Are women oppressed in a patriarchal society?

I recently finished an essay on power relationships within the family and I was shocked, but not surprised to find that men are still the very dominate figure within politics, business and law. What follows is an edited version of my essay:

Zillah Eisenstein, a political theorist and feminist states in her book “The Radical Future of Liberal Feminisim” (1981) that women live in an oppressed society, which she names as a ‘Patriarchal society’ (Patriarchy can literally be translated to mean rule by the father). She further argues that  “Patriarchy as a political structure seeks to control and subjugate women so that their possibilities for making choices….are curtailed”.

A prominent radical feminist Carol Hanisch argues that “political” refers to all relationships that are involved with power not just state or government relationships; that personal problems are not those of individuals, but that they are political issues because of oppression and inequality on a larger state scale and that these issues are rooted in domestic life

Now if we understand that politics is everywhere; wherever there is power to be fought over, the relevant actors will provide these competing relations. Then the feminists argument that the public sphere of life (which encompasses Law, Business and Government) is majoratively run by men and women have on the whole been isolated to the private sphere of domesticity, upbringing of children and family is not going to be a shock.  What this has done is it has exlcuded the woman from the public sphere and  generally left them with very little impact within politics.

Kate Millett (a second wave feminist) states that the concept of patriarchy is in fact a framework that has been built and sustained by the male dominated state allowing gender inequalities to remain largely unchecked.  If we look at leaders of states and rulers in history, what we see is that they generally make laws that make it very difficult to overthrow them and makes it easier to oppress others.

With the control of the male in both spheres of public and private, the role of the woman is restricted; the male running the state and business is the one that makes rules and decisions, which has to be said will be from a male perspective. This male dominated sphere will mainly decide things which will be self serving and protective of his roles and rights, leaving the female with very little say on the larger issues such as the rights of women. What this results in is in fact a static, stagnant, status quo, with the female struggling to ascend from the homemaker but having very little impact on the state and politics as a whole.

It could be said that the power relationships between the male and female within the family are a microcosm of the state. It has been seen that the role of the male and his dominance over the female is replicated in the family and that the state is globally patriarchal across most western democracies, by this very nature all states policies and decisions that are made will be of a patriarchal slant, reinforcing the oppression of the male over the female across all spheres, including the family.

With this evidence we can look with a wider perspective over our current society and see that it is in fact a male dominated sphere (Law, Business and Government) with females having little say over the ruling of our country. However, with more women becoming the main wage earners and with more women taking up positions of power within the public sphere including business and politics they are having a significant impact on how the age old paradigm is beginning to shift.

The 21st Century is starting to see male patriarchy being addressed and the whole power relationship becoming a more equal playing field and with more influence over the state and the family the power relationships between the male and female is likely to change irrevocably for the best.

Male orientated states have been creating poverty, conflict, disasters and wars for millennia. With women gaining more power and influence over law, business, politics and society as whole can we look forward to a less testosterone driven world? Maybe even a society which values morality, fairness and equality, rather than greed and selfishness? I hope so and I will welcome the day with open arms.

Thoughts on ‘International Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect’

First of all, I am a massive proponent of helping others, whether this be friends, family or much further afield such as internationally through aid or granting asylum; helping people is the right thing to do. However, I do not believe western democratic states have the right devices or policies in place to be the International Police as some politicians would argue for, for example with the International Coalitions for the Responsibility to Protect. I have drawn up some of my issues below.

Why have Responsibility to Protect?

If we are to have an internationally recognized Responsibility to Protect policy, maybe through the UN (and it would need to be sanctioned by Russia and China, which is quite possibly impossible), we have to ask why are we intervening?

Now, the obvious reason that states would use to qualify (R2P) is that of humanitarian reasons, for example with Syria, but when we delve a little deeper into how western democratic/neo-liberalist/globalised states and their corporate sponsors operate, the humanitarian argument becomes sticky, murky and almost unpalatable. It has been argued that according to the Democratic Peace Theory, democratic states do not wage war on other democratic states and because of this the world is a safer place which, OK, maybe it is. But what can be seen is that these western, dominant states have not stopped waging war against other non-democratic states often stating “humanitarian” (or similar) reasons for war (Iraq, Afghanistan etc).

However, I argue that now what western democratic states are in fact doing is painting the Pig of War a different colour. What I mean by this is that the western states will try to take whatever resources (or support a regime change that is more favourable to them) from a non-democratic state without the use of conventional warfare, but by using economic warfare or regime change. This has happened time and time again; look at some western support for Pinochet, Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben-Ali to name a few. These leaders oppressed, murdered and tortured their own citizens, which was known by the west, whom on occasions where implicit with their backing financially and militarily. Why? Because they were not Islamic states (which most western states distrust), they would not threaten the West (so much) and because they allowed the western state the use of their resources at low rates.

So, the Why is no longer as unambiguous as it once was. Yes, humanitarian reasons are the best reasons to protect anyone; it is right and it is moral. But as can be seen all over the world, if we used humanitarian values for R2P then they really should have intervened in countless other states. The whole R2P system would be forever increasing its budget and it’s manpower to meet every situation, because if we have a right to protect then this right must be applied to every citizen in every state with the ultimate goal of protecting every citizen allowing for free and democratic states.

Is this not the dream of every liberal? Put simply, No it is not. How can a dominant western state with its economic wealth and neo-liberalist agenda remain so, if every state is given similar rights? How can this dominant state demand lower prices for resources so it can feed its consumerist citizens? It cannot, the neo-liberalist agenda thrives on inequality; it feeds off the poorer nations for manpower, for the mass production of goods and for natural resources. Always promising the future of a democratic paradise yet never allowing them achieve it; “Oh, you can’t keep building power plants, nuclear plants for electricity, the world is in danger of an economic disaster” whilst all the time burning more fuels, causing more ecological disasters itself with a level of self-righteousness not seen since Tartuffe . This is the quintessential carrot on a stick with more than a smattering of manipulation; you can see but you cannot touch, you can touch but you cannot taste. Here is how we see that the Pig of War has indeed been painted a different colour! What we have is the empirical western states keeping rest of the world under its economical foot for its own greed.

Now surely if western states try to stand on the moral high ground, is this not at the very least patronizing, contemptuous and condescending to the other supposedly less democratic (and thus inferior) states? All this whilst not forgetting that most western states have significant blood on their hands; Extraordinary rendition, torture of non-combatants, financially/militarily forcing regime change, medical experimentation on foreign civilians etc, this list is almost inexhaustible.

All of this and R2P starts to look weak especially when how we can see that it is based on western-centric ideals and principles. What we appear to have created is a 21st Century, Victorian-esque Empire of the west, taking what it wants with its economic might and the malignant threat of a huge military capability that lurks in the shadows as a constant reminder of whom to obey.

I personally believe that any western intervention in Syria has to be on a non-participatory basis, by allowing refugees to leave the country and then providing them with assistance. This particular event has spiraled too far out of control for any successful results within this generation by intervention or not.

I would like to think R2P could be successful but the right mentality has to be applied if R2P is to be effective. It should be done large scale covering all states, all citizens and governed by a large scale international organization such as UN/NATO etc, without agenda; not to intervene in politics or religion and not to influence the state’s economy, only for the protection of a citizen’s right to life. Surely it is better to spend a thousand days at the table than losing one life? Is it achievable? Unfortunately I don’t believe so, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying.

For more info on R2P; http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/

Also of interest EU Common Security & Defense Policy clip; http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/webdoc/index.html