So, what is the connection between hierarchy and patriarchy? I think if everyone is equal, it’s much more acceptable for women to rise to the top. Nobody is special. “Rulers” do not enjoy unique benefits, privileges, or power. Queuing up at the side of the road, they board the bus like commoners. Since everyone is respected, it is much more permissible for women (of lower status) to become politicians, nuns and bosses. What is there to envy? The status gap is minimal. The rest of society acts as a reverse dominance coalition – keeping their power, esteem and ego in check.
On the other hand, in hierarchical institutions, where status gaps are large, it would be extremely troubling for a (lower status) woman to exercise prestige. If men always have to bow down and let her speak first, it can irritate their egos. Even for men who perfectly support women’s employment or gender equality in the abstract, it can still be uncomfortable to literally kowtow. The higher the hierarchy, the more distressing it can be to see a woman fly away…
My theory helps explain why Scandinavian countries were quick to elect female leaders and share childcare. This also explains why management and politics remain so male-dominated in the hierarchical countries of Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Russia and Nigeria.
Here is the full messageand here Alice’s most recent post on what the paintings can teach us about British patriarchy.
