✯✯✯ Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations

Monday, December 06, 2021 6:52:11 PM

Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations



This is a Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations ignored by Hartmann. Related Topics. In male dominating Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations men with many sexual claims are more manly and respected. There are many problems with believing Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations a woman should rely on men, especially in the 16th century. Various key signs of femininity like shyness, white beauty, Friar lawrence key quotes talkative, wife material, etc.

Understanding Gender.. Lecture-6 Manifestations of Patriarchy..

Children were left with slightly older children, or minders who often neglected them or kept them quiet with gin or laudanum. When they grew old enough to work machinery they too were pulled into factory production. The conditions described here by Marx, and by Engels in The Condition of the Working Class in England8, show how horrific the early factory system was. The impact of the new system pulled the old pre-capitalist family apart, as each member of the family became wage labourers. Capitalist exploitation did, however, despite its brutality lay the basis for the men and women of the propertyless class, the proletariat, to be equal.

Both had to rely on wage labour, and men had lost their property. That was why Engels made such a distinction between the bourgeois and the proletarian families. The tendency seemed to be for the working class family to cease to exist. In that, Engels was right. In Manchester, probably the most advanced centre of factory production, there were 26, deaths per , infants under one year of age9; treble the mortality rate in some non-industrial areas. It was out of these conditions that the demand for protective legislation and the family wage came. They fitted in with the changing needs of capitalism but were also in part due to the real concerns of working class men and women for better standards of living, safer pregnancies, healthier children and cleaner homes.

Theorists of patriarchy like Hartmann argued that men allied with capital to exclude women from certain jobs. There were it is true attempts at this. Skilled craft workers used their unions to exclude women from some trades. But it was not only women they excluded. What is more, some of the most important areas from which women were excluded were ones where the unions were weak or non-existent and in no position to exclude anyone. The legislative exclusion of women from certain industries was carried on by bourgeois parliaments But was that really the alternative posed?

Firstly the working class male was hardly the brilliantly organised monolithic class that Hartmann pretends. For a long period after the decline of Chartism they hardly fought at all for demands of a generalised nature. They accepted the ideas and framework of capitalism including the dominant ideology about women. One can hardly expect them to have fought for greater socialisation of childcare when they were fighting for little else. Secondly, there was the problem for working class women of the danger and frequency of childbirth.

Today in virtually every advanced capitalist country women are refusing to have many if any children. Our access to contraception, however inadequate, is something completely undreamed of until our generation. To those women there was no alternative to a lifetime of frequent and often unwanted pregnancies other than abstention. To working class people of both sexes childbirth was a fact of life, and in such circumstances they usually both wanted the woman to be protected.

This explains in a much more satisfactory way than any theory of male conspiracies why it was women who left the factory at marriage and why the family wage was a wage for men. Capitalism had presented the potential for equality, but that equality could not come to fruition within the system. In the interests of the reproduction of labour power, women were isolated and atomised in the home. Their work was seen as serving their husbands and their families.

They were denied financial independence. But the ruling ideas propagated the notion of the family as sacred, projecting the stereotype of the bourgeois family on to the working class as a means of ensuring reproduction. Even today, as the development of capitalism has drawn the majority of women into the labour market, this view of women has not disappeared although it has been severely eroded. Attitudes to women, and of women to themselves, have advanced enormously under the combined impact of control over contraception and entry into the workforce.

The way changed material conditions have changed attitudes is itself an argument against seeing oppression as the result of some mystical male ideological hold that never changes. Surely because the conditions in those industries was seen as harmful to the creation of the next generation of workers either directly, where pregnant women were working with processes that could harm foetuses or indirectly, where they were working hours that prevented them playing their part in the socialisation of their children. The theory that the family wage — a wage paid to the man sufficient to keep not just himself but his family as well — was acapitalists, but also surely men, who as husbands and fathers receive personalised services at home.

The content and extent of these services may vary by class or ethnic or racial group, but the fact of their receipt does not. Now of course it is true that women bear the brunt of childcare and housework in the home. The division of labour is after all a division of labour where men do different work, both in the factory and in the home. But to say that welding is better or worse than housework is to look at both in completely subjective and unmeasurable terms. The same is true of leisure. Men have more rigidly defined leisure which tends to be social the pub, football just as they tend to have more rigidly defined working hours.

But it cannot be simply said to be more — it is different. Housework, by definition, is work that is not subject to the tempo imposed by capitalist exploitation in the factory or the office. It does not involve intensive effort for a certain number of hours, followed by a period of recuperation in order to allow application of another fixed spell of intensive effort. Therefore there is no way the amount of labour that goes into it can be measured against the amount of labour that goes into factory work. All that can be said with certainty is that both factory work and housework are debilitating -one leading to occupational diseases which is why symptoms such as chronic bronchitis are much higher among male workers than among housewives , horrific accidents, acute fatigue and often, an early death; the other to demoralisation, atomisation, insecurity, and a variety of ailments that are normally ignored by doctors.

The great disadvantage that housewives suffer is not that they are somehow exploited by men, but that they are atomised and cut off from participation in the collective action that can give the confidence to fight back against the system. As married women are increasingly drawn into the employed labour force, many women find themselves doing fulltime paid labour yet still expected to run the home. They are left with much less time to recoup their labour power than their husbands as they have to combine work and house work.

Yet even in these instances it is doubtful if the husbands benefit in more than a marginal way. The most tiring and debilitating aspects of housework are those connected with child care. We live in a period where more women work in most advanced countries than in any other period in history. The jobs they do differ from men, in that sense the sexual division of labour is as alive as ever. And their pay is far from equal. This is because women still usually have their working lives interrupted by childbirth although much less so than a couple of generations ago and are still expected to play the major part in caring for the children as well as work.

This is particularly clearly shown if you compare the jobs women have with those of immigrants of both sexes. Both are concentrated with a few exceptions such as foundry workers in cleaning, transport, catering, light manufacture, food processing, because both entered the workforce at similar times. The job segregation of women has nothing to do with their role in the home. But canning peas can in no way be seen as an extension of the sort of things women do in the home. Nor can the jobs of bank tellers, typists, filing clerks, telephonists, cashiers.

In offices, only the privileged elite secretaries play the role of surrogate wife to the male managers — the mass of clerical workers certainly do not. Neither has the present recession had the effect of driving women wholesale out of the workforce. This is simply wrong. A study of US labour in the period shows that more women entered wage labour in that decade than in any other in American history.

Similarly in Germany in the great slump, although all the parties except the Communists were for married women giving up their jobs, the female proportion of the total workforce rose between and from A similar tendency can be seen today. The question the theorists of patriarchy have to answer is this — if capital and men are indeed in alliance why are women not being thrown out of work and replaced by unemployed miners, steelworkers and dockers? The common contention to all theories of patriarchy is that male domination has remained the same, regardless of other changes in society. Thus patriarchy endures and the struggle against it is something apart from the struggle against capitalism. In the biological theories, the problem is reduced to that of the differences of men from women.

Logically the solution is the eradication or removal of these creatures. These arguments are fairly easy to dismiss and have little influence in Britain at any rate. More influential are the sorts of arguments put across by people like Hartmann, who see capitalism and patriarchy as two different forces that ally against women. And as such it is part of her more general argument that within class society there are two forms of production — labour and the family. One involves a mode of production, the other a mode of reproduction. The social organisation under which people of a particular historical epoch live is determined by both kinds of production. Capitalism can be abolished while patriarchy remains intact.

Marxists have always argued something quite different from this. The nature of the family is transformed. It could hardly be otherwise. It could not have survived the transition from feudalism to capitalism without changing fundamentally. It meant the destruction of the old ways of life, of the old forms of domestic production, of the situation where women were dependent on the man in the family for their livelihood, and its replacement by generalised wage labour. Of course the family endures through history in the sense that the reproduction of life continues. The biological process remains the same. But the social relations of production change completely. Each new form of family is recreated by the ruling class to serve its own needs.

And the new family created by capitalism cannot exist independently of the capitalist mode of production. To suggest otherwise is to deny that material conditions can change ideas or structures of society. The monarchy is a remnant of feudal society but has been so totally transformed by capitalism that it bears really little relation to its previous role. So with the family. It may look the same although even that is dubious but its role and functions, its foundations have been transformed by capital. Reproduction through the family is not a separate mode, but part of the superstructure of capitalism. Abolition of the capitalist system — a revolutionary overthrow of society — means that the capitalist system of reproduction, the family, cannot survive intact.

For with the abolition of class society, the socialisation of childcare and housework would mean that the material base of the capitalist family would be destroyed. The problems facing the Russian working class when they did try to do these things were immense. Revolution and civil war had a massive impact on the lives of men and women. Ultimately therevolution was lost through the failure of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to follow the Russian lead.

That in its turn led to severe setbacks to the position of women. But in the early years they saw the glimmers of opportunity of equal work, socialised housework and a much freer sexuality which was made possible by the revolutionary overthrow of the old society. On the contrary it is evidence of the non-existence of socialism. No wonder that a society based on accumulation is not willing to allow any spending on the socialisation of childcare.

Instead the burden on women is as great as in the West. True, nurseries are often said to be widely available, but the most widespread form of childcare in Russia is the grandmother, or child-minder, which of course requires no capital investment on the part of the capitalist class — a familiar story? It is theoretical acceptance of these countries being somehow better than Western capitalism that leads to acceptance of theories of patriarchy: if women are manifestly unequal there, this must be the fault of men, rather than of the economic system. The family, the system of reproduction, is not a historical given but changes with the development of the forces of production.

Not only that. Within capitalism the family has not remained constant either. The pre-capitalist family was destroyed by the rise of capitalist relations of production which created a class of propertyless free wage labourers. This in turn created at least the potential of the equalisation of relations between men and women. This is what Engels pointed to in his controversial writings on the subject. In early capitalism, before the predominance of the factory system, the outworking system meant that both sexes could act as joint producers. But the rise of the factory system meant not just that the individual wage labourer no longer controlled his or her work, but that the whole system of reproduction of the working class was put into jeopardy, as was so clearly demonstrated by Marx and Engels.

Hence the improvement in living standards, protective legislation and the family wage. These were in the interests of capital, but it is also true that the working class of both sexes welcomed the move away from the factories by women. Since the second world war the family has changed drastically yet again. Marriage is not onthe decline, but the number of divorces is increasing dramatically. Women and men are not rejecting the institution of marriage, but no longer feel it has to be for life. Control over reproduction and a degree of economic independence for women means more than one partner or none at all-witness the growth of single parent families becomes an option. Childbirth rates in virtually every advanced capitalist country including Eastern Europe have dropped dramatically, an indication that where women have a choice, it is not to spend their lives in childbirth.

Migration is also a feature of late capitalism. Most institutions are still under the leadership of men who are already benefiting from this injustice this man have women as subordinates most agricultural societies, where we an increased need for labor Taylor, ; Lerner, During the time when patriarchy was dominating women were considered powerful within their domestic roles.

For the proletariat, this means they must internally wrestle to develop a class consciousness; this will awaken their true class interests, and inevitably cause an attempt to overcome the dominate class and, ultimately, capitalism itself. He argues society is shaped by these ebbs and flows of power struggles between the classes and their varying degrees of success; the ocean of class consciousness facilitates this struggle, and will ultimately determine the victor. However, they were still divided by geography, competition and disorganization. So, when they did finally come together naturally they were under the influence of the bourgeois. There is always some kind of class conflict, which should simply be replaced by Communism says Marx. Historically, the bourgeoisie has always played an important yet revolutionary role in society.

They have changed a various amount of occupations into wage laboring professions. Marx and Engel focused on class conflict as the driving force for their argument. Throughout history, there is a common theme of a caste society lasting for so long until the mistreated lower class attempt to break the cycle; but that system is only replaced with a new. In his work, Marx focused on two antagonistic classes of capitalists and workers to demonstrate uneven distribution of material resources and exploitation power, also rooted in economic relations, within society.

Hence, in the Marxian framework, social position could be treated as a unidimensional construct. Status, or prestige,. Plenty of people considered this as an offense during that time, which is the reason why his works are so criticized nowadays. Nowadays, we all know and understand what class structure is. We know that social stratification is the way we are divided socioeconomically speaking and that 's the way it has always been to us. When learning about history, teachers love to compare and contrast the people focusing on factors such as wealth, social status, occupation, and power; this is what Karl Marx. Generally class struggle means conflict between the upper class and lower class the idea of Class struggle is long-used mostly by socialists and communists, who define a class by its relationship to the means of production such as factories, land, and machinery.

From this point of view, the social control of production and labour is a fight between classes, and the division of these resources basically involves conflict and causes damage. Societies are socially divided based on status, wealth, or control of social production and distribution, and in this division of class conflict arises. It is important to know Karl Marx theory on class struggle; he viewed the structure of society in relation to its major classes, and the struggle between them. His aims were to revolutionize the concept of work through creating a classless society built on control and ownership of the means of production.

Having been born during the period wherein immense industrialization characterized the different parts of Europe, Karl Marx was particularly attuned of the changes in social, political, and economic systems taking place in the region. By examining the effects of industrialization as well as drawing from the ideas of German theorist Hegel and Feuerbach, Marx developed his concept of dialectical historical materialism which is a way of illustrating the change from one society to another Cuzzort and King, For Marx, society exists primarily to fulfill the needs of the people, noting that the process of material production is the base of all human societies.

The process of material production, according to Marx, entails two important components: the forces of production-which include tools, technology, and human skills, and the relations of production-refer to the social relations of individuals in the production process Ritzer, Karl Marx — was the most essential of all scholars of socialism. Marx's vision depended on a transformative purpose of flight.

Men have an upper Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations in Nursing Portfolio Analysis control of these women. Privacy Policy. Secondly, there Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations the problem for working class women of the danger and frequency of childbirth. But canning peas can in no way be seen Patriarchy: The Sociological Structure In Human Relations an extension of the sort of things women do in the home.

Current Viewers: