Yes, Dr. Peterson, There Is a Patriarchy

But what is a patriarchy?

Photo by Mateus Campos Felipe on Unsplash

This is part of a series of open letters to Jordan Peterson, inspired by my interest in some of his positions and my disagreement with others. You can find the first letter in this series here.

Dear Jordan Peterson:

It's no secret you oppose the concept of “patriarchy,” at least as an oppressive entity. You have at turns denied its existence, cast it as a derogatory synonym for “meritocracy,” and/or pinned it on human self-selection.

When I first conceived of this series, I planned to rebut these claims. Then I realized you may be using a different definition of patriarchy than I am, which complicated my response.

Merriam Webster's definition is “control by men of a disproportionately large share of power,” perhaps buttressed by “the legal dependence of wives and children and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line.” This definition, which closely aligns with my own, describes a system that observably exists and one that, I will argue, can be reformed without undermining human choice or the (desirable) practice of meritocracy.

I've come to believe, however, that you're responding to a different definition—one that infuses post-structuralist and postmodernist claims, which, like you, I find destructive and nihilistic. While I've yet to see this alternative definition articulated in a dictionary, I appreciate its incursion into the cultural conversation. This description, offered by a “humanitarian information service,” may serve a close enough proximity: ‘the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of [hegemonic] masculinit[ies].’

The first definition observes that men hold most positions of power in Western society, and perhaps work together to keep themselves so comfortably situated.

The second suggests that power, or what you, Dr. Peterson, might call “hierarchy,” is itself illegitimate. By extension, I expect it distrusts a host of other related concepts: meritocracy, the “reification of intelligence” via IQ testing, perhaps capitalism, perhaps democracy. Its hosting page's repeated use of the word “gender” for “sex” suggests it distrusts science and objective reality as well.

At issue, I believe, are the words “systemic” and “structural” (as applied to sexism and other “isms”). They've come to be used almost interchangeably, but I see them as very different.

To me, the former suggests that prejudice or discrimination based on sex occurs at every juncture within a system. My previous letter to you provides an illustration of such from my own life, in relation to my desire to code: my parents overlooked it, multiple guidance counselors dismissed or discouraged it, and after I completed my computer science degree in spite of these challenges, each of my work supervisors in turn declined to cultivate or leverage it.

The latter suggests that the structure of the system—or really, the system itself, is sexist. Hierarchies should be flattened. Merit should be replaced with “equity.” Intelligence should cede to “other ways of knowing.”

I share your criticisms of this “patriarchy.” But I don't think it's what the average disenfranchised woman is referring to. She is not the blue-haired barista demanding an undeserved share of the queer vegan coffee shop she works for. She is the woman whose doctor won't give her a hysterectomy; whose boss fails to promote her year after year while young, inexperienced men seem to ascend with ease. Post-structuralist narratives of oppression, by drawing your attention away from these fixable concerns, proves as destructive to the pursuit of civil rights as the systems of oppression they allegedly criticize.

So let's turn to the prior definition. Men hold most positions of power in Western society; this is observably true. They also work together to keep themselves so comfortably situated. This may be less evident to those not edged out by this work.

If indeed women eschew positions of power through self-selection, because we are not oriented toward them or are otherwise uninterested, then we should not expect to find laws and policies limiting our career options, pursuit of knowledge, or financial interests. These would be unnecessary, or at best, non-threatening.

Yet historically, women have had limited access to jobs beyond secretary, nurse or teacher. Why? Did men block access to other kinds of jobs? Perhaps here you'll invoke “meritocracy,” suggesting that ascension in the workforce is available to those who demonstrate the right level of competence. But what facilitates the achievement of competence itself? Some things come to mind: Higher education. Land upon which to open a business, and the capital to fund it. And perhaps most importantly, generational knowledge of the process handed down from parent to child, or in this case, mother to daughter. Even better: an apprenticeship, something very often afforded to sons by fathers, historically.

But when my mother came of age, she was “barred” from opening a bank account or applying for a credit card. When she was raising a teenager, she could do so only with her husband's permission. The right to participate in modern financial systems—indeed, to feed oneself without relying on a male consort—is a very low bar for “power.” As domestic violence and marital rape were legal in every U.S. state when she married, husbands proved a very real barrier to female employment—much less to career excellence. A woman who did manage to secure a job might find it brought her no financial leverage or independence—the very purpose of work.

My mother's inexperience in the workforce translated to an impoverishment of my own aspirations, as well as a lack of guidance on how to pursue them. So, too, were my mother's ideas limited by her mother's.

When my grandmother came of age, her options were no better—plus women couldn't own property, or manage it, at least in the absence of an infirm husband. Many institutions of higher learning were unavailable to her, as universities began admitting women 200 years after men had gained access. Those colleges that did admit women often lacked women's restrooms and women's dormitories, rendering college life especially unpractical for a certain five to seven days of a woman's month.

This is to say nothing of other incidentals that cultivate the strength, skill and confidence valued in the workplace—like sports, severely limited for women until Title IX; or clubs promoting “physical fitness, citizenship and personal growth.”

To note: the creation of laws and policies limiting women was no accident. It was nefarious. It stemmed from men’s desire to keep financial assets for themselves and to control women. It was enforced with both the law and the threat of violence. It was patriarchal.

It could have stopped at any time. And it can stop now.

Yes, women can open bank accounts now, and go to college, and join clubs and sports. But if patriarchy has ended, as you and Camille Paglia claim, its effects will take longer than a few generations to shake out. It is widely accepted that the problems plaguing Black Americans—such as family instability and poverty—can be traced to the legacy of slavery. So too has women's performance in the workforce been diminished by our delayed entry into it.

And patriarchy has not ended—career gatekeeping is alive and well; it factors into the competence gap and thus the pay gap; and abortion rights, however contentious they prove for traditionalists, must exist for women to make those “choices” you credit for upward mobility. We are more likely to be poor, limiting our ability to build our own opportunities instead of vying for yours. I'll leave my analysis to policies and laws for now, though much can be added about cultural factors that glamorize rape and foster female insecurity and fear. Perhaps another time.

And yes, I know that women have now surpassed men in college admissions and other education-related milestones. But is that education translating to career excellence? Is it gaining women positions of power in industry or politics? If not, it represents only debt. In my last letter, I showed how my own college degree—in a STEM field, and completed with honors—failed to translate to the career progress I've observed in my male peers.

Patriarchy, at least by the definition I'm using, does not claim that men have it better than women in every area of life. It claims, rather, that men have more control in society—the lion's share, in fact. As long as men control the military, they perpetuate those wars they die in. As long as men launch dangerous projects, they risk dying on the job. Men manage the prisons they are housed in and build the guns they are killed with. Men are free to use their positions in business and government to implement policies that better serve their interests.

We’d love to craft such policies, too, and we plan to. But we are still too often knocking at locked doors.