Posts
On pages 169-170 of Gaia and God, Rosemary Ruether says the following about "female-headed households," which are a "survival unit" in "the slums of industrial America". She states:
"In such female-headed households, the mother or adult female group becomes the male provider, working long hours at low pay, while also trying to play the nurturing role in the family. The husbands and fathers are marginal visitors, and all too often the sons grow up to repeat the same patterns. Adult male prestige, denied as economic prowess, is acted out through physical and sexual domination of women. The unemployed son or husband, demoralized by the dominant patriarchal and hierarchical society, disdains to help with housework and childcare lest he compromise his 'masculinity' thereby."
In certain families, women are dominant, whereas men are secondary, and thus feel useless. Consequently, for Ruether, the men seek to exercise power in oppressive ways.
Yesterday, I said that Rosemary Ruether does not accept the narrative that societies used to be matriarchal, until foreign patriarchal hordes came in and took over. In my reading today, however, Ruether says that there were ancient tribes in which women had a prominent role, but resentful men within (not from outside of) the communities got control. Why would the men be resentful? Ruether states that women were primary in reproduction and "food-gathering", which rendered men "auxiliary to the life-sustaining processes" (page 167). And, if men are not given an "affirmative role", Ruether argues, then they will define their "masculinity in hostile negation of women" (page 167).
And that is what happened in ancient history, according to Ruether. Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic women celebrated childbirth, while relegating "male virility" to a secondary role. Food gathering (gardening and collecting plants) supplanted hunting in a number of places, and women predominated in the food-gathering department. As society became agricultural, however, men got prominence, since men were strong in plowing the fields. And male strength was also useful when communities were competing against one another for resources, since males could serve as warriors.
Unlike certain feminists, Ruether does not romanticize those ancient societies in which women played a prominent role---though she does hold that some tribes have been successful in achieving gender parity. Nor does Ruether agree with Mary Daly, who labeled men "parasitic." Rather, Ruether supports both men and women finding a function within society. After all, men will not go away! And, for Ruether (if I'm understanding her correctly), if they can't find a fulfilling role in a capacity that helps society, then they will seek to dominate in oppressive ways.
On a side note, last Women's History Month, I blogged through Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, in which Friedan discussed the disastrous consequences of women not finding fulfillment outside of the home. In today's reading, Ruether talks about what can happen if men do not find a fulfilling role, in which they can make a contribution.
