What do you think?
Rate this book
Theorizing Patriarchy
Sylvia Walby provides an overview of recent theoretical debates - Marxism, radical and liberal feminism, post-structuralism and dual systems theory. She shows how each can be applied to a range of substantive topics from paid work, housework and the state, to culture, sexuality and violence, relying on the most up-to-date empirical findings. Arguing that patriarchy has been vigorously adaptable to the changes in women's position, and that some of women's hard-won social gains have been transformed into new traps, Walby proposes a combination of class analysis with radical feminist theory to explain gender relations in terms of both patriarchal and capitalist structure.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
9 people are currently reading
717 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 19, 2024
öncelikle beğendiğim kısımlardan söz edeceğim, ki hayli sınırlı. şiddet bölümünde erkek şiddetinin boyutlarını tartışığı kısımda verdiği anekdot ve sayılar oldukça çarpıcı, gelecekte başvurulabilecek bir bölüm. temelde 4 feminist ekolün çeşitli konulara yaklaşımı ve bu yaklaşımların kritiğine yer verme ÇABASI takdir edilebilir, ama sadece çabası.
beğenmediğim taraflarıysa maalesef çok fazla. öncelikle marksizm anlayışı ya inanılmaz sınırlı ya da bilerek dezenformasyon yaratıyor, bilemiyorum. çekirdek ailenin kapitalizm ve özel mülkiyet ile gelişmiş bir yapı olduğunu ve kapitalizme fayda sağladığını/kapitalizmin tüketim birimi olduğunu söylemek "kapitalizm var olmak için çekirdek aileye ihtiyaç duyar" (yazarın anladığı) demek değil örneğin. dolayısıyla "ama kapitalizmde artan şekilde geleneksel çekirdek aile dışında aile biçimleri ile karşılaşıyoruz" demek bir karşı argüman değil, yeniden üretim toplumsallaştı mı toplumsallaşmadı mı'yı tartışmak bir karşı argüman olabilir, tabii ki walby böyle bir tartışmanın yakınından bile geçmiyor. çekirdek ailenin çözünmesini temizliği kadın ücretsiz yapmadığı bir zaman gelirse konuşuruz mesela. kitap boyunca marksist feministler ve marksistler ekonomizm ile suçlanmış, moda bu olduğu için galiba :) ama bunu yaparken kendi bölük pörçük kuramı patriyarkanın temelini açıklamayı beceremiyor, nihayetinde "işte her şeyle alakalı yani anladınız siz" diyip bırakıyor. bu sistemli bir yaklaşım elbette değil. kitabın düzeni karman çorman, bölümlere böldüğünü görünce sevinmiştim ama çok kötü olmuş bence. inanılmaz fazla tekrara düşüyor ama bu esnada bir "patriyarka kuramı"ndan söz edeceksek bahsetmemiz mecburi olan bir sürü meseleyi ya atlıyor ya etrafından dolanıyor. örneğin marksist feministleri ya da ikili sistem kuramcılarını tartışırken çocuk doğurabilmenin (işçi üretmenin) sermayeye kadın bedenlerini kontrol etmede çıkar sağlayacağını nasıl konuşmuyor? bunun dışında çok fazla yanlış çıkarımı var, tek tek burada sıralamaya üşeniyorum ama kitapta sürekli "yanlış bir yorum" (hadi bence diyeyim) diye cümlelerin altlarını çizdim.
bu kitap patriyarka kuramı hakkında ilk kez fikir sahibi olacak birilerine önerilmez çünkü eksik ve bolca hatalı, eleştirel okuyabilecek durumda olmak lazım (basit birkaç vikipedi araması daha faydalı olur), e halihazırda patriyarkaya yaklaşımı ve kavrayışı belli olan birine de önerilmez çünkü sinir bozucu:D dolayısıyla önermem yani.
her kadın çalışması akademisyeni kendi kuramını yazacak diye bir şey yok, bazen de review yapıp geçmek gerekir.
beğenmediğim taraflarıysa maalesef çok fazla. öncelikle marksizm anlayışı ya inanılmaz sınırlı ya da bilerek dezenformasyon yaratıyor, bilemiyorum. çekirdek ailenin kapitalizm ve özel mülkiyet ile gelişmiş bir yapı olduğunu ve kapitalizme fayda sağladığını/kapitalizmin tüketim birimi olduğunu söylemek "kapitalizm var olmak için çekirdek aileye ihtiyaç duyar" (yazarın anladığı) demek değil örneğin. dolayısıyla "ama kapitalizmde artan şekilde geleneksel çekirdek aile dışında aile biçimleri ile karşılaşıyoruz" demek bir karşı argüman değil, yeniden üretim toplumsallaştı mı toplumsallaşmadı mı'yı tartışmak bir karşı argüman olabilir, tabii ki walby böyle bir tartışmanın yakınından bile geçmiyor. çekirdek ailenin çözünmesini temizliği kadın ücretsiz yapmadığı bir zaman gelirse konuşuruz mesela. kitap boyunca marksist feministler ve marksistler ekonomizm ile suçlanmış, moda bu olduğu için galiba :) ama bunu yaparken kendi bölük pörçük kuramı patriyarkanın temelini açıklamayı beceremiyor, nihayetinde "işte her şeyle alakalı yani anladınız siz" diyip bırakıyor. bu sistemli bir yaklaşım elbette değil. kitabın düzeni karman çorman, bölümlere böldüğünü görünce sevinmiştim ama çok kötü olmuş bence. inanılmaz fazla tekrara düşüyor ama bu esnada bir "patriyarka kuramı"ndan söz edeceksek bahsetmemiz mecburi olan bir sürü meseleyi ya atlıyor ya etrafından dolanıyor. örneğin marksist feministleri ya da ikili sistem kuramcılarını tartışırken çocuk doğurabilmenin (işçi üretmenin) sermayeye kadın bedenlerini kontrol etmede çıkar sağlayacağını nasıl konuşmuyor? bunun dışında çok fazla yanlış çıkarımı var, tek tek burada sıralamaya üşeniyorum ama kitapta sürekli "yanlış bir yorum" (hadi bence diyeyim) diye cümlelerin altlarını çizdim.
bu kitap patriyarka kuramı hakkında ilk kez fikir sahibi olacak birilerine önerilmez çünkü eksik ve bolca hatalı, eleştirel okuyabilecek durumda olmak lazım (basit birkaç vikipedi araması daha faydalı olur), e halihazırda patriyarkaya yaklaşımı ve kavrayışı belli olan birine de önerilmez çünkü sinir bozucu:D dolayısıyla önermem yani.
her kadın çalışması akademisyeni kendi kuramını yazacak diye bir şey yok, bazen de review yapıp geçmek gerekir.
March 21, 2026
Follow/Subscribe: YouTube, Patreon, Instagram
Feelings about the book:
- This is one of those flawed 5 star books. There are so many pros and cons, but overall, it's a 5 star book for sure.
- This is one of those books that touches on so many things, and you wish it really went into detail about them. Even though the author has stated that isn’t what the book is about.
Premise/Plot:
- Walby utilises 4 different perspectives to explore women’s subordination: Marxist feminism, radical feminism, liberalism and dual-systems theory. All of which are used to analyse theoretical and empirical evidence.
- Inequality and subordination are viewed through a western (particularly British) version of patriarchy.
Themes:
- Exclusion from public life, unions, labour, debunked/redundant theories, exploitation, Public vs. private patriarchy and more.
Pros:
- Weighs up pros and cons of numerous thoughts and theories relating to gender, labour and more. Which was pretty cool because it included a lot of talking points used even today, that have been argued against for decades now.
- During Chapter 3: Household Production – it was interesting to read about the differences in views amongst radical feminists. Specifically in relation to the joys of motherhood, biological determinism and more.
- There is no misandry in this book, and no filler neither - I love that.
- Chapter 4: Culture was a really engaging chapter. Walby switches gears from the 4 perspectives used in previous chapters. Instead, examines culture through the lens of socialisation theory, Neo-Freudian/psychoanalytic theory and discourse analysis
- I appreciated the clear separation between private patriarchy via husbands and public patriarchy via the state. It’s a useful way of looking at things.
- The works in the Bibliography were great; I added a ton of books to my TBR.
- I loved the reading experience, I really had to sit, think about things and process it. I respect when a book can make me do that.
- Walby does well to portray and analyse the economic, political, and cultural in this book. She doesn't get lost at all.
- Additionally, her writing was sharp, focused and accessible.
Cons:
- At times, this rehashes a lot of familiar ground without adding anything new or insightful to the conversation. Especially early on in the book.
- Deploys the ‘all-in-one’ way of looking at women – that is a white, feminist lens. This pays lip service to Black feminists at the most.
- Doesn’t explore the dating complexities between the sexes, which helps explain why men and women have their respective entitlements.
- Furthermore, this book doesn’t engage in the positives of patriarchy. It presents it as all bad which is obviously incorrect.
- Walby doesn’t dive into the numerous ways women interact with patriarchy. Especially when it comes to their own demands that reinforce (and maybe produce) certain aspects of patriarchy. She just reiterates that women aren't passive participants in it.
- It’s a shame that this book doesn’t consider the views and lives of men, husbands, sons. It would have made for a much more nuances, better, and more accurate read. This theorising of patriarchy is woefully incomplete without it.
- It is unclear what Walby and other feminists want or think can be achieved outside of patriarchy. Especially since Walby doesn’t compare patriarchy (or British patriarchy) to other versions of the same system enough or even to entirely different systems.
- Walby touches on how different ethnic minorities in Britain tend to practice different forms of patriarchy. But I wish she had explored this more. As there is a wealth of historical, economic and cultural things to unpack there.
- An anthropological acknowledgement and incorporation would have challenged Walby's ideas and made this a much better book.
Quotes:
‘A further limitation of existing forms of dual-systems theory is that they do not cover the full range of patriarchal structures.’
‘I am arguing that there are six main structures which make up a system of patriarchy: paid work, housework, sexuality, culture, violence and the state. The interrelationships between these create different forms of patriarchy.’
‘This second school, labelled the feminist standpoint epistemologists by Harding (1986), argues that the only basis of unbiased knowledge of the world is women’s own direct experience.’
‘Marxist feminists usually link the changing position of women with that of the working class. Thus in countries like Britain, which have witnessed a shift of power away from labour, women are seen to lose out.’
‘A more theoretical problem for human capital theory is that it rests on the assumption of a perfect labour market in which employers pay employees according to their worth.’
‘The function of a reserve, according to Marx, was to prevent workers being able to bargain up their wages and conditions of employment in times of increased demand for labour (Marx, 1954).’
‘Most scholars do not think matriarchal societies have ever existed, although not all would agree (Stone, 1977).’
‘Seccombe (1974) argued that domestic labour created value but not surplus value. He agreed that housework was embodied in the husbands who sold their labour to a capitalist, thus transferring value from the housewife to the capitalist via the husband.’
‘Private patriarchs in the family, no longer economically benefiting from children, are happy to let the custody of children on divorce go to the mother.’
‘Hooks is thus very critical of liberal feminists, such as Friedan (1965), who advocate paid work as a solution to the boredom, isolation and powerlessness of housewives.’
‘Ehrenreich (1983) suggests that it is this male abandonment of fatherhood which is the real cause of the decline in nuclear families, not women’s abandonment of the family.’
‘Mitchell argues that we cannot understand the oppression of women without a theory of the unconscious, since such a concept is necessary to theorise the deeply entrenched patriarchal ideology in peoples’ psyches.’
‘Sexuality is either irrelevant or central to most analyses of social relations. Class analysis does not even defend its omission, while in Freudian thought and some radical feminist analyses sexuality is the main determinant of social life.’
‘Brownmiller asserts that rape is a form of social control by men over women. Not all men rape, but the fact that some do is sufficient to intimidate all women. This is the effectiveness of sexual terrorism.’
‘Hernes asks why the removal of women’s dependence on husbands has not led to their liberation. She approaches this question through an analysis of the structure of the state as corporatist.’
‘Degrees of patriarchy refers to the intensity of oppression on a specified dimension, for instance the size of the wages gap between men and women. Forms of patriarchy refers to the overall type of patriarchy, as defined by the specific relations between the different patriarchal structures.’
‘Within Britain itself we see different degrees of public and private patriarchy among different ethnic groups. Afro-Caribbeans are closer to the public form, Muslim Asians to the private form, with whites in the middle... Whites appear to be moving towards the Afro-Caribbean pattern.’
‘Thus the contemporary USA may be seen to have a labour-market-based form of public patriarchy, Eastern Europe a state-based form of public patriarchy, and Western Europe a mixed state/labour-market-form of public patriarchy.’
Feelings about the book:
- This is one of those flawed 5 star books. There are so many pros and cons, but overall, it's a 5 star book for sure.
- This is one of those books that touches on so many things, and you wish it really went into detail about them. Even though the author has stated that isn’t what the book is about.
Premise/Plot:
- Walby utilises 4 different perspectives to explore women’s subordination: Marxist feminism, radical feminism, liberalism and dual-systems theory. All of which are used to analyse theoretical and empirical evidence.
- Inequality and subordination are viewed through a western (particularly British) version of patriarchy.
Themes:
- Exclusion from public life, unions, labour, debunked/redundant theories, exploitation, Public vs. private patriarchy and more.
Pros:
- Weighs up pros and cons of numerous thoughts and theories relating to gender, labour and more. Which was pretty cool because it included a lot of talking points used even today, that have been argued against for decades now.
- During Chapter 3: Household Production – it was interesting to read about the differences in views amongst radical feminists. Specifically in relation to the joys of motherhood, biological determinism and more.
- There is no misandry in this book, and no filler neither - I love that.
- Chapter 4: Culture was a really engaging chapter. Walby switches gears from the 4 perspectives used in previous chapters. Instead, examines culture through the lens of socialisation theory, Neo-Freudian/psychoanalytic theory and discourse analysis
- I appreciated the clear separation between private patriarchy via husbands and public patriarchy via the state. It’s a useful way of looking at things.
- The works in the Bibliography were great; I added a ton of books to my TBR.
- I loved the reading experience, I really had to sit, think about things and process it. I respect when a book can make me do that.
- Walby does well to portray and analyse the economic, political, and cultural in this book. She doesn't get lost at all.
- Additionally, her writing was sharp, focused and accessible.
Cons:
- At times, this rehashes a lot of familiar ground without adding anything new or insightful to the conversation. Especially early on in the book.
- Deploys the ‘all-in-one’ way of looking at women – that is a white, feminist lens. This pays lip service to Black feminists at the most.
- Doesn’t explore the dating complexities between the sexes, which helps explain why men and women have their respective entitlements.
- Furthermore, this book doesn’t engage in the positives of patriarchy. It presents it as all bad which is obviously incorrect.
- Walby doesn’t dive into the numerous ways women interact with patriarchy. Especially when it comes to their own demands that reinforce (and maybe produce) certain aspects of patriarchy. She just reiterates that women aren't passive participants in it.
- It’s a shame that this book doesn’t consider the views and lives of men, husbands, sons. It would have made for a much more nuances, better, and more accurate read. This theorising of patriarchy is woefully incomplete without it.
- It is unclear what Walby and other feminists want or think can be achieved outside of patriarchy. Especially since Walby doesn’t compare patriarchy (or British patriarchy) to other versions of the same system enough or even to entirely different systems.
- Walby touches on how different ethnic minorities in Britain tend to practice different forms of patriarchy. But I wish she had explored this more. As there is a wealth of historical, economic and cultural things to unpack there.
- An anthropological acknowledgement and incorporation would have challenged Walby's ideas and made this a much better book.
Quotes:
‘A further limitation of existing forms of dual-systems theory is that they do not cover the full range of patriarchal structures.’
‘I am arguing that there are six main structures which make up a system of patriarchy: paid work, housework, sexuality, culture, violence and the state. The interrelationships between these create different forms of patriarchy.’
‘This second school, labelled the feminist standpoint epistemologists by Harding (1986), argues that the only basis of unbiased knowledge of the world is women’s own direct experience.’
‘Marxist feminists usually link the changing position of women with that of the working class. Thus in countries like Britain, which have witnessed a shift of power away from labour, women are seen to lose out.’
‘A more theoretical problem for human capital theory is that it rests on the assumption of a perfect labour market in which employers pay employees according to their worth.’
‘The function of a reserve, according to Marx, was to prevent workers being able to bargain up their wages and conditions of employment in times of increased demand for labour (Marx, 1954).’
‘Most scholars do not think matriarchal societies have ever existed, although not all would agree (Stone, 1977).’
‘Seccombe (1974) argued that domestic labour created value but not surplus value. He agreed that housework was embodied in the husbands who sold their labour to a capitalist, thus transferring value from the housewife to the capitalist via the husband.’
‘Private patriarchs in the family, no longer economically benefiting from children, are happy to let the custody of children on divorce go to the mother.’
‘Hooks is thus very critical of liberal feminists, such as Friedan (1965), who advocate paid work as a solution to the boredom, isolation and powerlessness of housewives.’
‘Ehrenreich (1983) suggests that it is this male abandonment of fatherhood which is the real cause of the decline in nuclear families, not women’s abandonment of the family.’
‘Mitchell argues that we cannot understand the oppression of women without a theory of the unconscious, since such a concept is necessary to theorise the deeply entrenched patriarchal ideology in peoples’ psyches.’
‘Sexuality is either irrelevant or central to most analyses of social relations. Class analysis does not even defend its omission, while in Freudian thought and some radical feminist analyses sexuality is the main determinant of social life.’
‘Brownmiller asserts that rape is a form of social control by men over women. Not all men rape, but the fact that some do is sufficient to intimidate all women. This is the effectiveness of sexual terrorism.’
‘Hernes asks why the removal of women’s dependence on husbands has not led to their liberation. She approaches this question through an analysis of the structure of the state as corporatist.’
‘Degrees of patriarchy refers to the intensity of oppression on a specified dimension, for instance the size of the wages gap between men and women. Forms of patriarchy refers to the overall type of patriarchy, as defined by the specific relations between the different patriarchal structures.’
‘Within Britain itself we see different degrees of public and private patriarchy among different ethnic groups. Afro-Caribbeans are closer to the public form, Muslim Asians to the private form, with whites in the middle... Whites appear to be moving towards the Afro-Caribbean pattern.’
‘Thus the contemporary USA may be seen to have a labour-market-based form of public patriarchy, Eastern Europe a state-based form of public patriarchy, and Western Europe a mixed state/labour-market-form of public patriarchy.’
April 23, 2019
Walby describes six separate structures of patriarchy--house work, wage work, culture, sexuality, violence against women, and the state--then recounts scholarship on each structure from three separate perspectives: liberal feminism, marxist feminism, and radical feminism. She critiques each school of thought, always judging liberal feminism the most harshly, and then synthesizes the marxist and radical schools into a "dual-systems analysis." The concluding chapter is a historical look at the transition she describes 'from private to public patriarchy': From being enclosed in the household, women now have all of society in which to roam and be exploited. I particularly enjoyed the wage work chapter, which described the actions of male labor unions in organizing against letting women work (as a source of reserve labor to drive down wages), which was eventually resolved by requiring women workers to be paid equally to their male counterparts--although they rarely are!
November 18, 2020
I read this for my dissertation and I found it so interesting and comprehensive. I'd known vaguely about feminist theory, I don't come from a Gender Studies background and so I was glad to read such a clear and accessible work on patriarchy and feminist theory. Walby splits every chapter into Introduction, Liberalist Feminist, Marxist Feminism, Radical Feminism and Dual-system theory that makes it easy to distinguish between with regards to the topics discussed.
If you want a solid introduction to Feminist theory, I would really recommend this!
If you want a solid introduction to Feminist theory, I would really recommend this!
April 6, 2020
Geniş ve kapamlı bir çalışma, feminizmin şu ana kadar en etkili akımlarının kritik bir analizi.
Radikal liberal feminizmin sorunlarını ve eksiklerini yüze vuran bir kitap.
Kadınların kurtuluşu kapitalizme karşı olmadan gerçekleşemez.
Sylvi Walby bu kitapta ayrıca biyolojik özcülüğü de çürütüp trans kadınların da feminist hareketinde yerini belirtiyor (rahime tapan radikal liberal feminizme karşıt olarak)
Radikal liberal feminizmin sorunlarını ve eksiklerini yüze vuran bir kitap.
Kadınların kurtuluşu kapitalizme karşı olmadan gerçekleşemez.
Sylvi Walby bu kitapta ayrıca biyolojik özcülüğü de çürütüp trans kadınların da feminist hareketinde yerini belirtiyor (rahime tapan radikal liberal feminizme karşıt olarak)
June 13, 2025
“The form of patriarchy in contemporary Britain is public rather than private. Women are no longer restricted to the domestic hearth, but have the whole society in which to roam and be exploited.”
＂the state is patriarchal as well as being capital and racist.”
“Is the new reproductive technology progressive in its assistance to previously infertile women, or does it merely give men as experimental doctors a chance to gain control over women’s power over reproduction?”
Just read it.
＂the state is patriarchal as well as being capital and racist.”
“Is the new reproductive technology progressive in its assistance to previously infertile women, or does it merely give men as experimental doctors a chance to gain control over women’s power over reproduction?”
Just read it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 7, 2022
This was my introduction to feminism 25 years ago as an undergraduate. At the time, the book blew me away and provided a theoretical framework to examine and explore the oppression of women. I went on to major in women's studies which led me to discover the work of lots of excellent feminist.
I still have the book on my bookcase.
I still have the book on my bookcase.
August 26, 2022
pretty good overview, obviously pretty massive changes have happened since its publication but still solid. pluralism and non-dogmatism is a plus, the account of (at least) six key patriarchal structures rather than trying to reduce to one thing, and willing to accommodate contingency and the possibility for resistance.
Read
February 22, 2022Çeviri kötü malesef.
July 28, 2024
2021-12-06
Tesen om det västerländska samhället som ett "patriarkat" har inte stöd i bred evidens och denna förenkling av mänskliga relationer är därför ingen bra grund för strävan mot ett jämställt samhälle. En felaktig analys leder till felaktiga metoder. Sådeles delar jag inte längre den uppfattning som förs fram i min nedstående recension. Recensionen publiceras här av historiska skäl. /D Free
***
Theorizing patriarchy
Sylvia Walby
Blackwell Publishers inc.
Theorizing Patriarchy
Sylvia Walby´s bok "Theorizing patriarchy" (1990) ger en utmärkt överblick över de senaste teoretiska debatten som förts av olika slags feminister. Walby utgår ifrån den allmänt vedertagna definitionen av ett patriarkat som ett samhälle där män som grupp förtrycker och dominerar kvinnor vad gäller t. ex. lönearbete, hemarbete, staten, kultur, sexualitet och våld. Det är just på dessa områden som hon visar hur olika feministiska teorier kan tillämpas. Hon undersöker marxistisk, radikal och liberal feminism, post-strukturalism och en strömning kallad dual theory vilket skulle kunna översättas med tvåsystems-teorin. Dual theory har många intressanta paralleller med vad många kallar anarkafeminism. Walby redogör inom varje område för de olika feministiska ståndpunkterna, men redovisar därefter sina mer personliga åsikter. Indelningen i olika områden gör att man också kan använda boken som ett slags uppslagsverk i vad olika riktningar har för utgångspunkter och syn i en viss fråga. Walby försöker påvisa hur patriarkatet lyckas anpassa sig till kvinnors stärkta positioner. En tes som hon lyfter fram är att utvecklingen har gått från ett privat till ett offentligt patriarkat. Tidigare då kvinnor inte hade tillgång till arbetsmarknaden som idag, utan i större grad var hemmafruar, var de i högre grad beroende av den enskilde mannen än av samhället. Det var mannen som stod, t. ex. för inkomsten och till vilken kvinnan hamnade i beroendeställning. Idag har kvinnors tidigare obetalda arbete delvis förvandlats till lönearbete i yrken t. ex. som dagmammor, vårdare och städerskor. Många jobbar inom den offentliga sektorn. Om man tar inkomsten som exempel på övergången från ett privat till ett offentligt patriarkat så innebär detta att då staten skär ner på dessa yrken drabbas kvinnorna. Beroendeställningen är i det här fallet mer mot den patriarkala staten än mot en enskild man. Genom hela boken belägger författarinnan de teoretiska resonemangen med aktuella fakta från den senaste empiriska forskningen. Walby´s utgångspunkt för faktamaterial är visserligen situationen i Storbritannien, dvs hennes hemmiljö, men detta är inget större hinder för att kunna förstå Walby´s grundläggande teser om patriarkatets utveckling och de olika feminismernas teoribildningar, även om det förstås hade varit intressant med en bok som haft utgångspunkten i svenska förhållanden. Att dela upp patriarkatsanalysen på flera områden kan vara bra för att konkretisera, men det finns en viss risk att man missar vissa bitar. T. ex. tycker jag att Walby missar att analysera rasismens roll i förhållande till patriarkatet. En sammanfattning av de olika strukturerna hade också varit bra. Trots detta är boken mycket intressant, en riktig pärla faktiskt och borde läsas av alla som är intressade av feminism.
Sylvia Walby är proffessor i sociologi och arbetar förnärvarande vid universitetet i Leeds Hon har tidigare varit rektor för sociologiska institutionen vid universitetet i Bristol. Dessutom har hon varit engagerad i nätverket för kvinnostudier vid universitetet i Lancaster. Hon har även varit verksam vid universitet i USA. Hon har skrivit en rad intressanta böcker Patriarchy at work (1986), Restructuring: Place, Class and Gender (1990), Sex Crime in the news (1991) och Gender transformations (1997). Hon har även medverkat i Localities, Class and Gender (1985) och varit redaktör för boken Gender Segregation at Work (1988).
Daniel Free
(Denna recension publicerades i tidningen Frihetlig Press nr.2, 1998)
Tesen om det västerländska samhället som ett "patriarkat" har inte stöd i bred evidens och denna förenkling av mänskliga relationer är därför ingen bra grund för strävan mot ett jämställt samhälle. En felaktig analys leder till felaktiga metoder. Sådeles delar jag inte längre den uppfattning som förs fram i min nedstående recension. Recensionen publiceras här av historiska skäl. /D Free
***
Theorizing patriarchy
Sylvia Walby
Blackwell Publishers inc.
Theorizing Patriarchy
Sylvia Walby´s bok "Theorizing patriarchy" (1990) ger en utmärkt överblick över de senaste teoretiska debatten som förts av olika slags feminister. Walby utgår ifrån den allmänt vedertagna definitionen av ett patriarkat som ett samhälle där män som grupp förtrycker och dominerar kvinnor vad gäller t. ex. lönearbete, hemarbete, staten, kultur, sexualitet och våld. Det är just på dessa områden som hon visar hur olika feministiska teorier kan tillämpas. Hon undersöker marxistisk, radikal och liberal feminism, post-strukturalism och en strömning kallad dual theory vilket skulle kunna översättas med tvåsystems-teorin. Dual theory har många intressanta paralleller med vad många kallar anarkafeminism. Walby redogör inom varje område för de olika feministiska ståndpunkterna, men redovisar därefter sina mer personliga åsikter. Indelningen i olika områden gör att man också kan använda boken som ett slags uppslagsverk i vad olika riktningar har för utgångspunkter och syn i en viss fråga. Walby försöker påvisa hur patriarkatet lyckas anpassa sig till kvinnors stärkta positioner. En tes som hon lyfter fram är att utvecklingen har gått från ett privat till ett offentligt patriarkat. Tidigare då kvinnor inte hade tillgång till arbetsmarknaden som idag, utan i större grad var hemmafruar, var de i högre grad beroende av den enskilde mannen än av samhället. Det var mannen som stod, t. ex. för inkomsten och till vilken kvinnan hamnade i beroendeställning. Idag har kvinnors tidigare obetalda arbete delvis förvandlats till lönearbete i yrken t. ex. som dagmammor, vårdare och städerskor. Många jobbar inom den offentliga sektorn. Om man tar inkomsten som exempel på övergången från ett privat till ett offentligt patriarkat så innebär detta att då staten skär ner på dessa yrken drabbas kvinnorna. Beroendeställningen är i det här fallet mer mot den patriarkala staten än mot en enskild man. Genom hela boken belägger författarinnan de teoretiska resonemangen med aktuella fakta från den senaste empiriska forskningen. Walby´s utgångspunkt för faktamaterial är visserligen situationen i Storbritannien, dvs hennes hemmiljö, men detta är inget större hinder för att kunna förstå Walby´s grundläggande teser om patriarkatets utveckling och de olika feminismernas teoribildningar, även om det förstås hade varit intressant med en bok som haft utgångspunkten i svenska förhållanden. Att dela upp patriarkatsanalysen på flera områden kan vara bra för att konkretisera, men det finns en viss risk att man missar vissa bitar. T. ex. tycker jag att Walby missar att analysera rasismens roll i förhållande till patriarkatet. En sammanfattning av de olika strukturerna hade också varit bra. Trots detta är boken mycket intressant, en riktig pärla faktiskt och borde läsas av alla som är intressade av feminism.
Sylvia Walby är proffessor i sociologi och arbetar förnärvarande vid universitetet i Leeds Hon har tidigare varit rektor för sociologiska institutionen vid universitetet i Bristol. Dessutom har hon varit engagerad i nätverket för kvinnostudier vid universitetet i Lancaster. Hon har även varit verksam vid universitet i USA. Hon har skrivit en rad intressanta böcker Patriarchy at work (1986), Restructuring: Place, Class and Gender (1990), Sex Crime in the news (1991) och Gender transformations (1997). Hon har även medverkat i Localities, Class and Gender (1985) och varit redaktör för boken Gender Segregation at Work (1988).
Daniel Free
(Denna recension publicerades i tidningen Frihetlig Press nr.2, 1998)
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews