The Inevitability of Patriarchy
by Steven Goldberg

The converse of his theory is that:
"women will inevitably hold the powers necessary for inculcating emotionality in the members of every society and, to a great extent, determining the very kind of people a society is to produce." (25—26)

"Indeed, the women of every society possess the emotional skills necessary to "get around" men and "get their way" despite the male's superior aggression. However, a woman's feeling that she must "get around" a man (who is acknowledged by individual emotions and societal values to have authority) is, as we shall see momentarily, a hallmark of male dominance." (26)

[His] "analysis emphasizes the positive, power-engendering aspects of femininity and implies that the reduction in feminine behavior desired by the feminists would force women to deal with men on male terms and this would inevitably lead to a reduction in women's real power. The feminist who denies the biological basis of femininity, the necessity of femininity as the only defense against male aggression, and the likelihood that femininity is women's greatest strength for attaining dyadic or familial power is left with the conclusion that the women of every society have acted in a feminine way out of stupidity." (27)

"... if she believes that it is preferable to have one's sex associated with authority and leadership rather than with the creation of life, then she is doomed to perpetual disappointment." (28)

"... the male strength and aggressiveness and the female gentleness and endurance portrayed in our novels and movies mirror not merely our society's view of the emotional natures of men and women, but the views of every society that has ever existed," (37)

The societies that are sometimes cited as exceptions to the rule of male dominance are at least as male dominated as the Unites States. So if the feminists deny the universality of male dominance, then they cannot complain about male dominance in the United States. (43)

"Aggression is determinative to attainment of leadership and status and to dyadic dominance not because a positive social value is placed on aggression, but because aggression is a quality that is a precondition for attainment and dominance." (152)

"... one cannot even imagine a type of society in which the male advantage in the capacity for aggression did not lead to success in all areas for which aggression is a precondition for success." (152)

"To hope to rectify contemporary "dehumanization," which is perhaps more attributable to the weakening of the family than to any other single factor, by the eradication of the family is either utopian (the dream of a communal society, which no society's women have ever allowed) or ignorant (the expectation that the bureaucratization of child rearing will reverse rather than accelerate "dehumanization"—the day-care center is about as likely to be capable of inculcating, say, kindness as is the motor vehicle bureau)." (154)

The book is useful for the way it separates the sensible feminists from the hysterical ones.

Year Read: 1997

Back to Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday
Back to Nonfiction Book Notes
Back to Fiction Book Notes
Back to Book Notes by Author

This page was last updated on September 26, 2011.
This site is maintained by Roy Halliday. If you have any comments or suggestions, please send them to