Write a 1-2 paragraph response/reflection on one of the Pateman readings. You may choose from one of the chapters from The Sexual Contract or from "Race, Sex, and Indifference" in Contract and Domination.
Pateman’s discussion about patriarchy has interested me ever since I learned the term. Her definitions about patriarchy really became salient for me when I traveled in India last semester where systems of patriarchal oppression like the caste system, though “illegal,” are still very much in use. Locke asserts that political power is derived from citizens that are free and equal, except for women. Pateman addresses this question about political power and where it comes from by defining patriarchal power and how it plays a role in the social contract. Each of her definitions, though intended to describe different types of patriarchy all still exist in at least some form or another in the world, thus validating Pateman’s claim that the social contract inherently subordinates women. This claim is also validated, because the social contract is based on a patriarchal system whether that system is the familial or the political.
In fact, Pateman ties power within the family to power within government along sex lines. Pateman offers that patriarchal power exists because men need to re-assert the power that they have over women because they cannot ever know for sure if a child is theirs. A woman always knows if a child is hers, but a man does not. However, the male is seen as the creative force that contributes to child bearing. Personally, I think that this conception of child development is sort of crap. Men do not have any more creative influence over a child than women do if both parents contribute to child rearing equally. But I had never thought of men’s re-assertion of power in this “I need to catch up with my wife because she can have children and I can’t” sort of way, so it is interesting. In this sense, women almost have more power than men, almost. The Traditional Definition of Patriarchy is dictated by this type of paternal power. This definition asserts that the first form of patriarchy is found within the family. The family with the authority of the father at its head provides the model for all types of authority relations. Essentially, this definition assimilates all power relations to paternal power rule. Filmer would agree with this definition, as he asserts that political authority comes from the father. This definition still exists in many nuclear families that adhere to the expected familial economic structure of the father bringing in money and the mother providing care for children and fulfilling domestic duties.
The Classical Definition of Patriarchy is based on the fact that sons are subject to their father’s power. In this definition, a son killing off his father is a metaphor for rejecting power and forming civil society. We could look at the United States seceding from England as a type of “killing off,” as well as the Confederate States seceding from the Union during the 1800s as a type of rejection of power and formation of new or different society. The Modern Definition of Patriarchy is the newest and perhaps the most relevant for contemporary discussion. This definition describes the contract as fraternal and is the definition that Pateman adheres to in her writing. This contract structures capitalist civil society and characterizes it as a type of “brotherhood” or society among men. This fraternal power is built into the social structures that exist in our society, like gender roles, stereotypes, gendered violence, and gendered professional and academic worlds. Capitalism perpetuates the patriarchal institutions and ensures that political authority will come from the “fraternity” that excludes women. In studying women in the justice system, it sort of breaks my heart to say that this fraternity does in fact exist today. But it is a difficult issue to address, because affirmative action programs have not had much success at leveling the playing field, and social structures such as gender roles still dominate much of popular thought. I hope that one day women will be represented in the professional world at the same level they are represented in the population. It sounds idealistic, but perhaps one day there will be a “sisterhood” as well as a “brotherhood” and that these two entities can enmesh and share power to create a productive and efficient professional world populated by qualified and passionate individuals.
Jessica, I really liked your analogy between sons killing off fathers and the Union vs. Confederate states.
I think it is interesting that Abraham Lincoln was viewed in a sort of paternal light during the Civil War and after. Lincoln as the master of "A house divided" over the issue of slavery, and Whitman's "O Captain! My Captain!" illustrate this point well.
Also interesting: one of original exercisers of paternal power was also named Abraham, and exercised his paternal power through the circumcision of his son, Isaac.
Good point Ted. If you go back even farther, the god of Abraham would then be considered the original paternal figure at the head of a patriarchal power structure
In her book The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman presents the argument that traditional social contract theory is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to adequately address half of the population: women. Traditional contract theory, as Pateman sees it, is a vestige of an overtly patriarchal society in which women are dominated and subjugated (through the social contract) in various ways. Along these lines, Pateman offers three different forms of Patriarchy which have operated in society in some form at some time over the last few hundred years: 1.) Traditional Patriarchy in which men exercise control over their families and sexual relations 2.) Classical Patriarchy in which political power is inexorably linked to paternal power and 3.) Modern Patriarchy which through its contractual and fraternal manifestations has structured capitalist society. Pateman’s central thesis is that when women are excluded from the original contract, problems arise in regards to their position and role in society. Because of this fact, Pateman argues, it is necessary to scrap any notion of salvaging traditional contract theory.
In general terms, I think Pateman is a necessary voice and that she provides thought provoking insights and fodder for contemplation and self-examination. That said, at times I felt as if Pateman was reaching with some of the assumptions underlying her arguments, to the point that it felt as though she were erecting and attacking straw men. Possibly adding to these feelings was the fact that I found Pateman’s writing (in The Sexual Contract) to be convoluted and at times tedious.
However, Pateman did present a number of arguments which I found myself in total agreement with. Pateman points out a number of flaws with the idea of Patriarchy, as it has been treated by other philosophers and political theorists. In particular, I found her argument criticizing histories of patriarchy to be compelling. That histories of patriarchy are presented as at most identical to and at least as coinciding with histories of civilization is problematic—as if that’s the way it’s been since the beginning of time. I was also drawn to argument in support of maintaining the concept of patriarchy (flawed as it may be) because it is the one concept which gives feminist theory its context. What is the North Pole without the South Pole?
I like your last point about the North Pole without the South. I thought that was a good comparison to make with the concept of patriarchy. Patriarchy is the one concept that fully defines the subjugation of women at all levels of society, and using any other term waters down the meaning.
One of Carole Pateman's main topics in The Sexual Contract is patriarchy. This is a term that I had heard before, but was not very familiar with until this class. Now that I have learned more about this topic, I do find myself in partial agreement with Pateman. It is clear that men enjoy many implied privileges in our society, even if the men themselves often do not realize it. However, I do think that Pateman is long on statements of opinion, and rather short on evidence and numbers to back up her opinion with facts. It does seem like she just makes claim after claim in some places, with little to no substantiation. That said, her message overall is very consistent and is clearly passionate, and I am glad that I had a chance to look at things from a different point of view.
One of the most interesting parts of Pateman's argument is how she connects patriarchy with political right. Her reasoning is that when the social contract was created, only men were included in its formation, so patriarchy was baked into the cake from the start. This is a very valid line of thinking, and I am surprised that I have never heard of this kind of idea before. Another interesting point Pateman makes is that patriarchy is just an extension of the original paternal political system, based around the structure of the family.
In her chapter “What’s Wrong With Prostitution?” Carole Pateman essentially argues that prostitution is yet another example of how the patriarchal rights of men are upheld in our society. Pateman believes that there exists a prostitution contract, which can only be entered with women, according to the sexual contract. This contract is open to everyone, thus giving men unlimited access to a woman’s body for the sole purpose of fulfilling his natural sexual urges. Pateman tackles the argument made by some feminists, which suggest that prostitution is no different from other forms of wage labor since women are selling their sexual services. Pateman, however, refutes this argument by mentioning how the employment contract, which can be entered with men, is not the same as the prostitution contract. A wage laborer still has autonomy over their services and their bodies, while a prostitute does not. Moreover, prostitutes are thus required to utilize distancing strategies to try to separate their selves from the service they are rendering. However, as Pateman notes, a prostitute can only distance herself from her body for so long, considering there is an integral relationship between the two that is inseparable. Pateman ultimately concludes that the problem with prostitution is that it allows “the law of male sex-right [to be] publicly affirmed, and men gain public acknowledgment as women’s sexual masters.” (208)
I agree with Pateman’s argument that prostitution is another example of how patriarchal our society is, and is meant to fulfill the sexual desires of men. However, I do not agree with the dated claim she makes that women choose to become prostitutes. She fails to account for the young girls who are forced into prostitution by their families. I do understand that this book war written in the late 1980’s, which could explain why her argument seems to dated, but I think it is an important point to mention nonetheless; sexual exploitation of children is not an issue that suddenly sprung into existence in the 1990’s or beyond. Furthermore, I think Pateman overly simplifies the issue of prostitution. She focuses more on the economic aspect of it and its comparison to the employment contract, without really exploring the complexities of it, such as the criminalization of prostitution (it is directed towards the prostitute and not the man “buying” her services), or the negative effects prostitution has on a woman (both mentally and physically). I believe that these points are also important because they only enhance her argument by showing just how patriarchal prostitution is; as long as the male client is pleased, that is all that seems to matter.
In The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman examines an oft studied dynamic within human societies: the divide between men and women. Pateman posits that the sexual contract has led to a situation in which men use their power to dominate and subjugate women on several fronts, including within the family, within politics, and within the modern capitalistic system. I'd heard the term previously, but had never read much on the topic before, so it was an interesting opportunity to learn about a topic that, still present within modern American society, has been substantially disrupted.
Pateman also spends time discussing the institution of modern prostitution. It's no secret that I have defended an unpopular position on prostitution, but I hope that everyone understands how I got there logically. Pateman and I have the same end goals: to end the sexual exploitation of people and to end, or at least substantially disrupt, human trafficking. However, we differ in how we get there. I was disappointed to see that Pateman offered few, if any, real world solutions to the problem. Instead, Pateman mostly lists the myriad of problems that exist within the current system of organized prostitution. To me, these problems were actually an argument in favor of legalizing the enterprise. I think Pateman and others confuse legalization with legalization and regulation. Any system of legalized prostitution must contain a comprehensive set of regulations, including age and nationality verification, standardized working conditions, and strong unionized protections.
The reason that I argue so passionately about this is that the sexual exploitation of prostitutes that currently takes place is totally repugnant to me. I look at this problem, and I believe that 5,000 years of human society shows that the demand for prostitutes isn't going anywhere. That being the case, you have to look at harm reduction strategies. If the end goal is less money in the hands of criminals, a safer working environment, greater security for prostitutes, greater protections against STDs, and a decrease in humans trafficked against their will, then legalization is the only option. I respect and understand everyone else's opinions and would be happy to further clarify my own.
Ryan, respectfully, I have to disagree. You and Pateman have different goals because you have different definition of "the end of sexual exploitation of people." Pateman and Leidholt see the practice of prostitution itself as the sexual exploitation of people, so making it more safe and economically sound won't do much for them. The idea is that prostitution can never be condoned because it promotes a form of patriarchy that is extremely demeaning to women and therefore never able to be salvaged or regulated properly.
I am choosing to write about the chapter “What’s Wrong with Prostitution” in Carol Pateman’s The Sexual Contract, mostly due to the heated discussion that we had in class about this topic. I was intrigued by Pateman’s assertion that marriage is essentially a form of prostitution, because I never looked at my parents, or my girlfriend and I as engaging in prostitution. After our class discussion on the issue, I still remain firm that marriage and relationships are not prostitution and I will explain my case in three main points. The main reasons I feel that prostitution differs from marriage are motivation, the liberties of those in a marriage versus those engaging in prostitution, and the role of women in both relationships. My main issue with this way of thinking is that saying prostitution is the same as marriage is essentially saying that men enter into marriage for the same reasons that they would seek out a prostitute. While I do agree that many relationships, specifically relationships among teenagers and people in their 20’s, can be purely physical, I do not believe that sex would be the only reason that the majority of people get married. One major reason that a couple gets married is because they want to have a family. Men and women do not seek out prostitutes for the purpose of starting a family; they seek out prostitutes to satisfy sexual desires. So in this way, I believe that motivation is a key difference between marriage and prostitution. Another reason why I feel that marriage and prostitution differ is because of the role of women in both relationships. With prostitution, women do not have a choice over who they are engaging in sexual relations, because in many cases they are forced through necessity into selling sexual acts. While I do admit that there are marriages where one of the partners is dependent financially on another, there has been an increase in the number of single parents and households with dual incomes. This goes to show that there are a number of relationships where the woman has the option to not be in the relationship to begin with. This is why engaging in prostitution could be seen as taking advantage of a desperate woman, but in relationships, a woman does not face the desperation that a prostitute does and therefore men does not take advantage of them in the same way. The final reason why I believe that prostitution differs from marriage is the role of woman in each relationship. While Pateman would argue that in both relationships and throughout all time women are subservient to men, I feel that the two are on different levels of the hierarchy. In marriage the two individuals are brought together in a union, so in theory there should be equality between the women and men. While this is not always the case, in a proper marriage the two should work together to form a more perfect combination. I would argue that any other “marriage” that does not create a union between the two people is not a marriage at all. This specification furthers the distance between prostitution and marriage because with prostitution, there is no combining to achieve a better unit. Women in the sense of prostitution only serve the purpose of satisfying men, but in marriage, the women serve a much higher purpose. In conclusion, I believe that Pateman’s argument that marriage and prostitution are one in the same is fundamentally flawed. The motivation for engage in each relation, the liberties of those involved, and the role of women in each of the relationships contribute to their differences.
Pateman’s work has provided a different perspective on the issue of patriarchal society and how the history and culture that we have been brought up in is male-driven. She states that there is an “original” contract that formed the political state that we currently live in. Even though perhaps women started out being equal at some point, they were left out of this original contract and so the new society is one of men’s consent, where women are left in a state of subordination under male domination. Then, when women are added in to this society that was created under the contract, it becomes difficult to reconcile this difference in status as they would not be considered “free” individuals, at least in contract theory. Any further contract creates a paradox where women are supposed to consent, but is unable to due to being a “non-free” individual. In that case, even though they are taking part in these new contracts, they are not free in the original contract and are so exist simultaneously in both states of free and not free. In this system, it creates contradictions within itself and Pateman states it is beyond saving and needs to be scrapped. Any feminist attempting to salvage such a theory and gaining equality within the system and current contract theory is being misled.
These points are fair enough to make and indeed, if women were not a part of making the original contract, there’s a very real chance (if not absolutely certain) that they would not be considered “free” individuals in a society born from the contract. Pateman is very clear in her goals and does not look for a way to save the current system and that is why she spends a lot of the time showing how the current system simply does not work, in history and in current culture. Sometimes when things are simply beyond saving, it’s time to throw them out and go back to the drawing board.
I am going to choose to write about the “Race, Sex, and Indifference” chapter from Contract and Domination. One of the most interesting parts about the chapter for me was the section that went beyond the black-white binary that we usually are most focused upon in class. Pateman writes that extreme mental gymnastics are required to fit people into a tidy racial classification. Over the years, racial groups that are not technically Caucasian have been gradually accepted into the white in-group. Examples include the declaration of Japanese whiteness in South Africa under apartheid. They were allowed into the privileged designation of white for economic reasons. In our own country, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe were not considered white for many generations. In 1790, Congress limited naturalization to “free white persons”, meaning that this oft-contradictory category had real life consequences for millions of people. This means that the U.S. government has directly contributed to the problem of white privilege for hundreds of years.
My response to these examples is to marvel at the utter absurdity of a system that has reinforced such arbitrary definitions for those that are privileged and those that are not. The designation of whiteness clearly holds such an unfair advantage for those who belong to it. But the category itself, if it is somehow supposed to be based on skin color, just doesn’t make sense. I am glad that Italian and Irish people are not discriminated against as much as they once were in this country. But at the same time, I am not happy that they have joined the select few permitted to join the club of white privilege. Instead of gradually accepting new racial groups into their ranks, I think that the privileged should forsake the white group and come up with something completely new. By attempting to reject white privilege, they can speed up the process of treating every group with respect, regardless of race, gender, or any other difference. The system of white privilege and nonwhite subordination needs to be dismantled, and the farces of who counts as white give another reason why this should be so.
In the chapter “Race, Sex, and Indifference” of “Contract and Domination,” Carole Pateman talks about how white men in particular subordinated white women because they needed to be protected from possible forced sexual relations with the black slaves. Ideally, white women would only have children within their race in order to preserve its purity. Pateman then contrasts this protection with the complete unconcern for black women. Laws in the American south prohibited sexual relations between black men and white women, but did not have any such clause regarding sexual relations between white men and black women.
The protection of women and white racial purity went even further. Pateman discusses the frequent lynching of black men, most of the time for crimes they did not even commit. Black men ran the perpetual risk of being accused of rape of a white woman—sexual relations of any kind between a black man and a white woman were still illegal at the time. White legislators could not fathom that a white woman might want to have consensual sexual relations with a black man. It almost seemed as though white men were trying to exterminate black men to protect their women and their future children.
The neglect of black women is apparent here. This obscuring of their needs can be generalized to all women of color. I believe that women require special protections from the law. At the time, the white lawmakers saw no point in including the black slaves in their provisions for white women because black women were seen not only as inferior to the white women, but they were not even considered fully human. The predominantly white feminist movement advocates for protections that cover women of color, however the specific racial and gender concerns of women of color need to be heard as well.
Isn't that concept of "preserving purity" of race so off-putting? The process leading up to "preserving purity" is just as logical and cold as the law, and it amazes me that the idea became internalized in so many as thus become reality.
In Carole Pateman’s chapter titled “Race, Sex and Indifference” from “Contract and Domination”, Pateman discusses an often forgotten but incredibly problematic aspect of the feminist movement: it caters mostly to the needs of middle-class white women. I consider myself to be a feminist and find it quite troubling that a movement that should be in the interest of all women still seems to be excluding so many. This exclusion is not just an issue for nonwhite women but for lower-income white women, as well. As Pateman points out, many 19th century feminists were also supporters of the eugenics movement, a movement whose goal was to wipe out “unfavorable” characteristics in the population through involuntary sterilization of those deemed to have these qualities. These qualities, such as social inadequacy and feeblemindedness, were ones typically found in women of low socioeconomic standing, particularly nonwhites.
The eugenics movement is such a problematic aspect of our history and is all too rarely discussed. It was even cited by Adolf Hitler in his justification of the Holocaust. As ridiculous as the eugenics movement may seem in hindsight, it contains eerie similarities to modern-day stem-cell research and gene replacement therapy. We are left with the question of where the line should be drawn in regards to medical advances that will help our population and infringing on human rights. That is what those at the forefront of the eugenics movement believed they were doing after all: helping. 19th century white feminists who attempted to include black women in on the movement with a poster displaying the slogan “Am I not a woman and a sister?” and the image of a black woman on her knees, a subordinate, childlike position, thought they were helping, too; as did English colonists who forced Native Americans off of their land but agreed to let them join their communities if the natives agreed to let the English “civilize” them. Clearly, a lot of grey area exists in regards to what truly qualifies as help and what is simply a privileged person asserting their dominance under the guise of help.
I'm glad you brought the eugenics movement up, I hadn't been aware of this movement before, but it really struck a cord. It's so incredibly problematic that an entire subset of the population was considered so inferior that their generic material was forcibly removed from the gene pool. Girls, some as young as 12 were facing procedures like this. It's absolutely repulsive, and why the hell aren't more people aware of it?
Carole Pateman What’s wrong with Prostitution? Prostitution can be viewed as the modern patriarchy available for men to uphold the sexual contract. Men’s sexual craving seems to be out of control and prostitution can be viewed as a necessary evil to protect woman. Pateman view Prostitution in an economic viewpoint and how women were once the owners of brothels and street workers controlled by pimps. Marriage contract is an extension of the modern patriarchal rights. Women are treated as if there sex wage labor, some argue that prostitution is a form of therapy that should be open to all. In reading this I could not agree with some of the reasoning’s such as it being a necessary evil to protect woman and children. When in fact, it was proven to be harmful to woman the article “She Sexual Exploitation of Women and girls” explain how woman were harmed at a young age and once there a little older woman are using drugs to get by.
I really enjoyed reading Pateman’s work, so in order to keep my reflection sharp & concise, I’ll focus on one specific point made in “Race, Sex, and Indifference” chapter in Contract and Domination, that of race and reproduction. There are two elements of the discussion of race and reproduction that need to be considered here: the question of race and the question of gender. To the question of race, I feel that, as Pateman also points out, race must be a political construct since there is no basis for it in biology. Recent advances in genetic research prove this; the variations that exist among a single ‘race’ are as great or greater than the variations that exist between different races. Though race constructs hold many similarities with gendered constructs, the basis of biology is not one of them; gender does have a biological basis.
To the question of gender, then: are women interior because of that biological difference, or because of their ability to reproduce, are they more god-like and thus do men feel the need to oppress their potential more? I thought this was a very interesting point, and not one I had thought of before. There does seem to be a lot of male generated stigmas surrounding the reproductive functions of a women’s body. Menstruation is not to be talked about, and the topic of female orgasm is generally ignored. By the end of this section I had drawn the conclusion that the constructs of race and gender are more similar than different. Gender does have a greater biological basis than race, but the inferiority of women and nonwhites share the common ground of an unnatural, politically constructed origin. They both serve as politically constructed contractual agreements that hold a subset of the population subservient.
In her book The Sexual Contract, Pateman discusses the misconceptions of patriarchy and the overall importance of it. To Pateman, there are many flaws with the term patriarch, most of the issues stemming around the fact that there is no set definition of what patriarchy is nor a proper example for which to apply various cases to. Instead patriarch is this conglomerates of different definitions both existing in various cultures and throughout time. In the chapter, “Patriarchal Confusion” Pateman tries to categories these different definitions into categories. She formulates that there are three major types. The first is traditional, which stems from the traditions notion of the family, with the father figure sitting at the head of the table. Next is the classical definition, which takes the traditional notion of the family and applies it to government and politics, giving a justification of monarchy. The last type is modern patriarchy. This form is born when the traditional and classical values of patriarchy are applied to capitalist and contractual societies. Though patriarchy has many definitions surrounding it, along with much confusion, Pateman still argues the significance of it. She argues that without a term to describe the subjugation of women, no matter how flawed, it is better to know what you are fighting than everyone blindly stabbing in the dark. I agree with Pateman’s argument in this chapter. While reading through the beginning portion of the chapter, I was very skeptical about what Pateman was trying to argue, and rightfully so. As I read on I came to realize the significance of what Pateman was trying to do. She was trying to express how difficult it is to correctly describe patriarchy in one umbrella term. Rather than trying and failing, like others have done in the past, Pateman simply exposes the definitions of patriarchy, tells why there is this importance of having a term for this subjugation, and then lets the reader decide what to do with this knowledge.
In the Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman argues that social contract theory is completely unsalvageable because it completely disregards women in every aspect of its construction. It is the manifestation of patriarchy that has subjugated women for centuries and continues to into the present day, she explains, in modern patriarchal practices that are more contractual and fraternal constructions of capitalistic society i.e. exploitation of the female body as a commodity in prostitution; disregard for women in politics; female dependence on men for comfortable lifestyles in marriage. Despite her contempt for the institution of patriarchy, she says that she would not want to disregard the term because it conceptualizes the oppressor, or gives a name to the phenomenon that subjugates women in several, if not all, spheres of life. I like that Carole Pateman backs up Liedholt’s argument that prostitution is not something that can be legalized or viewed as an economic transaction. It is a deeply painful materialization of patriarchal concepts that is extremely detrimental to female self-image and power. I like that she combats feminists who argue that prostitution is something women can choose to do and have control over, because the very moral implications of the whole practice are so inherently flawed that, like contract theory, there is no salvaging it!!! ;)
In 'The Sexual Contract', Carole Pateman argues that there has been a historical neglect of the source and influence of private sphere. Most interesting, to me, though, is Pateman's assertion that "political right originates in the sex-right". Carole Pateman argues that from the very beginning the social contract was superseded and in a manner determined (in its future exercise) by the core assumptions of the contract itself. Out of the language of individualism and common rights of the social contract era Pateman identifies the mode by which patriarchal control was replaced with paternal right in contract, labor, and gender relations. Pateman identifies the rationalization and obfuscation of the male paternal right as a function of the historic idea of the individual and free contracts. By clarifying the historical birth of the idea of individual as a male dominated perspective, Pateman gives creedence to the necessity of a reformulation of contract theory. To learn that there exists a purposefully embraced disconnect in the historical formulation between ideas of the individual and the female should give any ardent believer of social contract theory reason to pause.
Part 1
ReplyDeletePateman’s discussion about patriarchy has interested me ever since I learned the term. Her definitions about patriarchy really became salient for me when I traveled in India last semester where systems of patriarchal oppression like the caste system, though “illegal,” are still very much in use. Locke asserts that political power is derived from citizens that are free and equal, except for women. Pateman addresses this question about political power and where it comes from by defining patriarchal power and how it plays a role in the social contract. Each of her definitions, though intended to describe different types of patriarchy all still exist in at least some form or another in the world, thus validating Pateman’s claim that the social contract inherently subordinates women. This claim is also validated, because the social contract is based on a patriarchal system whether that system is the familial or the political.
In fact, Pateman ties power within the family to power within government along sex lines. Pateman offers that patriarchal power exists because men need to re-assert the power that they have over women because they cannot ever know for sure if a child is theirs. A woman always knows if a child is hers, but a man does not. However, the male is seen as the creative force that contributes to child bearing. Personally, I think that this conception of child development is sort of crap. Men do not have any more creative influence over a child than women do if both parents contribute to child rearing equally. But I had never thought of men’s re-assertion of power in this “I need to catch up with my wife because she can have children and I can’t” sort of way, so it is interesting. In this sense, women almost have more power than men, almost. The Traditional Definition of Patriarchy is dictated by this type of paternal power. This definition asserts that the first form of patriarchy is found within the family. The family with the authority of the father at its head provides the model for all types of authority relations. Essentially, this definition assimilates all power relations to paternal power rule. Filmer would agree with this definition, as he asserts that political authority comes from the father. This definition still exists in many nuclear families that adhere to the expected familial economic structure of the father bringing in money and the mother providing care for children and fulfilling domestic duties.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe Classical Definition of Patriarchy is based on the fact that sons are subject to their father’s power. In this definition, a son killing off his father is a metaphor for rejecting power and forming civil society. We could look at the United States seceding from England as a type of “killing off,” as well as the Confederate States seceding from the Union during the 1800s as a type of rejection of power and formation of new or different society. The Modern Definition of Patriarchy is the newest and perhaps the most relevant for contemporary discussion. This definition describes the contract as fraternal and is the definition that Pateman adheres to in her writing. This contract structures capitalist civil society and characterizes it as a type of “brotherhood” or society among men. This fraternal power is built into the social structures that exist in our society, like gender roles, stereotypes, gendered violence, and gendered professional and academic worlds. Capitalism perpetuates the patriarchal institutions and ensures that political authority will come from the “fraternity” that excludes women. In studying women in the justice system, it sort of breaks my heart to say that this fraternity does in fact exist today. But it is a difficult issue to address, because affirmative action programs have not had much success at leveling the playing field, and social structures such as gender roles still dominate much of popular thought. I hope that one day women will be represented in the professional world at the same level they are represented in the population. It sounds idealistic, but perhaps one day there will be a “sisterhood” as well as a “brotherhood” and that these two entities can enmesh and share power to create a productive and efficient professional world populated by qualified and passionate individuals.
Jessica, I really liked your analogy between sons killing off fathers and the Union vs. Confederate states.
DeleteI think it is interesting that Abraham Lincoln was viewed in a sort of paternal light during the Civil War and after. Lincoln as the master of "A house divided" over the issue of slavery, and Whitman's "O Captain! My Captain!" illustrate this point well.
Also interesting: one of original exercisers of paternal power was also named Abraham, and exercised his paternal power through the circumcision of his son, Isaac.
Good point Ted. If you go back even farther, the god of Abraham would then be considered the original paternal figure at the head of a patriarchal power structure
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn her book The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman presents the argument that traditional social contract theory is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to adequately address half of the population: women. Traditional contract theory, as Pateman sees it, is a vestige of an overtly patriarchal society in which women are dominated and subjugated (through the social contract) in various ways. Along these lines, Pateman offers three different forms of Patriarchy which have operated in society in some form at some time over the last few hundred years: 1.) Traditional Patriarchy in which men exercise control over their families and sexual relations 2.) Classical Patriarchy in which political power is inexorably linked to paternal power and 3.) Modern Patriarchy which through its contractual and fraternal manifestations has structured capitalist society. Pateman’s central thesis is that when women are excluded from the original contract, problems arise in regards to their position and role in society. Because of this fact, Pateman argues, it is necessary to scrap any notion of salvaging traditional contract theory.
DeleteIn general terms, I think Pateman is a necessary voice and that she provides thought provoking insights and fodder for contemplation and self-examination. That said, at times I felt as if Pateman was reaching with some of the assumptions underlying her arguments, to the point that it felt as though she were erecting and attacking straw men. Possibly adding to these feelings was the fact that I found Pateman’s writing (in The Sexual Contract) to be convoluted and at times tedious.
However, Pateman did present a number of arguments which I found myself in total agreement with. Pateman points out a number of flaws with the idea of Patriarchy, as it has been treated by other philosophers and political theorists. In particular, I found her argument criticizing histories of patriarchy to be compelling. That histories of patriarchy are presented as at most identical to and at least as coinciding with histories of civilization is problematic—as if that’s the way it’s been since the beginning of time. I was also drawn to argument in support of maintaining the concept of patriarchy (flawed as it may be) because it is the one concept which gives feminist theory its context. What is the North Pole without the South Pole?
Ted,
DeleteI like your last point about the North Pole without the South. I thought that was a good comparison to make with the concept of patriarchy. Patriarchy is the one concept that fully defines the subjugation of women at all levels of society, and using any other term waters down the meaning.
One of Carole Pateman's main topics in The Sexual Contract is patriarchy. This is a term that I had heard before, but was not very familiar with until this class. Now that I have learned more about this topic, I do find myself in partial agreement with Pateman. It is clear that men enjoy many implied privileges in our society, even if the men themselves often do not realize it. However, I do think that Pateman is long on statements of opinion, and rather short on evidence and numbers to back up her opinion with facts. It does seem like she just makes claim after claim in some places, with little to no substantiation. That said, her message overall is very consistent and is clearly passionate, and I am glad that I had a chance to look at things from a different point of view.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting parts of Pateman's argument is how she connects patriarchy with political right. Her reasoning is that when the social contract was created, only men were included in its formation, so patriarchy was baked into the cake from the start. This is a very valid line of thinking, and I am surprised that I have never heard of this kind of idea before. Another interesting point Pateman makes is that patriarchy is just an extension of the original paternal political system, based around the structure of the family.
DeleteIn her chapter “What’s Wrong With Prostitution?” Carole Pateman essentially argues that prostitution is yet another example of how the patriarchal rights of men are upheld in our society. Pateman believes that there exists a prostitution contract, which can only be entered with women, according to the sexual contract. This contract is open to everyone, thus giving men unlimited access to a woman’s body for the sole purpose of fulfilling his natural sexual urges. Pateman tackles the argument made by some feminists, which suggest that prostitution is no different from other forms of wage labor since women are selling their sexual services. Pateman, however, refutes this argument by mentioning how the employment contract, which can be entered with men, is not the same as the prostitution contract. A wage laborer still has autonomy over their services and their bodies, while a prostitute does not. Moreover, prostitutes are thus required to utilize distancing strategies to try to separate their selves from the service they are rendering. However, as Pateman notes, a prostitute can only distance herself from her body for so long, considering there is an integral relationship between the two that is inseparable. Pateman ultimately concludes that the problem with prostitution is that it allows “the law of male sex-right [to be] publicly affirmed, and men gain public acknowledgment as women’s sexual masters.” (208)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pateman’s argument that prostitution is another example of how patriarchal our society is, and is meant to fulfill the sexual desires of men. However, I do not agree with the dated claim she makes that women choose to become prostitutes. She fails to account for the young girls who are forced into prostitution by their families. I do understand that this book war written in the late 1980’s, which could explain why her argument seems to dated, but I think it is an important point to mention nonetheless; sexual exploitation of children is not an issue that suddenly sprung into existence in the 1990’s or beyond. Furthermore, I think Pateman overly simplifies the issue of prostitution. She focuses more on the economic aspect of it and its comparison to the employment contract, without really exploring the complexities of it, such as the criminalization of prostitution (it is directed towards the prostitute and not the man “buying” her services), or the negative effects prostitution has on a woman (both mentally and physically). I believe that these points are also important because they only enhance her argument by showing just how patriarchal prostitution is; as long as the male client is pleased, that is all that seems to matter.
In The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman examines an oft studied dynamic within human societies: the divide between men and women. Pateman posits that the sexual contract has led to a situation in which men use their power to dominate and subjugate women on several fronts, including within the family, within politics, and within the modern capitalistic system. I'd heard the term previously, but had never read much on the topic before, so it was an interesting opportunity to learn about a topic that, still present within modern American society, has been substantially disrupted.
ReplyDeletePateman also spends time discussing the institution of modern prostitution. It's no secret that I have defended an unpopular position on prostitution, but I hope that everyone understands how I got there logically. Pateman and I have the same end goals: to end the sexual exploitation of people and to end, or at least substantially disrupt, human trafficking. However, we differ in how we get there. I was disappointed to see that Pateman offered few, if any, real world solutions to the problem. Instead, Pateman mostly lists the myriad of problems that exist within the current system of organized prostitution. To me, these problems were actually an argument in favor of legalizing the enterprise. I think Pateman and others confuse legalization with legalization and regulation. Any system of legalized prostitution must contain a comprehensive set of regulations, including age and nationality verification, standardized working conditions, and strong unionized protections.
The reason that I argue so passionately about this is that the sexual exploitation of prostitutes that currently takes place is totally repugnant to me. I look at this problem, and I believe that 5,000 years of human society shows that the demand for prostitutes isn't going anywhere. That being the case, you have to look at harm reduction strategies. If the end goal is less money in the hands of criminals, a safer working environment, greater security for prostitutes, greater protections against STDs, and a decrease in humans trafficked against their will, then legalization is the only option. I respect and understand everyone else's opinions and would be happy to further clarify my own.
Ryan, respectfully, I have to disagree. You and Pateman have different goals because you have different definition of "the end of sexual exploitation of people." Pateman and Leidholt see the practice of prostitution itself as the sexual exploitation of people, so making it more safe and economically sound won't do much for them. The idea is that prostitution can never be condoned because it promotes a form of patriarchy that is extremely demeaning to women and therefore never able to be salvaged or regulated properly.
DeleteI am choosing to write about the chapter “What’s Wrong with Prostitution” in Carol Pateman’s The Sexual Contract, mostly due to the heated discussion that we had in class about this topic. I was intrigued by Pateman’s assertion that marriage is essentially a form of prostitution, because I never looked at my parents, or my girlfriend and I as engaging in prostitution. After our class discussion on the issue, I still remain firm that marriage and relationships are not prostitution and I will explain my case in three main points. The main reasons I feel that prostitution differs from marriage are motivation, the liberties of those in a marriage versus those engaging in prostitution, and the role of women in both relationships.
ReplyDeleteMy main issue with this way of thinking is that saying prostitution is the same as marriage is essentially saying that men enter into marriage for the same reasons that they would seek out a prostitute. While I do agree that many relationships, specifically relationships among teenagers and people in their 20’s, can be purely physical, I do not believe that sex would be the only reason that the majority of people get married. One major reason that a couple gets married is because they want to have a family. Men and women do not seek out prostitutes for the purpose of starting a family; they seek out prostitutes to satisfy sexual desires. So in this way, I believe that motivation is a key difference between marriage and prostitution.
Another reason why I feel that marriage and prostitution differ is because of the role of women in both relationships. With prostitution, women do not have a choice over who they are engaging in sexual relations, because in many cases they are forced through necessity into selling sexual acts. While I do admit that there are marriages where one of the partners is dependent financially on another, there has been an increase in the number of single parents and households with dual incomes. This goes to show that there are a number of relationships where the woman has the option to not be in the relationship to begin with. This is why engaging in prostitution could be seen as taking advantage of a desperate woman, but in relationships, a woman does not face the desperation that a prostitute does and therefore men does not take advantage of them in the same way.
The final reason why I believe that prostitution differs from marriage is the role of woman in each relationship. While Pateman would argue that in both relationships and throughout all time women are subservient to men, I feel that the two are on different levels of the hierarchy. In marriage the two individuals are brought together in a union, so in theory there should be equality between the women and men. While this is not always the case, in a proper marriage the two should work together to form a more perfect combination. I would argue that any other “marriage” that does not create a union between the two people is not a marriage at all. This specification furthers the distance between prostitution and marriage because with prostitution, there is no combining to achieve a better unit. Women in the sense of prostitution only serve the purpose of satisfying men, but in marriage, the women serve a much higher purpose.
In conclusion, I believe that Pateman’s argument that marriage and prostitution are one in the same is fundamentally flawed. The motivation for engage in each relation, the liberties of those involved, and the role of women in each of the relationships contribute to their differences.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePateman’s work has provided a different perspective on the issue of patriarchal society and how the history and culture that we have been brought up in is male-driven. She states that there is an “original” contract that formed the political state that we currently live in. Even though perhaps women started out being equal at some point, they were left out of this original contract and so the new society is one of men’s consent, where women are left in a state of subordination under male domination. Then, when women are added in to this society that was created under the contract, it becomes difficult to reconcile this difference in status as they would not be considered “free” individuals, at least in contract theory. Any further contract creates a paradox where women are supposed to consent, but is unable to due to being a “non-free” individual. In that case, even though they are taking part in these new contracts, they are not free in the original contract and are so exist simultaneously in both states of free and not free. In this system, it creates contradictions within itself and Pateman states it is beyond saving and needs to be scrapped. Any feminist attempting to salvage such a theory and gaining equality within the system and current contract theory is being misled.
ReplyDeleteThese points are fair enough to make and indeed, if women were not a part of making the original contract, there’s a very real chance (if not absolutely certain) that they would not be considered “free” individuals in a society born from the contract. Pateman is very clear in her goals and does not look for a way to save the current system and that is why she spends a lot of the time showing how the current system simply does not work, in history and in current culture. Sometimes when things are simply beyond saving, it’s time to throw them out and go back to the drawing board.
I am going to choose to write about the “Race, Sex, and Indifference” chapter from Contract and Domination. One of the most interesting parts about the chapter for me was the section that went beyond the black-white binary that we usually are most focused upon in class. Pateman writes that extreme mental gymnastics are required to fit people into a tidy racial classification. Over the years, racial groups that are not technically Caucasian have been gradually accepted into the white in-group. Examples include the declaration of Japanese whiteness in South Africa under apartheid. They were allowed into the privileged designation of white for economic reasons. In our own country, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe were not considered white for many generations. In 1790, Congress limited naturalization to “free white persons”, meaning that this oft-contradictory category had real life consequences for millions of people. This means that the U.S. government has directly contributed to the problem of white privilege for hundreds of years.
ReplyDeleteMy response to these examples is to marvel at the utter absurdity of a system that has reinforced such arbitrary definitions for those that are privileged and those that are not. The designation of whiteness clearly holds such an unfair advantage for those who belong to it. But the category itself, if it is somehow supposed to be based on skin color, just doesn’t make sense. I am glad that Italian and Irish people are not discriminated against as much as they once were in this country. But at the same time, I am not happy that they have joined the select few permitted to join the club of white privilege. Instead of gradually accepting new racial groups into their ranks, I think that the privileged should forsake the white group and come up with something completely new. By attempting to reject white privilege, they can speed up the process of treating every group with respect, regardless of race, gender, or any other difference. The system of white privilege and nonwhite subordination needs to be dismantled, and the farces of who counts as white give another reason why this should be so.
In the chapter “Race, Sex, and Indifference” of “Contract and Domination,” Carole Pateman talks about how white men in particular subordinated white women because they needed to be protected from possible forced sexual relations with the black slaves. Ideally, white women would only have children within their race in order to preserve its purity. Pateman then contrasts this protection with the complete unconcern for black women. Laws in the American south prohibited sexual relations between black men and white women, but did not have any such clause regarding sexual relations between white men and black women.
ReplyDeleteThe protection of women and white racial purity went even further. Pateman discusses the frequent lynching of black men, most of the time for crimes they did not even commit. Black men ran the perpetual risk of being accused of rape of a white woman—sexual relations of any kind between a black man and a white woman were still illegal at the time. White legislators could not fathom that a white woman might want to have consensual sexual relations with a black man. It almost seemed as though white men were trying to exterminate black men to protect their women and their future children.
The neglect of black women is apparent here. This obscuring of their needs can be generalized to all women of color. I believe that women require special protections from the law. At the time, the white lawmakers saw no point in including the black slaves in their provisions for white women because black women were seen not only as inferior to the white women, but they were not even considered fully human. The predominantly white feminist movement advocates for protections that cover women of color, however the specific racial and gender concerns of women of color need to be heard as well.
Isn't that concept of "preserving purity" of race so off-putting? The process leading up to "preserving purity" is just as logical and cold as the law, and it amazes me that the idea became internalized in so many as thus become reality.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Carole Pateman’s chapter titled “Race, Sex and Indifference” from “Contract and Domination”, Pateman discusses an often forgotten but incredibly problematic aspect of the feminist movement: it caters mostly to the needs of middle-class white women. I consider myself to be a feminist and find it quite troubling that a movement that should be in the interest of all women still seems to be excluding so many. This exclusion is not just an issue for nonwhite women but for lower-income white women, as well. As Pateman points out, many 19th century feminists were also supporters of the eugenics movement, a movement whose goal was to wipe out “unfavorable” characteristics in the population through involuntary sterilization of those deemed to have these qualities. These qualities, such as social inadequacy and feeblemindedness, were ones typically found in women of low socioeconomic standing, particularly nonwhites.
ReplyDeleteThe eugenics movement is such a problematic aspect of our history and is all too rarely discussed. It was even cited by Adolf Hitler in his justification of the Holocaust. As ridiculous as the eugenics movement may seem in hindsight, it contains eerie similarities to modern-day stem-cell research and gene replacement therapy. We are left with the question of where the line should be drawn in regards to medical advances that will help our population and infringing on human rights. That is what those at the forefront of the eugenics movement believed they were doing after all: helping. 19th century white feminists who attempted to include black women in on the movement with a poster displaying the slogan “Am I not a woman and a sister?” and the image of a black woman on her knees, a subordinate, childlike position, thought they were helping, too; as did English colonists who forced Native Americans off of their land but agreed to let them join their communities if the natives agreed to let the English “civilize” them. Clearly, a lot of grey area exists in regards to what truly qualifies as help and what is simply a privileged person asserting their dominance under the guise of help.
I'm glad you brought the eugenics movement up, I hadn't been aware of this movement before, but it really struck a cord. It's so incredibly problematic that an entire subset of the population was considered so inferior that their generic material was forcibly removed from the gene pool. Girls, some as young as 12 were facing procedures like this. It's absolutely repulsive, and why the hell aren't more people aware of it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarole Pateman
ReplyDeleteWhat’s wrong with Prostitution?
Prostitution can be viewed as the modern patriarchy available for men to uphold the sexual contract. Men’s sexual craving seems to be out of control and prostitution can be viewed as a necessary evil to protect woman. Pateman view Prostitution in an economic viewpoint and how women were once the owners of brothels and street workers controlled by pimps. Marriage contract is an extension of the modern patriarchal rights. Women are treated as if there sex wage labor, some argue that prostitution is a form of therapy that should be open to all. In reading this I could not agree with some of the reasoning’s such as it being a necessary evil to protect woman and children. When in fact, it was proven to be harmful to woman the article “She Sexual Exploitation of Women and girls” explain how woman were harmed at a young age and once there a little older woman are using drugs to get by.
I really enjoyed reading Pateman’s work, so in order to keep my reflection sharp & concise, I’ll focus on one specific point made in “Race, Sex, and Indifference” chapter in Contract and Domination, that of race and reproduction. There are two elements of the discussion of race and reproduction that need to be considered here: the question of race and the question of gender. To the question of race, I feel that, as Pateman also points out, race must be a political construct since there is no basis for it in biology. Recent advances in genetic research prove this; the variations that exist among a single ‘race’ are as great or greater than the variations that exist between different races. Though race constructs hold many similarities with gendered constructs, the basis of biology is not one of them; gender does have a biological basis.
ReplyDeleteTo the question of gender, then: are women interior because of that biological difference, or because of their ability to reproduce, are they more god-like and thus do men feel the need to oppress their potential more? I thought this was a very interesting point, and not one I had thought of before. There does seem to be a lot of male generated stigmas surrounding the reproductive functions of a women’s body. Menstruation is not to be talked about, and the topic of female orgasm is generally ignored. By the end of this section I had drawn the conclusion that the constructs of race and gender are more similar than different. Gender does have a greater biological basis than race, but the inferiority of women and nonwhites share the common ground of an unnatural, politically constructed origin. They both serve as politically constructed contractual agreements that hold a subset of the population subservient.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn her book The Sexual Contract, Pateman discusses the misconceptions of patriarchy and the overall importance of it. To Pateman, there are many flaws with the term patriarch, most of the issues stemming around the fact that there is no set definition of what patriarchy is nor a proper example for which to apply various cases to. Instead patriarch is this conglomerates of different definitions both existing in various cultures and throughout time. In the chapter, “Patriarchal Confusion” Pateman tries to categories these different definitions into categories. She formulates that there are three major types. The first is traditional, which stems from the traditions notion of the family, with the father figure sitting at the head of the table. Next is the classical definition, which takes the traditional notion of the family and applies it to government and politics, giving a justification of monarchy. The last type is modern patriarchy. This form is born when the traditional and classical values of patriarchy are applied to capitalist and contractual societies. Though patriarchy has many definitions surrounding it, along with much confusion, Pateman still argues the significance of it. She argues that without a term to describe the subjugation of women, no matter how flawed, it is better to know what you are fighting than everyone blindly stabbing in the dark.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pateman’s argument in this chapter. While reading through the beginning portion of the chapter, I was very skeptical about what Pateman was trying to argue, and rightfully so. As I read on I came to realize the significance of what Pateman was trying to do. She was trying to express how difficult it is to correctly describe patriarchy in one umbrella term. Rather than trying and failing, like others have done in the past, Pateman simply exposes the definitions of patriarchy, tells why there is this importance of having a term for this subjugation, and then lets the reader decide what to do with this knowledge.
In the Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman argues that social contract theory is completely unsalvageable because it completely disregards women in every aspect of its construction. It is the manifestation of patriarchy that has subjugated women for centuries and continues to into the present day, she explains, in modern patriarchal practices that are more contractual and fraternal constructions of capitalistic society i.e. exploitation of the female body as a commodity in prostitution; disregard for women in politics; female dependence on men for comfortable lifestyles in marriage. Despite her contempt for the institution of patriarchy, she says that she would not want to disregard the term because it conceptualizes the oppressor, or gives a name to the phenomenon that subjugates women in several, if not all, spheres of life.
ReplyDeleteI like that Carole Pateman backs up Liedholt’s argument that prostitution is not something that can be legalized or viewed as an economic transaction. It is a deeply painful materialization of patriarchal concepts that is extremely detrimental to female self-image and power. I like that she combats feminists who argue that prostitution is something women can choose to do and have control over, because the very moral implications of the whole practice are so inherently flawed that, like contract theory, there is no salvaging it!!! ;)
In 'The Sexual Contract', Carole Pateman argues that there has been a historical neglect of the source and influence of private sphere. Most interesting, to me, though, is Pateman's assertion that "political right originates in the sex-right". Carole Pateman argues that from the very beginning the social contract was superseded and in a manner determined (in its future exercise) by the core assumptions of the contract itself. Out of the language of individualism and common rights of the social contract era Pateman identifies the mode by which patriarchal control was replaced with paternal right in contract, labor, and gender relations. Pateman identifies the rationalization and obfuscation of the male paternal right as a function of the historic idea of the individual and free contracts. By clarifying the historical birth of the idea of individual as a male dominated perspective, Pateman gives creedence to the necessity of a reformulation of contract theory. To learn that there exists a purposefully embraced disconnect in the historical formulation between ideas of the individual and the female should give any ardent believer of social contract theory reason to pause.
ReplyDelete