In Defence of Reformed Patriarchy

The feminist conception of 'patriarchy' is woefully lacking. Examining patriarchy via evolutionary theory, where women take an active part in its creation, reveals a much more fascinating picture.

As I have written elsewhere feminism is not the battle for equality between the sexes but is, primarily, a movement to “smash the patriarchy”. This might have been a noble endeavour had feminists ever hit upon a theory of patriarchy that could begin to be falsified. I, like many reasonable people, used to identify as a feminist. Not the patriarchy smashing feminist, but a “liberal” feminist, one which did not subscribe to any ideology. Feminism was about equality before the law, not female superiority, equalism, gender theory, intersectionality, toxic masculinity, capitalism, gender quotas. Boy, was I wrong about that!

It soon became clear that feminism automatically came with a trunk full of ideological baggage. Okay, I thought, let’s test these hypotheses and strong man feminism. Let’s test feminist patriarchy theory, gender theory, let’s look at the pay gap, let’s look at rape conviction rates, let’s look at this long litany of societal problems caused by sexism and misogyny and make the theory behind them more robust. Except the opposite happened. After looking at the evidence, most feminist claims became highly tenuous at worst and equivocal at best. The deeper I investigated the more disappointed I became. Orthodox feminism was a holding strategy not a plan of action. And it was clearly designed to help feminists alone, not women.

That’s when I decided that my duty of care was to women, not feminism. And that the best way to help women, and men, was through science, not pseudoscience.

Many feminists contend that evolutionary psychology is a sexist enterprise that paints women as passive objects in the evolutionary game of survival and reproduction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, in the evolutionary arms race that is colloquially called the battle of the sexes, women may even hold the trump card in the form of concealed ovulation. But they should know it comes with a cost that needs to be managed: paternity uncertainty. This is where biology and psychology meet and we see its influence manifest across cultures. The feminist conception of ‘patriarchy’ is woefully lacking (see a previous essay here).

Examining patriarchy via evolutionary theory, which is a vast cross-disciplinary project including, but not limited to,  ecology, ethology, primatology, biology, anthropology and psychology, reveals a much more fascinating and complex picture. Through this lens, ‘patriarchy’ is our fitness landscape. It differs from place to place depending on ecological constraints. These constraints are myriad, but not infinite and so can be drawn. Nor are these differences arbitrary, they dance around a constant, evolutionary, fire.

The following are the starting premises for an evolutionary model of patriarchy, with this in mind

I assert that ‘patriarchy’ exists on a continuum from malign to benign. Strong (malign) patriarchies emerge in areas of ecological duress and appear to constrain female choice because competition between men is so fierce and women are often caught in the crossfire though they are rarely the primary target: this is what I call unreformed patriarchy. Unreformed patriarchies are dangerous places to live in for both men and women – but especially men. Unreformed patriarchies often practice institutional polygyny which contributes to male intrasexual competition as the operational sex ratio (OSR) is skewed (high-status men have more partners, low-status men have none.) We recognise these cultures in the world’s strict theocracies.

In the Western cultures, we live mostly in ecological release through both geographical luck and human technological innovation. Competition between men is not so fierce (though in some poor enclaves it is). Men generally cooperate and society is stable and safe – as safe as it has ever been in human history. Institutional monogamy helps this stability and the OSR is in equilibrium most of the time (again, except in high crime/high male mortality enclaves) though some mate switching still occurs.  These western, benign societies appear to facilitate female choice under what I call reformed patriarchy. In both these societies ‘patriarchy’ appears to manifest itself in men over-represented in positions of power but this is not true, they are overrepresented in positions of the most fierce competition which has the result of elevating them up the dominance or (as Jordan B. Peterson correctly parses) competence hierarchy. Men want power and resources not to dominate women but to attract them.

Women take part in the creation and maintenance of these systems for reasons of their own ultimate fitness. They are not victims of it. They compete with other women as fiercely as men compete with other men for the resources they need to stay alive, find the best partners and successfully reproduce. They do this in very different ways than men however and this will be the subject of another essay (but which is touched upon here).

Crucially for my thesis in defence of reformed patriarchy is that reformed patriarchy protects against unreformed patriarchy. Should feminism ever succeed in its stated goal of “smashing patriarchy” in the West, unreformed patriarchy may then step in.

First published 2017 https://porlawright.com/2017/10/21/in-defence-of-reformed-patriarchy/