeration, washers, dryers, vacuum cleaners, electric stoves and other modern appliances, “women’s work” can now be done by anyone, and in a fraction of the time. So the question then becomes what should women do now that their traditional work has largely become automated.
And as you point out, when women were at the center of their families, and of the church and society as a whole, it worked quite well for everyone involved. And what is wrong with that? Are there no roles at the center of society, as opposed to the top, which are satisfying to women? Because they clearly do not seem very comfortable or capable when at the top. And the more women seem to strive for that kind of stature, the more dissatisfaction they seem to feel in their lives, and the more society seems to suffer as a result.
Yikes!! As a woman I vigorously disagree. The women I know at the top are extremely capable, comfortable , and satisfied. Any discomfort comes from those that doubt their abilities based on gender. Who do you know at the top that feels like you describe?
If women are so satisfied and comfortable in upper level positions, then why are they always complaining about how hard they have it compared to men – as you just did. In fact one reason I suspect more women don’t make it into the c-suite, is because corporate boards are aware that if they hire a woman, they know that when they fire her, she is going to lawyer up and take them to court, costing them millions of dollars and untold PR damage. Because of course the only reason she could have possibly been fired, was because she is a woman.
And as far as capability, it turns out salary is a pretty good measure of that. Because when you account for objective differences, women earn the same as men do, up and down the line. Yet when you break down the stats by job title, men DO earn more. That’s likely, at least in part, because they tend to have more experience and are better educated. And then there are those jobs where the salary is highly-dependant on commission and bonuses, like insurance and real estate, where in addition to education level and experience you can add the fact that they are just able to sell more product than women, likely in part because of working longer hours. And as a result they earn in the range of 60% more than women do.
Maybe the reason so many women think they have to work twice as hard to get paid half as much, is because even though they may work twice as hard, they only get half as much done. So it just looks to them like men have it easier, because those men are that much better at what they do.
There’s so much amazing detail here and one thing I love in particular is how you put men back into the mix of caregiving relationships — relationships historically reserved as “women’s sphere” — and show how fathers and sons and brothers are so impacted and damaged by patriarchy. Thank you!
Thank you!
Thanks for this, I don’t think men’s health as a consequence of patriarchy is talked about as much as it used to be.
Back it the heady days of early 1990’s feminism, men’s health and happiness were very much topics of concern. It was observed that our current economic system actively discouraged men from having the types of relationships that might fortify them against the dehumanizing forces of corporate capitalism.
It seemed so obvious to me that men were being used up by other men to line the pockets of still other men. Economic growth practically depended on successfully discouraging men from directly caring for and nurturing their families, because care isn’t profitable. Get a wife to do all that for free and you can devote all your time and energy to making $ for the company, or something like that.
It was so surprising to me back then that men didn’t see the call to connect emotionally with, and share responsibility with, women as subverting their own exploitation. Instead many saw it as dangerously emasculating. So much so that some of them ran off into the woods with a copy of Iron John by Robert Bly in search of a Wild Man to initiate them into true masculinity. It could have been a great movement that empowered men to be agents of change, to reshape society for the better, and to be fully connected to themselves and others. Sadly, the message that resonated the most was reject your mother-soul, turn away from women - they will feminize you, loneliness is a small sacrifice to make at the altar of masculinity.
And here we are, over thirty years later, in the midst of a loneliness epidemic, with hollowed out men feeling unloved, unappreciated, and disconnected. And sadly some men are still so afraid of being “feminized” in the eyes of other men that they will willingly buy a one way ticket to loneliness rather than take the leap and embrace connection.
I think the real culprit is not patriarchy, per se, but a system that leverages the masculine longing for competitive individualism that is so profitable in the private sector. It rewards domination over collaboration, recognizes only winners and losers, and is rigidly hierarchical.
We call it patriarchy, but I strongly suspect it is actually all driven by a relatively few men, greedy for money and power, who have other men in their thrall, with no intention of making good on an explicit promise to share that power and wealth. They are little concerned with the status of men in general as per the rules of domination and highly individualistic competition. Patriarchy is a useful tool for increasing men’s productivity and securing an ample supply of free domestic labor, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s much more insidious…
We’re Karen, , thanks for all your well-written thoughts here. Really thoughtful!
This especially struck me as well put:
“It seemed so obvious to me that men were being used up by other men to line the pockets of still other men. Economic growth practically depended on successfully discouraging men from directly caring for and nurturing their families, because care isn’t profitable. Get a wife to do all that for free and you can devote all your time and energy to making $ for the company, or something like that.“
I agree that’s it’s not just patriarchy of course, it’s systems of patriarchal capitalism. Or as the great bell hooks said, “White-Supremacist Colonialist Capitalist Patriarchy”
Well-said
Excellent post! Thank you.
So good. Patriarchy is so dehumanizing to literally everyone. Thank you for writing.
Great piece!! Thanks as always!
Great piece! Reminds me of some of the ideas in 'Bitch' by Lucy Cooke. It's so easy to think of patriarchy as the natural state of human society rather than an ideology that has been pushed on us to the detriment of almost everyone. Chimes with some of my thoughts on motherhood too. The insane pressure we put on mums isn't just bad for mums, it massively devalues dads and the importance of their care and nurturing.
Thanks for writing and sharing!
Absolutely--there are forms of toxic masculinity and femininity/motherhood. Lots to unpack!
Yes, it is.
Thank you Beth!
Fantastic post, thank you
Thank you !
Sending this to my brothers and hoping to chat with them about it. I appreciate the breadth of your reporting and giving me new perspectives.
Thanks so much, Aine! And thx for reading and sharing :)
Wonderful post.
IMO patriarchy is an illness that a few sick men foisted upon the rest of humanity. Entangling it with just enough cultural and religious dogma to make it nearly impossible to disentangle.
If we work together, intentionally and strategically, I think we can at LEAST reduce it's hold on the world.
Thx so much! And thanks for reading.
I agree!!
Thanks, Lane, this is such a great and important piece. It comports to so much of what I found in researching my forthcoming book on the radicalization of American boyhood, and the problems for and danger of young white men and boys - something that affects me deeply as a mom of white boys, too.
Thank you so much ! And looking forward to your book!
Maybe we can figure out a joint Substack interview or something; would love to hear your perspective!
DM us! Allison does most of our book reviews and interviews :)
Amen to that! Well-said overall. Patriarchy has a very nasty habit of backfiring on men. It may seem like a zero-sum at first, but it is really quite a NEGATIVE-SUM game (lose-lose) in the long run. Thus ending that toxic system once and for all will be a net positive for everyone. Whether it is karma or ubuntu or whatever you want to call it, we ultimately rise together, and we fall together as well.
You are right. Patriarchy is not good for men, just as it is not good for them to die in war, or run into burning buildings to save the women and children inside. But that is what they do. Those are their chosen roles. And somebody has to perform them. And as you describe it in this insightful piece, those aspects of patriarchy are good for society, even as you suggest they may not be good for the men themselves. But shouldn’t men be allowed to decide what is best for them?
So it seem to me the question that needs to be asked, is what does that leave for the role of women? That is the question society has been asking for the last half-century. And I would argue, what has happened over that time, in an attempt to answer that question, has been a dismal failure, in education, in the political realm, in the corporate sphere, and within families – for men AND women.
The result can be seen most explicitly in the political realm, which is now totally dedicated to the issues of women. When, for example, has a political issue been debated, which was as particular to men, as reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action are particular to women?
And the failure of this era of politics can be seen most glaringly in two events – the supreme court’s Dobbs decision and the rise of Donald Trump – who made that decision possible. When the supreme court instituted universal reproductive rights in 1973, there were no women on the supreme court, and congress was almost exclusively male. Whereas today, nearly half of the supreme court is female and there are ten times as many women in congress. And Dobbs and Donald Trump are the primary result.
So it seems to me that women should stop telling men what they should do (and boys what they should become), and start to figure out a role for themselves which they are capable of executing. Because trying to be better men than men is clearly not working.
I don’t suggest going back to the stone age. Thanks to men of industry, and their inventions and other accomplishments such as refrigeration, washers, dryers, vacuum cleaners, electric stoves and other modern appliances, “women’s work” can now be done by anyone, and in a fraction of the time. So the question then becomes what should women do now that their traditional work has largely become automated.
And as you point out, when women were at the center of their families, and of the church and society as a whole, it worked quite well for everyone involved. And what is wrong with that? Are there no roles at the center of society, as opposed to the top, which are satisfying to women? Because they clearly do not seem very comfortable or capable when at the top. And the more women seem to strive for that kind of stature, the more dissatisfaction they seem to feel in their lives, and the more society seems to suffer as a result.
Yikes!! As a woman I vigorously disagree. The women I know at the top are extremely capable, comfortable , and satisfied. Any discomfort comes from those that doubt their abilities based on gender. Who do you know at the top that feels like you describe?
If women are so satisfied and comfortable in upper level positions, then why are they always complaining about how hard they have it compared to men – as you just did. In fact one reason I suspect more women don’t make it into the c-suite, is because corporate boards are aware that if they hire a woman, they know that when they fire her, she is going to lawyer up and take them to court, costing them millions of dollars and untold PR damage. Because of course the only reason she could have possibly been fired, was because she is a woman.
And as far as capability, it turns out salary is a pretty good measure of that. Because when you account for objective differences, women earn the same as men do, up and down the line. Yet when you break down the stats by job title, men DO earn more. That’s likely, at least in part, because they tend to have more experience and are better educated. And then there are those jobs where the salary is highly-dependant on commission and bonuses, like insurance and real estate, where in addition to education level and experience you can add the fact that they are just able to sell more product than women, likely in part because of working longer hours. And as a result they earn in the range of 60% more than women do.
See the stats, here: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/gender-pay-gap-statistics/
Maybe the reason so many women think they have to work twice as hard to get paid half as much, is because even though they may work twice as hard, they only get half as much done. So it just looks to them like men have it easier, because those men are that much better at what they do.