Monday, September 20, 2010
Oppression and Patriarchy Monday 9/20/10
After reading "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye and "Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us" by Allan G. Johnson, I found that I had very different reactions to both. I really appreciated what Frye had to say in regards to females being oppressed, but found that I was getting slightly annoyed with Johnson the more I read. Frye really made me reevaluate what I saw as societal norms and really stop to think if there was an oppressive undertone to them. The example that she gave about the men opening the door, is the one that stood out for me the most. I have to admit, that I am guilty of continuing this tradition. If I am walking with a male I subconsciously fall back and let him open the door, and if he does not I find that I am almost a little surprised. However, the way that Frye presents the occurrence as being "false helpfulness" it forced me to think about other simple acts that could be viewed in the same light. It was men carrying out a simple act that was not strenuous for them mentally or physically (most of the time) but gave females the impression that they were there to help them. However, when females really need assistance such as walking home late at night alone, males are more often than not, not present. This is just one example of what both Frye and Johnson are stating that the issues of oppression and patriarchy are problems that can be solved on an individual basis. Small acts may not appear to be damaging to female rights, but when viewed as a small part of a larger society, we can see how small problems compile to make a huge one. Johnson, as well as Frye, was careful to emphasize that the issues that women were facing were not a direct result of a person or a group of persons. It instead is society as a whole. It is the system that we have set in place that allows oppression to continue. One of Johnson's points that I did agree with was that in order to understand the oppressive nature of the system we have to recognize the defining elements of the system, the relationships with other people in the system, and the symbols and ideas that we believe are real in society. These are what allows society to become oppressive, rather than a single group, for example men. As Johnson noted, we are the ones that give the system power, but like in monopoly, no one ever thinks to change the rules. Both of these articles are encouraging us to take a more proactive stance on the problems facing us as a whole rather than targeting specific members of society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I felt the same way about the Johnson article. While he does bring up valid points, I kept finding myself wanting to not read this article. I agree that change must start on an individual level. But how long is that going to take to get the whole "system" to change? Even if one person changes, our societal "norms" will still be intact. Patterns would stay persistent in our everyday behaviors for we unconsciously choose to act in a certain way. Johnson says "to live in a patriarchy is to breathe in misogynist images of women as objectified sexual property valued primarily for their usefulness to men." While we do see females objectified, I would have to disagree with this statement. We see in the media more images of women in power that are presented in a positive light. And they have the power to choose what they want to do with their lives.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely have to agree with Emily that both these articles are encouraging women to face these issues head on as a whole--as individuals in a society. As Johnson explained, we must realize that "we all participate in something larger than ourselves, something we didn't create but that we have the power to affect through the choices we make about how to participate" (29). And it's hard to make those choices because our social system limits our options. It blinds us from thinking and doing things outside "the norm". Johnson was describing how we tend to just do things that make us most comfortable and safe but if we are more aware and able to make informed choices, that is when we can truly make a difference--when individuals learn how to participate and be apart of a social life...Once we begin to step outside of the norm and start making decisions for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI also tend to step back when walking with a guy to allow him to open the door. However, when I am the one to open the door, I feel like I have done a big favor and really stepped out of my role and the guy should feel honored or embarassed that he was not quick enough to be the gentleman. Its really eye-opening now that I think about this 'small acts' through the new perspective Johnson has awarded me. Yes these small acts are nice and thoughtful but should not be seen as a man's only duty. Opening a door cannot be the extent to which a man extends himself for a woman.
ReplyDeleteIt is also true that on campus, it is infrequent that a guy will leave a frat party to walk a girl home simply because she is scared. Now obviously Hamilton is a small town and there is not much danger but I have friends who are scared to walk home alone at night. There is still a fear in many students. However, is this always necessarily a male's role? Can girls not walk other girls home? Is this a male's job even if he doesn't necessarily carry it out? And by assuming that it is a male job, is this a form of stereotyping?