Ich hatte mal wieder eine Diskussion über „das Patriarchat“.
Zum Zeitpunkt als ich diesen Artikel schreibe kam noch keine vernünftige Definition.
Auch im übrigen bleibt es recht vage:
Aus der Wikipedia:
In der feministischen Theoriebildung seit den 1960er Jahren ging es darum, die Naturwüchsigkeit der Beziehung zwischen Männern und Frauen, wie von Weber vorausgesetzt, und damit der Nachrangigkeit von Frauen in Frage zu stellen. Die zweite Frauenbewegung weitete den Patriarchatbegriff auf die Bedeutung allgemeiner, nahezu global verbreiteter Männerdominanz aus und erweiterte ihn zu einem Synonym für ‚männliche Herrschaft und Unterdrückung der Frauen‘. Patriarchat wurde zu einem Sammelbegriff für Strukturen und Formen von Nachrangigkeit, Ausbeutung und direkter sowie symbolischer Gewalt, die Frauen betreffen, und zur Grundlage feministischer Theorie und Praxis.
„Patriarchat bedeutet wörtlich die Herrschaft von Vätern. Aber heute geht männliche Dominanz über die Herrschaft der Väter hinaus und schließt die Herrschaft von Ehemännern, von männlichen Vorgesetzten, von leitenden Männern in den meisten gesellschaftlichen Institutionen in Politik und Wirtschaft mit ein […] Das Konzept Patriarchat wurde durch die neue feministische Bewegung als ein Kampfbegriff wiederentdeckt, weil die Bewegung eine Bezeichnung brauchte, durch welche die Gesamtheit von bedrückenden und ausbeuterischen Beziehungen, die Frauen betreffen, sowie ihr systematischer Charakter ausgedrückt werden konnte. Außerdem zeigt der Begriff Patriarchat die historische und gesellschaftliche Dimension der Frauenausbeutung und Unterdrückung an, und ist so für biologistische Interpretationen weniger geeignet als zum Beispiel das Konzept der männlichen Dominanz.“
– Maria Mies (1988)
Patriarchat bezeichnet demnach zugleich ein analytisches Konzept und einen Zustand, den es zu bekämpfen und zu überwinden gilt. Als Schlüsselbegriff feministischer Theorie und sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung gewann das Konzept Patriarchat an Bedeutung, um „Ungleichheiten und Diskriminierungen, die Frauen in den unterschiedlichen Lebenssphären betreffen, als Teile eines übergreifenden Phänomens zu erfassen
Aus der englischen Wikipedia:
Feminist theorists have written extensively about patriarchy either as a primary cause of women’s oppression, or as part of an interactive system. Shulamith Firestone, a radical-libertarian feminist, defines patriarchy as a system of oppression of women. Firestone believes that patriarchy is caused by the biological inequalities between women and men, e.g. that women bear children, while men do not. Firestone writes that patriarchal ideologies support the oppression of women and gives as an example the joy of giving birth, which she labels a patriarchal myth. For Firestone, women must gain control over reproduction in order to be free from oppression. Feminist historian Gerda Lerner believes that male control over women’s sexuality and reproductive functions is a fundamental cause and result of patriarchy. Alison Jaggar also understands patriarchy as the primary cause of women’s oppression. The system of patriarchy accomplishes this by alienating women from their bodies.
Interactive systems theorists Iris Marion Young and Heidi Hartmann believe that patriarchy and capitalism interact together to oppress women. Young, Hartmann, and other socialist and Marxist feminists use the terms patriarchal capitalism or capitalist patriarchy to describe the interactive relationship of capitalism and patriarchy in producing and reproducing the oppression of women. According to Hartmann, the term patriarchy redirects the focus of oppression from the labour division to a moral and political responsibility liable directly to men as a gender. In its being both systematic and universal, therefore, the concept of patriarchy represents an adaptation of the Marxist concept of class and class struggle.
Lindsey German represents an outlier in this regard. German argued for a need to redefine the origins and sources of the patriarchy, describing the mainstream theories as providing „little understanding of how women’s oppression and the nature of the family have changed historically. Nor is there much notion of how widely differing that oppression is from class to class.“ Instead, the patriarchy is not the result of men’s oppression of women or sexism per se, with men not even identified as the main beneficiaries of such a system, but capital itself. As such, female liberation needs to begin „with an assessment of the material position of women in capitalist society.“ In that, German differs from Young or Hartmann by rejecting the notion („eternal truth“) that the patriarchy is at the root of female oppression.
Audre Lorde, an African American feminist writer and theorist, believed that racism and patriarchy were intertwined systems of oppression. Sara Ruddick, a philosopher who wrote about „good mothers“ in the context of maternal ethics, describes the dilemma facing contemporary mothers who must train their children within a patriarchal system. She asks whether a „good mother“ trains her son to be competitive, individualistic, and comfortable within the hierarchies of patriarchy, knowing that he may likely be economically successful but a mean person, or whether she resists patriarchal ideologies and socializes her son to be cooperative and communal but economically unsuccessful.
Gerda Lerner, in her 1986 The Creation of Patriarchy, makes a series of arguments about the origins and reproduction of patriarchy as a system of oppression of women, and concludes that patriarchy is socially constructed and seen as natural and invisible.
Some feminist theorists believe that patriarchy is an unjust social system that is harmful to both men and women. It often includes any social, political, or economic mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Because patriarchy is a social construction, it can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.
Jaggar, Young, and Hartmann are among the feminist theorists who argue that the system of patriarchy should be completely overturned, especially the heteropatriarchal family, which they see as a necessary component of female oppression. The family not only serves as a representative of the greater civilization by pushing its own affiliates to change and obey, but performs as a component in the rule of the patriarchal state that rules its inhabitants with the head of the family.
Many feminists (especially scholars and activists) have called for culture repositioning as a method for deconstructing patriarchy. Culture repositioning relates to culture change. It involves the reconstruction of the cultural concept of a society. Prior to the widespread use of the term patriarchy, early feminists used male chauvinism and sexism to refer roughly to the same phenomenon. Author bell hooks argues that the new term identifies the ideological system itself (that men claim dominance and superiority to women) that can be believed and acted upon by either men or women, whereas the earlier terms imply only men act as oppressors of women.
Sociologist Joan Acker, analyzing the concept of patriarchy and the role that it has played in the development of feminist thought, says that seeing patriarchy as a „universal, trans-historical and trans-cultural phenomenon“ where „women were everywhere oppressed by men in more or less the same ways […] tended toward a biological essentialism.“
Anna Pollert has described use of the term patriarchy as circular and conflating description and explanation. She remarks the discourse on patriarchy creates a „theoretical impasse … imposing a structural label on what it is supposed to explain“ and therefore impoverishes the possibility of explaining gender inequalities.
Der letzte Absatz trifft es dabei ganz gut.
Daher da auch kurz der Abstract:
Gender and Class Revisited; or, the Poverty of `Patriarchy‘
This paper examines the concept of `patriarchy‘ as a tool for analysing gender inequality, while signalling the problems which arise from a common confusion between its use as short-hand description and as explanation. It first enters a substantive critique of a theory of `patriarchy‘, highlighting its reductionism and circularity. It then broadens to the form of abstract structuralist theorisation used, and its flattening and mechanistic effect on analysis. As an alternative to a dualist approach to `structures of‘ capitalism as `patriarchy‘, it argues that gendering needs to be understood as integral to all social relations at the start. To unravel the mediations of this intermeshing, theory, rather than being abstract, needs to be embedded in the substantive empirical analysis of social process which might be called feminist historical materialism. The discussion finally considers why it is that a `grand narrative‘ of `patriarchy‘ survives amid the fashion of post-structuralist fragmentation, pointing to theoretical continuities of self-enclosed theorisation in abstract structuralism and in post-modernist sociology, as one dimension of explanation.