Does Patriarchy Exist? (further reflections)

So, I had a look at Kristi Winter's analysis of patriarchy, and know that there are some problems with my relatively uncritical acceptance of her conclusions. Primarily, her analysis concentrates on a single body, and it relies heavily on raw, simple statistics. The choice of the USA congress is a tough call, too: why select that particular body rather than another? If she took, for example, statistics on parenting, would that reveal an egalitarian answer? 

In my laziness - I mean, I am just stealing someone else's research - I'm not that worried whether patriarchy is the partially hidden power behind all western civilisation. My brain can't cope with that level of metaphysics. All I needed was a method that could open a conversation about the existence of any patriarchy at all. Since Winters defines her terms clearly, she creates a foundation for this conversation. It's possible to critique her definition, or point out that governmental bodies aren't that important. But she has facilitated a conversation by articulating her position, hypothesis and methodology. 

And yeah, I know she assumes that 'opportunity of outcome' is more important. That's another argument for another day.

The truth is, I am just testing the water on this - if there is any interest, I might start applying her methodology on theatre, to see whether it is patriarchal. It's a simple place to start, and might get debunked further down the line (my rough calculations suggest that, taking a sample from the major theatre companies, and using Winters' statistical analysis, there will be a patriarchal bias). I know that more qualitative research will lead to all sorts of hanging assumptions (like, what would patriarchal theatre look like, and how far is that mirrored in the actual theatre itself?) and arguments about what is actually 'patriarchal' and so on.

But I may or may not follow this. I may or may not accept Winters' methodology in the future. Like her, I am shaping the foundations of a possible future debate... one that will probably happen in my head.

Does Patriarchy Exist?

Forgive me for a little self-indulgence. When Big Ideas get chucked about, I like to find out what they mean. I have heard patriarchy used as a justification for feminist activism, but I wasn't exactly sure whether it existed or not. Of course, the answer is always to visit YouTube. 

Kristi Winters tends to get involved in rows with other vloggers, and is a staunch advocate of feminism. In the past, I've found her a little smug - I know that's rare in atheist circles. Nevertheless, the title of this video suggested that this might be a good place to start.

She spends quite a long time establishing her credentials and research methods (which I found quite interesting), but around ten minutes in, she gets down to business. And she does prove that the USA has a patriarchal Congress. So, yeah, patriarchy does exist.

Once she had proved this, I stopped watching to do some calculations on the British parliament. That's patriarchal, too, but not as bad: Winters' hypothesis is that patriarchy can be observed statistically, and by her method, parliament is dominated by men (two thirds of MPs), making it patriarchal.

I'm pretty happy with her conclusions - at least in proving that specific institutions are patriarchal. I also admired her serious methodology. I did notice that the trend was away from total patriarchal control, and if I was any good at mathematics, I could probably predict the year in which equality will be achieved.

(And yeah, the growth mirrors the rise of feminism, so it's not really fair to say that feminism has achieved its aim, making it redundant.)

Anyway, I've got other stuff to do, so I am not quite ready to think about the implications of this yet, and I don't believe that this proves all civilisation is patriarchal (nor does it disprove it, but I'm not mentally agile enough to go Big Picture this afternoon). Winters has presented an effective methodology for making the call on specific institutions, though. If I ever decide to write a piece on 'theatre and patriarchy', though, I have a good place to start: using Winters' definition and method, I could look at the numbers of men and women in a particular area of theatre, and base an assumption on this. 

It's possible to critique both her example and statistical selection, I know. But that wasn't what I was trying to understand. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't throwing about a buzzword. 

This Restless Critic

 Photo by Tim Morozzo

This Restless House isn't quite the wholesale feminist revision of The Oresteia that I might have fantasised. Zinnie Harris does a cheeky gender-swap (Orestes loses his place as the matricide to Electra) and allows Clytemnestra a more sympathetic character - helped by Pauline Knowles powerful performance. But Harris is too skilful a playwright to be blatantly ideological. It does stand as 'feminist theatre', if I must, but refuses to condemn the source trilogy explicitly.

Aeschylus' Oresteia is a rare text, managing to be really really good and shamelessly promoting an ideology. It might as well have had the subtitle The Triumph of Patriarchy. Not only does it present a state in a state, because a woman is in charge, it has a lovely denouement, in which the latest ancient Greek science reveals that mothers are not blood relatives to their children. Every so often, somebody claims that the patriarchy started with Christianity or Judaism. When I have finished shouting at them, I suggest that they learn classical Greek. 

Any contemporary interpretation has to deal with the gender politics. It's not enough to sigh that times were different then: The Oresteia offers an argument for male dominance. Even if Agamemnon turns out to be deceitful - for Harris, he gives it all the uxorious loyalty while banging a slave-girl behind Clytemnestra's back - he remains the true king. When he gets stabbed up (the worst scene in Restless House, since it ignores the Greek dictum that violence ought to happen off-stage), it's not domestic violence, but an attack on the notion of kingship.

The brilliance of This Restless House is in the final play (Electra and her Shadow). Having acted out the first and second parts in a mythical time and place that is partially ancient Greece and partially Glasgow, Harris slaps Electra into a psychiatric ward. The image of a woman captured by her past, and banged up in the straps for it, lends relevance and immediacy. Electra becomes the madwoman stuck with the bloody curse of patriarchy, and punished for her rebellion.

By killing her father - and this is a superb switch, akin to that time Euripides made Medea a child-killer (the earlier versions of her myth have the citizens of Corinth doing her kids) - Electra both accepts the obligations of ancient patriarchy and disrupts it. She might be doing the right thing, but a woman taking control: naughty.

In the person of the male psychiatrist, who ultimately holds power over Electra and her shadow (a female former patient turned rising star psychiatrist), Harris pictures soft male power. Insinuating, full of surface compassion, he goads the shadow into insanity, and makes sure that Electra remains 'untreatable'. 

Harris is smart enough (unlike me) to know that an obvious shift from male power to female power won't cut it. Instead, she exposes the bleak oppression that continues, the change in power from priests to doctors and the enervating revelation that the more things change, the more they stay the same... 

Wow. Somebody's bitter.

Hierarchy in Theatre: Why Not Just Call It What It Is?

Hierarchy in Theatre: Enter the Patriarchy