Patriarcapitalisme

>INTRODUCTION

Published in 2021, the book Patriarcapitalisme presents how cultural norms and the economic system explain gender inequalities and their evolution. Pauline Grosjean an economist whose research focuses on gender inequalities and the author of the book, defines patriarcapitalism as an economic system in which “cultural norms are both the product, the matrix and the justification of economic inequalities between women and men”.

In the 21st century, gender wage gaps and the glass ceiling persist despite progress in the employment of women. Moreover, so-called female occupations are systematically devalued and domestic violence and harassment at the workplace mainly affect women. Taking up previous research on these subjects, the author argues that culture and gender identity are the main obstacle to gender equality. By questioning the origin and evolution of cultural gender norms, Pauline Grosjean invites us to become aware of the burden these norms represent and to reinvent them.

The economist first describes the evolution of gender inequalities during the 20th century. Then she presents a review of the literature on this subject while challenging the explanations proposed by some researchers. In the third part, she presents the determinants of cultural gender norms, the narrative thread of the book. The last part of the book questions the effectiveness of public and private policies to overcome gender inequalities and stereotypes, while suggesting alternatives to overcome cultural norms. This article summarizes the main ideas of the book.

I. THE EVOLUTION OF GENDER INEQUALITIES DURING THE 20TH CENTURY

During the 20th century, many events fostered cultural changes that contributed to women’s progress in the labor market, the reduction of wage gaps and even a reversal of gender gaps in education.

The mobilization of women during the two world wars changed the vision of women’s participation in the labor market, in particular the one of the children, husbands and relatives of mobilized women. Thus, despite public policies promoting the return of men to work, the wars had a lasting and irreversible effect on attitudes regarding women’s employment, in particular mother’s employment.

Furthermore, the baby boom and the sexual liberation of the 60s and 70s that came with the invention and authorization of the pill, add to this phenomenon. It is through the bargaining power of women within the marriage market and within couples that the baby boom and the pill put off marriage and pregnancy, and thus allowed women to progress in their careers.

These changes were accompanied by laws abolishing the notion of female wages (1), as well as authorizing married women to work without their husband's authorization (respectively in 1946 and 1965 in France). However, despite the laws against wage discrimination and the reversal of educational gaps in the 1980s, discrimination in hiring and the devaluation of feminized professions (school teachers, journalists, etc.) results in the persistence of gender wage gaps. Women also remain under-represented in the highest-paying sectors, and maternity penalizes them heavily in terms of income and career prospects.

II. GENDER INEQUALITIES: HOW TO EXPLAIN THEM? 

Gender inequalities in the labor market are no longer explained by differences in education or experience. Numerous studies show that these differences are closely linked to social norms and stereotypes in the educational and professional environment, and within heterosexual couples. While psychological differences such as the taste for competition and risk-loving behavior have been presented as explanations to gender inequalities, these differences seem to be culturally determined as well. Indeed, they disappear when we study matrilineal societies and the effects are smaller when we study homosexual couples, for example.

Rather than being less competitive or ambitious, women seem to have internalized societal expectations and the cost of deviating from social norms. Thus, they tend to show less ambition in terms of career and wages, and to work part-time to take care of children or take on a greater share of household chores. This affects even highly educated women with very high potential earnings, as shown in a study conducted among MBA students in the United States, where the authors speak of Acting Wife.

III. THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTIONS OF CULTURAL GENDER NORMS

Thus, it is important to look at the origins of these norms. Contrary to the idea that women were relegated to domestic duties in hunter-gatherer societies, the data show that these societies were more egalitarian. According to the author, with the development of agriculture came the specialization of men in agricultural production and women in domestic production, which resulted in the establishment of cultural gender norms. 

Technology and demographic shocks are also behind the evolution of specialization in production and gender norms. Indeed, they determine the returns to labor for men and women. The book presents the case of demographic imbalance in Australia in the 18-19th centuries and the long-term consequences on beliefs about gender norms, studied by Pauline Grosjean and Rosa Khattar in a paper published in 2015.

Moreover, if women’s choice of sectors, career ambitions and time use are affected by gender norms, men are also victims of this system. Masculinity norms, which are shaped by economic and demographic circumstances, have adverse effects on health, economy, politics, and violence.

Therefore, changing these cultural gender norms is a key challenge to achieve gender equality. Based on the results of an experiment conducted in Saudi Arabia which consisted in informing about the views of other men on women's employment, Pauline Grosjean defends that information is a factor of change. She defends the idea of culture as learning, according to which our behaviors, that are influenced by our beliefs and our perceptions of the beliefs of others, can evolve when the dominant discourse is challenged by information and migration. 

IV. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE POLICIES

Finally, the economist questions the ineffectiveness of existing public policies aimed at reducing gender inequalities in the labor market. According to her, most gender equality policies fail because they “aim to protect the maternal and domestic role of women rather than their jobs”. Thus, alternatives should be found, for example to maternity leave alone, in order to compensate for unequal distribution of domestic chores and the unequal penalties at the end of the leave period. It is also necessary to tackle the social and cultural obstacles that limit the effectiveness of these policies.

Within companies, it is the vision of gender equality that hinders the effectiveness of measures according to Pauline Grosjean. Many countries require firms to make public reports on equality policies, however the lack of consequences or credibility diminishes the effectiveness of measures. Furthermore, she suggests measuring and exposing cases of harassment at work and sexual harassment. Indeed, not only the majority of the victims are women, but the effects of harassment are harmful to employment, mental and physical health as well as the economy.

CONCLUSION

In a context where the health crisis has particularly affected women in terms of employment, income, promotion prospects, mental load, domestic violence and even school dropout for girls in some countries , the book Patriarcapitalisme brings an important vision to better understand the role of cultural gender norms in gender inequalities and our economic system. If we expect the Covid crisis and the economic recovery to set women back decades, Pauline Grosjean remains optimistic about the awareness of gender inequalities, for whom “the #MeToo scandals embody a renewed demand for equality”.

(1) Before 1946 in France, women suffered a reduction in their wages for being women. The abolition of this concept was intended to ensure women minimum wages equal to those of men in the same socio-professional category according to Lanquetin, M. (2006). https://doi.org/10.3917/tgs.015.0069