Cis-Heteropatiarchy is a system of power and control that positions cis and straight white males as superior and normative in their conceptions and expressions of gender and sexuality (Harris, 2011; Smith, 2016). This assumed logic of deficiencies and rigid binaries maintains the continued socio-cultural, legal, and institutional marginalization of multiple gender and sexual identities that do not conform to cisnormativity or heteronormativity and violent exertion of continued authority of masculine expressions over the feminine (Schilt, 2009; Woodson & Pabon, 2016). Patriarchy functions as a static gender binary system where one gender dominates another, legitimizing the colonial, capitalist, and white supremacist world; therefore, challenging heteropatriarchy is critical in any liberation struggle (Smith, 2016).
Audre Lourde (2007) famously wrote that “there is no such thing as a single-issue struggle, because we do not live single-issue lives” (p. 138). Therefore, it is important that cis-heteropatriarchy and its impacts must be analyzed through intersectional approaches. In their work, Arvin, Tuck, and Morrill (2013) problematize the connections between settler colonialism and heteropatriarchy. They note that settler colonialism thrives through the consistency and naturalization of heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism (Alvin et al., 2013). Though most societies were matrilineal, the Indian Act of 1876 regulated the marriage of Indigenous peoples to grant lines of descent, property, and landholding to males (Alvin et al., 2013), and such laws continue to play a role in interrupting the identities and sovereignty of Indigenous peoples today.
In various institutions, the expectations of conformity in gender and sexual expression are prevalent in the selection and reception of leaders who are traditionally expected to exercise their power as the “great man” of influence with impact over their followers (Marshall et al., 2016). In centering cisgender identities, heterosexuality, and masculinity, cis-heteropatriarchy creates leaders who feel most comfortable operating within the “status quo”. In these settings, the power to cultivate authentic connections and collaboration in leadership is overshadowed (Marshall, 2016). There is often little space for newness or nuance, and little space for embodied notions of leadership. Dominant expressions of masculinity related to authority, power, and stoicism illegitimate and limit the value, expressions, and input of leaders who do not identify within these prescribed binaries and identify as gay, bisexual, transexual, and intersexed (Sharman, 2019).
In critiquing the logics of cis-heteropatriarchy, we consider:
1. Predominance of binaries and dichotomies: Western epistemology would have us classify, sort, and rank all living things into immutable categories. Masculinity and femininity are defined as in narrow and limiting ways, and in opposition, which perpetuates false binaries between male and female, dominant and subordinate. This system of classification perpetuates a myth of separateness, of binary, which is the basis of logics of domination and subordination. It also perpetuates static notions of identity that deny the fluid, messy, and complex nature of humanity and our connections to self and others. Fluidity and complexity invite inclusion and make space for plurality in our ways of being. “To exist within a binary system one must assume that ourselves are unchangeable..” (Russell, 2020, p. 6). Leadership that resists binary logics supports re-envisioning work and agency.
2. Assumptions of normalcy: Normalcy assumes a particular way of thinking, being and doing, of believing and loving. These assumptions privilege straight, cisgender, males, and traditionally defined masculine interests and narratives. Conceptions of a “norm”, marginalizes women, femininity, and all gender non-conforming bodies that challenge gender and sexual binaries. Challenging this marginalization requires a disruption of the comfort that is afforded to privileged gender and sexual identities by problematizing “norms”, embracing tensions and ambiguities, and disrupting oppressive gender and sexual ideas and embodiments.
3. Toxic masculinity: Cis-heteropatriarchy forecloses opportunities for vulnerability, emotion, failure, or apology. Toxic masculinity leads to phenomena such as the ‘boys’ club’ or the ‘old boys’ club’, comprised of men who think, act, and experience the world in similar ways. Those in “the club” gain access and mobility because of connections and networks, even if their work is mediocre or trivial in nature. Those outside of “the club”, whose thoughts and experiences are divergent and/or marginalized, will often be overlooked, misunderstood, excluded, or unacknowledged and unrewarded for their work.
4. Hetero-misogynistic hostilities and violence: Hetero-misogynistic systems condemn, police, dominate, and punish those who are perceived as threats to patriarchy, but rewards those who conform to gendered norms and expectations (Manne, 2018). Sex-, gender-, and orientation- diverse persons are seen as challenges to gender ideologies; therefore, hostilities and violent acts are committed against them to devalue their strength and undermine their leadership (Manne, 2018).
In disrupting cis-heteropatriarchy in leadership, we consider the following questions:
- How does cis-heteropatriarchy influence the conceptualization of leadership and the selection and promotion of leaders?
- How might feminist and queer perspectives offer opportunities for transformative leadership?
- How might intimacy, affect, play, imagination, and desire influence how we understand leadership and how we lead?
- What would it mean for leaders and leadership if we were to challenge toxic masculinity, the normalization of cis-heteropatriarchy, and hetero-mysoginiztic hostilities and violence?
- What becomes possible when we question what has been normalized in leadership as status quo, common sense, or business as usual?
References
Arvin, M., Tuck, E., & Morrill, A. (2013). Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy. Feminist Formations, 25(1), 34 – 8.
Harris, A. (2011). Heteropatriarchy kills: Challenging gender violence in a prison nation. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 37(1), 13–66.
Manne, K. (2018). Down girl: the logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.
Marshall, C., Johnson, M., & Edwards, T. (2016). A feminist critical policy analysis of patriarchy in leadership. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis (pp. 131–150). Springer International Publishing.
Lorde, A. (2007). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press.
Russell, L. (2020). Glitch feminism: A manifesto. Verso Books.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464.
Smith, A. (2016). Heteropatriarchy and the three pillars of white supremacy: In INCITE: Women of colour against violence (Eds), The color of violence: The INCITE! Anthology (pp. 66-73). Duke University Press.
Woodson, A., & Pabon, A. (2016). “I’m none of the above”: Exploring themes of heteropatriarchy in the life histories of Black male educators. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), 57–71
