As a minority it is refreshing to read an article that speaks to the heart of the issues that have plagued humanity across the world and especially in a country founded on slavery.
We all have the oppprtunity to do better every day if we choose to do so.
I will share this piece with everyone I know to spread the word.
Thank you for this piece.
5
Carol Gilligan is a public intellectual to be honored and prized. She meticulously speaks truth to power and in the process does not insult, demean, or diminish males. She simply wants girls and females to thrive.... how radical! And, wants to identify the systematic biases and stumbling blocks to females thriving. Plus, she is grounded in solid psychological research techniques and in great literature (written by males and females). Thank you Dr. Gilligan and my you continue to inspire women and men to work out a more just and equitable, non-patriarchal society. It ain't easy.
6
Why would anyone wish to smash Patriarchy? It is the headstone and foundation of civilization. Patriarchy protects women and children. Patriarchy provides succor for all in need. Patriarchy delivers freedom to the downtrodden. The list of Patriarchy virtues is endless. Everyone innately understands this. No one in their right mind would want the alternative, the absence of Patriarchy, i.e., anarchy, chaos, endless misery. There is this thing called Civilization, Western Civilization. All else is fiction..
8
Great article. However, I'm somewhat appalled to see it included in the "Fashion and Style" section. Carol Gilligan is not lauded for her black velvet pants.
12
I. Believe that Dr. Gilligan truly changed the terms of the gender dialog in our time. I remember reading her book in the 80s at the suggestion of my sister in law and being awed by it and how much it resonated with me, my upbringing and the type of therapist I wanted to become.
Her love for all human beings and the compassion she has for boys and girls truly make her intellectual contributions very powerful and her work relevant to an age of alienation and division as we are in right now. Her book In a Different Voice should be required reading in senior classes in High schools and Universities.
5
Behind every good man is a great woman. Ain’t that enough?
I found its particularly offensive that a huge Stuart Weizman ad dominated the page of this insightful and interesting article. A crude way to prove the point that women are objectivized and sexualized by male culture.
4
As a woman, after 74 years on this earth, having twice experienced immigration, known violent rape and racism, lived for a time without any political or legal rights, I firmly believe both genders have voices that compliment one another. Only society doesn’t allow this. But watching the magnificent Prime Minister of NZ makes me proud. She stands apart from so many of her fellow heads of state and shows it is possible to be heard without being stereotyped.
52
If you have a larger size, bigger muscles, you can use force rather than reason. That is the patriarchy, just another form of bullying. Men are simple creatures. Might is right.
Military uses men predominantly. You are not here to question why, you are here to do or die.
2
I enjoyed Gilligan's book back in the 1980's when I was one of few women to head up a hospital. That was the era in which we attempted to imitate the look of men - big shoulder pads, little bows on our blouses. I guess this was progress from the 1970's when it was tough to buy a house or get a credit card unless attached to a husband. But now, the enemy is less the patriarchy - it's the oligarchy - and those not in this group are getting crushed. Sanders and Warren are speaking to it - my chips are on them.
7
I remember the revelation and recognition I experienced when I read A Different Voice back in 1985. I had transferred to a girls school during high school in the mid-1970s, and the experience was so different from a co-ed school that I became set on attending a women's college.
It's hard for men, and yes women, to understand the biases that exist. I'm also white, and I have to say the last few years have shown me that despite being liberal-minded, I really had very little understanding of what it was like to be African-American.
Thank you Carol Gilligan and others for the conversations we need to have.
41
It doesn't seem unfair to me that gender roles in societies are assigned based on the procreational imperative of body function. What's important and urgent is that civilized societies preserve the right of any of its members to not partake or even disavow so-called traditional role models and establish their own path without criticism or static. That thoughtful approach would be far better than the "girls good / boys bad" mantra which seems to provide marching music to too many feminist sub-cultural heroines.
2
The first seminar listed in Prof. Gilligan's 12-page (!) c.v. is "Freud and Women." I did not attend the seminar, and Freud is now discredited, but this article directly relates to Freud's theory of penis envy.
Per Wikipedia, "Penis envy...is a stage theorized by...Freud regarding female psychosexual development, in which young girls experience anxiety upon realization that they do not have a penis. Freud considered this realization a defining moment in a series of transitions toward a mature female sexuality and gender identity. In Freudian theory, the penis envy stage begins the transition from an attachment to the mother to competition with the mother for the attention, recognition and affection of the father. The parallel reaction of a boy's realization that women do not have a penis is castration anxiety."
Were Freud alive today he would likely view the incessant efforts of feminists to emasculate men as a manifestation and validation of his penis envy idea.
Indeed, upon reading these words many men will have an "aha" moment of visceral reaction (castration anxiety), realizing that women, because they do not have penises, want to take away men's penises (make men like women).
Doctoral dissertations and entire books could be written on the links among penis envy, the feminist movements and gender fluidity, though it would be politically incorrect.
I hope Prof. Gilligan will see these comments and add her views on Freud's relevance to past and current feminism.
1
Thank you so much for this article. It made me ecstatically happy today. I'm 70 and recently retired from college teaching in the sociology/social work fields. Every semester I taught Erikson and Kohlberg from an otherwise serviceable textbook that omitted Gilligan's responses. So, I devoted one day every semester to her and her alone -- my students were fascinated and the conversations just bloomed! Thank you Carol and thank you NY Times.
104
Why is there always a Battle of the Sexes between the two genders? Why can't we all get along?
1
@William Smith
Maybe because men rape women, do violence to women, produce violent nasty pornography, refer to women as female dogs and other livestock, sex traffic women, perpetuate prostitution and sex slavery.
Maybe because for centuries men prevented women from getting education, barred women from colleges, law schools, medical schools, music conservatories.
Maybe because even today most men believe in male supremacy and denigrate women.
Maybe because men pay women less and devalue women and their contributions.
Maybe because women are nowhere safe from ale violence.
19
Our new California Governor Gavin Newsom says that American boys are in crisis. Gavin's wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, takes on the problem in her book "The Mask You Live In."
1
Why is this in the Style section? Why not Politics? Or Education? Is there no patriarchal irony in placing a piece on the career of a groundbreaking feminist author in with weddings and modern love!
31
I challenge everyone here ( including Ms. Green and Dr. Gilligan; for that matter, the NYT editorial staff) to read 'The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., and then hold forth about "patriarchy."
Farrell's book offers more insight into today's "gender wars" than anything else you are likely to read, depending on how much you actually bother.
It was originally published in 1993, and it would be a great service to human understanding if it were to be published in a new edition.
2
The patriarchy is run by men, but they do it to impress, and have access to women.
As women gain agency, some of them have started responding to a different kind of man, and are no longer impressed by those men who gain control over resources, and other men. But it isn't enough yet to dissuade the patriarchs, who still have outsized access. Trump wouldn't even get a second date if he weren't uber rich.
By the way, patriarchy is a also bad deal for men who aren't the patriarchs. It's a system that glorifies leadership and acquisition, and considers you a chump if you don't have it. Sure, we might get paid a bit more than women, but not enough to compensate for the difference between leaders and individual contributors. And while our chance of ascending the heights has been better than women's, it is still slim.
IMHO, the pay differential serves to keep us working against each other instead uniting to overturn the system. Perhaps they keep it that way, for that purpose. Let us fight over the crumbs while they take the cake.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all in for equal pay for equal work.
8
What I find most important when thinking about "patriarchy" os that it is not so much an artifact of gender as it is history. Men and women alike are and have been subject to its demands and norms; caught in the middle are human beings -- and human history.
Patriarchy is a way of looking at human life. It is old, archaic and primitive even, and it actually appeals to some people, men and women. But in general it is a system of subjection towards both; it devours the individual, and it devours other ways of being a community.
Granting that patriarchy is basically about gender, and the formation of male domination, is to buy into one of patriarchy's greatest tricks. As a system, it is in fact not gendered nor does it emerge from gender, but from a pathology of power that makes genders of us all.
Patriarchy demands a philosophical interrogation of the hold and allure that power and domination hold over the human imagination. An interrogation of gender has at best been a way of clearing the ground for such an investigation, and at worse, a distraction from it.
3
Back in the day, men created the so-called working world, and women ran the homes. I don't think anyone designed things that way, it was a product of the times. Women had babies for much of their productive lives, and most work required physical strength that most women didn't possess, especially when they were pregnant.
Fast forward to today. Most work doesn't require physical strength, and most women can and do choose not to spend their lives having babies. Some of the jobs that do require physical strength are becoming available to women who have it and want the job.
We're still adapting to the changing reality. It's a work in progress. Voices like this article and the literature it discusses are part of the mix. We need to figure it out. We can't just upend the whole thing all at once and expect it to improve.
Of course the people in power won't give it up willingly. Power is only given by powerful people to those who support them. And I have a newsflash; when things become truly equal, 95% of women still won't be in charge. The people at the top might be a mix of male and female, but most people will not be on top. By definition, most people will still be in ordinary jobs, but hopefully treated equally regardless of sex. I've seen great strides in that direction during my working life, but only from the individual contributor positions that I occupied.
One last thing. When we no longer accept physical bullying of any type, we will be a lot closer than we are today.
12
@mlbex
Back in the day, since the beginning of human history, females have always worked and worked outside the home. Men just didn't want to pay for it. Even in the 1950s, nearly half of all American women with children worked outside the home - with nearly all childless women working outside the home. Apply those same standards to males and see how ridiculous it sounds.
With religions that men invented, patriarchies and their violent fables created a false view of females as dirty and inferior on the same level as livestock - less than a slave and deserving of all the pain and tragedy that "superior" males dole out.
5
Seriously? Why does the partriarchy persist? Isn't it obvious?
You can debate all day about the sociological details of patriarchy and women's rights but the implacable juggernaut of patriarchy is the corporatocracy, the shadow government that controls everything.
Until we wrest the corporate grip on government, the patriarchy and just about everything else will generally remain the same or worse.
Get corporate money out of politics. The single most powerful means to jump start that process is giving politicians the option to take small donations in exchange for generous matching sufficient to mount a competitive campaign. Create an executive department of elections. Elections define our government. Why do we look upon them as almost an afterthought?
If you are a feminist or activist of any kind this is the only path that will open a real conversation about your right to be heard. Empowering women is a wonderful thing. If you want to make America truly great again, give women a chance to participate in the big game, the show. If we do that then US will again be unstoppable. We are wounded and suffering under the yoke of the wealthy. Do something about it.
12
Dorothy Dinnerstein in "The Mermaid and Minotaur", 1976, suggests that shared child rearing would bridge the respective functional deficits and character distinctions between the sexes
6
The "patriarchy" is what founded this country, fought its wars, established its grand institutions, created modern science and medicine, the computer, software, planes, railroads, boats, cars and even spaghetti. It also created this newspaper, in which women of a certain angry persuasion rail against the "patriarchy."
Stupid, sloppy, reckless, bumper sticker ideas, anyone?
10
@Allan H. The patriarchy created Slavery, Jim Crow, the atomic bomb, violence and brutality against women and children, world wars, Donald Trump, lynchings, pollution, corrupt politics, guns and gun violence, dictators, holocausts, genocide, oppression, the list goes on and on...not sure what the point is that you are trying to make?
78
@Allan H.
Gee, Alan. Who BIRTHS the members of the patriarchy. No women, no putative members of such. Please stop going on about the "accomplishments" of all those "boys".
17
@Allan H. : Your intensely angry reply suggests that something in this has touched a nerve -- that some part of you, tied up and stowed away because of restrictive roles of "male is this, and female is that" is rebelling, Good!
But if you wrongly focus your anger at women -- who have spoken up about these roles because the roles kept them from having agency in the world -- then you won't progress.
You might want to reread the part near the end, about AOC and Elijah Cummngs. You can feel your feelings and still be a builder -- you don't have to choose one or the other.
I'm sure that this reply will infuriate you if you see it; perhaps in time you'll understand that men aren't under attack but that a system -- in which both men and women are cut off from essential parts of being human -- is. Why settle for half a life when you can have a full one?
61
All, please respond: Am I the only one who fails to get any substantive understanding, either of the book or of Dr. Gilligan's research and views, from this article, other than sexism is wrong? Please enlighten me. Serious request. Thank you.
12
@BGZ123 this article is fluff & glamour about a "rock star feminist" . Also we know the esteemed professor wore green suede wedgies for the interview. please.
I read In a Different Voice as an undergraduate & found it powerful. This article is, however, not.
11
Can I vomit on this?:
"Dr. Gillian still looks every bit the ’60s-era radical bohemian feminist that registered voters in Cleveland’s inner city, performed with a modern dance troupe and feasted on the films of Ingmar Bergman. She wore black velvet pants, a black top and bottle green suede wedge boots. Her hair is long and a bit wild. Her smile dazzles."
How should an 82 year old professor dress?
"Radical bohemian feminist", really?
38
I grimaced.
15
@Expat
My wife complains that any article about a woman begins with her clothes, appearance, “likability,” even here in theTimes. Article on a man? Full steam ahead on accomplishments and validity.
Steve Jobs wore a black turtleneck as a (rational) uniform, but a woman is radical?
10
I remember my mother (who would be 92 if still here) gently chastising me when I started to come down on my 10 year old daughter for being too rowdy. she essentially said, "oh, let her be that way - soon enough, she will be trying to conform to people's expectations of girls." She was right. I think girls feel society's expectations as they enter adolescence, that their job is to be polite, be attractive to males and put others before themselves. Looking back on my own life, it makes me sad to think how my main concern in high school was not how much I learned but how I could make myself look prettier. Fortunately, although my daughter cared about these things as well, she got into sports and became very strong in many ways because of that, I think.
Sadly, women often let men have more power and get little in exchange. To me, it is obvious that qualities such as compassion and nurturing are the essential, best achievement of the human race, but brute force wins every time.
27
@Carolyn : Weirdly, the conservative commentator David Brooks just wrote a column that seems to be "the measure of success isn't job title/money, but the social circle that buffers you against what is hardest in life." I didn't read it yet, but I was fascinated and astonished to see such a blurb for a column by him.
3
@Carolyn Is anybody else aware of the change in dynamics after a young girl, who has primarily been interested in being pretty and charming, gets married and has children. Which was most of the purpose of being pretty and charming and sexually available. That has been, inevitably and unavoidably, the ruling dynamic for millenia. Time to change? Sounds good to me. It hasn't all been peace and love. And you have lived longer than us. The world will truly change when complicity is fully acknowledged by all of the participants.
4
As a feminist (who took Intro to Women's Studies at Harvard College as a freshman in the spring of 1983 during which course we read Dr. Gilligan's book), what I found interesting is the line that by the end of the 20th century, feminism seems to have "lost its potency." To me, this ignores that there was a broad mainstream backlash of sorts - including amongst women - against the term and the outlook.
My personal observation was that the majority culture in the US became increasingly image oriented and correspondingly commercially sexual -and a significant number of women played a role in this, including using their attractiveness and their sexuality to advance their own work and personal agendas.
In brief, women as a cohort generally abandoned the term for a couple of decades when they found it did not suit their own self interests ....
15
@William M. Palmer, Esq.
Years ago I was on a consulting week in a state I will not name with a male consulting partner. At the end of the week while driving to the airport our client said to me word for word:
"Well I see now you are not just another pretty face". Try to open your mind to what is really going on. Also for women to avoid being punished many collude with what is expected of them and I think it is very sad but I understand.
10
Worth noting that this article is in the Style section.
60
As a non-specialist who has nevertheless -- as part of my professional training -- read both Gilligan's "In a Different Voice" and Sommers critique of her ideas, this article feels balanced.
One thing that always reappears in the nature/nurture exploration is Sommers critique that "there is no study data" supporting, for instance, Gilligan's notion that as girls move into adolescence they somehow change -- and in ways that compromise their psychological health. The problem with this critique is that it assumes things difficult to measure aren't real.
In the case of women's reality in the United States, the constant threat of physical violence and sexual assault serve to bias the results of *all* studies of women. We have practically no idea what the mental health outcomes of women -- or men, for that matter -- would be if they grew up in an environment free of the constant threat of assault by the stronger and more powerful. An ordinary man is capable of killing almost any member of the species with only his hands. Because the opposite -- of women -- is not true, this sets up a baseline threat that's impossible to measure and study. It's unethical to create experiments involving deep levels of existential threat and fear to see what happens to people long-term. The closest thing we have is the study of war veterans, which shows exposure to long-term threats changes the the brain and nervous system.
So, yeah -- Love and Peace are better. Next subject?
41
@Kip Leitner
And what if we stopped perpetuating this neurotic anxiety about "the constant threat of assault"? The view that there is a "baseline threat that's impossible to measure and study" is a trope of toxic feminism and it has nothing to do with equality.
To insist that growing up female in this society places as much stress on the XX brain as does mortal combat is a sales pitch for victimhood that cripples a young woman's ability to learn to negotiate her own terms on her own territory while depreciating the true terrors of placing one's life on the line.
Human beings really can and often do work well together in love and peace. When a crime is committed against anyone of any gender, let's go after it. But can we please get past this siege mentality in the meantime?
1
I'm curious as to why this important article is located in the Style section. Feminism and equality are not about "style".
Beanie
171
@Beanie great question!
2
Just for clarity, if a, z'...patriarchy divides just about everything into that which is male and that which is female, and privileges the former over the latter", then doesn't a matriarchy do the opposite? The problem with all this is people of Giligan's stripe want to substitute one "archy" for another. Why an "archy" at all? If one is awful is not the other, or is there a special virtue to a matriarchy? If that is so, we are simply talking about substituting one discriminatory position for another.
1
I'm not sure you read this article completely. It said she wants to explore the spectrum of voices that are needed for true democracy and love. Nowhere did it say to substitute one Archy for another. Maybe our human evolution requires us to develop beyond all "archys."
25
@Ann Twiggs: One of the tasks of civilization is to oppose those who wish to impose an "archy" on everyone else. Most of us, male or female, would go along with equality and inclusiveness, but there are always some who need to impose their will on others. The measure of civilization is how well it protects us from them.
6
@DEH
There has never been a matriarchy in human history in the sense that women have held all the social, political and economic power over males and the power to make the rules that govern male lives.
There have been matrifocal and matrilineal cultures. But talking about matriarchy is more patriarchal fear and nonsense.,
1
"Dr. Gilligan, however, was writing from a more personal and literary place, more New Journalism than strict social science. Along with contemporary research she cited, among others, Chekhov, James Joyce and Mary McCarthy."
It was not just the timbre of that voice, or its lyricism; it was the methodology that gave rise to its content. Traditional social scientific methods have certainly revealed important understandings but this less quantified, more arts-based, emotional and personal method--if you can call it a method at all--brings new insights that you might not be able to identify in other ways. How many times has a novel, poem, painting or play unfurled the truth of a situation in all its complexity?
"the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King"
Shakespear
16
We are living in a time when gender distinctions are becoming less relevant, not more. As the mother of a teenager I try to avoid using the words 'boy' and 'girl' when referring to my child's friends. Some kids are in transition or are choosing to define themselves in ways outside the two categories. This frightens many people, including myself, as the definitions I relied on seem not to hold any more. It also brings up questions about how we raise our kids and the assumptions we make about others based on little more than outward appearance and a set of given societal norms. Yes, we are all human, but there is much more to it than that. Women give birth to babies who are sorted even before birth into one or the other category. It seems like it is not until a child develops their own voice that they can say how they see themselves fitting or not fitting into those categories. Perhaps as parents and caregivers our job is to better learn how to hold a space open for a child instead of trying to define them, i.e. control them with our definitions even before they are born.
20
@AG I remember a family in Oregon in the 1970s that had similar views regarding labeling their child with a name. He was called Space as in "blank space" on the birth certificate until his seventh birthday when he chose the name Abraham for himself.
2
@AG : I accept the ideas of gender fluid and nonbinary (tho I don't really understand them on a visceral level), and I want a world where everyone feels comfortable being themselves -- but sometimes I (a non-girly woman) can't help wondering whether someone born female (for the sake of this example) is really saying "The restrictive definition of 'woman' doesn't fit me," not "I'm part of this other, very broad category with lots of variation and new labels." Because if it's the former, then the answer might be "Let's open up -- waaaay up -- the definition of female, and of male, so you can be comfortable being you without seeking yet another label."
And, to be clear, I respect the decision of any gf or nb person, and I don't presume to know what they feel, nor would I presume to tell them to revisit their assessment of self. But I do wonder whether the problem isn't "I was born with female genitals but I don't feel female" so much as it is "This culture doesn't allow me to express my particular and very non-traditional version of woman-ness."
Clearly there are instances of intersex people, but I'm not talking about that. I can't help feeling that we've failed people who are 35 and younger by presenting such restrictive notions of male and female that they feel compelled to find new labels instead of saying "I'm a very atypical woman [or man], but I'm a woman [or man]." Anyway, I'll do some homework -- I won't deny anyone's valid reality just bc it's unfamiliar to me.
8
@AG
More ridiculousness under the guise of political correctness.
The reality is that humans are a dimorphic species, male and female, XY and XX chromosomed bodies. Nature herself made this basic biological division. Trying to ignore it results in the nonsense of people saying "gender" when they mean "sex" and confused porn-infused millennials thinking that there are 161 genders instead of the two sexes that Nature developed.
You may choose to not call boys and girls what they are, but this will never erase the fact that boys will never get pregnant and that males rape and do violence to females.
5
I can still remember reading Dr Gillian many years ago when it came out. It was ground breaking and validated my feminine perspective especially on morality
Sadly the Republican world view now in power and especially since Reagan is patriarchal ideology at its most toxic level. No consideration for how what we do affects our society as a whole the world or the planet We have continuous war, income inequality, climate destruction, violence against women and children. It goes on and on.
20
@Kathleen Oakland
I still think Nancy Reagan wore the pants in that family. The Iron Maiden worked her way subtly behind the scenes, ever the lady but effective nonetheless.
1
Iron Maiden wow. Nancy really loved Ronnie and was good at confronting people she thought were not serving him well. Like Trump Ronnie avoided the direct personal contact involved in meeting with someone to fire them
He was the President and loved and she was resented and vilified for having her say. I did not agree with her but respect her loyalty especially during the long years of his illness.
2
There is no patriarchy in the west. Myth
7
This is a piece of sexist-feminist ideology, filled with claims passed off as facts: the Patriarchy exists; the Patriarchy is everywhere; Sommers is wrong and argues falsely, and dared to pillory sainted Dr. Gilligan.
Even if it were true (it isn't), this article belongs in the Opinion section. It sure ain't news.
6
How can one talk about male and female identity without thinking about human history? Men tended to be those who were actually considered more disposable in society. Women, while being made second class citizens were also sheltered and protected from the violence.
Isn't it understandable that men would want to control the timing and causes of their own potential violent demise?
And in the act of sexual intercourse, men are expected to show enthusiasm while women were generally expected to arouse that enthusiasm and don't have to be quite so physically commited.
In the modern world where physical prowess has taken second place to the power of machinery, neither sex really has to live according to ancient priorities.
3
Last night I again saw Tennessee Williams' most disturbing play Suddenly Last Summer, in which young Catharine is involuntarily committed to an insane asylum, misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, and scheduled for a lobotomy because she tells an inconvenient truth. Tennessee's sister Rose was similarly committed and lobotomized when she protested their alcoholic father's incestuous molestation of her. The insane asylum for women at Milledgeville Georgia specialized in lobotomizing females. Yes, Nature has had a reason for making most males and females different. High time human females stop having to imitate males in order to attain equal status, and high time males stop having to exert dominance over females in order to prove manhood. Let us celebrate our differences where they exist, without condemning each other and enjoy equal opportunity for fulfillment.
25
I worked in a mental hospital in Knoxville, TN in the early 70s. We had a woman on my ward who was committed because she didn't want to cook dinner anymore.
25
@Ann Twiggs gee whiz that's harsh but so believable. I had a great aunt who like many women as committed to an asylum because of post partum depression and never got out.
12
@Ellenjo
Very sad. What a tragedy.
3
Is this a news report or a screed--it certainly hits all the hot-buttons. Patriarchy has actually been very good for Dr. Gilligan--books, speeches, adulation and now, a coronation in the pages of the Times. Bank-shot!
Here's the unpleasant truth: Dr. Gilligan (and her star-struck writer) miss the point that, in historical terms, women are doing quite well. Check the college graduation rates, the Google-pay study, growing numbers of executive positions--every metric you choose shows progress for women.
Men--not so much. Lots of metrics (suicide, prison-populations, the evaporation of marriage, fatherless kids) put the lie to Dr. Gilligan and her ideas (and they are just that--ideas that are hotly contested, although The Times might choose not to let you in on the argument). These ideas are beginning to have disastrous effects on men and male-female relationships, economics, family life. Let's remind ourselves: this is the real goal of the good doctor's tenured work.
The above words were written by a man (I guess; hard to tell these days); so don't pay any attention. I am guilty as charged.
11
I share your deep concern about what is happening to men. When I first read about the suicide rate the thing that came to my mind was the awful effects of job loss on men whose primary identity is as a wage earner for their families. Opioid crisis is definitely related
Consider that the problems of men and women do not cancel each other out. Many are shared by both sexes.
3
The problem is that we suffocate the woman in the man and the man in the woman. Is it any wonder why both are often acting in ways that are half human? When both are allowed to break free from their respective gender stereotypes with respect and appreciation, a human being emerges.
My grandson loves the color pink. He is the oldest and physically biggest kid in his elementary class, and is also very nurturing and protective of the younger children in his class. I love him the way he is. I see him deeply, and he knows it in his bones that he is loved. I only hope the culture doesn't strangle his sensitivity - which is not a side of him, but is his essence.
53
You are wonderful and he is so lucky to have you. Maybe you can find album from 70s called Free To Be You and Me. One of the songs is William Wants a Doll
15
"Women, Dr. Gilligan wrote, seemed to make ethical choices that took into consideration their relationships and responsibilities to others; the young men tended toward a more abstract and individual ideal of justice."
When developing his theory of moral development, Lawrence Kohlberg judged women to be "morally deficient" because we "fail" to make judgments at the "post-conventional level" of moral development. Gilligan eloquently argued that "feminine morality" was not deficient but importantly prosocial.
Yet, decades later, researchers like me who valorize empathy or focus on questions such as "What makes someone or something a target of moral concern?" are often dismissed as "thinking wrong" or "soft-headed"--because our views don't mesh with those of the Powerful White Guys who dominate moral reasoning research in psychology and philosophy.
Why? Because 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism decided that women in the past were enslaved by patriarchy and forced to engage in menial, meaningless task (like childrearing, nursing, and other caregiving activities). Being truly equal meant being just like men--adopting the views, values, and career choices that are traditionally male.
And that is why patriarchy continues to thrive. What we needed to do instead is say, "Yeah, women are different, and that is a good thing. We value relationships, nurturing, and caregiving. These are vital to human survival, not meaningless values imposed on us by patriarchal brainwashing.
19
So sorry for what is happening to you. It never ends and we pay a price for telling the truth. Keep the long view and I salute you.
5
"[It] enraged many feminists who felt that Dr. Gilligan was taking the movement backward by cloaking women in old stereotypes as caregivers and nurturers."
This was my reaction. I also remember being interviewed as an undergraduate at Harvard by a graduate student working with Dr. Gilligan who gave me a moral hypothetical: I believe it had to do with whether I would feel guilt over stealing medication that was the only hope of saving a close relative. The graduate student was surprised that I did not give what was considered the standard "female" answer and pressed me to confirm my view, which I did. I thought it was very unscientific.
1
Right.
And then, did you note in this article where someone counters the (common) misunderstanding of Gilligan’s thesis with, “When she talks about girls’ voices not being heard, she doesn’t just mean that feminine voice in the rhetorical sense, but the non-patriarchal voice, the emotive voice, the voice that speaks out of the affective life. So as we become more and more fragmented, like little atoms, she’s much more about looking at the whole. Hers is a more humane, inclusive and less reactive point of view.”
This is important to understand.
12
I was a participant in her study and read about her position at the time. The graduate student was seeking a particular answer that was supposedly typical of women. I was there, you were not.
2
I appreciate this article and the very extensive thinking that has gone into a timely subject.
I think most of us has forgotten that there is no rigid demarcation line between the masculine and the feminine as we contain components of each, some more marked than others.
For instance, I grew up as with a strong male identity: I played "chicken" on my bicycle, fell out of trees on a fairly regular basis and beat up boys. I knew that I wanted to work and had no interest in raising babies. It was only much later in life that I warmly embraced my feminine side.
I think, because of this amalgam of natures in each of us, we need to allow ourselves to embrace in the case of men, their feminine side, and in the case of women, their masculine side.
Maybe re-think our social and traditional approach to child-rearing??
23
@Jennifer
I think it is either re-think or sink. The internet has fast-forwarded growing up for many children. The don't exist in a bubble anymore and less likely to follow traditional roles since they see less of that in their environment. Every color is great for a baby not just pink or blue.
5
At the risk of being accused of Mansplaining: In the history of humankind, and given the biological differences (which many feminists overlook, and which account for emotional differences as well), men worked outside the home more, and women worked inside the home more, raising children.
So, relatively speaking, in terms of time, it is only extremely recently that women have been entering the workforce outside the home. Men have been doing it forever. It'll take time, more than just a few decades, for women to...
And because we are absolutely wired differently, it may never be perfectly equal.
Boys and girls are different (my grandson likes trucks, my granddaughter likes dolls). Men and women are different (men like to work on things, women like to work with people). And that's OK.
8
@Name (required) Please do not generalize. There are lots of women who like to work with things and not people , myself included, and many men who like to work with people. Personality often trumps socialization.
52
@Name (required)
You offer a sample size of one ... one grandson and one granddaughter. Ample research suggests that the interests of children (and adults) are far more diverse when not bound by societal stereotypes. Our wiring is neither 100% binary nor 100% immutable.
23
@Name (required)
Challenging patriarchal values isn't about assuming equality in talents or parity in outcomes.
It IS about individuals being allowed to develop their talents, and about groups of people and their contributions being automatically deemed less valuable because of gender. Or traditionally, about the assumption that men "deserve" higher wages because they "support"the family -- when women have had the same responsibilities.
14
Fascinating, but there's no mention of gay or lesbian or trans voices. Those voices often do combine the strengths and sensitivities of the two major genders. That's the reason that so much of the greatest art that deals with these particularities of the voice and gender and power are created by queer artists.
14
Gilligan should deal with a wider range of people. But your point about art is another huge generalization.
1
“When women insist that all
men are powerful oppressors that victimize from the location of power, they obscure the reality that many victimize from the location of victimization. The violence men do to others is usually a mirroring of the violence enacted upon and within the self. Many women have been so enraged by male domination they cannot acknowledge the possibility of male suffering, or forgive. Failure to examine the victimization of men keeps us from understanding...from uncovering the space of connection that might lead men to seek a more feminist transformation ”
-bell hooks
28
@Rosie It's time to end the trope that "all men are powerful oppressors" as a way to discredit the fact that many men are oppressive. The article clearly states that men are victims as well of a society that forces everyone into roles that deny their full humanity. However, too many men grow up feeling entitled to control women. More than 1,600 women are murdered by men every year in this country (women don't murder men.) The #MeToo movement revealed the casual cruelty and domination at the top of many industries. We've elected a president despite credible accusations that he's a sexual predator. Clearly, there's something wrong with the way men are raised and socialized in this country.
24
@Blackbirdfly
"Clearly, there's something wrong with the way men are raised and socialized in this country."
I agree! That inculcation and socialization-- based on power and domination-- is the patriarchy at work, to the great disservice of men and women alike. We must work together to dismantle it, from a place of compassion.
11
As others have said, In A Different Voice, changed my life. It showed me that my thinking processes were worthy of attention, were worthy of analysis, that my tendency to make moral and other decisions based on the web of relationships that I was part of had a great deal of merit. It reflected a view of myself as not separate but as inextricably linked to others and to the roots of the dilemma from the past and the consequences of my choices for the future. If I do this, then how will it affect my granddaughter and her friendships, how will it affect my daughter, how will it affect the whole community of people I am part of? Now, when people say, you should only consider what is right in the moment and what is wrong, I can see that that point of view has some validity but also is not the entire picture. My own view also has merit.
21
"..what is socially constructed and what is intrinsic"
I love taking care of babies. As a male, I doubt that this is either socially constructed or intrinsic. What is it?
My experience might be a bit similar to the women who first integrated the fire station. I decided to help when my wife volunteered in the church nursery. Initially, I was not at all welcome. I was prevented from active participation in ways both subtle and otherwise. (BTW. These were generally wealthy, highly educated moms.)
The first time I was allowed to help was after an out-of-control baby had been passed yet to a third woman with no positive result.
The baby calmed down almost instantly with me. The anger and rage that flashed across the women's faces shocked me. It was like - No! You can't do our job!
Eventually, I became accepted, but am only allowed to do one job: 'baby whisperer'. I get the babies that refuse to be calmed.
Socially constructed, intrinsic, or what?
58
@A Faerber
Smiled in reading your comment, dear@A. Faerber. And as there are a lot of babies that refuse to be calmed your skills and talents are so needed.
And that you love taking care of babies is a good thing. My thinking -as a grandmother- hope identifying myself is not perceived as a stigma, in the gender-view, a baby refusing to be calmed has reasons to be unhappy, and the unhappiness can but be met by that someone who understands. On an 8-hour flight, a baby cried much of the time, I watched this baby pound with her tiny hand the aircraft wall. The parents rejected overtures for help with the baby. A pediatrician seated by me said the problem was the elevation air pressure on the baby's ears. I wanted to hold the baby, and gently smooth its bare feet with my hands. But no opportunity presented itself. Touch is caring : a human connection.
1
Carol Gilligan’s work is loving, insightful, open-hearted, and humane, and is a great gift to humankind. She explores how all can be more fully human, and suggests how we can recognize the best in ourselves and others. Invaluable. I am grateful for the new book.
22
The title of this article seems weird: Why "carefully"?
4
@shannon
Because - the objective isn't to destroy men. Because to spread understanding and gather support, from men as well as women, getting people to listen - rather than to shut down - is vital.
8
@shannon
Because we recognize men as just as human as ourselves, because being feminist is NOT being anti-male, because the idea is how to live together in a more open, humane society.
8
Wonderful point!
We can intellectually dissect the differences, problems and politics associated with the continuation of our patriarchal society, but if we reduce it all to one commonality, it will ultimately be about power.
For women to reach parity, and to do so without hatred or a devaluation of men, we must wrest control from them and establish a society based upon equality and meritorious behavior.
59
@Pamela L. The concept of having equality and meritocracy is a contradiction. Do you want your child's brain surgeon to be the better one, or the one that got there because she's a woman ( they needed another woman on staff to make it equal)
Forced equality negates meritocracy.
And "wresting control" sounds...if not hateful or devaluing...pretty violent.
And where would this society be?
And how would you start it?
5
@Pamela L.
Contradicting the other reply to your comment:
There is no contradiction between equality and meritocracy. A democratic society means equality of political power: one person one vote, with equal access to opportunity and unbiased access to the common wealth.
A meritocracy means each person's abilities are accommodated and nurtured, allowing each to achieve what they can, unhindered by artificial barriers.
In such a system, the pool of brain surgeons is larger and of higher quality, because the pool of applicants is larger and none of them are discouraged from even trying.
No unqualified candidate is allowed to cut anybody's head open, but if a simple accommodation allows a highly qualified worker to do great work, then the only loser is the less-qualified candidate who winds up doing other work and finding their own best path. Which is no loss, but in fact a net gain for everyone.
It all comes down to insecure attachment, which causes people to create regimes of artificial scarcity when in fact there's plenty for all.
21
@Name (required) Whether you're a woman or a man is completely irrelevant. What matters here is that you're quibbling about semantics and not seeing the larger picture.
Too many times in our history, women espousing the need for change have been, and continue to be, devalued and criticized for having the temerity to speak the truth.
In this instance, Sir, Madam, or Ms. "wresting control" has no violent intent, but is merely stating the fact that men will not willingly abdicate the control they so love and enjoy.
Your statement about a brain surgeon isn't an argument, it's a fear.
In reality, you can have equality and a meritocracy. To this end, we put our endeavors.
26
Dr. Gilligan's work on gender studies continues to be assessed using research methods and standards which have been developed and maintained by the ever-dominant patriarchy. It has been males who have divided human response to the circumstances of their existence into rational and emotional reactions, as though one did not inform the other.
98
@Suzanne
"Wrong!"-D. Trump
“In a Different Voice” was the catalyst and the theoretical basis of my undergraduate thesis in 1985....and helped me to understand the development of my own voice and decision making process as a young woman. I will forever be grateful to Dr Gilligan for her research. I could say, that in some ways her research, and this book, saved my life.
145
Now in my 70's, I grew up in the 50's, where it was assumed that women were the weaker sex, really best suited for the kitchen and baby-making.
I have watched the decades change that, to a degree. But do you know what hasn't changed for the better, in all that time?
Income inequality is far, far worse today.
And because of that fact, putting women in different roles is kind of irrelevant, for today both poor men and women have been assigned to the "kids' table", and I am not sure that is much of an improvement. The Patriarchy just transformed itself into the Cabal of the rich; and now we are dominated by the Investor Class Aristocracy club, and as George Carlin pointed out, we aren't in it.
Money is what matters in America, not the Constitution, not the Congress, not the upcoming elections, for money determines our place in the family, or if we even belong. As women gain more and more political strength we low income folks, male and female, are losing ground, and gender is, other than in the Boardroom, irrelevant.
My response is Bernie.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
170
Income inequality is a human issue. The “female’ approach is the best way as I see with Elizabeth Warren not in the men and women who voted for Trump instead of facing the facts and fighting the root causes.
17
There is no "female" approach to ending income inequality. There effective and ineffective approaches.
13
@Hugh Massengill
Bernie, not Elizabeth Warren?
22
Carol Gilligan help me understand that finding one's voice really meant finding one's audience. We had much to say but unfortunately the women may not have been listening to each other. As an academic myself, I made sure to listen to my female colleagues and restate/acknowledge their wise perspectives on issues in the open. Her work was published during the decade when my daughter was born, which gave me the courage/drive (ala Annie Rogers) to be a feminist mother.
11
@EnEsEl
Yes, I love what you said: "Carol Gilligan helped me understand that finding one's voice really meant finding one's audience." It reminded me of "hearing to speech". (Nelle Morton in The Journey is Home). If someone hears you, it validate the significance of what you have to say and gives you an opening to expand on that idea.
9
Whenever norms change, it's almost inevitable for new hierarchies to appear. To give an example, the weakening of traditional sexual mores has freed many from torment, but it has also created new castes of winners and losers - attractive people with tremendous social capital and unattractive people who can no longer secure a partner without monogamy being rigidly encouraged. It does not mean that the change was necessarily bad, just that there will always be a trade-off and a portion of the population that is heavily penalized and one that is highly rewarded.
If the patriarchy is destroyed, it's almost inevitable that men with masculine personalities (in the traditional sense) will be demonized, and so will women with traditional feminine personalities. It's already happening to some extent. Some women are ostracized by their peers for wanting to be a stay at home parent, and rowdy boys are crushed by an educational system that is poorly adapted to their needs.
The other issue is that the notion of patriarchy fails to take into account social status as much as it should. The grouping of men and women are just too broad. The life of a high status man or woman is just too different from that of a lower status person of the same gender to lump them together into a meaningful category. It's hard to believe that the droves of men who die of opioid overdoses all over the country are beneficiaries of the patriarchy.
31
@Virgil T.
The life of a high status man or woman is just too different from that of a lower status person of the same gender to lump them together into a meaningful category.
My thoughts exactly. Thanks.
12
@Virgil T.
Women and girls all over the country also die of opioid addiction and other narcotics, as well as who are daily victims of domestic violence, incest, kidnapping, rape, torture, mutilation and murder - at the hands of a man. The beneficiaries of the patriarchy is forever XY. Want to change that, the good, but blame the male institutions and corporations that men set up - not the girls and women who barely make through every day as strangers in a very strange and very dangerous male land.
4
Great profile of Carol Gilligan, a true revolutionary and hero.
Thank you Ms. Gilligan.
17
“Patriarchy has no gender.” — bell hooks
45
"Though the crowd on that chilly night was not quite as large as that which had turned out a few weeks earlier to see the tidying guru, Marie Kondo..."
I hope this wasn't meant to be snarky. In reality, those who showed up for Kondo were probably NOT the same people who showed up for Gilligan....and that's part of the problem with patriarchy: it's not just men who establish the norms but their Stockholm Syndrome women, too.
20
"Democracy, she said, is like love. It only works if everyone has a voice."
What a lovely statement and words to strive for and live by.
Thanks for this article, it's a great way to start the week.
60
We should also remember how influential Dr. Gilligan's work has been in philosophy -- forming the basis of new theoretical insights and debates in what has become known as care ethics. By now it has taken its place along such longstanding universalist traditions as utilitarianism and Kantianism and has helped to make philosophy, still a male-dominated profession, more inclusive. I for one have felt its impact over the decades, in my life and in my classrooms. I am very grateful for her work, and her voice.
20
Gilligan’s research had been stage front and center about why Kohlberg’s levels of moral development were not universal, much to Kohlberg’s demise. The way we did research was changing in psychology and sociology then, and it has remained a major avenue for dissertations ever since. Going deeper and more personal rather more broadly and more antiseptically has revealed the different voices of gender, class, ethnicity, race and other segments of society across the world. I thank her for helping me see how my dissertation had an important purpose no matter how small the sample, no matter how powerless the population appeared to be, no matter whose voice was revealed in the agency of the research, and that the researcher could and should not be neutral to discover the truth. Harvard was not the only place where research could be done.
17
About 15 years ago I was studying for the ministry at a school near Boston but working for Yale University and living in New Haven. When we were assigned to read "A Different Voice" I decided to see if I could borrow a copy from the Yale library. So, yes, I found a copy in the Divinity School library. I also found one in the main campus library, another in the Medical School library and yet others in the business School of Management library and the Nursing School library.
All these different schools saw value in Ms. Gilligan's work. I don't know how many other authors have gotten this implicit tribute but it speaks to her insight and contribution to what's been happening in our culture recently.
Reverend Brian Noonan
88
“To remind, patriarchy divides just about everything into that which is male and that which is female, and privileges the former over the latter.”
Never a truer word! It “privileges” members of the former (and always has done) with all the dirtiest, most dangerous, and physically demanding jobs our society depends on — collecting garbage, putting out fires, going down mines, etc. etc. Women could theoretically do some of that work but, by and large, they don’t. And I don’t hear about them lining up.
19
@Gerald . If you had kept up with news and many sources of information you would have heard and read that many women lined up for these jobs but were (and are) forced out by hostility, sexual harassment, and sabotage on the job.
51
@Gerald
Not to disparage anyone who works collecting garbage, but do you know anyone who "aspires" to that?
9
@fast/furious
Too late "not to disparage." Even if the entire population "aspires" to do something else, these jobs still have to be done. And men do most of them. These essential jobs vastly outnumber laywers, doctors, "knowledge workers," etc etc.
12
Gender may be a spectrum but dominance and bullying are one dimensional.
21
"What advice would Dr. Gilligan give to young girls who want to resist or protest, she said, “but don’t want to be labeled ‘nasty or angry women?’”
Compared to the suffragettes or the second-wave feminists of the 60s and 70s, young women today are much more fearful of the anger that some (not all) men direct at women who speak up for themselves. My advice to this question would be to remind young women that these sad, angry, trolling men don't represent all men. And if they do get labeled as "angry" or "nasty", so what?
34
@msd. Some young women want to get married, and are correctly afraid that presenting as angry and nasty will reduce their marriageability quotient.
7
@Mal T Fortunately there are enough mature men who recognize righteous anger and seek to involve themselves with women who freely and responsibly express the full range of human emotion, so such women attract good, strong mates. Don't worry, though, there are still plenty of patriarchal women who are gratified playing grown-up Barbies and attaching themselves to men as Ken-like and unidimensional as themselves.
3
Your writer’s one paragraph overview of feminism, which begins with “To remind,” is brilliant. And the full piece demonstrates a command of the many conversations about extricating ourselves from the patriarchy. I hope to hear much more of her “voice.”
21
Well, what type of thinking would you expect from a psychologist? Sectarian; factional; oppositional; this study vs that study. It really could be another species she is talking about.
This "flat earth" awareness, in which linear analysis prevails, is the bane of true insight. It leaves people feeling very smart and very empty. It is an occupational hazard, and fortunately, I recognized it early in life. I became an unknown artist instead of a published psychologist. And that has made all the difference.
"What do you think about the patriarchy?" I just asked six people (five women, one man) here at work this question and all five women thought it was the beginning of a joke. The guy thought it was a new video game. Then I noticed that Van Morrison's "Wild Night" was playing in the background, and I now have a suggestion for Dr. Gilligan's next book: analyse the lyrics to this song, especially:
"...All the girls walk by
Dressed up for each other
And the boys do the boogie woogie
down on the corner of the street..."
I think that a careful exploration will yield both better questions and better answers.
8
@Allen
Ridiculous.
13
Good luck fighting the next war without the patriarchy....
8
@Greg
If we must have a war, we women will fight it with the technology we invent. We don't need men to fight our battles.
24
@Greg
Getting rid of patriarchy is not getting rid of men. Men are not bad. Men are often bullies and brutal and mean and violent. Men's behavior is often harmful to other men and women too. Think serial killers and mass murderers. Rarely, very rarely women are women serial killers or mass murderers, and you know all of this.
43
@Greg
Maybe we don't want another war!
44
male violence, male privilege -- the source of so much trouble in the world
58
Second wave feminism = “Men bad, Women good.”
There’s a reason why this pointless movement died out. Anyone trying to revive it is wasting their life.
30
@Greg - Some have interpreted it that way, or experienced it that way, but my memory of feminism in the 1970s. when I was in college, is that it included men. Young men my age understood, as I did, that women did not want to be treated as less competent or responsible and should not be. It was more about including women than excluding men.
35
@SRF
True. Although of course, men have never had any problems excluding women. Is it surprising that a segment of women, having found their identities would express a dislike of men? It's part of a developmental process.
One of the problems I have with Gilligan and the teenaged girl at the end of the article is the failure to recognize that anger is often necessary to change a society. Rage alone won't do it, but it is a starting point. It also can be healthy.
Women who don't protest, who refuse to point out inequities, who want to be considered "nice," but still want to enjoy all the fruits of feminism without any work or risk to themselves are free riders.
8
@Greg - On the other hand,
Patriarchy = "Men good, Women bad"
Why would anyone want to continue that?
14
“(Incidentally, the “cleaning house” that Ms. Kondo teaches is exactly what many want to do with the patriarchy.)”
No.
No it is not.
Either the writer has not read Ms. Kondo or the writer can not grasp the idea that joy may spark and guide life and so takes a shot. And misses.
And this gender spectrum cult repeated as proven revelation. ..., people are who they are eh?
Oh well. I enjoyed Gilligan’s book back in the day but see on Wikipedia that her defense of the criticism the boy girl distinctions she claims on Kohlberg’s moral dilemma do not hold up in the field, is, at root, I was just talking.
A book out of the same milieu that still packs a punch by Rebecca Goldstein, The Mind-Body Problem, is a better starting point on caring.
2
I wish those on the right would read this stuff. Even from this gloss, it emerges that there is discussion of "what [about gender] is innate and what is socially constructed". Whereas their media tells them that the "academic/leftie" position is that 'gender is a social construct', period. Knee jerk reactions turn us into puppets: something all hyper partisans should hear.
11
"To remind, patriarchy divides just about everything into that which is male and that which is female, and privileges the former over the latter." Was this taken directly from My Weekly Reader?
9
Stuck in the past. Move on. Find out what girls and women are actually experiencing with updated, clinical study. Why does patriarchy exist? Because you say it does. That is pure prejudice.
22
Dr. Gilligan's work was influential in my own research and teaching on human, especially female, development. I have three daughters, and drew understanding about them from her work. It also helped me in my own formulation of an answer to the question, "Why does patriarchy still persist?" I did this in my book, "The Culture of Sexism" (Praeger, 1999), suggesting that, since patriarchal sexism is imbedded in culture, it will take long to eradicate it, for what is required is an extrication, a disentanglement of strands that run through our culture and are mixed with it. Dr. Gilligan's work also helped me understand the young women that flooded my classes, and I saw her hypotheses validated in their behaviors as I saw them grow up.
16
Interesting article.
Men and women do need to learn to work together, if women are going to contribute more to society. Was just thinking how unstable home environments are probably the biggest obstacle for children to not slip through the cracks. Strengthening the family unit shouldn't be politicized.
Personally, when the late night entertainment bands start including women, then I'll think we've progress.
14
If people think of themselves as groups, rather than individuals, they will continually be frustrated. Perhaps that is what Ms. Gillian is saying.
12
Gilligan’s brilliant and radical insight in In A Different Voice of the different sources of power and authority in a hierarchy vs a web became a touchstone for me in my thinking, my PhD thesis in History, my parenting, multiple conversations with friends and acquaintances and my work in a multinational company. Thank you Prof Gilligan!
36
I recently read Leonard Sax's "Why Gender Matters," and I think his work complements Dr. Gilligan's. He gives plenty of examples of ways in which teaching methods can respond to individuals of both sexes, recognizing innate differences between and within genders, but allowing people to be who they are in stead of insisting they conform to a societal stereotype.
15
What I hope we would all find is the human voice. People are a mix of emotion and rationality and each of us is longing for love and acceptance. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Physiological, Safety, Belongingness Esteem and Self Actualization) has no gender.
69
@Maureen Flanagan
Agreed.
Our country is now poised at a painful extreme of patriarchal pouting.
"Nevetheless, she persisted." -- Senator Mitch McConnell silencing Senator Elizabeth Warren
Debate, about goals and means of healing our rupturing republic and defending democracy, needs speaking and listening skills and sensitivity to historic and contemporary inequalities which inflame primal fears of helplessness, abandonment and abuse.
Much of media and discussion focus upon choice of a leader to challenge a supposed incumbent president.
More than a leader, we need to agree on a manifesto to bring the balance back.
32
@ABS
And pouting and pique are so unmanly. Though the bullying might be viewed as manly. However, I know women bullies too.
7
@Nb Yes, as a nurse, I can tell you that many women adopt the male paradigm and try to be faux men. It's still patriarchy.
17