![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ziasudraIslam and Patriarchy: A Comparative Perspective
Women in Middle Eastern History, 1991, pp. 23-42. Deniz Kandiyoti
Excerpts
This creates the paradoxical situation noted by Kay Anne Johnson, who comments on female conservatism in China: "Ironically, women through their actions to resist passivity and total makle control, became participants with vested interests in the system that oppressed them." One also gains important insights into women's investment in existing gender arrangements through ethnographic studies of the Middle East. Some suggest that far from producing subjective feelings of oppression, this willing participation enhances women's sense of control and self-worth. Wikan, for instance, depicts Omani women in the following terms: "Indeed many of the constraints and limitations imposed on women, such as the burqa [veil], restrictions of movement and sexual segregation, are seen by women as aspects of that very concern and respect on the part of the men which provide the basis for their own feeling of assurance and value. Rather than reflecting subjugation, these constraints and limitations are perceived by women as a source of pride and a confirmation of esteem." p. 34, bold mine.
...
The breakdown of classic patriarchy results in the earlier emancipation from their fathers of younger men and their earlier separation from the paternal household. Whereas this process implies that women escape the control of mothers-in-law and head their own households at a much younger age, it also means that they themselves can no longer look forward to a future surrounded by subservient daughters-in-law. For the generation of women caught in between, this transformation may represent genuine personal tragedy, since they have paid the heavy price of an earlier patriarchal bargain, but are not able to cash in on its promised benefits. Wolf's statistics on suicide among women in China suggest a claer change in the trend since the 1930s, with a sharp increase in the suicide rates of women over forty-five, whereas previously the rates were highest among young women, especially new brides. She relates this change explicitly to the emancipation of sons and their new chance to escape familial control in their choice of spouse, which robs the older woman of her power and respectability as mother-in-law. pp. 35-36.
...
The breakdown of classic patriarchy may be equally threatening to women, however, who often resist the process of change because they see the old normative order slipping away from them without any empowering alternatives. In a broader discussion of women's interests, Maxine Molyneux suggests that this may not be put down merely to "false consciousness" but to the possibility that changes realized in a piecemeal fashion "could threaten the short-term practical interests of some women, or entail a cost in the loss of forms of protection that are not then compensated for in some way."
Thus when classic patriarchy enters a crisis, many women may continue to pressure men to live up to their obligations and will not, except under the most extreme circumstances, compromise the basis for their claims by stepping out of line and losing their respectability. Their passive resistance takes the form of claiming their half of this particular patriarchal bargain—protection in exchange for submissiveness and propriety, and a confirmation that male honor is indeed dependent on their responsible conduct. p. 36, bold mine.
Some of my thoughts:
- Initially, under a strict patriarchal system, women were unable to break out of the system. Thus the best way for them to cope was to adapt and succeed within the system. This gave women no real, tangible power, but allowed them to acquire influence among themselves (i.e., women created their own hierarchy within their subjugated status under the patriarchal system).
- With the onset of the sexual revolution and gender emancipation, women were given the chance to break out of the system. Many chose to do so, resulting in the loss of meaning of "male chauvinism." In another passage of the article, men were referred to as "dispossessed" when emancipation turned "men's economic protection of women—which is central to Muslim men's claims to primacy in the conjugal union—into a myth."
- Men, however, were not the only ones dispossessed. Women were impacted too, as shown in the Chinese women example. This became the foundation for explaining why in light of "freeing" women, many women remained staunch supporter of "traditional" ways, even when those "traditional" ways restricted their freedom.
- My question is this: Consider modern day, North-American Christianity. Many "fundamental" women remain vocal about keeping the male-as-head household concept, often referring to verses for biblical support. Yet in Gender and Grace, Mary Van Leeuwen shows that the North American paradigm of a "traditional household" is actually a post-industrialism phenomenon, with more of a cultural basis than a biblical one. So can we say, then, that women who defend male dominance do so out of a (subconscious?) fear of losing what little power and influence they have to newfound power obtained by "emancipated women"? Are they defending a created religious ideal without realizing that it is culture they are attempting to preserve?
Admittedly, this approach is entirely sociopolitical and does not take one's spiritual conviction into consideration. But I find this a valid argument in case studies of Muslim context, and visibly applicable to Christianity as well. Any thoughts?
Women in Middle Eastern History, 1991, pp. 23-42. Deniz Kandiyoti
Excerpts
This creates the paradoxical situation noted by Kay Anne Johnson, who comments on female conservatism in China: "Ironically, women through their actions to resist passivity and total makle control, became participants with vested interests in the system that oppressed them." One also gains important insights into women's investment in existing gender arrangements through ethnographic studies of the Middle East. Some suggest that far from producing subjective feelings of oppression, this willing participation enhances women's sense of control and self-worth. Wikan, for instance, depicts Omani women in the following terms: "Indeed many of the constraints and limitations imposed on women, such as the burqa [veil], restrictions of movement and sexual segregation, are seen by women as aspects of that very concern and respect on the part of the men which provide the basis for their own feeling of assurance and value. Rather than reflecting subjugation, these constraints and limitations are perceived by women as a source of pride and a confirmation of esteem." p. 34, bold mine.
...
The breakdown of classic patriarchy results in the earlier emancipation from their fathers of younger men and their earlier separation from the paternal household. Whereas this process implies that women escape the control of mothers-in-law and head their own households at a much younger age, it also means that they themselves can no longer look forward to a future surrounded by subservient daughters-in-law. For the generation of women caught in between, this transformation may represent genuine personal tragedy, since they have paid the heavy price of an earlier patriarchal bargain, but are not able to cash in on its promised benefits. Wolf's statistics on suicide among women in China suggest a claer change in the trend since the 1930s, with a sharp increase in the suicide rates of women over forty-five, whereas previously the rates were highest among young women, especially new brides. She relates this change explicitly to the emancipation of sons and their new chance to escape familial control in their choice of spouse, which robs the older woman of her power and respectability as mother-in-law. pp. 35-36.
...
The breakdown of classic patriarchy may be equally threatening to women, however, who often resist the process of change because they see the old normative order slipping away from them without any empowering alternatives. In a broader discussion of women's interests, Maxine Molyneux suggests that this may not be put down merely to "false consciousness" but to the possibility that changes realized in a piecemeal fashion "could threaten the short-term practical interests of some women, or entail a cost in the loss of forms of protection that are not then compensated for in some way."
Thus when classic patriarchy enters a crisis, many women may continue to pressure men to live up to their obligations and will not, except under the most extreme circumstances, compromise the basis for their claims by stepping out of line and losing their respectability. Their passive resistance takes the form of claiming their half of this particular patriarchal bargain—protection in exchange for submissiveness and propriety, and a confirmation that male honor is indeed dependent on their responsible conduct. p. 36, bold mine.
Some of my thoughts:
- Initially, under a strict patriarchal system, women were unable to break out of the system. Thus the best way for them to cope was to adapt and succeed within the system. This gave women no real, tangible power, but allowed them to acquire influence among themselves (i.e., women created their own hierarchy within their subjugated status under the patriarchal system).
- With the onset of the sexual revolution and gender emancipation, women were given the chance to break out of the system. Many chose to do so, resulting in the loss of meaning of "male chauvinism." In another passage of the article, men were referred to as "dispossessed" when emancipation turned "men's economic protection of women—which is central to Muslim men's claims to primacy in the conjugal union—into a myth."
- Men, however, were not the only ones dispossessed. Women were impacted too, as shown in the Chinese women example. This became the foundation for explaining why in light of "freeing" women, many women remained staunch supporter of "traditional" ways, even when those "traditional" ways restricted their freedom.
- My question is this: Consider modern day, North-American Christianity. Many "fundamental" women remain vocal about keeping the male-as-head household concept, often referring to verses for biblical support. Yet in Gender and Grace, Mary Van Leeuwen shows that the North American paradigm of a "traditional household" is actually a post-industrialism phenomenon, with more of a cultural basis than a biblical one. So can we say, then, that women who defend male dominance do so out of a (subconscious?) fear of losing what little power and influence they have to newfound power obtained by "emancipated women"? Are they defending a created religious ideal without realizing that it is culture they are attempting to preserve?
Admittedly, this approach is entirely sociopolitical and does not take one's spiritual conviction into consideration. But I find this a valid argument in case studies of Muslim context, and visibly applicable to Christianity as well. Any thoughts?
