Are we oppressed by patriarchy, or by mother nature?
For many people – myself included – the idea of patriarchy conjures visions of the serious oppression of women in undeveloped countries, depriving them of human rights and dignity. At the same time, many people, including myself, have recognised that ‘smashing the patriarchy’ is a disingenuous and destructive idea in the modern West, because the ‘rule of the father’ - which is what patriarchy means - makes little sense in countries where the role of men in the family has become so precarious. The situation in the modern West is due to family courts and a general culture of misandry, which ignores problems experienced men and boys in general.
Critics of ‘smashing the patriarchy’ tend to focus, overtly or implicitly, on patriarchy theory rather than patriarchy itself. Patriarchy theory is a feminist construct that simultaneously exaggerates the oppression of women (e.g. housewives as slaves) and exaggerates male privilege (e.g. the privilege of employment outside the home). In this excellent critique by Prof Eric Anderson, one of the criticisms is that patriarchy theory is actually not a valid theory, in the Popperian sense, and is at best a concept, and not a very convincing one, given that it is based on cherry-picking and magnifying certain issues while ignoring others.
So it was interesting to read the recent article by Prof Marc J. Defant, which critiques the feminist view of patriarchy, but not because it’s based on a patchy theory, but because feminist theories see sex differences and ‘gender inequalities’ as the result of social factors rather than biological factors.
The scope of Defant’s article is fairly wide, encompassing the importance of evolutionary psychology in understanding patriarchy, social construction, careers and the gender wage gap, fat studies, the objectification of women, rape, and the concept of “lived experiences.” My article will focus just on Defant’s view of patriarchy, but I recommend reading his article in full.
“feminist studies, as currently practiced, would be more appropriately housed in activist or political settings, where advocacy is expected and academic neutrality is not presumed.”
In his introduction, Defant says: “A significant critique of feminist scholarship is its lack of scientific rigor, despite its diverse perspectives. Core concepts like social constructionism and patriarchy serve as foundational assumptions in much of feminist scholarship, often functioning as starting premises rather than hypotheses to be rigorously tested”. He concludes that “feminist studies, as currently practiced, would be more appropriately housed in activist or political settings, where advocacy is expected and academic neutrality is not presumed.”
Evolutionary psychology, he says, draws on fields such as biology, economics, and neurology to explain psychological and behavioural sex differences. For example, he notes that the sex hormones, testosterone and estrogen, in part due to differential exposure prenatally, are “closely linked to masculine and feminine behaviors”, including career choices. Thus testosterone “is strongly linked to risk-taking, assertiveness, and competitiveness – traits that drive male participation in finance, technology, and entrepreneurship [whereas] estrogen and oxytocin contribute to stronger social bonding, cooperation, and nurturing behaviors, which align with career preferences in fields such as healthcare, education, and social work”. Because of this, explanations based on cultural conditioning are at best incomplete.
Defant’s overview of evolutionary psychology and sexual selection explains the basis for his views on patriarchy. “At its core is the disparity in reproductive investment: males produce abundant sperm and can father multiple offspring in a short time, whereas females produce a limited number of eggs, endure pregnancy, and typically shoulder the primary responsibility for raising young.” This is why in general females seek long-term partners whereas males seek multiple briefer sexual opportunities. Although of course mating strategies are influenced by social factors, such as cultural and economic conditions, evolutionary psychology proposes that reproductive biology continues to be a significant driver of psychological and behavioral sex differences. This position makes sense when you consider that evolution has had millions of years to shape proto-human and human behaviour, whereas modern culture has only had a few thousand years. Defant contrasts the evolutionary psychology view with feminist theory, which suggests that sex differences in psychology and behaviour “emerge from social roles and ideological frameworks”.
It's interesting to look more closely at the deep roots of this evolutionary influence. Around 5.5 million years ago, our hominin ancestors experienced – for reasons not fully understood – a rapid threefold increase in brain size. In contrast to the brain, the rest of the body evolves more slowly, including – crucially - the birth canal. For this reason, humans have inherited the need for infants to be born relatively prematurely compared to other animals, and are helpless for longer because of the need to catch up on their brain development outside the womb. This prolonged dependency of human infants is suggested to have caused the need for significant maternal and paternal involvement to successfully raise children, to a degree not seen in non-human animals.
Charles Darwin (1859) noticed that some male features, such as the peacock’s tail, were if anything an impediment to survival, being highly conspicuous to predators. He concluded that these adaptations only made sense in terms of a longer view of survival – through procreation – and proposed the concept of sexual selection i.e. attracting a mate, as opposed to natural selection, which was about keeping oneself alive.
Darwin described two main types of sexual selection, intrasexual competition (rivalry over a mate) and intersexual selection (being choosy about who you mate with). In humans, intrasexual competition is evidenced by physical differences with indicate readiness for physical competition e.g. the sex difference in upper body strength. But male competition in humans is about more than just muscle power, and extends to traits such as co-operation with others to achieve goals. An example of intersexual selection is women choosing a man who is willing and able to invest in stable parenting.
“divergent reproductive strategies, such as men's tendency toward short-term mating and women's preference for long-term investment […] may contribute to patriarchal structures without requiring conscious coordination.”
Defant’s view of patriarchy
After setting the scene from an evolutionary perspective, Defant focuses on a number of specific weaknesses in feminist ideology, starting with the feminist view of patriarchy. “In feminist studies, the patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and authority, dominating key institutions like family, government, religion, and the economy, while women are systematically subordinated or marginalized – that is, discriminated against.” He continues: “The concept of patriarchy is closely tied to the assertion that gender is socially constructed. Social construction in this sense refers to the idea that many aspects of reality – such as gender behavior and roles, identities, or societal norms – are not inherent or biologically fixed but are created and sustained through human interactions, cultural practices, and historical processes” as well as “upbringing, media, and institutions”. Thus the idea that it’s natural for men and women to have different sex roles is generally unsupported in feminist studies, with rare exceptions such as Barbara Smuts (1995), though Smuts focuses only on how these might disadvantage women, rather than advantage women or disadvantage men.
Defant lists several examples from feminist studies, including by luminaries such as Andrea Dworkin and Judith Butler, and then contrasts this with the view of patriarchy from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which suggests that “patriarchy can emerge from recurrent sexual conflicts rooted in divergent reproductive strategies, such as men's tendency toward short-term mating and women's preference for long-term investment.” He says these divergent strategies “give rise to behaviors like jealousy, mate guarding, and differential control over sexuality, which may contribute to patriarchal structures without requiring conscious coordination.” These dynamics lead to costs for men and women, such as the costs (including death) of competition between men, and restricted autonomy for women. Defant observes that: “Contrary to assertions by feminist scholars that male aggression primarily targets females […] these patterns suggest that male aggression principally involves intrasexual competition among males”.
“a patriarchy, as an evolutionary outcome, is characterized by a delicate balance of power and resistance, where both sexes navigate trade-offs between cooperation and conflict”.
Defant describes how feminist accounts tend to minimise the agency of women, in particular female mate choice driving the evolution of male traits, such as the historically ubiquity of young males compelled “to demonstrate exceptional physical capabilities in activities such as hunting, tribal warfare, territorial defense, and safeguarding personal resources” and simultaneously “deterring male competitors”. Failure to demonstrate publicly the ability to compete and win was fatal to a man’s reputation, “influencing long term survival and reproductive outcomes”. Thus “Female mate choice, while driving the evolution of male traits associated with an evolutionary patriarchy (as opposed to a socially constructed patriarchy), also gives rise to conflicts where male behaviors, such as coercion, impose costs on females. Evolutionary biologists have shown that females evolve strategies to resist male coercion and maintain control over mate choices (Arnqvist & Rowe, 2005). Thus, a patriarchy, as an evolutionary outcome, is characterized by a delicate balance of power and resistance, where both sexes navigate trade-offs between cooperation and conflict”.
Defant describes how cultural institutions not only reflect these evolutionary patriarchal dynamics, but in some circumstances they amplify them, and indeed “have perpetuated some inequalities critiqued by feminists.” When it comes to what Defant sees as the problems with the feminist account of patriarchy, his account is subtle and challenging. He says that feminists ignore the evolutionary aspect of patriarchy, which is the part that is beneficial, and focus on the cultural aspects of patriarchy, which are the aspects that are prone to go awry: “Feminist studies reflect an ideological system built on the premise that patriarchy is a deliberate, male-imposed structure designed to oppress women, and that gender roles are therefore entirely socially constructed. […] “ideological reference to the patriarchy demonizes men and encourages discrimination on the basis of gender.” In contrast, according to evolutionary psychology, “In hunter-gatherer societies, female mate choice likely laid the foundation for male dominance, as women preferentially selected partners with traits like physical strength and resource provision, fostering social structures that evolved into evolutionary patriarchal systems.” Therefore, “while female choice initiated these dynamics in prehistory, their codification into oppressive systems was a cultural legacy, evident in the severe patriarchal structures of medieval and early modern Europe.”
This line of reasoning suggests that although patriarchy incurs costs to men and women, we should not rush to ‘smash it’, as feminists suggest, because the biological roots of patriarchy suggest it is an adaptive route to reproductive success. However, like any functional system, it can be taken too far. These inequalities are obvious in those cultures and religions that too rigidly enforce their ideology on their people, causing undue hardship. However the fact that examples of severe patriarchies exist, doesn’t justify the harsh treatment of fathers or men in general in modern Western countries, and doesn’t justify the gamma bias of exaggerating the hardships of women and the privileges of men.
In Defant’s view, evolutionary patriarchy is alive in human biology. It has stood the test of time - helped the human species to survive – and influenced the traditions that keep men and women together in order to raise their vulnerable offspring. As Martin Seager points out, biological sex differences are not stereotypes to be challenged but evolved archetypes to be valued, not least because masculinity and femininity are complementary, not in opposition. Although some feminists compare being a housewife to slavery, only 20% of women are work-centred, and the rest are either home centred (20%) or want a mix of work and home (60%). The work of the vast majority of men throughout history has not been all about power and glamour, as any miner or soldier will tell you, but most men tend to get on with the dirty and dangerous jobs without too much grumbling. Although that doesn’t mean that people who want other lifestyles shouldn’t be allowed to, but it equally doesn’t mean that everyone should live a lifestyle (e.g. a life of being single or being ‘child-free’) that won’t suit the majority.
Even though patriarchy is not simply an invention of men, or a social construct, it is attacked in feminist theories as if both are true. In this climate of anti-patriarchy, it’s perhaps not a coincidence that in our modern Western culture so many people are unmarried and lonely, and birth rates are plummeting below replacement levels. So although ‘evolutionary patriarchy’ incurs costs to everyone, it is a design for life perhaps similar to what Churchill said about democracy: it’s the worst option, apart from all the others.
Although Defant’s paper is interesting, I am not certain the term ‘evolutionary patriarchy’ fits exactly, because the term ‘patriarchy’ has, whether we like it or not, taken on the connotation of a culture that unfairly favours men. I think the term ‘evolved behavioural sex differences’ is more descriptive and less prone to misinterpretation, and less requiring a lengthy explanation of what it is not before we can discuss what it is. Nonetheless, Defant’s take on patriarchy is undoubtedly food for thought for anyone interested sex differences and gender equality.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
