Not exclusively male, perhaps, but those women in positions of power still operate within a patriarchy. It may be patriarchy with a very soft touch, but it's still patriarchy. Throughout Europe and the places it colonized, positions of power are traditionally men's roles. If women fill them, they are, in a way, acting as honorary men. So, if they abuse their power, they do it in a patriarchal way. The fact that a woman is doing it this time doesn't mean it doesn't stem from patriarchy.No, it is not particularly male. Plenty of women in positions of power behave like that too. We have a few examples of that here in Sweden, one of which is the subject of an ongoing police investigation (so no names mentioned). This is why I wrote that it is about abuse of power. No matter who is in power, there will always be a minority who abuse their position and abuse other people.
In my state a female legislator was forced to resign a couple years back for sexual harassment, including an inappropriate and possibly not fully consensual relationship with a subordinate. It's not like it doesn't happen here. But the cases with male perpetrators are far more numerous. Perhaps simply because far more men are in those positions of power to begin with? A question to ponder.
Again, though, that doesn't mean abuses wouldn't happen in a non-patriarchal society. Perhaps even those same kinds of abuses. But I think the underlying dynamics would probably be different.
As is most reported domestic violence. One of the unfortunate consequences of a patriarchal society is that men cannot admit to being abused by women without being seen as soft cowardly fools. So they don't report it for fear of being even further humiliated, and so the perpetrators get away with it. For a non-violent example, consider how a "hen-pecked husband" is seen in society. Attitudes are beginning to change, but only very slowly.
This is an area I feel very strongly about, in part because of what I went through at school (if you've ever read Jan Guillou's book Ondskan you'll have an idea of what I mean) but also in part because of what I've seen in the various non-western parts of this world.
Not familiar with that work, so I looked it up. Yikes. Schools can be hotbeds of abuse (that's a whole other issue), but that really sounds extreme.
And you hit the nail on the head: patriarchy hurts men too. Often in different ways from women, but no less damaging.
I don't buy the reasoning that if only we get rid of the patriarchy all will be well - I'm too much of a cynic to believe it will be better, especially after what I've seen and been through.
I agree, believe it or not. I think a non-patriarchal society would have its own good parts and bad parts.
I don't think I articulated this, but the big question on my mind, playing with the ideas of greater gender equality and no patriarchy, is what would and wouldn't change if patriarchy didn't exist.
And now I'm going to be even more controversial and challenging, and suggest that perhaps you are viewing this from a western point of view. As Miles Lacey has pointed out, our views on gender roles are to a large degree based on our religion, society and culture.
Indeed I am viewing it from a Western point of view. That's the point of view I have. Which is of course limited.