gy used in private that in turn supports the segregationist strategy used in public. Yet, the institution can only pursue its segregationist strategy because the individual patriarch subordinates the individual women daily. Walbys description of patriarchal structure looks powerful where there are fewer variables V e.g., when women and men seem to share the privilege of being exploited equally as a labour force working equal hours for equal pay in equal conditions (Haug, 1998). Haug (1998) cites research from East Germany which allows her to calculate that women do 4 hours and 41 minutes of domestic labour against mens 2 hours 38 minutes. Men split their extra two hours between leisure time and paid employment. She asks if it is a realistic possibility that patriarchy could be so completely and comprehensively asserted in as little as two hours a day. Haug does not answer this question (perhaps it is rhetorical) but I think that Walbys (1990) theory of patriarchy is so powerful because it can reveal the answer to questions like this. Walbys theory stands because she shows that the power of patriarchy is asserted in both the private and public sphere simultaneously supporting, reflecting and maintaining itself, regardless of the economic and social framework that prevails. In Haugs case, patriarchy is not being asserted in two hours per day, rather it is an expression of patriarchy, i.e., a symbol of male privilege, which could only be expressed if the general strategies of patriarchal structure were intact and functioning. This description of the relationship between patriarchy and structure demonstrates how inequalities in the workplace and in inequality in the home are two sides of the same coin and individual males are involved in the direct and indirect subordination of women simultaneously. The concepts that allowed Walby (1990) to define patriarchy as she has are discussed below, with reference to the work of second and third wave...
