Really interesting read, perhaps a little repetitive in places but an important book. It was a good length and an accessible read for non academics. Carol Gilligan is a highly respected, published author and professor, and is clearly an authority on the subject. The book includes references to the Kavanaugh hearing, ‘Me too’ and Trump.
This book will appeal not only to students studying subjects such as psychology, gender studies, media and politics but also to a wider audience.

In the wake of the 2016 US Presidential election, renowned feminist thinker Carol Gilligan co-authored Why Does Patriarchy Persist? with Naomi Snider, a Research Fellow at NYU School of Law. The authors attempt to tackle this question and reveal the reasons behind the resilience and resistance of patriarchy. Gilligan and Snider offer an original and insightful perspective on the perpetuation of patriarchy in their honest, vulnerable dialogue.

The core argument presented here is interesting and the authors have some original things to say. However, I feel the construction of the essay lets it down a little. It is repetitive in places with the same point being made again and again just worded slightly differently. But the language was accessible and they made several genuinely illuminating points.

I hate marking a book as not finished but I just couldn't struggle on any more. I didn't like the writing style and can appreciate that it has been well thought out and will be of great interest to some but I just found it a slog. It connects a history of patriarchy with the 2016 US election. The author states her opinion on why she thinks patriarchy persists and has some interesting conclusions but it just wasn't for me.

Patriarchy is one of the world's oldest societal structures and despite its polarizing divisions between men/women, black/white, rich/poor etc, it seems as entrenched as ever. In their examination as to why patriarchy seems to prevail against drives for equality, Gilligan and Snider have come to some interesting conclusions.

Boys/men learn early that to succeed in patriarchy, they have to distance themselves from their emotions and feelings and that girls/women will pick up the slack (they also learn that this makes girls/women inferior in this system). Girls/women learn, on the other hand, that they are supposed to give up their 'voice', to become selfless, willing to take care of and serve others whilst ignoring their own needs and wants.

Both sides are harmed by patriarchy but whilst what is associated with the masculine is elevated and praised, what is associated with the feminine is denigrated and despised. We see this when women are called "shrill" or "hysterical" for calling attention to wrongs. In the silencing of rape and domestic violence survivors, when it is asked what they did to provoke it. We see it in the denigration of women in power by criticising their looks and their perceived shortcomings in relationships and family.

The authors' argument is that patriarchy not only rewards those who comply and shames those who don't, but it also provides psychological protection from what we fear the most as humans: loss of connection and rejection. They argue that this protection may be what is fuelling the virulent, and sometimes violent, backlash against equality - the fear of being forced to confront uncomfortable truths. The solution is to reject this paradigm, for boys/men to reconnect with their emotions, for all of us to engage the brain along with the mind and the heart, and for girls/women to be allowed to be their true authentic selves.

I found some parts to be a bit repetitive and I'm not 100% sold on the conclusion, but on the whole, I enjoyed reading it. The authors have come up with a work that makes you think about your views on society and what could be done to change things for the better.

Thanks to NetGalley and publishers, Polity, for the opportunity to review an ARC.

Feminism is one of the greatest liberation movements in human history. According to Carol Gilligan, one of the most influential feminist thinkers, whose work in the field of women’s moral and identity development has broken new ground in psychology, feminism is the movement to free democracy from patriarchy. It should be obvious when you think about it. Patriarchy is contradictory to democracy, like slavery is and like imperialism is.

The election of a patriarchal man as US President has unexpectedly catalyzed women’s activism not only in America but also in many other places around the world. At the same time came to the fore a question that calls for explanation. Why does patriarchy persist?

This question led the authors, Carol Gilligan and Naomi Snider, a Research Fellow at New York University, to a set of discoveries connecting the persistence of patriarchy to the psychology of loss.

The authors start with a simple premise. We live in relationship with one another; the idea of an isolated individual standing alone is absurd. Our actions affect the people we love and care about, family, friends, etc, so we have to be aware of those relationships. But patriarchy is a culture based on a gender binary and hierarchy that forces a split between a self and relationships. In effect men have selves whereas women are ideally selfless, they “have relationships which surreptitiously serve men’s needs.” The importance of the self for feminism is reflected to Simone de Beauvoir’s provocative declaration, “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other”. It is a statement that not only elevates all men over women, but it also shows that women actually come to experience themselves as other, a non-person, — indeed, as non-selves.

But if you have not self, you are not in relationship. The authors’ thesis points to a paradox: we give up relationship in order to have “relationships.” In part patriarchy persists because of its psychological function as a defense against loss. In this sense “patriarchy is at once a source of lost connection and a defense against further loss. A source of trauma and a defense against trauma.”

The persistence of patriarchy is also premised on women’s compliance and silence. By being silent, women “can’t build off or share cultural experiences.” They don’t grow, they don’t learn from one another. “Our combined silence becomes complicit in allowing patriarchy to remain the status quo.”

As a culture, patriarchy exists as a set of rules and values that specify how men and women should act in order to be safe and protected. Breaking the patriarchal rules can have real consequences. Our ability to communicate our own feelings, and to pick up the feelings of others threatens the structures of hierarchy. By resisting pressures to disengage ourselves, from our honest voices, writes Carol Gilligan in Joining the Resistance, we become able to open the way for the development of a more humane way of thinking about personal and political relationships. Feelings of empathy and compassion for another’s suffering or humanity make it difficult to maintain or justify inequality.

Based in two complementary narratives, this original work is a call for all girls and women to resist pressures to disengage themselves from their honest voices. The seeds for resistance and transformation are in our voices.

3.5

"In asking why patriarchy persists, we are asking why a set of cultural rules and assumptions that are psychologically incoherent and harmful has such a powerful grip on the psyche? In essence, we are asking where is the resistance?"

The two authors put forward a different view: they argue that patriarchy persists because it serves a psychological function. It was nice to read something so different and original about feminism. Patriarchy is seen as something that harms both men and women because it says how men and women should act and be in the world.
There are two main narratives: one is about patriarchy, analyzed under a psychological viewpoint (basically why we keep abiding by its "rules") and the other is about the 2016 election.
At times the book lacked a bit of cohesion between the two narratives, but other than this it was an interesting read.

I was given an advanced readers copy in exchange for an honest review.

I feel like this was two books In one: a book about secondary gains that cause men and women to perpetuate the patriarchy; and a book about the 2016 election. Although these things are obviously connected, I didn’t feel the book pulled it together cohesively into one narrative. Having said that, the psychological insights into patriarchy were well worth reading, and I did feel like I got something new from the book, which I haven’t felt much about feminist lately lately, as I’ve been reading them for 25 years. Nice to see something new under the sun. 3.5 rounded up.