What we lose in losing the patriarchy or the death of the "absent minded professor"

Karen Hunter very wisely recommended that I read J.C. Smith's book on the patriarchy, "Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy: The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order". The thesis of the book is that our society is arranged around psychoses. Simply put, our systems are based on the repression of impulses--and that repression is generally unhealthy. I believe that wholeheartedly. That said, I want to acknowledge what we lose in losing the patriarchy.

A system as old as the patriarchy was bound to develop some very useful survival tools. Not the least of these was the very old fashioned relationship between a boss and secretary or a husband and wife. The traditional genders need not fill these roles for them to be useful. However, for a great many people, the distribution of labor between someone who could successfully create the intricate systems of order sometimes found in an office or a home and another person who is better at the kind of broader set of problem solving skills sometimes necessary to make large scale decisions or changes undoubtedly helped several individuals, mostly men, to survive and succeed. We all know individuals, again usually men, who are charming, but cannot put anything away properly, who can read in two languages, but who can't follow the directions on a package. For hundreds or thousands of years, these bumbling, but brilliant creatures were assisted by equally brilliant and detail oriented ones and the two built dynasties together.

All right. Dynasties are bad things. But, families have been held together by this kind of partnership for generations.

Is there a way to return to this kind of partnership without the repression which went along with it. Is it possible for two women to live this way and treat each other with equal respect, for example? Probably, except one will undoubtedly be called the "wife" or worse, the "kept woman." Meanwhile the kept person is keeping the other afloat. Some of Karen's friends hated me because they assumed she was keeping me. I refused to let her do that -- to quit my job and be the organizer of our house and her office (this meant financial stuff and largely computer stuff which I can do well) -- both because of the stigma and because I feared what would happen to me if we broke up. Of course, if I had someone assisting me at my job with what is hard for me, I might have been less stressed out or have advanced enough so that we could have afforded to hire someone to help us BOTH.

The reason this loss is so poignant to me is that I would succeed so much better if I could be in such a situation. Our society, however, is moving away from this as a whole. The boss writes her own letters and does her own filing these days and teams of equals work on projects together. You would think that "teams of equals" would be just as good for me. The trouble with teams is that they are meant to be so "equal". I can't keep myself organized on paper, but I can remember most of what I need to know and can write beautifully. Still, my lack of organization is bound to chafe at a team member's goodwill. My overall appearance, even on my best days, is only adequate, and bound to "bring the team down."

In the old system, assuming I had been born male and white (and I acknowledge how evil this prejudice was), I could be left to concentrate on problem solving, writing and negotiating. In the right movie, I might have even had an attractive secretary to help straighten my tie. My overall scholarly oafishness would have been considered charming. See Spencer Tracy or even Cary Grant with glasses.

Nowadays, I'm just a plain slob. A drain on office resources. A teacher with poor skills at room decorating skills. (Do you remember being able to criticize your teachers for how well they did or didn't decorate their rooms?)

I don't think a button will help my colleagues understand this.

I have a close friend who is a professor. His office is laden with books and smells like the inside of a good, old library. His desk usually contains mountains of papers. He takes copious notes and has tons of yellow notepads. On the surface, he look organized enough, though he has got the wardrobe down to the same set of (very attractive) jackets, two ties and grey pants. He teaches completely using questions and answers and is very dynamic -- but not much on pictures or audiovisuals. His classes are usually very active anyway. Fortunately for him, he's in his seventies, tenured and far, far from the forces which might try to force him to change. Because he is older and he is more charming than Spencer Tracy, a great many secretaries, grad students, etc. are usually willing to help with paperwork/things requiring detailed order. I am glad for him and it makes me angry when he does not have such assistance. He does great work so long as he has that help.

In a world of adjunct professors, teachers who have to be secretaries, decorators and social workers and teams of equally organized players, I am not likely to be so lucky.

So, much as I see it as wrong that the patriarchal privileges were extended only to white males (which my friend very much is), I wonder if there is anything wrong with some of the privileges themselves. Not the sexual repression. Not the gender-based roles. But, just the distribution of roles themselves.

I don't want to cry out, as another book once did that, "I want a wife!" I want a partner. Not a sexual partner, necessarily. I want to work with my colleagues to the best of my abilities and strengths and ask that they do the same -- though not that they have to do the SAME THING.