Some of Johnson’s ideas in “Patriarchy, the System…” are similar to theories we’ve already discussed. Johnson and Levy seem to share the idea that women partake in behaviors in society because if they don’t “they risk losing power, rewards, and recognition if they then challenge the same system” and “as a result they often serve patriarchal interests.” I think this notion of serving patriarchal interests is not something women want to do, but rather something they deem as necessary in order to be successful in a male-dominated society. Johnson’s article differed from Levy in that Johnson also viewed this patriarchal society from a man’s point of view. I thought it was interesting, that just as how it becomes ingrained in women that they need to be viewed as the “fairer” sex, men behave certain ways because it is expected and do not want to veer off the path of least resistance.
Johnson also points out that unless we start to examine our issues on a societal level, change will never happen. It is easier, as Johnson suggests, to blame sexual abuse and violence against women on mental illness or bad previous experiences, than to examine our society and how our society might actually perpetuate these behaviors. Until we challenge the path of least resistance, sexist behavior will never be challenged and will never be changed. In order to free ourselves from this oppression that Frye focuses on, it is important to question and examine how our society functions. Another problem stems from the fact that even today a large part of socialization focuses on gender roles. Instead of having girls grow up thinking that “men are the most important things as defined by patriarchal culture,” they should grow up believing they are just as capable as men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A very good post!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would have to agree with everything that Maria has said. I cant help but look at the situations provided in both readings as very one sided and judgmental.... I cant imagine what a guy felt while reading them. For example when Frye goes on her little rant about a man opening the door. Yes she does make valid points, but sometimes overly scorning a gesture like she did may turn away people.
Furthermore, because I occasionally accept and appreciate the door being opened for me, does that make me a factor in keeping us women oppressed? Am I a contributer to why us women are being "Molded"? Should I go out of my way to burst through unopened doors and meanwhile look at the boy and give a self righteous smirk?
When i go out to the jug and want a drink (theoretically speaking) should I blatantly refuse when a guy offers to get me a refreshment?
Does everything have to be so calculated and so oppressive to women?
I truly appreciate Frye's view on how certain women are labelled, I agree it is wrong and society need's to change it's thinking. These barriers we do not see as a huge threat induvidually, but together they are keeping us from spreading our wings. I just do not see how we can change things that have been instilled in our culture, and do not plan on going anywhere anytime soon.
These actions will forever be hard to change because we as women like these things. We like when a guy opens the door with a nervous smile. and we feel good when a man orders a drink, and intentionally brushes our hand when giving it.
Having the idea about tackling path of least resistance is great. But actually putting things into motion is a totally different story.
Like Brittany, my post will emphasize Frye' article, "Oppression" more than Johnson's chapter about patriarchy. I think it's acceptable and completely valid for Frye to cite the example of heterosexually active vs. heterosexually nonactive women as an instance of oppression for women. These women can't win -- they have to fit into a single category; of course, why would a woman choose to be promiscuous just because she wants to, or on the other hand, choose not to sleep with anyone just because she doesn't want to? Frye is right in the way she describes how women are caught; they are constantly being pushed to do one thing, pulled to do another, it's very hard for women in particular to please everyone in the way they act, talk, dress, etc. They'll often be labelled as one thing or another regardless of what they do. There are inherent tensions that exist as a result of being a woman, especially in Western society during the 21st century -- there are unavoidable forces that shape and mold who we are and who we will be and how we appear to those around us.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, like Brittany, I agree that Frye is off the mark when she talks about gestures like men holding the door for women as being a signal of our oppression. It might seem like we're the inferior sex because we need the "big, strong men" to hold the heavy door open for us, but I don't think it's about oppression. This example is more about respect, and politeness. When I hold the door for a man, am I asserting myself as more masculine? Am I oppressing him? I don't think so. For this example to hold merit, it has to go the same both ways in my opinion, and I honestly don't think it is. The oppression we as women need to focus on is the one that we witness every day, but we are programmed to ignore -- the way people talk to us, look at us, judge us, etc. These are not always easy to spot, but rather than focus on arbitrary examples like men holding the door for us, we should be looking at the more discrete cases of oppression, and try to combat those first.
I think Johnson's and Frye's articles go hand in hand in the sense that in a patriarchal system which puts men in a superior role and women in the inferior role, women are inevitably oppressed. I think if Levy were to read these articles she would agree that the system oppresses women, but even more that women embrace this system and try to assume the appropriate roles that society has constructed and labeled as adequate for women. However it is nearly impossible for women to act and make decisions without being criticized or labeled for acting inappropriately, as Lisa and Brittany have pointed out. I particularly liked the example that Lisa used from Frye's article in which if a woman is too sexually active she is labeled a whore, but if a woman is not sexually active she is labeled a prude or questioned about her sexual orientation. Women, in this case, are undoubtedly oppressed and as Frye explains in her article, women are hindered by this "double bind" and can never seem to please everyone. But as Levy would point out, it's not just the men who are labeling these women as whores or prudes, it is other women as well, who feel the need to criticize other women to make themselves feel integrated into the society.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with Frye in the sense that women cannot escape critical labels regardless of the decisions they make, I do also think criticism and labeling is so deeply embedded in Western culture, not only towards women but towards all types of people, men included. Perhaps men are not nearly as criticized for their sexual activity, but consider a man who is ridiculously muscular, he could possibly be labeled as a meat head, but a man who is skinny and lacks a well-toned body would be criticized for being less of a man to some degree. Thus these criticisms and labels exist everywhere with all type of people. Yet I think the difference with regard to women is that these criticisms and labels exist in almost every aspect of life, not simply in sexual activity or body image. I think this is what Frye is getting at when she talks about the macroscopic view, because if we do take a macroscopic view of women and their role in society, it is clear that women do deal with this "double bind" is almost every aspect of life.