(1850-1880) C ARLOS M ARICHAL
VI.2. Primeros proyectos y empresas bancarias en Argentina
Patriarchy and Sexism as Deep Structures
Feminist Views Alternative Views
Empirical Data (Forming relationships)
Personal Experience
Social Domain
(Access <-> Information <–> Emotion)
Economic Domain
(Intellectual <-> Physical <->.Material)
Theory of Interpersonal Dynamics
Conclusions and Comments
Empirical Data (Maintaining relationships)
Deference and Authority Relationship Equity
Theory of Social Influence
&$ "
Patriarchy and Sexism as ‘Deep Structures’
Friedan (1963) is credited by many for identifying the “problem that has no name”38. She left it to others, however, to define how patriarchy advantaged men (Rowbottom, 1974; Dworkin, 1976). While Friedan has remained uncharacteristically sympathetic to both sexes (see Friedan, 1980) the argument that it is a historical “deep structure” (Putnam et al, 1993:230) has been consistently advanced as a way of understanding discrimination against women:
The sexual division of labour and the possession of women by men predates capitalism. Patriarchal authority is based on male control over the woman’s productive capacity, and over her person. This control existed before the development of capitalist commodity production. It belonged to a society in which the persons of human beings were owned by others.
(Rowbottom, 1974:117) The feminist scholars that followed articulated how patriarchal values pervade modern life. In making the assumption that men still control (or want to control) women, sexism and sexual harassment have become synonymous with conceptions of the way
men behave towards women, but not how women behave towards men. In their attempt
to counter “the booming silence” regarding sexual behaviour in the workplace, Hearn and Parkin (1987:4, 6) articulate that men dominate twice over:
Men tend to dominate explicitly in the public domain and more implicitly but no less powerfully in the private…
Their discussions of sexuality are often couched in gender-neutral terms but
sporadically these underlying assumptions resurface and orient readers towards the view that men are responsible for the intimidation and dominance of women at work (Hearn and Parkin, 1987:35). For example:
…interest in and outrage at the nature and scale of sexual harassment in work organisations has increased…This represents part of the broader concerns of women against male violence and objectification in its various forms…
38 Friedan does not index the word patriarchy in The Feminine Mystique, but is credited by others
&$ "
There is, therefore, an assumption in patriarchal theory, that men seek to dominate women, and are by nature (or nurture) aggressive and hostile to them.
At the cutting edge of feminist scholarship, the discourse is becoming more balanced. There is recognition that male points of view on gender dynamics have not been fully integrated in feminist theory. Segal (1990, 1999) discusses contradictions in different parts of the feminist ‘academy’. Of note in this study is her contention that there is little empirical data to suggest that men have a greater genetic propensity to engage in
(sexual) violence towards women. Firstly, she examines the implications of
Nancy Friday’s study into sexuality and violence (Friday, 1980) to reveal that women fantasise about male violence and sexual aggression far more than men39. Secondly, she explores empirical evidence that violent behaviour results from perceptions of
powerlessness rather than power. Both unsettle the idea that men dominate women, or
are even motivated by a desire to do so.
The use of violence, or potential violence, as a tool of social control appears as a regular discourse in discussions of governance and control. On the one hand radical feminism argues that (potential) violence is a means of control and the exercise of power. On the other hand, some contemporary feminists now question this, arguing that violence occurs when social relationships breakdown, a reaction to perceptions of powerlessness and frustration. Either way, violence and fear is intricately linked to social control. Kakabadse & Kakabadse (2004) found very low rates of harassment, and allegations that were made were extremely rare in the formative stages of a relationship, and more likely to occur during relationship breakdowns. Interestingly, the authors also report far more positive reactions and outcomes resulting from close relationships at work40:
39 Cited in Segal (1990:213). Friday found that rape or coercive sex was the most common female
fantasy, while men’s “by a ratio of four to one…were masochistic”. Only three men out of three
thousand (just 0.1%) had “fantasies of enacting rape from men, whereas being raped or forced
were the most popular themes among women respondents”. Social constructionists will recognise the importance and implications of such a finding.
40 They report that nearly 40% claimed friendship resulted from intimacy, just over 10% reported
&$ " What also comes out of this survey is that, in the eyes of many, intimacy at work is basically not a problem, is on the increase (or at least will not go away) and many report improvements in work performance resulting from the exhilaration of intimacy experiences. So, what is the problem that requires treatment and attention? [We believe] the level of attention given to sexual harassment in the academic literature and more popularly in the press and media is judged, from this survey, as questionable.
(Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2004:5) The impact of these and other contributions led Eagleton (2003) to discuss Young’s argument (1997) that ‘asymmetrical reciprocity’ in relationships is the norm.
The Emergence of an Alternative Discourse
In contrast to these texts, an alternative discourse on gender relations has emerged that argues sexism is a two-way street and that both sexes experience different forms of discrimination (see Goldberg, 2000, Friedan, 1980; Farrell, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2005; Hoff Sommers, 1995, 2000; Vilar, 1998). The way men and women experience discrimination is linked to the roles that they expect each other to fulfil and their willingness to fulfil existing roles and expectations. Secondly, there is a growing recognition that women’s preference for protective partners with higher paid jobs has not substantially changed in the last 40 years (see Simenauer and Carroll, 1982; Buss, 1994; Smith 2005). This increases the social pressure on boys and men to work while protecting a women’s ability to make choices regarding their own work/home balance.
Warren Farrell
The material below draws on the work of Dr Warren Farrell. Given the absence of his perspectives from almost all academic works on gender, a few notes are given here to discuss the reasons for referencing his work. Firstly, Farrell was a pioneer of the 1970s feminist movement, the only man elected three times to serve as a director of the National Organization of Women. He served alongside Betty Friedan who has been widely acknowledged for her contribution to gender studies despite contributing a smaller output. In the 1980s, Farrell started to articulate men’s perspectives as well as
outcomes. Organisationally, 66% reported no personal impact (page 79), 22% reported no impact for their group, 35% felt there were some “general negativities” (page 76).
&$ "
women’s and found himself cut off from the lecture circuit and media that previously provided his living.
In 2001, however, he finally achieved some recognition when he found his name added to the Financial Times list of the 100 most influential thinkers of our time41. The reaction to including references to his work has been mixed. At a conference, one participant took me to one side and told me not to quote his work because it was “journalism”42. However, his works are as well referenced as “classic” and some academic texts. The research cited was often more credible than sources in works not acknowledging the influence of his work (compare Hearn and Parkin, 1987; Wilson, 2003)43. Despite this, the charge of “journalism” has some justification – his texts are written for a broader intelligentsia, and lack of rigour is evident in parts of some works. The influence of his writings, however, can be seen partly in references to his work on the page of men’s movement web sites, but mostly from the word of mouth reputation amongst senior company executives that prompted reprints of his work. Whether his work is academically credible or not – and my view it is no less credible than many other “classic” texts on gender – it underpins and expresses an alternative discourse that is influencing the gender debate worldwide. As such, his arguments need to be subject to greater academic scrutiny and contestation.
Farrell’s principle discourse is that men are not culturally advantaged as a group, but (in the same way as women) enjoy advantages and disadvantages inextricably linked to the expectations placed on them by the process of raising children. He describes men as “success objects” who are pursued by women with much the same vigour as men pursue
41 Farrell (2001), Foreword.
42 And later confessed they had not read any of his recent work!
43 See research into partner selection and discrimination in interviewing. Hearn and Parkin make
frequent use of popular sources whilst Farrell favours academic journals. Wilson’s review of discrimination in job interviewing is supported by a single reference to a study involving students, while Farrell’s counter argument relies on academic studies that examine real-life interviews and outcomes.
&$ "
women as “sex objects” (Farrell, 1988). The criteria may change, but the behaviour is essentially the same. This view is not new - Goldberg has argued since the mid-1970s that equality discourses have had no impact on cultural values regarding men: they continue to be respected only when “in harness” (Goldberg, 2000:Chapter 1, 16-17):
[Men] lack the fluidity of the female who can readily move between the traditional definitions of male or female behaviour and roles…the male is rigidly caught in his masculine pose and, in many subtle and direct ways, he is severely punished when he steps out of it…It is a myth that the male is culturally favoured – a notion that is clung to despite the fact that every critical statistic in the area of longevity, disease, suicide, crime, accidents, childhood emotional disorders, alcoholism and drug addiction shows a disproportionately higher male rate.
Delving into the reasons behind these higher rates, Farrell (1994) argues that patriarchy is less a system of male privilege than a system of male control that prepares men to psychologically subordinate their interests not only to the family, but also the community and nation. Such socialisation, he argues, is arbitrary and no longer functional (for either sex).
The very existence of new men’s groups poses a problem for advocates of patriarchal theory. How can it be that in a culture where men dominate “twice over” (Hearn and Parkin, 1987:6) a movement supported by both women and men can claim that men are experiencing sexual discrimination? The previous “backlash” argument that men were insidiously regrouping to re-establish social control (see Faludi, 1991; Wolf, 1992) has not been able to withstand scrutiny (see Hoff-Sommers, 1995, Chapter 11)44.
The new equality discourse is prompting a re-examination of underlying assumptions and values. While a generation of feminist scholars (and many policy advisers) have regarded statistics on the low number of female managers and directors as evidence of a glass ceiling, Farrell (2005) turns this on its head to ask whether this can also be viewed as discrimination against men. When men are subject to increasing social pressures
44 For contrasting opinions see http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/
ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/Stolen-feminism-hoax and
http://www.debunker.com/taxts/fair2.htm. The former is a social constructionist rebuttal of Hoff-Sommers work, the latter is Hoff-Sommers own response.
&$ "
from women, the courts and child support agencies to increase their work
commitments45 while at the same time only getting “equal pay for work of equal value”, does the combination lead to a new type of inequality? Within this discourse, the “equal pay” issue is contrasted with the “spending obligation gap” issue (Farrell, 1994:33) that leaves men with higher spending obligations that make them worse off in real terms. The underlying politics, it is argued, is less to do with discrimination against women than protection of women through social control over men who disagree with
contemporary constructions of equality.
By drawing attention to the impact of deeply ingrained courtship processes on men’s attitude to work and money, Farrell (2005:137) articulates the perceived source of men’s inequality:
…our sons are still expected to pay for…dinners, drinks, dates, dances,
diamonds and driving expenses [while] our daughters are still internalising that the more desirable they are, the more boys will pay for them…All of this is to say that men’s and women’s work choices are rooted far more deeply than in mere rational work decisions. Understanding the power of these roots helps us understand where our freedom to choose may be undermined not by the other sex but by our own biology and socialization [emphasis added].
If these “roots” are impacting on work choices and behaviour, they are implicated in governance and control. Until now, the scholarly research into masculinity argues that careerism, authoritarianism and entrepreneurialism amongst men are masculine
behaviours that subordinate women at work (see Collinson and Hearn, 2001) rather than a strategy to win respect and find love. Within the alternative gender discourse,
statistics are reinterpreted from the perspective that behaviours derive not from men’s desire to dominate women, but from “both sexes’ … instinct to protect the female” (Farrell, 1994:23). From this perspective, careerism (and related behaviours) spring from the desire to establish oneself in order to find a partner and raise a family, and stem also from the desires of many women to reduce their commitment to work in order to prioritise raising a family.
&$ "
Interpersonal Dynamics and Courtship Rituals
Molloy (2003) draws attention to the extent that people at work win respect and love from others by demonstrating their ability to take responsibility, provide financially, and handle social conflict46. The platform for men and women to demonstrate they can ‘perform’ these skills is still overwhelmingly the workplace. In as much as these qualities attract members of the opposite sex, and lead to long-term relationships, the behaviours can be regarded as courtship rituals. What is more, employers generally encourage such behaviours in managers and senior staff, and promote them for it resulting in the majority of enduring relationships originating in organisational settings (see Hearn and Parkin, 1987; Farrell, 1994; Molloy, 2003).
In the playing out of these rituals, few people would dispute the high level of interest that men show in women, particularly given the vast sums they spend directly and indirectly on them (see Friedan, 1963; Hearn and Parkin, 1987, Farrell, 1988). But the complimentary behaviours as experienced by men are under-reported,
under-investigated and under-theorised. Friedan (1963) tracks the massive surge in women’s sexual appetite as far back as the 1950s and describes how, in some ways, it started to overtake men’s47. She also provides anecdotal evidence on the diligent and determined way women change jobs in their quest for sexual partners and husbands. While we might think that 30 years of equality legislation has made an enduring difference in societal attitudes, recent research makes depressing reading and suggests that progress is at best slow, at worst non-existent. Hearn and Parkin (1987) report high levels of relationship formation at work, but largely rely on surveys designed for, and published in, women’s magazines. Farrell (2000) found that about two-thirds of women met their long-term partners at work, and that in many cases men had to ask
46 Men and women win respect for the same qualities. The key point, however, is the both sexes
see them in relation to their own interests (when the qualities may contribute to their own social aspirations).
47 Friedan (1963:230). Chapter 11 deals with the phenomenon. On page 230 she claims that after
1950 sex-stories in women’s fiction and magazines outnumbered those in men’s magazines (without providing much “hard” data, it should be noted).
&$ "
women out several times before they agreed48. Despite a claimed sample of 3,000, his data is drawn from seminars and training workshops over 3 years where people will self-select to a significant degree.
Molloy (2003), however, provides corroborative evidence that has been controlled, cross-checked and re-checked. He found that 40% of women who eventually marry use the workplace as a principle means of finding a partner49. Another cultural pressure comes from romance novels for which demand has grown exponentially to reach 40% of all US paperbacks sales. Storylines that involve successful men at work overcoming
the resistance of women is now one of the most popular Harlequin “formulas” and is
credited with transforming the financial health of its publisher50.
While feminist scholars continue to give consideration to the impact of men’s interest in women at work (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999; Collinson and Hearn, 2001; Wilson, 2003), few studies consider the impacts on men from women seeking partners at work or constantly fuelling their own sexual fantasies with novels about workplace romance. What are the impacts of these intentions on women and men at work, not to mention the impact on social control and the development of hierarchies? And how should these impacts be theorised in the governance and management control literatures?
Gendered Interactions
Research into courtship started in the 1980s. Moore (1985) investigated this and found that women, not men, initiate most relationships through nonverbal cuing with the most popular cues being repeated smiling and eye contact (see also Lowndes, 1996; Pease and Pease, 2004). Perper (1985) increased awareness of body language messaging as people establish interest in each other. He found that as relationships develop, there is a
48 Unfortunately, he does not report the responses of men to this question.
49 Conducted over a decade, the study interviewed 2,500 recently married couples and tested
findings in focus groups - 40% of women said they had changed jobs to find a marriage partner.
50 Farrell (2000:194-195). Harlequin changed its romance formula after discovering that 70% of
readers had jobs. The result? A 20,000% increase in profitability over 10 years with nett revenues up from $110,000 to $21m and an 80% market share. Sources are provided.
&$ "
consistent sequence of nonverbal messages that are communicated by “successful” couples as they become more intimate (non-verbal signal, talk51, turning, touching, synchronization52). Perper asserts that these are subconscious behaviours that operate at a subliminal level - if one party skips a stage then the other party loses interest.
Farrell (1988, 1994) reviews the extensive advice given in women’s magazines to use nonverbal cues as the principle means of attracting men at work.
Pease (1997), Provine (2000) and Glass (2002) argue that there are many other behaviours (some gendered, some not) that communicate relationship states and
intentions. For example, Provine (2000:33-35) reports that laughter is a social activity53 that gives a good indication of the state of a relationship - but only when considering the level of women’s laughter. He speculates that this is linked to the dominant/submissive power-plays in gendered encounters, something supported by later populist writing on seduction techniques (see Duberley, 2005).
An emergent view (Thompson and Ackroyd, 1999; Farrell, 2000; Pease and Pease, 2004) is that women control the development of intimate relationships54. While Provine characterises laughter as a “submissive” behaviour, he also points out that it builds up the ego of the party who is making the jokes and encourages them to continue
dominating (although at a deeper level they are actually responding to an invitation). Whether such “submissive” behaviour can be regarded as being synonymous with a lack of power, however, is called into question by this revealing passage by Emily Duberley (2005:135):
51 Lowndes (1996) contends that it matters less what a person says than that they make the effort to
talk – it is the act of talking that is significant.