Home > Issues > General Theoretical Issues > Gavin's Conservative Ideology, extracted from under the Jackboots of Feminist Academics

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Gavin's Conservative Ideology, extracted from under the Jackboots of Feminist Academics

© Peter Zohrab 2014

One example of Feminist pseudo-academics using a superficially academic article to attack men is Peter J. Adams, Alison Towns and Nicola Gavey, "Dominance and Entitlement: The Rhetoric Men Use to Discuss their Violence towards Women" Discourse & Society 1995 6: 387.  I have written a critical review of it.  What I do below, however, is attempt to extract the male ideology or ideologies which emerge(s), if you look carefully at the longest interview excerpt that is cited in the above article.  I do this, because I am concerned that the above-named Feminist authors are blinkered by a superficial, Feminist approach to non-Feminist family arrangements. 

The first and longest interview segment involves a man referred to as "Gavin", who is interviewed by one of the authors, referred to as "P.A.".  Here are the first six paragraphs of this interview:

PA:

Can you explain what discipline means in your relationship?

Gavin:

Well it's [pause] well just respect and manners and that I s'pose y'now. A woman who's gonna put up when they shut up, so to speak.

PA:

For her to put up and shut up?

Gavin:

Yeah. (PA: Okay.) Um, so for her not to undermine [laughing] my authority and ohh I don't know.

PA:

Your authority?

Gavin:

Saying, you know, meaning 'what I say goes', you know 'no we're not bloody going out tonight. We're staying at home.' 'Ohh I wanna go out.' [laughing] 'No, we're not. I don't wanna go.' Y'know. Or like Friday night she said, 'Ohh I don't really want you to go out'. 'Well fuck, tough, I'm going.' Y'know. And I went out. That's my authority, my --

In the above paragraphs, Gavin asserts that he has authority over his female partner and that "discipline", for her, means that she has to submit quietly to his authority.  However, it is not clear what areas of life and what sorts of activities his "authority" applies to.  The above examples, it should be noted, do not involve Gavin forcing her to do anything active against her will.  The two examples only have to do with what the couple will or won't do insofar as it affects Gavin himself -- i.e. on one occasion he does not want to go out (which means they can't go out as a couple together), and on the other occasion he decides to go out by himself.  It should also be noted that her attempt to get him to stay home is an attempt by her to exercise authority over him, which she is obviously ready to try to do.  She is obviously not so subservient to him that she doesn't try to boss him around!

Here are the next four paragraphs:

PA:

When, when a court has authority, or a judge has authority, or, it's given to them from someone, somewhere. Authority comes from somewhere, or it's based on something. I mean what, what is your authority based on, do you think?

Gavin:

[sigh] Being the [pause] protector. Um, the breadearner, y'know the provider, that's my authority. Like okay we're not physically married, as in we've signed a piece of paper, but we're living as if we are physically married. And y'know, I'm the [laughing] breadearner, (PA: Yeah.) um, I'm the protector of this household. Um, when it comes down to it what I say goes.

PA:

So, so your authority's based on being the protector and-

Gavin:

Yeah, well um --

Here Gavin asserts that his authority is based on being the protector and breadearner.  Presumably he would be the protector from either human or non-human threats, since men are typically called on in times of emergency to put their lives in danger in the service of women and children -- see, for example, this news of a hot-air ballon tragedy.  More broadly, Gavin's point seems to be that he makes an important contribution to the household, and that that gives him authority.  His partner presumably also makes a contribution to the household, but it is not clear if that give her authority, or -- if so -- how much, and in what areas of family life.  It is not stated that Gavin's authority is absolute, or whether it is limited to certain spheres of activity.

Here are the next four paragraphs:

PA:

Women are at the moment moving out of the home and doing lots of different things, (Gavin: Oh yeah.) becoming breadwinners and things like that. As well um they're shifting, feminism is trying to seek more power for women and all that sort of thing. How do you see that?

Gavin:

Well, my missus at the moment. she's a draughtswoman and she works five hours a day y'know. Um, she actually brings in good [sniff] money and that for us, so I, I got no quells about that. Um, I dunno, but I still think a man's home is his castle, y'know. King of the, gotta have a king of the castle, don't ya? That's why I reckon if some prick comes on to your property you got full rights to do whatever you like to him. It's your property. He shouldn't even be on there unless he's invited. (PA: Yeah, yeah.) A man's home is his castle. That's it. Pure and simple.

PA:

What's that mean, a man's home is his castle?

Gavin:

[pause] Where else can you escape and be private, y'know it's, that's your little piece of privacy. That's where you can lock yourself away from the world if you want to. (PA: Yeah, yeah.) And it's your home.

Gavin has previously stated that he has authority on the basis of being the breadearner and protector, but now he says that his partner earns "good money" too, and that he has "no quells about that."  So there is a difference, apparently, between what Gavin would see as the ideal situation (where he would be the sole breadearner) and the actual situation in which he finds himself.

Then he says that "a man's home is his castle" and implies that he is the King of his castle.  For Gavin, being King involves both authority over his partner and a duty to keep intruders out.  The benefits of having a "castle", according to Gavin, are that it gives you privacy and a home.

Here is the final part of this excerpt from Gavin's interview:

PA:

So with women trying to seek equal rights, they would probably be seeking equal rights in the home too, wouldn't they? How would you see that? I mean they're challenging that view, I think.

Gavin:

Well definitely.

PA:

What happens to you when you hear that, being said?

Gavin:

Well it, it takes away the whole thing of what I think, well what I think it, the whole purpose of life was.

PA:

Yeah. Can you, can you explain that?

Gavin:

Well you got the male and you got the [laughing] female. And the male earns the bread and the woman brings up the family and that. And that's what we need to get back to, is more family morals I think.  I think woman have gotta stop worrying about making out y'know. I think they got to put more emphasis on being a mother. And it's a fact of life that only women can be a mother. There's no, there's no other way around it. And the man's still gotta go and earn the bread and the woman's still gotta have the children. (PA: Yeah.) I mean it's just what, is part and parcel.

PA:

They go together?

Gavin:

Well they do.

PA:

Yeah, yeah. Okay.  Um, in, in your relationships, um-

Gavin:

Do I sound like a male chauvinist or what? [laughter]

PA:

No, no. lt's, what's important is just what you're thinking. Y'know what your views are and I'm, I'm not in judge, sitting in judgement, really it's just-

Gavin:

I am a chauvinist, but I think that it's just (pause) what life is about, y'know. It's a fact that only women can have children. Sure if they wanna, if they wanna have a career, have a career. Don't, but it, you get these women that wanna have children and have a career. I don't think they can balance the two. It's not right. It's not right on the husband, it's not right on the children and it's not fair on her. Because then they start moaning about how stressed out they are, about how much work they're doing and they gotta do the kids and that. Well they don't have to.

In this, the final part of the excerpt, we see Feminism contrasted with Gavin's philosophy.  However, not only is Gavin's philosophy not fully articulated (as I mentioned above), but Feminism is also not clearly explained.  It never is! 

The Feminist interviewer trots out the Feminist notion that women are seeking so-called "equal rights" in the home, and Gavin agrees with that.  However, it is clear that he has never deconstructed Feminism, as I have in my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism, for example, so Gavin is just accepting at face value the Feminist propaganda line that Feminism aims to achieve equality between men and women.  Gavin just accepts that women having both children and a career is what "equal rights in the home" implies. 

However, it is not clear that that scenario has anything to do with equality.  One could raise, for example, the issue of the division of household chores and, as another example, what this scenario would result in after a separation (since relationship break-ups are so common these days).  On the face of it, if a woman has both a career and the children, then she has two important roles and the man only one, and after separation she is more likely to get custody of the children, if she has been the main caregiver.  Feminists only play the "equality" card when it seems advantageous to them in a particular debate, and I have not heard them say that women getting sole custody of children after separation is an example of equality!  Feminists simply choose not to discuss the issue of "equality" in the context of child custody.  And if women take time off work to have and look after children, they then lose relative seniority and promotion prospects, and Feminists then complain that women earn less money than men!

Gavin makes the principled point that it is not fair on either the children or the adults in a family for a woman to both have children and have a career as well.  If fathers and mothers should play an equal part in children's upbringing, then paid parental leave should be equally available to both fathers and mothers -- which it is not in New Zealand.  Again, Feminists fail to raise the issue of equality in the context of paid parental leave.

Conclusion

Gavin's basic position is that he, as a man, has a dominant position in the relationship because he has special responsibilities.  However, it is not clear if his partner also has a sphere or spheres of responsibility where it is she who is dominant -- e.g. with respect to the children (if any).  Most importantly, it is not clear what the Feminist alternative to Gavin's relationship model would be.  Feminists are quick to criticise male attitudes, but I have never seen them define precisely the "Equality" of "Equity" which they say they are striving towards.  What would a Femminist "equal" or "equitable" relationship model look like, and how would it differ from female dominance or Matriarchy?  The Feminists have had many decades' time in which to spell this out, but this model still does not exist, as far as I am aware.