I-Search Paper (Patriarchy)

Joseph Custodio

HIST 110

17 November, 2020

Klann

The Seed of Patriarchy

Part I

On August 18th, 1920, women in the United States were granted the right to vote. As of August 18th, 2020, women in the United States remain subjected to varying degrees of gender inequality regarding the social, economic, and political aspects of society. While America as a whole has made significant progress toward gender equality and has achieved a society where men and women are equal at a glance, it is very clear that disparities continue to exist even a century after the landmark victory of women’s suffrage.

Now, one might wonder how gender inequality ever even came to be. While the notion that men are superior to women goes back to the roots of human civilization, what is arguably the biggest perpetrator behind modern gender inequality, is the ideal of patriarchy: the idea that, within the household dynamic, male breadwinners provide for their families while women, being completely submissive to their spouses, tend to the house and children. It should be noted, according to my prior knowledge on the topic, that there exists a staggering correlation between the patriarchal system and domestic violence, against both women and children.

Considering that patriarchy itself has a clear cut definition, the goal of my research was to explore patriarchy and its effects on American citizens in greater detail and from different angles. My initial research question, which asks, “how did the idealization of patriarchy and its values perpetuate inequality and the oppression of women and children in 20th century America” didn’t quite capture this. Aside from talking about what patriarchy was and how it enforced gender inequality, the research I conducted gave rise to more compelling, more complex questions that branch from the initial. For example,how could such an obviously corrupt system be so blatantly endorsed in America? More importantly, why was patriarchy so widely accepted by the American public? Analyzing primary sources concerning patriarchy presented an aspect of why and how patriarchy exists on top of portraying what effects it had on women. The sources I found not only answer my initial question, but also complicate it to the point that it considers, essentially, the underlying cause of patriarchy in the 1900s. Tying it all together, my final research question asks, “How was the system of patriarchy standardized and in what ways did its idealization perpetuate the oppression of women in 20th century America?”

Part II

My research started with a source suggested by Professor Klann, which actually ended up being one of the two final sources I used to develop and answer my question. The source, “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedman, was fitting to my initial research question almost exactly, and was rich enough to also be of great help in both developing and answering my second question. My second source, however, took a lot more digging to uncover. With my initial question in mind, I honestly wasn’t sure what direction I wanted to take the research in as Friedman’s book already covered all bases. I wanted to find a source that complemented Friedman but, realizing it now, it was a mistake to try and find a source with the intent on “matching” it with one I already had, as this severely limits my options both in terms of usable sources and ways to analyze each source. With that being said, I tried coming up with searchable terms and phrases that “captured” the oppression that women faced as a result of patriarchy. These terms, which I both googled and searched into the online databases, included: patriarchy, women, women’s suffrage, opposition to women’s suffrage, domestic violence, and countless combinations of the previous that I honestly can’t remember. After endless searching and scrolling, I found a source on Harvard’s Digital Library that I remember being very compelling, as it was quite literally the opposite of my first source. Keep in mind, I was specifically trying to find a source that would be harmonious with Friedman, so even pondering this new source was somewhat daunting. The source was called, “A Letter on Woman Suffrage, From One Woman to Another” by Helena de Kay Gilder, who, in a nutshell, was a woman that supported and argued for patriarchy. It was at this moment that I realized my initial research question was blind to a significant factor of historical context and did not consider that while women were definitely the pacified victims of patriarchy, they were also part of the driving force behind it. Hence, my final question came to be as a result of revising my initial so that it better suited the new angle of the topic that my research uncovered.

The primary source that answers the first part of my research question is actually the second one mentioned above. In “A Letter on Woman Suffrage, From One Woman to Another” Gilder explains why women should comply to patriarchy’s rules, saying that “you cannot make the child bearer the same as the breadwinner” and that, as it is a woman’s duty to bear and care for children, it is “impossible to combine all the work of the world in one frail sex” (Gilder 13). Gilder, and the women she inspired, saw patriarchy as the one entity preserving the balance of society. She saw the role of “suburban housewife” as a reason to not be involved with things like politics, and essentially as a means to not contribute to society. What her letter essentially resembles is the fact that there was a significant portion of women who rallied for patriarchy and kept it alive, despite how much it negatively impacted their potential and individuality as human beings. This goes back to the first part of the research question, and clarifies that the system of patriarchy, as corrupt as it is, was standardized because it was upheld by both genders. The women who conformed to the patriarchal system were the ones that needed to be acting against it for the sake of the population of women as a whole. Instead, Gilder and women like her ended up feeding into patriarchy by preaching its values and associating them with conformity and femininity.

On the other hand we have Friedman who, in “The Feminine Mystique,” argues that patriarchy was the sole root of a “problem buried in the minds of American women, that plagued the suburban housewife with a stirring sense of dissatisfaction.” Friedman makes remarks like “If a woman had a problem, she knew that something must be wrong with her marriage or herself,” and points out that suburban psychiatrists at the time, who saw this within many, and only, female patients, deemed that there was never any problem with them (Friedman 19). Patriarchy to Friedman was similar to a mental illness with no obvious cause nor remedy. All that was clear was that patriarchy was dehumanizing, and the widespread dissatisfaction that suburban women experienced was a result of the weight of each woman’s untapped potential as an individual. Friedman’s insight touches on the second part of the research question when she points out the shame that dissatisfied women under the patriarchal system feel. Women who idealized patriarchy defined it as a way to measure femininity. Consequently, women who did not see value in patriarchy were looked down upon not only by men, but by fellow women. This type of oppression is different from the obvious where patriarchy imprisons mothers in their homes. This type of oppression dehumanizes and outcasts all the women that longed to be more than housewives. It shamed women that had big dreams and aspired to success and a fruitful life. This oppression expected women to be not only willing, but content with committing their entire lives to their husbands. Ultimately, this oppression crushed a woman’s soul and left her with a submissive, obedient shell.

Part III

Moving on from the revelations of the research, the process itself was enlightening as it uncovered the deeper layers of patriarchy and allowed me to approach the topic from new dimensions. I learned, from mistakenly trying to shape my research around my question, that the reverse must actually occur and that the question should instead be shaped around the research. I realized that my initial question represented more of what I hoped to find, while my final question was more of a summary to what I actually found. From this assignment, it became clear that historical research was about refining my perceptions of the past rather than confirming them, and while what I expected to find was still relevant to the research, it became evident that my initial expectations were mere seeds in the process that would blossom into higher quality research and new understandings of patriarchy.

By scoping in on the subject through the perspective of women that experienced it firsthand, I was able to make the connection that women were on the side of victim and perpetrator when it came to patriarchy in twentieth century America. While my research validated my assumption that women were oppressed by the men who enforced patriarchal values, it also extended my understanding to include that it was not only women’s compliance and acceptance to the patriarchal system that fueled gender inequality, but also the overlooked fact that many of them preached its importance and urged fellow women to conform. Adding to this oppression was the dehumanization that women underwent, which blinded them to their individuality, femininity, and ultimately their rights as human beings.

Primary Source 1: (“The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedman, nationalhumanitiescenter.org)

https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/tcentury/FeminineMystique.pdf

Primary Source 2: (“A letter on woman suffrage, from one woman to another, curiosity.lib.harvard.edu) https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/women-working-1800-1930/catalog/45-990026347010203941