Patriarchy and Binaries: Three Questions on Legal-Strategic Cooperation in the Time of Right-Wing Populism in Western Democracies

Stefano Osella

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

Gila Stopler’s book, Women’s Rights in Liberal States, is a feminist j’accuse against liberalism for failing to protect women and, as a consequence, failing to protect itself. Stopler’s analysis is triggered by the crisis of constitutional liberalism that can be observed in several Western countries. One cause of the malaise, Stopler contends, can be found in a cornerstone of liberal thought: the ‘public-private’ distinction. This doctrine assigns men to the public sphere of paid employment and politics, and women to the private sphere of unpaid domesticity. The former is ostensibly built on some degree of equality. The latter explicitly is not. To the private sphere are also assigned religion and religious organizations. Here, shielded from public interference, patriarchal religions have increased their influence. With various strategies, they have now overflowed into the public sphere, reaffirming in legal form values that adversely affect women’s equality. Stopler observes that the public-private divide has also favored the affirmation of traditionalist and patriarchal ideologies that fuel illiberal right-wing populists and their assault on the rule of law in the West. Stopler indeed argues that patriarchy and patriarchal religions share elective affinities with the patrimonial conception of the state that is typical of right-wing populists. Patriarchy, patriarchal religions, and right-wing populism are, in Stopler’s account, mutually reinforcing.

I am aware that this summary cannot do justice to Stopler’s book, which indeed is a must-read. It is timely, erudite, and brave. It is both theoretically sophisticated and full of practical advice. For what it’s worth, I believe we should congratulate and thank the author for this outstanding contribution. I completely share the author’s normative commitment to women’s equality and concern about the reaffirmation of patriarchal values pushed by right-wing populists in the West, especially in Europe. To put it mildly, right-wing populists have hardly been a friend of LGBTQI+ rights (the focus of my work)—particularly trans and nonbinary people and perhaps those who deviate from homonormative standards, to recall Lisa Duggan’s fortunate notion.

That said, the book left me with some questions. My observations will, of necessity, be impressionistic. In part, a blog post does not allow for the deep engagement that this book deserves. In part, I am still mulling over this complex piece of scholarship, which, to its credit, stimulates a great deal of thinking, as only a few (and the best) books do.

My questions relate to the theoretical framework adopted by Stopler. One crucial notion discussed in the book is patriarchy. Relying on the insights of Gerda Lerner, Stopler defines patriarchy as ‘the manifestation of male dominance over women in society’ (p. 19). In the following pages of the book, the author grounds her analysis in an overall homogeneous understanding of each category of actors involved in this power dynamic—namely, men and women. Both categories are not defined by the author. Not that Stopler ignores that gender dynamics are more complex than this binary-centered definition might suggest. For example, we can read in the introduction:

Patriarchy never stands alone and always exists in complex intersections with other forms of power. Patriarchal domination is the exclusive right of the “superior man” who is “male, heterosexual, able-bodied, and a member of the dominant race/ethnic category.” These social categories affect not only which men have the power to rule but also how different women (and men) are affected by the patriarchal rule. (p. 10)

References to intersectionality are also present throughout the book. For example, Stopler discusses the impact of the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision on Black women at length (p. 209). Yet, gender dynamics by and large appear to remain a game à deux in the analysis. To be sure, as the author demonstrates, discrimination and violence against women—as well as male privilege—constitute a heinous and pervasive reality in all aspects of life (including academia, by the way). Nevertheless, I wonder whether conceptualizing gender dynamics in mainly (admittedly, not exclusively) binary terms is the most effective way to foster synergies and develop comprehensive legal strategies that benefit all individuals targeted by right-wing populists in the West—especially women and gender/sexual minorities. Let’s look at a few examples.

As Ruth Rubio-Marín observes, fathers are demanding the recognition of rights that favor their involvement in caregiving, ultimately contributing to equalizing the distribution of care labor within the household. Of course, the issue of ‘fathers’ rights’ must be handled with care, as it can be easy prey for ‘new men movements’ and their anti-feminist agenda, as Richard Collier illustrates. It is also well-known that the preservation of the status quo can be camouflaged as a quest for rights, especially in the context of right-wing populism. A reference to the ICON Symposium convened by Gráinne de Búrca and Katherine G. Young is de rigueur here. One may, moreover, wonder whether a rights-based approach to the equalization of care labor is effective. That said, recognizing rights as a way to nudge men into caregiving might contribute to affirming the feminist ‘care first’ ethics advocated for by the Care Collective. Nancy Fraser’s ‘universal caregiver’ also comes to mind. Furthermore, as Rubio-Marín notices, a new conception of fatherhood might contribute to disestablishing notions of hegemonic masculinities. Rubio-Marín cites the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Colombia as exemplary in this regard (Rubio-Marín, p. 259). Hegemonic masculinity appears to have a lot in common with the political creed of right-wing populists. As Birgit Sauer argues, ‘[the] recent right-wing populist mobilization is a gendered movement, which fosters masculinist identity politics’ (p. 24). The question is: How does the focus on patriarchy—as Stopler defines this notion—relate to such demands? According to Stopler, how can granting rights to men also benefit women and other minorities by contributing to the transformation of hegemonic masculinity?

Another concern generated by Stopler’s definition of patriarchy involves the potential invisibilization of the circumstances of women who belong to religious or ethnic minorities, among others. Stopler’s recipe to solve the entrenchment of patriarchy in the public sphere involves a high degree of interference with religious practices to promote equality in the private sphere, too. Nevertheless, Stopler’s approach could be misappropriated and backfire on religious minorities, including women. To be clear, Stopler appears to be aware of the risk, as she explicitly focuses on majoritarian religions. Yet, applying her solution to these religions alone entails legal challenges. Furthermore, if we consider concrete power dynamics, it is not hard to fathom that it will be minority religions ending up with the shorter end of the stick, potentially exacerbating forms of intersectional discrimination. If femo- and homonationalism have taught us anything, it is that the relation between reactionary politics and the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people is complex. Such rights can be exploited to fuel nationalist and xenophobic agenda. We can imagine measures neutral on their face and ostensibly aimed at promoting equality in private life that disproportionately impact minorities. How can this be prevented?

Finally, a sore spot is the question of the rights of trans and nonbinary people, which again relates to the largely uniform understanding of men and women conveyed in the book. To be clear, Stopler seems to support LGBTQI+ demands. Yet, the book does not meaningfully engage with trans and nonbinary rights. This omission might be unexpected because Stopler pays significant attention to the question of right-wing populism. As Mary Anne Case demonstrates, the rights of trans and nonbinary people are one of the ‘nightmares’ of religious conservatives and are central to the latter’s opposition to the so-called gender ideology (see here and here). Judith Butler argues that transphobia and trans misogyny are key elements of the ‘phantasmatic gender ideology’, which, despite being a hazy and incoherent notion, has become a powerful tool used by right-wing populists across jurisdictions. In this context, the rights of trans women have controversially been presented as a threat to cis women’s equality and safety. How does Stopler’s framework address this question?

In conclusion, synergies between women, LGBTQI+ people (some of whom are women), and other minorities targeted by right-wing populism would appear crucial to confront right-wing policies in Europe and North America, as Butler suggests (pp. 130-133). How does Stopler’s approach favor that? To be very clear, I do not believe that Stopler’s theory is incompatible with this goal. Quite the contrary, I am convinced that it can serve as a starting point for further theorization that leads to solidarity among the various groups targeted by right-wing populists. For this reason, I believe that some clarifications would ultimately be helpful.

Stefano Osella is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

Suggested Citation: Stefano Osella, ‘Patriarchy and Binaries: Three Questions on Legal-Strategic Cooperation in the Time of Right-Wing Populism in Western Democracies’ IACL-AIDC Blog (11 November 2025) Patriarchy and Binaries: Three Questions on Legal-Strategic Cooperation in the Time of Right-Wing Populism in Western Democracies — IACL-IADC Blog