It's time to pull back the curtain on 'The Sexual Contract,' the infamous work by Carole Pateman penned in 1988, that has been stirring debates and setting liberal hearts aflame for decades. This book, written by a feminist political theorist, aims to do a deep dive into the intersections of what she calls 'sexual' and 'social' contracts, supposedly shedding light on the patriarchal structures hidden within our society. Written in the heart of late 20th century academic circles, Pateman's work targets Western democracies by arguing that while social contracts lay the foundation for free and equal individuals, they inherently oppress women by masking the sexual subordination embedded within. But let's call this book out for what it really is—a shaky argument built on assumptions masked as sociopolitical truths.
First on the list, her target—the social contract—is supposedly flawed right from the get-go. Pateman bundles a sweeping assumption that historical social contracts universally position women as subjugated to men. By implying that societies inherently and intentionally maintain these unfair dynamics, she champions a victim mentality that detracts from the real strides women have made over the centuries. Sadly, all of this has fueled divisive discourse that does nothing to aid genuine egalitarian progression.
Second, her narrow lens manages to weave together an argument suggesting that patriarchy is intricately tied to capitalism and class exploitation. Admittedly an inventive linkage, but not compelling enough to overshadow the holes in her logic. Anyone who cherishes personal liberty knows that capitalism offers opportunities regardless of gender. Yet here we are, dissecting a narrative that lump capitalism into the patriarchal camp without considering how economic systems have lifted countless individuals—men and women—out of poverty. But acknowledging that would betray her narrow agenda.
Third, Pateman's work frequently defuses the merit of individual achievements. By wrapping professional success in a blanket claim that all triumph is a product of privilege masked under patriarchy, she rejects the hard-earned victories that many women—and men—have achieved. This thought process only breeds division and undermines the spirit of meritocracy.
Fourth, Pateman tries to paint a picture that traditional gender roles inherently oppress women while offering little concrete evidence to suggest that women don't prosper when making conscious choices about their own lives. The fact is, many women willingly choose traditional roles because they find fulfillment and purpose in them. Let's respect those choices rather than patronizingly assume they’ve been oppressed or brainwashed. Demonizing traditional roles does nothing but belittle the agency of the very women she claims to champion.
Fifth, her theory heavily leans on the idea that all relationships inherently possess a dominant-submissive nature, conveniently overlooking relationships that operate on mutual respect and equality. Suggesting that because some structures might be hierarchical, all must be, is nothing short of intellectual laziness.
Sixth, she drags the historically rich and vibrant essence of marriage through her convoluted feminist philosophy. Historically the bedrock of society, marriage doesn’t deserve the tarnished brush she paints it with. Rather than the supposed contract of control she describes, many have appreciated marriage as a bond of partnership and mutual aid. By twisting this institution to support her assertions, she deals a disservice to those who see marriage as a source of strength and not domination.
Seventh, Pateman's attempt to reshape the idea of citizenship—arguing men are full citizens while women are partial citizens—is just another shining example of academic overreach. If you observe the realms of politics, business, and education today, you see countless empowered women showcasing their full citizenship without the shackles she supposedly sees.
Eighth, she brings in the modern workforce angle as though every workplace secretly conspires to keep women down. The leaps women have made in every field from STEM to politics stand as living testament to the opportunities available. Instead, let's champion the success stories, female innovators, leaders, and entrepreneurs who are redefining, not complaining about, the landscape.
Ninth, Pateman discounts the idea of choice itself, as if women can't be trusted on their own journeys. Forever casting them as subjects within a contract they never agreed to, her narrative robs them of autonomy, boxing them into perpetual victimhood.
Tenth—and perhaps most glaringly frustrating—is this relentless attempt to pit gender against gender with a relentless focus on aligning movements along gender lines. True progress for any community won't come from dividing it into warring camps but in recognizing the value and agency each individual offers, irrespective of gender.
While the arguments in 'The Sexual Contract' might have found an audience ready to believe in patriarchal shadows, the world has changed, and so should our narratives. Let's focus on building a society where choice, liberty, and personal responsibility form its core, not divisive rhetoric trying to perpetuate outdated views.