The main point I took away from the Johnson and Frye Articles for Tuesday's class is the need to look at the problems of oppression and patriarchy from a macro-level perspective. In class we have discussed how one of the problems in second wave feminism was that some women like Brownmiller felt strongly about working outside the system, whereas women like Betty Friedan tried to work within the patriarchal system (Liberal Feminism vs. Radical Feminism). It definitely seems that in the past, while there has been a clear goal, much of the lack of progress can be attributed to looking at individual and micro differences (anti-porn/porn, minimizers/maximizers etc). However, the two articles for Tuesday I thought did a good job explaining the importance of looking at the problem from a macro level. Every person regardless of their role in the system contributes to the patriarchal system in which we live Whether we are bystanders who don't speak up at inappropriate moments where we see something that degrades women or we play an active role in being the "oppressor". If we look at the problem on a micro level, it is so easy to lose sight of the goal which is a definite concern for 3rd wave feminism, but in looking at it from a macro-level, we can see "a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live...." (Frye). It is interesting to me to think about this on a broader level. Without limiting the scope to just women, I wonder if we keep that macro-level perspective if that can help to encourage people to challenge other systems more broadly like those regarding sexuality, race, and class. For example, if it can encourage people to stand up when there are anti-gay comments or anti-semetic or racist comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Emily on the powerful message that the reading, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us” gave. The author addresses that our patriarchal system is not just the fault of men who make sexist comments, but rather, we are all involved in this system and we can all do something to change. I thought the distinction between individual actions and the ingrained messages in society is an important difference to realize when explaining the behavior of individuals. I thought the Figure 2 diagram effectively conveyed the Catch 22 between the system and individuals. “We make social systems happen” yet “As we participate in social systems, we are shaped by socialization and paths of least resistance” (5). We are caught in a cyclical pattern, and it is hard to step away from justifications of our patriarchal system from both an individual and system viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI really disagreed with one of the Marilyn Frye’s points in “Oppression”. Frye seems to have a huge problem with men holding doors open for women. She states, “The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false” and “The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women” (3). Frye states that men hold doors open for women as a way to pretend to be helpful, but then aren’t helpful in situations where women really need help, such as threat, assault or terror. When a man holds a door open for a woman, it means he thinks she is incapable. Really? As the girlfriend of a young man who was raised in the South with Southern charm and good manners and who always opens car doors and hold doors for me, I found this point to be frankly ridiculous and offensive. Both my boyfriend and I know that I can open a door for myself, but for him to open the door for me is an act of respect and politeness, not contempt. I would think that a feminist would be supportive of men holding doors, instead of letting it slam in their faces. What upsets me the most about this point is that there are so many other issues that are more serious and deserve more attention. I think Frye’s time and energy would have been better spent writing an article about men, such as rapists, who actually have no respect for women, and leave men whose grandmothers taught them it was polite to open doors for young ladies out of it.
One of my favorite women in the media is Patti Stanger, the CEO of The Millionaires Club and star of the reality television show The Millionaire Matchmaker on Bravo. While she is a strong, successful independent woman, she is adamant on her show about men opening doors for women and generally following standard procedures of “old-school” manners. She writes on the issue, “For all you strict-equality minded feminists who aren’t married, how’s that working for you? Know that you can have your cake and eat it too, with equal pay for equal work, and still have your car door opened while being treated like a princess. So many men are confused these days, and it’s out own fault. There are actually women out there who say “I can open the door for myself, thank you”, and “Excuse me? I’m perfectly capable of ordering my own food.” The poor guy is only trying to be the gentleman his mother taught him to be, and we are ruining him and confusing him by not allowing him these little acts of chivalry. Then we punish him in our PMS moments when he doesn’t drop everything for us. Blessed is the man who has been rebuffed by bitter women’s libbers but still insists on being a gentleman by helping you with your coat or getting the door for you. He is a nurturer and a caretaker and should be encouraged” (Stanger 2009). I think Johnson would argue that women can’t “have their cake and eat it too”, because opening the door for a woman would be a symptom of the larger system which believes that “women and men are profoundly different in their basic natures...the notion that women are weak and men are strong, that women and children need men to support and protect them” (Johnson). It is potentially the patriarchal culture which both prevents women from equal pay for equal work and continues traditions such as men opening doors for women. It aligns with Johnson’s argument that it isn’t specific misogynist men who promulgate the patriarchy, but an engrained system in which a man can be kind and treat women well, but still participate and continue the cycle of the patriarchy. I tend to agree with Emma though, because it seems like energy could be focused on the social root cause for women’s inequality rather than this specific issue. Men can open doors for women and they can open doors for other men also.
ReplyDeleteI think Levy would respond to Frye and agree with her description of sexual dichotomization, that a woman is either classified as a whore or a prude, but Levy would contribute that now this is not simply a result of men imposing this distinction upon her, but that women actively promulgate those generalizations. Women are just as cruel to each other in slut-shaming as men are. We participate in the labeling and equating of morality and value with sexuality just as they do. Patriarchal society and raunch culture both contribute to this, by giving what Jessica Valenti of Feministing.com aptly summarizes as “abstinence only education during the day and Girls-Gone-Wild commercials at night” (Valenti 10).
http://www.feministing.com/purity_intro.pdf
As a sociology major, my main concern with the Johnson reading was that it discounted an individuals influence on the society as a whole. One of the biggest social theories that we learn as a SOAN major is the theory of symbolic interactionism. This is the idea that we send and receive symbols during our social interactions with other people. If one of those symbols is not recieved properly, it results in an awkward interaction. As humans we try to avoid those interactions. (Morrison 1995).
ReplyDeleteThis is the basis behind the idea of social paths of least resistance. We are always trying to avoid those awkward interactions and in trying to avoid that we tend to go along with the main idea of any individual conversation. There was a study done that showed that the person who starts any conversation controls the direction that it goes in, because everyone else in that group will go along with the conversation because they want to be accepted by everyone in the group and they don't want to cause a disruption.
These theories relate to the Johnson reading because they highlight the effect that one person can have in that individual instance. If one person decides to go against the grain, they change the entire path of that conversation.
I think it is still true that there are outside forces that create and perpetuate the "wrong" ideas in the first place, which was a key point that Johnson made, but I think that Johnson was very negative on the aspect of individual's abilities to redirect those ideas.