Pourquoi le patriarcat ?

by Carol Gilligan, Naomi Snider

Carol Gilligan est l’auteur d’un livre capital, célébré dans le monde entier : Une voix différente, qui a forgé l’éthique du care, centrale aujourd’hui dans les réflexions sur le féminisme et la démocratie. Son nouveau livre, Pourquoi le patriarcat ?, avance une hypothèse psychologique nouvelle sur la persistance du patriarcat. S’il perdure, c’est non seulement parce que les personnes en position de pouvoir sont réticentes à renoncer à leurs privilèges, mais aussi parce qu’il sert une fonction psychologique. Dans la mesure où il requiert le sacrifice de l’amour au nom de la hiérarchie (songeons à Abraham qui se soumet à l’ordre divin en tuant son fils Isaac), le patriarcat s’érige en rempart contre la vulnérabilité associée au fait d’aimer. Par là même, il se dresse en bouclier contre la perte. La simple prise de conscience que c’est notre capacité à communiquer nos sentiments personnels et à capter ceux des autres qui menace les structures hiérarchiques change entièrement la donne.
Une thèse forte, et un combat résolument actuel.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Psychology, Gender, Sociology, Womens, Social Justice

248 pages, Paperback

First published October 15, 2018

About the author

Carol Gilligan is an American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist best known for her work on ethical community and ethical relationships.

Reviews

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

The ARC of this book was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

3.5

"In asking why patriarchy persists, we are asking why a set of cultural rules and assumptions that are psychologically incoherent and harmful has such a powerful grip on the psyche? In essence, we are asking where is the resistance?"

The two authors put forward a different view: they argue that patriarchy persists because it serves a psychological function. It was nice to read something so different and original about feminism. Patriarchy is seen as something that harms both men and women because it says how men and women should act and be in the world.
There are two main narratives: one is about patriarchy, analyzed under a psychological viewpoint (basically why we keep abiding by its "rules") and the other is about the 2016 election.
At times the book lacked a bit of cohesion between the two narratives, but other than this it was an interesting read.

[Gayle (OutsmartYourShelf) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Patriarchy is one of the world's oldest societal structures and despite its polarizing divisions between men/women, black/white, rich/poor etc, it seems as entrenched as ever. In their examination as to why patriarchy seems to prevail against drives for equality, Gilligan and Snider have come to some interesting conclusions.

Boys/men learn early that to succeed in patriarchy, they have to distance themselves from their emotions and feelings and that girls/women will pick up the slack (they also learn that this makes girls/women inferior in this system). Girls/women learn, on the other hand, that they are supposed to give up their 'voice', to become selfless, willing to take care of and serve others whilst ignoring their own needs and wants.

Both sides are harmed by patriarchy but whilst what is associated with the masculine is elevated and praised, what is associated with the feminine is denigrated and despised. We see this when women are called "shrill" or "hysterical" for calling attention to wrongs. In the silencing of rape and domestic violence survivors, when it is asked what they did to provoke it. We see it in the denigration of women in power by criticising their looks and their perceived shortcomings in relationships and family.

The authors' argument is that patriarchy not only rewards those who comply and shames those who don't, but it also provides psychological protection from what we fear the most as humans: loss of connection and rejection. They argue that this protection may be what is fuelling the virulent, and sometimes violent, backlash against equality - the fear of being forced to confront uncomfortable truths. The solution is to reject this paradigm, for boys/men to reconnect with their emotions, for all of us to engage the brain along with the mind and the heart, and for girls/women to be allowed to be their true authentic selves.

I found some parts to be a bit repetitive and I'm not 100% sold on the conclusion, but on the whole, I enjoyed reading it. The authors have come up with a work that makes you think about your views on society and what could be done to change things for the better.

Thanks to NetGalley and publishers, Polity, for the opportunity to review an ARC.

[Rianna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. Clearly written. Quickly read.
But I will be digesting this book for years.

[MsElisaB · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sorta di trattato di psicologia sulle dinamiche che alimentano il patriarcato, rintracciandone le origini nello stesso processo della perdita in una relazione: vengono adattate le tre fasi (protesta, disperazione e distacco, con le relative conseguenze), codificate da Bowlby, alla società contemporanea. La resistenza all'ingiustizia, che viene indicata come causa di questa deriva, è una resistenza psicologica che, su larga scala, ha delle nette conseguenze politiche nel meccanismo adattativo generato, non responsivo, meccanismo che si configura in un binarismo di genere: tensione all'autosufficienza negli uomini, spinta estrema all'altruismo (o meglio, selflessness) nelle donne, che perdono la relazione in favore delle relazioni sociali. Questo bias, molto interessante per come viene evidenziato nella cultura, è reiterato per tutto l'arco del saggio, certi passaggi esattamente uguali, quasi a diventare mantra; l’eccessiva ripetizione non è necessaria ai fini della comprensione del testo, considerando che ogni concetto viene avvalorato da esempi reali e ben strutturati, ma anzi crea una sorta di cristallizzazione dei contenuti, che non riescono ad uscire dalla teoria, nemmeno nei capitoli con l'esplicita intenzione di trovare una soluzione pratica. Inoltre, mentre il racconto autobiografico di Snider ha senso all'interno dello studio, l'esperienza riportata da Gilligan risulta egoriferita (nemmeno nella narrazione della sua presenza per la Women Wage Peace riesce ad astenersi dal mettersi al centro di tutto) ed usa il successo della sua ricerca per rispondere alle contestazione mosse al suo precedente libro; queste sue parti hanno ulteriormente rallentato il discorso, nonostante la costruzione dialogica, senza riuscire, comunque, ad oscurare gli aspetti positivi del trattato:

- la sua proposta è affascinante e credo sia uno dei punti di vista da tenere in considerazione quando si tratta del perché, appunto, il patriarcato persista;
- parlare della voce della donna non come differente da una normalità prestabilita, ma come giusta alterità, e di come ogni voce abbia parità, non nell'accordo, ma nel rispetto. Le donne sono divise in buone e cattive e la voce sincera di una donna spesso suona come troppo alta o viene liquidata come folle e può in effetti pregiudicare le relazioni.
- vedere la speranza nella protesta e nella rabbia;
- contrapporre la parola patriarcato non a matriarcato, ma a democrazia;
- sovvertire la naturale capacità di relazione dell'essere umano è l'unico modo per instaurare un sistema di oppressione, quindi c'è una strada per eliminarlo
- nota all'edizione italiana: la grande qualità della prefazione di Tommasi, che può essere un potente riassunto dell'intera analisi di Gilligan e Snider, ed anche uno strumento di confronto/integrazione con simili realtà italiane, accademiche e non.

[Robin Tobin (On the back porch reading) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! Simple Wow!

[Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

So far, I am already identifying with this book. Big time.... As someone else on this site has said, it is a highly underrated book. Having been a history teacher, battered woman's advocate and mother of both a son and two daughters, grandchildren and a great-granddaughter, I would certainly think this book should be in both the psych and history curriculums of high schools and colleges. We should teach our sons that it is alright for them to cry, and empathize with people, to show feelings for others. We should teach our young women to speak their minds when they have ideas and challenge the status quo. Like the Women Waging Peace did and the Me Too movement, it is time, long passed time for the imbalances of our world to come back into a real healthy balance. There is nothing to be afraid of except the end of our Mother Earth. What do you think?

[Brian Stout · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm surprised this book isn't higher-rated: to me it's one of the most powerful contributions to feminist literature since bell hooks A Will to Change.

Though it's a short 130 pages, weaving psychological research with personal anecdote, it's a slow read: the insights are so powerful that they require one to pause and take it in. I frequently found myself reading a passage, then thinking "wait, what?" Part of Gilligan and Snider's brilliance is how neatly they upend the entire discourse on patriarchy... and that's what makes it difficult to take in quickly. It challenges our deep-seated and often uncritically examined narratives, and requires us to adjust on the fly and engage new possibilities.

I found it outstanding, and highly recommend it. A few passages/ideas to capture here for posterity, and to give you a teaser:

P 19 distinction between the experience of connecting and the appearance of connection (having a real authentic relationship vs just having relationships)

P 33 "the politics of patriarchy is the politics of domination"

P 41 introduction of "don't" as the emergence of patriarchy in adolescence: “I don't know” for girls, “I don't care” for boys

P 51 Bowlby anger of hope vs anger of despair: one is about restoring connection, the other about severing it.. and often expressed against the self or others who are weaker (shamed in self is attacked in others)

P 54 "relational yearning is experienced as the prelude to loss and betrayal"

P 61 violent men glimpse into the heart of darkness

P 71 "it is only when a need is not met that we become fully aware of it"

P 73 “it is trauma that separates reason from emotion”

P 87 viewing anger as symptom rather than cause.. a signal that something isn't right, instead they try to eliminate the feeling

P 88 "gender is the lynchpin of all forms of oppression"

P 100 "none of us is untouched by loss no matter where we sit on the social hierarchy"

P 131 radical listening holds potential for transformation

P 136 it is gender that holds patriarchy in place
- "patriarchy depends on women's complicity"

P 137 "these are movements inspired by the conviction that as humans we are capable of reconciliation, that the moral arc of the universe bends toward Justice, and that in the end the anger of hope will win out over the anger of despair"

P 143 "loss, which separates us, also connects us" (our shared pain as path to liberation)

P 144 "political change depends on psychological transformation and vice versa"

P 145 "democracy, like love, is contingent upon relationship: on everyone having a voice that is grounded in their experience... Equal voice is what makes it possible to work through conflicts in relationship without the use of force or by other means of domination"

[TammyJo Eckhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been familiar with and read Carol Gilligan's books for decades now so when I had the chance to read her and Naomi Snider's book, I jumped at the chance. The book may seem repetitive if you are not used to Gilligan's style of writing; even if you are familiar like me, it will seem repetitive. I know that sharing the personal stories of a few of the folks that were studied or who studies were reviewed for this book is important, but I really would have liked to see some statistical information, too. How many men made personal revelations like Adam who is mentioned multiple times? How many women like Jackie reclaimed their memories and took actions?

That compliant aside, I found reading this book created a mixture of feelings in me. Reassuring -- the things I've been noticing were things that Gilligan and Snider found. Frightening -- it is scary how our concepts of normal gender behavior may be mental illnesses by some standards. Angrying -- why the heck do we keep forcing our kids and ourselves into this maladaptive ways of acting and thinking?

I kept hoping for solid suggestions about what we can do but then this is the "why" not the how to fight back book, so that criticism would be unfair. I do want these two scholars though to write a how do we resist sister volume for this book, and to write it soon.

[Amanda Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was excellent! It detailed an informative, clear, and thorough argument for the psychological reasons that patriarchy continues to persist, involving attachment theory and research on gendered childhood development. I found it to be extremely validating in how it spoke to the ways in which girls/women and boys/men are taught to deny parts of themselves and sacrifice real connection in order to gain social acceptance, resulting in less authentic relationships.

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors’ premise about what sustains patriarchy enhanced my understanding and caused me to reflect and inquire in a new way. For that, I’d give this book 5 stars. The reading experience was 3 stars for me— quite repetitive and a bit dry—hence, 4 stars overall. I do recommend it for the richer understanding it provokes. By the end, I was persuaded that there is a path that I, as an individual, can take to repair what has been broken and to renew what was lost so long ago.

[Delee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

Reveals clearly the pathological and psychological nature of patriarchy and the roadmap for moving away. Fascinating theory and ideas! A great read!

[Crissy · Rating 2 out of 5]

It never ventured outside the effect of nurture on individuals and how our society holds up that nurture. It did stray, boringly, into personal anecdote.

[Ocean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleased to find in this book a defense on psychological transformation to lead to political change. The authors theorise on loss and how patriarchy counts on its violence to inflict trauma which will in turn indoctrinate us to stay in a catatonic state. It is a really well researched book but perhaps a bit repetitive in the first half. I appreciated the hopefulness of it all, the belief that we can rise from that state of hurt and violence and/or self erasure by protesting and therefore repairing our relationship to ourselves first but also with the world we live in.
I wonder what the authors think of the advancement of the american political landscape since the book was published..

I would recommend everyone to read this, it pushed me to view society in a new light and ask myself a lot of questions both personal and political that I think will follow me for a long time. It's very thorough yet pretty accessible reading. It also gave me a list of new books and researches I want to further explore..

[Xani · Rating 4 out of 5]

My girl’s done it again….. had me read a whole goddamn book about patriarchy. In 2024! And I loved it. I will say it was a little dense but so am I at the best of times so I can’t really be pointing fingers

[Elizabeth Bramer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clickbait title but good ideas

[Gladys · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. Great insights into the different ways patriarchy affects men (and women, of course, but I was especially interested in how men are victimized by it) and how the binary gender roles keep this power structure neatly in place and even enhance it. + how to kinda fix it (by talking more openly about emotions and admitting to our need for connection. Whomst is surprised? Definitely not my therapist and I)

[миша сафронов · Rating 4 out of 5]

Короткая, но яркая история исследования некоторых болевых точек современности. Каким образом мы сами себя наказываем, чтобы угодить другим? Каким другим? Мостик перекидывается от психологии к социологии, потом от политики к психологии и так далее.
История исследования начинается с нескольких примеров. В одном случае мальчик решил предать дружбу, чтобы не казаться слабаком и девчонкой. В другом случае девушка согласилась молчать после изнасилования, чтобы не портить жизнь насильнику. Авторки разматывают эти два случая как типичные и пытаются провести расследование, как же мы дошли до жизни такой. Основной вывод в том, что властной системе (патриархат) для поддержания своего существования выгодна целая куча наших травм и искажений. Чтобы накидать некий образ книги, хочу привести несколько разрозненных цитат из книги и немного добавить какие-то слова от себя лично. Цитаты буду приводить в кавычках.

“В детстве мне постоянно твердили, какая я хорошая девочка, что не создаю проблем и не даю маме лишнего повода для беспокойства. Не помню, чтобы кто-то хоть раз спросил у меня - а как мои дела?”

“Мужественность определяется в противоположность всему женскому, быть мальчиком означает не быть девочкой или как девочка, означает обладать превосходством, властью и привилегиями. Некоторые мальчики подменяют подлинное присутствие в отношениях (чуткость, искренность, умение говорить и общаться в открытую) притворством, самоутверждением и позёрством. Парадокс: стремясь стать мальчиками и скрывая с этой целью свою потребность в отношениях, чувствительность и ранимость, эти мальчики жертвуют отношениями ради “отношений” Однако, скрывая эти стороны своей личности ради того, чтобы их воспринимали как мальчиков, а не как “девочек” или геев, они добиваются лишь того, что близость с другими мальчиками, которой они ищут, становится невозможной”.

Вот всё это про мальчиков мне кажется очень правдивым. В этом смысле меня ярко раздражает “мужская культура” подтрунивания и троллинга. Как будто “армейская” или даже “тюремная” грубость. Дружески дать по носу, пошутить так, чтобы слегка задеть. Многие мои друзья-мальчики любят это делать. Это, видимо, считается “правильным” мужским общением. Когда я пытаюсь выразить лично или здесь в фейсбуке своё недовольство грубостью с их стороны, пытаюсь дать понять, что это троллинг, меня не понимают и говорят мне, что излишне обидчив. Честно говоря меня это раздражает - причём здесь “обидчив”?

“Для мальчика-подростка учиться “быть мужчиной” означает учиться быть независимым, полагаться только на себя и не показывать своих чувств”.

“Психолог Эдвард Троник показывает двухминутный “эксперимент с неподвижным лицом”, служащий убедительной демонстрацией того, какой чуткостью мы обладаем в младенчестве: ребёнок мгновенно улавливает малейшие изменения в отношениях и реагирует на них. В начале нам показывают, как мать общается со своим годовалым ребёнком, они воркуют и обмениваются жестами, наслаждаясь взаимопониманием. Затем, следуя указаниям Троника, мать делает неподвижное лицо и перестаёт реагировать на ребёнка. Ребёнок тут же замечает утрату контакта. Девочка пытается вновь вовлечь мать в общение, повторяя звуки и жесты, которые ранее обеспечивали её внимание. Когда мать игнорирует все попытки, сохраняя неподвижное выражение лица, мы видим, как удовольствие буквально пропадает из тела ребёнка. Почти невыносимо наблюдать за тем, как наступает хаотичный разлад и как радостные интонации общения превращаются в пронзительные вопли. Мы испытываем облегчение, когда двухминутка “неподвижного лица” заканчивается и матери позволено отреагировать на огорчение ребёнка. За эти две минуты мы узнаем, что доверие в отношениях зависит от возможности восполнять перебой, воссоединиться после перерыва. Устойчивость в отношениях обеспечивается не их разрывом и не тем, насколько хорошая мать у ребёнка, а в способности обрести друг друга после неизбежных перерывов в общении. <...> Наша способность транслировать свои чувства и улавливать чувства других, тем самым исцеляя разрывы связи, представляет собой угрозу для властных отношений (hierarchy). Чувство эмпатии и умилённого сострадания, уважение человеческого достоинства - всё это очень затрудняет поддержание или оправдание неравенства”.

Может быть, не случайно мне попалась в руки эта книга (вообще-то я её специально купил), но в предыдущем посте я написал о том, как лично мне тяжело от того, что меня воспитали “удобным” и бесконфликтным. В этой книге я читаю и об этом: “Патриархальные конструкции мужественности и женственности разрушают способность к восстановлению отношений, высмеивая протест как то, что недостойно мужчины и непозволительно женщине”.

[Gayle · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a somewhat late bloomer, I did not begin college until my forties, and initially chose Psychology as a major. Since I was a mother of 3 Developmental Psych was one of my first courses. I remember being in shock at first that children had very specific phases of brain growth that prevented them from understanding certain requests. Junior refusing to show empathy for his infant sister does not mean he's being mean; it simply places him in a certain brain-growth phase that prevents him from feeling empathy yet. He isn't deliberately disobeying you, he isn't capable of understanding yet. We of course read research studies done by people such as Piaget that laid out the truth of their research. I remember thinking that it is criminal that you aren't educated to be a parent, which is certainly as important as being a doctor, a job that required years of training. After my initial surprise came guilt as I went over every single time I had scolded my little ones, trying to remember at what age. Then I got angry!

Researchers and academics spend their time and usually someone else's money to come to these valuable conclusions, yet unless you were a subscriber to Psychology Today you, like I, would never see it, thus being deprived of some of the most important info about raising your kids! Once they've completed their project and patted themselves on the back, they publish it in the "peer reviewed" journals of their professional organizations so that their peers can then pat them on the backs as well...or tell them how corrupted their research was. I mean do you carry a regular subscription to Journal of Educational Psychology?

I was left wondering why these well-educated researchers never seemed to get the connection between their research and the importance of relaying the results to the laypeople most in need of it---like parents, duh. Why couldn't they write a book about it in layperson's language, or at the very least, see that every major newspaper carried an article about it? Now I know why.

Did not finish the book. Sorry, but apparently researchers just don't know how to put things in layman's terms. This book will be praised by their peers and mostly not read by the rest of us, unless we wanted to be told that this problem goes back to Descartes and Oedipus.

[Ashley Hart · Rating 4 out of 5]

As "patriarchy" becomes an increasingly common buzzword, the title question of "Why Does Patriarchy Persist?" also becomes more relevant, and perhaps even more important to ask.

This book was life-changing for me. It gave a name to the feeling I've long had in my adult life - the feeling that as a woman, it is my role in life to care for everyone me, except, and often at the sacrifice of, myself. As Gilligan and Snider write "For a woman, however, the relinquishing of her own perspective--or perhaps better to say the impermissibility of having a voice of her own--is built into the very notion of what it means to be a 'good woman'." Until now, I never understood this nameless feeling that has plagued me, and so many other women. Finally, I had discovered the cause, wrapped in a neat little bow - Patriarchy. I can't describe the relief I felt in the naming of this feeling, and knowing that it was caused by factors outside my control, rather than just my own maladaptive tendencies.

Gilligan defines patriarchy as an order of living based on gender, that divides things into masculine or feminine, and a hierarchy that privileges whatever is masculine. The book suggests that this hierarchy removes authenticity from our social interactions, and not only gets in the way of, but actively thwarts genuine relationships. This hypothesis is taken even further, theorizing that patriarchy remains steadfast within the structure of our society because of the psychological function is preserves - protecting us from loss. If we don't have authentic relationships, how can we lose them? There is an abundance of, in my opinion, incredibly fascinating research to back these assertions. The book examines the difference between relationship and relationships, how we cope with loss, the different stages of resistance, and attachment theories, all within the framework of the patriarchy.

For all its greatness, the book isn't without it's flaws. I did find it to be incredibly repetitive, and a bit heavy handed at times. Still, the overwhelming message of the book is so incredibly important. It brought me in touch with my inner feminist, and allowed me to see past the feelings of inadequacies I have felt over not being selfless enough. While this book is mostly centered on the female perspective, it does discuss how men are also negatively effected by the patriarchy (a subject I look forward to exploring more in Liz Plank's For the Love of Men). Ultimately, as Gilligan and Snider say, it threatens the fabric of democracy - in order to have democracy, everyone must have an equal voice, and not all voices are equal within a hierarchy. Surprisingly, or perhaps not at all, the antidote the book prescribes is love. There were so many quotes in this book that stopped me in my tracks, but perhaps none more than this one - "I found myself drawing a new map - a radical geography of love, where love is contingent on seeing and knowing rather than on blindness and silence."

[peggy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have one word that sums up this book; IMPORTANT. A must read for everyone, resonant particularly in terms of processing the current Whitehouse.

[dsreads · Rating 4 out of 5]

I stumbled across Carol Gillian’s groundbreaking work in developmental psychology, and grabbed her most recent work from Goodreads. A lot has changed since those studies. To be fair, I definitely should have read "In a Different Voice" first. I was more interested in the philosophy of care, less interested in the current political landscape. That's not to say that I don't think Donald Trump should read this and have a deep talk with a therapist. That's certainly true. But, as with just about every traditional ethical worldview these days no matter how old, or richly studied; all nuance gets thrown out the window in favor of trying to prove a point. The authors also write every section operating on assumptions that are, at the very least, debatable.

It's a subtle confirmation bias that everything negative IS the patriarchy. If it's good, it's not patriarchy, and if it's bad it is. So we should tear down the patriarchy and we'll only have good things, right? What about modern hierarchies that are largely women, are those still the patriarchy? What about the performative contradiction of benefitting from the system every day, but still wanting to tear it down and start over? Do you reeally trust the current anticapitalist antipatriarchy people to build up an egalitarian utopia after they've torn down whatever they deem the patriarchy? Because it seems like every attempt at this throughout history has ended in disaster, genocide, and war.

Fact is, the average person in the west lived on less than a dollar a day before 1900. People living in the modern American "patriarchy" haven't needed to eat grass during a famine, or worry about barbarians burning down their town. Smart people (of both genders*) proposed fixes for problems like that, and the population spurred them on. It's a competitive landscape, not a patriarchy. Thus, the hierarchies we currently have are based on competency, not power. Unfortunately, they often degenerate into power games, or there's individuals vying for power within the hierarchy. But trying to tear the whole thing down is like... Saying "Donald Trump abused democracy, so let's just have a dictator next time".

*That's not to say that women haven't been at a disadvantage throughout history. I'm progressive, liberal, and feminist in the traditional sense: Everyone's interests would be better served if the landscape is opened up equally to women; everyone is created equal, and we can certainly do better on that front. However, those tenets to me, aren't and never have been ideological weapons used to brand half the country as fascist.


Those were some thoughts up for debate, this is the critique I actually feel most strongly about
Gender norms are another topic featured prominently in this book, despite being absent from Gilligan's early clinical work, back when it was assumed men and women were in fact different. how do they reconcile THESE TWO massive Berkley studies? They show that as economic development increases, so does gender equality (awesome, btw. let's maybe not completely gut the economic development if we want equality). But they also strongly correlate with gender differences. In the much-touted-for-being-progressive scandanavian countries, women and men see themselves as being more different! Really interesting methods to the study, but the TLDR is that the more equal a society gets, the more they recognize different strengths. equality=/=everyone being the exact same


Alright, this has all been beaten to death, and it's all a criticism of what I consider faulty assumptions at the very base level. It's really not the point or what I found interesting about this book. The Ethics of Care is an idea that needs to be taken very seriously. The sections on trauma and grief are moving, and really highlight a twisted perception of how society works. Life WOULD be better if we could all love a little more. But there needs to be a better case made about exactly what makes the patriarchy, what parts make it bad or should be torn down, etc.




It was good, 3.5

[KT · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting and thought provoking read on the psychology behind why patriarchy persists

I thought the author did well in defining patriarchy as a culture based on a gender binary and hierarchy, a framework or lens that:
1. Leads us to see human capacities as either "masculine" or "feminine" and to privilege the masculine
2. Elevates some men over other men and all men over women
3. Forces a split between the self and relationships so that in effect men have selves, whereas women ideally are selfless, and women have relationships, which surreptitiously serve men's needs

The author then lays out a convincing case that patriarchy provides a defense against vulnerability of loving and by doing so, becomes a defense against loss, and that the sacrifice of relationship becomes necessary for establishing and maintaining hierarchies of power and status
In particular well illustrated in the example of boys if they were to say what they were feeling and thinking and thus reveal their emotional sensitivity and vulnerability, the other boys would ostracise him as he would be perceived as not a real boy. Yet by concealing these aspects of themselves in order to be seen as one of the boys and not girly/gay, they render the closeness they are now seeking with other boys unattainable.

Would recommend to anyone interested in feminism and patriarchy

Particular highlights include:
Noting the incoherence at patriarchy's centre because in reality men can't have selves without relationships and women can't have relationships without a self. Thus, in essence, patriarchy harms both men and women by forcing men to act as if they don't have/need relationships and women to act as if they don't have/need a self. Additionally one is deterred from seeing or saying this observation.

Noting that patriarchy is not natural to humans, noting, by nature, humans are relational beings with the ability to communicate our experience and the desire to engage responsively with others

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Why Does Patriarchy Persist?” by Carol Gilligan and Naomi Snider
Gilligan and Snider ask in this book why patriarchy has continued to persist despite the seemingly progressive awareness of it as an oppressive force. The answer, they argue, is in the psychology of attachment and loss, that during our formative years children are taught to reject relationships and handle loss in ways which reduce the capacity for protest. In their eyes, the persistence of patriarchy relies on detachment from authentic relationships. This was a very interesting read for me, as the central question of the book is one that I have often pondered myself. When students ask where patriarchy comes from and boil their thoughts down to “white men in search of power,” I know this perspective is incomplete but I struggled to find the language of an alternative answer. I’m not convinced that Gilligan and Snider have articulated a paradigm for patriarchy, but this is a new element to the analysis that I think helps add new layers to the question. The writing is relatively accessible for those who aren’t psychology experts, but I do not think it is so accessible that I could assign the book in many undergrad classes. It doesn’t have the spark that I might look for to keep undergrads interested in a thesis like this. It also necessitates an existing understanding of patriarchy that many undergrads won’t have except in specific disciplines. All in all, a very informative read but one that is probably not right for all audiences.

[SundayAtDusk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much of the time while reading this book, I felt like the authors were talking about girls and women from the 1950s. Or they were talking about girls and women with martyr complexes, not the majority of girls and women today; at least not in the United States. Moreover, what does it all have to do with the last presidential election? Was that election really proof that so many voters did not want patriarchy to die?

Personally, I think not. I think that election was more proof of the failure to learn critical thinking. Or the failure of separating the entertainment world from the real world; and from too many years of watching "reality shows" on television. Or the irrational way many like to think others are how they wish them to be, as opposed to how they truly happen to be. Or that many did not want to give the Clintons the honor of being the first couple where both the husband and wife were president. And on and on and on.

John Bowlby’s study on the pathological responses to lost are certainly interesting, but does it really have anything to do with the election of Donald Trump? Is it possible the authors were actually artfully trying to explain why Donald Trump is the way he is? Are stoical qualities in males only learned, not possibly biological? Sorry, either I missed the whole point of this book or it’s mostly ivory tower type talk, with little real application to life in the United States today, or to the 2016 presidential election.

(Note: I received a free ARC of this book from Amazon Vine.)

[Gabrielle Jarrett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gilligan believes that binary gender, male and female holds the patriarchal system in place. She and her co-author build a theory based on John Bowlby's work of attachment, separation, loss, and detachment. Because of the loss of relationship, there is a loss of love. Girls react to the loss by saying "I don't know." Boys react by saying "I don't care." Our natural reaction to loss is protest. (Especially poignant in current times!) "The patriarchy depends on womens' complicity."
That aside, I did not come away with any better understanding of why the patriarchy persists. I am very familiar with Bowlby and like his work. I am very familiar with the Freudian theories the authors rely upon. I could not put the theories and the continuation of the patriarchy together as an answer. I found little access to Gilligan's work. I did try. I was put off by her constant referencing to her own books, her own studies, and her own 'tickets' to success. Best not to have expectations of an author...

[Morgan Schulman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was given an advanced readers copy in exchange for an honest review.

I feel like this was two books In one: a book about secondary gains that cause men and women to perpetuate the patriarchy; and a book about the 2016 election. Although these things are obviously connected, I didn’t feel the book pulled it together cohesively into one narrative. Having said that, the psychological insights into patriarchy were well worth reading, and I did feel like I got something new from the book, which I haven’t felt much about feminist lately lately, as I’ve been reading them for 25 years. Nice to see something new under the sun. 3.5 rounded up.

[Abby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this.

Gilligan and Snider argue that patriarchy serves a psychological function: Both men's (culturally imposed) emotional detachment and women's (culturally imposed) self-abnegation protect them from loss... but only by protecting them from true connection, thus perpetuating a system of hierarchy and domination rather than one of connection and relatedness. The first part of the book fleshes out this idea, explaining how John Bowlby’s pathological responses to loss mirror the responses of men and women in a patriarchal system. The second part is more about the authors' personal journeys and that was less interesting to me.

[Grandpa Jud · Rating 3 out of 5]

Significant effects of patriarchy, according to Gilligan, are to silence the voices of women - they say what they think others want to hear or what men want to hear and not what they really think. Men are also damaged by patriarchy by being cut off from their feelings - they may be viewed as sissies if they cry or express emotions that women freely express. Men become materially oriented - interested in things more than people. In the book, Gilligan expresses her view as to why patriarchy, damaging as it is, continues to persist. As books go, this book is relatively short and can easily be read in a few days or less.

[Ladyfilosopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Domination as as a defence against loss: a lose -lose dynamic

A sound set of reasonings, through case studies and the comparison between lyrical and logical thought processes. I have come out the other side of reading this book a wiser and more generous person. This is one of the books to debunk the (androcratic) myth that feminism hates men. Patriarchy does No One any good. It separates us from our humanity. The complex nature of anger was enlightening... Anger of hope, against injustice versus the debilitating anger of despair. Any of my notes and extension of thoughts are freely available on Goodreads.

[Carlotta Calderoni · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il lavoro di Carol Gilligan e Naomi Snider è molto approfondito, di facile comprensione e nutrito di testimonianze concrete e citazioni puntuali.
L'unica difficoltà che, a mio parere, si può denunciare è la ridondanza con la quale viene dipanato il discorso. Credo che, con qualche digressione in meno che ripete sostanzialmente le medesime cose, il resoconto sarebbe stato più efficace.

[...]il patriarcato non è in realtà naturale per noi umani. Siamo, per natura, esseri relazionali, nati con una voce - la capacità di comunicare la nostra esperienza - e con il desiderio di interagire in maniera responsiva con gli altri.