The basic element of patriarchy is a lack of interest in listening.

Patriarchy is obviously more than a lack of listening and it refers to many different social complexities, but I will explain what I mean. I’ve read some really good posts this week as various members of the @ecotrain community have posted answers to the question, “What is Patriarchy.” I knew I wanted to post an answer as well, but I didn’t want to repeat anything I’ve read. Well, here is my go at it, and I’ve decided to focus in on the word with one specific lens. I’m in no way trying to argue that this is the way to make sense of patriarchy, or that I am addressing its most important effects on society. At the same time, I truly believe that the insight gained by studying human communication on the interpersonal (one-on-one) level can sometimes provide great insight into larger social issues.

I completely understand how it is that some people hate the idea of patriarchy, or bristle at the word feminism. Based in the fact that we all have one thing in common, an inherently flawed perception of reality, I have no problem understanding that many people simply do not see the same pieces of reality that prove the existence of the thing. When someone has found success and happiness (whatever that may mean) in the current system it is a sign that they have assimilated to that system and figured out how to get what they want within it. When someone has found happiness within the status quo, then of course they have no reason to see that some people will never find success or happiness in that system. Regardless of which side of the issue I reside, the other side seems crazy for not seeing reality the way I see it. To complicate this conflict, the very thing that defines patriarchy is the thing that will be keep the status quo from accepting it as truth.

image source: Imgur

The only way someone can see such a different reality from their own is by actually listening to someone on the other side.

Furthermore, by having achieved some level of success or happiness in the status quo a person can likely only imagine a system of domination and control, since mastering those ideas, or learning to bow to them is exactly what supports their success. Feminism is a threat to an individual when she can only imagine a system of domination and control. But feminism is rooted in a belief in a completely different system. So, before moving on, I want to establish two ideas from what I've written so far.

1. Patriarchy is simply the social system that supports success by people who are able to master the dynamics of control and domination. It is important to note that although men have more typically been raised and educated to succeed in this system, women have equal access to the same game, but may be limited in their ability by the way they were raised or educated.
2. Feminism seeks to change the system to one that supports the sharing of power so there is more equity in the public's general ability to achieve success and happiness. It is important to note that this is not all that feminism is, but rather it is one facet I am going to use for the rest of my answer.

Looking closely at relationships can provide helpful insight into societal issues

How do people in healthy, happy relationships share power? In most cases it isn’t so much that two people share power 50/50 in all ways. Instead, we share power in degrees. In some ways my wife has more power and control. In other ways I do. We have negotiated that balance over time, and it has involved some conflict. By genuinely respecting each other and having a genuine intention to know each other and be happy together, we manage the conflict and learn from it. Happy couples don’t avoid conflict or hide from it. There are two types of glue that binds people together. There is happy glue, which is produced from all the happy times together when we do things that just make us feel good. Then there is the conflict glue that is produced when we manage and resolve conflict. When we actively work together to manage and resolve conflict we learn more about ourselves and each other than during the easy, happy times. Happy glue has the strength of good old water-soluble Elmer's glue. Conflict glue is is like super glue, and it binds us for life.

In contrast, a person who wants to control another person unjustly does so with simple tools. The simplest and most effective tool for manipulating and controlling others is simply not listening, but this only works to control another person who also tries to control, or someone who simply doesn't have the communication competence to do anything about it. Codependent relationships by definition involve two people whose relational schema (the various rules we hold about how relationships should be) are based on control. Often one person plays the dominant role, at least on the surface, but there is a yin-yang concept at work in such relationships, and control is the overarching force at play. When a controlling person tries to control someone who knows better, the relationship usually ends relatively quickly.

Now, if two people get together and they are both generally kind and a relatively good match, control issues may very well emerge. We were all born into the bigger social system and to greater or lesser degrees have learned the art of control. Sometimes we learn enough in the relationship that we can change and grow without breaking up. If one person is more aware and competent, their best tool for helping a more controlling partner is to simply listen. This is how it plays out (albeit this is quite simplistic and ideal). Person A and person B fall in love. They are both charming in the right ways and they develop a relationship over time. Person B begins feeling insecure and starts to try to control person A. Person A picks up on what is happening and when person B tries to tell person A How Things Are Going To Be, person A responds by listening. When person B runs out of things to say, person A responds to what they think person B is saying. In this way, person A actually controls the conversation, and does not allow person B to control them. If person B is healthy, kind and reasonable, they will eventually listen too, and the couple might be able to find balance again.

Image source: Imgur

But this is not always how it goes.

If person B keeps trying to control, they likely are raising their voice, etc. Maybe they are even making threats. There is a whole continuum of possibilities at this point. If person A wants to keep trying, again, they keep listening, because they know it is the essential skill. We fight when one or both people isn’t listening. We raise our voices when we think we are not being heard. Two people not listening and fighting are really just fighting to be heard. But when one person listens it is like a ninja tactic. It’s very hard to keep yelling at someone who suddenly shuts up and listens to you. So a listener can technically control conflict, and that is the only resource available for someone to get a partner to change if they are ultimately a good person and want to get along.

But again, listening only works to diffuse conflict when one person is operating under a different premise of what the relationship can be.

Analyzing conflict on the rational level in this way is what has helped me develop a more objective view on the problem of patriarchy. On one hand, it is indeed oppressive, but one sticking point that detractors try to base their sweeping dismissals upon is that some people simply choose to be weak. This is similar to a person choosing to be in a codependent relationship full of harmful conflict when they appear to be the loser in the situation. Lack of freedom, frustration, fear, bruises and broken bones are a sure sign of not winning in that situation, yet some people stay. We know about this serious problem. People who dismiss the notion of patriarchy tend to blame the victim in such serious situations, which is not completely unreasonable. It is, however, completely unhelpful, and often just incredibly mean and serves to only perpetuate abuse. But to deny that people allow themselves to be victims would be absurd. Doing so also is not helpful to finding a real solution. On the other hand, my objectivity also allows me to see what it really is:

At its core, patriarchy is simply a refusal to listen to the other.

In the bad relationships that are dominated by a person who wants to unjustly control the other, not listening is also their primary tool. A person who tries to control:

• is disinterested in listening
• talks over the other
• tells other they are wrong and discredits what they say
• tries to convince the other they perceive reality in wrong ways

When the controlling person perceives that they cannot control, or is losing control they will often:

• raise their voice or yell
• make threats ("I will leave you," or "I will harm you.")
• make insults

This type of behavior will often lead to the person being controlled to feel exasperated, frustrated, drained, angry, and/or confused. Sometimes the person being controlled will begin to believe what the controlling person tells them. In the most extreme cases the person's mental health can be significantly impacted.

Once someone is caught up deeply in such a relationship, the longer the situation continues the more dangerous it can be to try to get out of it. Speaking up against the controller can lead to a swift and violent response.

Does any of this sound familiar?

When I asked my students one day there is was any connection between the dynamics involved in relational conflict and that which we experience in society, they didn't hesitate to argue that there is, but they helped me see that the connection might be even more significant than I considered on my own. We focused on the justice system and how it is perceived by minorities. One student said that people feel as though the authorities refuse to listen to what they are desperately trying to tell them. He mentioned the Black Lives Matter movement as an example, and said that people who think BLM is racist or divisive just don't want to hear or accept that black people experience a different reality. Then another student added that even before that point, the same people simply do want to listen to poor minorities. For a person in power to listen seriously, with good intentions, to a person in poverty, or of a particular race they do not like, is almost impossible, unless they are willing to give up some or all of that power they enjoy. Just like the controlling person in a relationship. But patriarchy is the serial controller; the person who simply cannot imagine a different set of relational schema, and is petrified of giving up control for fear of the alternative.

To go a little further, when groups of people decide they are not willing to simply accept the system, they speak out against it. When the people they are ultimately speaking out against refuse to listen, refuse to hear what they are saying, and refuse to accept that their perception of their reality might be true, they tend to discredit what is said. The people in control tell them they are wrong, crazy, racist, etc. The people in control try to change the narrative from what the others are saying. "It's not a demonstration against police brutality, its disrespecting the military!" And some of the oppressed people start to actually internalize and believe that response. But other are smarter than that only push back harder. If they create an actual movement, and the people enjoying the status quo perceive a threat to what they hold dear, then things start to get ugly quickly and violence can result. But violence rarely occurs when people listen to each other with good intentions to truly understand each other.

I know it is a lot more, and it is also more complicated than this, but patriarchy is, first and foremost, a lack of interest in listening.

Are you listening?

Image source: Imgur