used to describe the structure of the family and the dominance of the father within it, to using it to describe all gender relations with the ’father’ symbolic of male dominance in all other institutions ( Heywood,
2003:235). It is the radical feminist that lace the greatest stress upon the concept of patriarchy. They see it
as methodical, institutionalised and a very enveloping form of male supremacy that has its grounds in the
family. Liberal feminist use that term to a lesser extent, using it to describe the unequal distributions of
wealth and entitlement in society as a whole. Social feminist, on the other hand, place a higher importance
on the economic causes of patriarchy. They state that patriarchy works hand in hand with capitalism, the
class system and the oppression of women (Heywood, 2003:246).
What most feminist do agree on is the role of the patriarchal family in producing generations of
men taught to be dominant and women to be submissive. Teaching the idea that gender divisions both at
home and in greater society is ’natural’, and women should fulfil the ’biological destiny’ of their sex
(Segal,1999 in Muncie et al (Eds.), 1999:307). The most obvious biological factor linked to a woman’s
social position is her ability to bear children. Unarguably, childbirth is a phenomenon unique to the female
sex, however, in feminist thinking, such a biological fact should not necessarily disadvantage a woman.
Women may be mothers, but the what is deemed the responsibilities of motherhood, for example;
nurturing, education, and raising the children does not have to be hers alone. Heywood (2003) argues that
the link between child-bearing and child-raising is a cultural divide, instead of a biological one. It is
society’s expectation of women to stay at home , raise their children and look after the family home. This
expectation comes from the patriarchal structure of traditional family life. A simple solution to this would
be for domestic responsibilities to be shared equally between the man and woman. The state or community
could assist with childcare, and extended family and relatives could also be involved in the child raising
(Heywood, 2003:247).
This notion of involving the state leads us on to the next feminist theme of the divide between what
is public and what is private in the realm of politics. Traditionally, politics has always been located in the
public areas of political parties, government bodies and institutions, pressure groups and public debate. The family and personal relationships have been part of what is thought of as private, and thus politics should
have no involvement there. Modern feminist believe that this suggestion is flawed and claim that politics
exist within all social groups and that it is not simply a confine of the government or similar social bodies.
A picture of politics, and acceptable in the feminist view from Millett (2000), where it is defined as,
‘...power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another.’
Heywood (2003) claims that feminist would argue that inequality between the sexes is remains because the
division of labour which depends on sex still exists as it is thought of as ‘natural’ rather than political.
Traditionally, the political and public realm has been the realm of men, whereas the women are limited to
what is essentially a private existence centred around their house, children and other domestic
responsibilities. This leads to the conclusion that if politics is only part of the public realm, where men
reign supreme and women are a minority, then the role of women and sexual equality are problems of little
or no importance. In their private roles of housewife and caring mother, women are barred from this world
of public politics.
Feminist have yet to come to a unanimous decision as to what should be done to combat this
problem. Radical feminist continue with deconstructing the conditioning that occurs within the family,
distribution of domestic chores and other responsibilities in the home. For other feminist, they see
removing the divide between private and public as the transference of the responsibilities of the private
sphere to the state or other public organisations. With more state support, women would have a much
greater opportunity to reach their full potential both in the home and out of it (Freedman, 2001:196).
What many feminist believe to be a massive influence on the female career is the male stereotypical
belief that work would always come second to bearing a child. A British study quoted by Giddens (1997)
shows that interviewers always asked women if they had, or planned on having, children. This question was
virtually never posed to the male applicants. Their explanation for this had two main themes: firstly,
women would require more time off during the school holidays and if their child fell ill, and secondly, that
general responsibility for the child’s well being was seen as being the mother’s prerogative more so than a
joint parental one. A number of managers saw that this line of questioning was indicative of a caring
attitude towards their employees, but to the majority of managers it was a simple form of risk assessment to
determine if the woman would be a reliable member of their workforce. The option of parenting being a
joint responsibility, as opposed to solely the women’s task, was not one that was taken into consideration
by the managers surveyed. This attitude also explains why fewer women are promoted to a more senior
position. Women are assumed to be willing to interrupt their career, no matter how high their position in
the company, to look after, or have, children.
This mindset is not helped by numbers that show the few women in senior management are without
children and the ones are planning to have children plan to give up their jobs, with the thought of retraining
for other positions as a possibility. What could be done to combat this attitude is found in a survey of
women managers carried out in East Anglia (Verney, 1992 in Giddens, 1997). Close to all of the women
surveyed mentioned the problems of childcare as the most difficult one facing women who wanted both a
successful career and a family. The workplace nursery was named as the one area where the largest short-
term improvements could be made, something only 2 percent of the companies surveyed provided.
From the traditional male breadwinner family model where women learn subservience, moving
forwards to the feminist ideal of a ’symmetrical’ equal family. The great public and private divide in
politics where greater support can be provided to women can be summed up simply in this statement from
Stimpson (1989);
‘I have a national policy for families ... Let no children starve- in mind or body. Let no child be beaten. Let parents speak their name, and have enough money and flexible public services to do their chores. Then- let me alone. I want privacy, not to hide some viciousness, not to perpetuate a false division between public and domestic life, but because I need the space in which to give texture to a language of love and care that is now gossamer.’
Biology determines many things, but it should never determine the rise or fall of an individual in society. In
contemporary society, where many of the original feminist goals have been achieved, feminism still exists
in its many forms due to the continuance of one key factor, namely, patriarchy.
WORD COUNT: 1477
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Firestone, S. (1970) The Dialectic of Sex: A Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Morrow.
Segal, L. (1999) A Feminist Looks at the Family in Muncie, J. et al (Eds.). Understanding the Family (Family Life and Social Policy) SAGE Publications
Heywood, A. (2003) Political Ideologies Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillian
Millett, K. (2000) Sexual Politics University of Illinois Press
Freedman, J. (2001) Feminism Open University Press
Giddens, A. (1997) Sociology Cambridge: Polity Press
OTHER READING
Stimpson, C. (1989) Where the Meanings Are: feminism and cultural spaces London: Routledge.
