I found Johnson’s way of looking at patriarchy as a system that enables and encourages certain pervasive behaviors very helpful. I liked how Johnson did not excuse women from the system. I understand that the system encourages them to behave in a certain way, but women have the option to not participate in being oppressed just as men have the option to not take the easy route and oppress. All are accountable.
During Johnson’s discussion of crone, witch, bitch and virgin, he refers to a time before patriarchy. Though I acknowledge that patriarchy has changed in its intensity and implementation over time, when is he referring to when there was no patriarchy? I cannot think of a time. He discusses how virgin, for example, now has the negative connotation of inexperience and consequently a poor sexual partner. But even when it was revered, virginity represented almost all lof a woman’s worth. Without it she was not fit for a respectable man - a disaster. I would argue that that is still operating in a male-dominated view.
I couldn’t really go with Frye on a lot of what she was saying. She introduces the idea that when men open the door for women they “Imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women…”. I understand the point she is making. I just do not agree; I think that intention is essential in this circumstance. If the male is intending to be patronizing, yes that is inappropriate. But, if he is just trying to be considerate, I know I appreciate it.
I did like Frye’s discussion of the paradox women are forced into in regards to their sexuality. If a straight woman is a virgin, particularly if she does not even have romantic relationships, “She may be charged with lesbianism.” I did not date in high school. My parents did not allow it for the first years, and the way it was done did not appeal to my ideas of what relationships should be. Beyond no formal, romantic involvement with men, I did not portray most of the other characteristics people typically associated with lesbians. Even still, despite being openly heterosexual, my peers made comments questioning my sexual identity. Now it was never severe or harassing, but this does display an expectation placed on women.
Lead Post 2/8/11:
ReplyDeleteJonah Gokova, “ Challenging Men to Resist Gender Stereotypes”
In this excerpt, Gokova calls for a rejection of the current image of man. He expresses that men need to change their attitudes towards sex and gender issues. They must begin to communicate with women and treat them as equals, rather than oppress and dominate them. He says that living in a patriarchy “forces men, whether they are aware of it or not, to be collaborators in a system that oppresses women. Men deny themselves the experience of being human, particularly insofar as their relationship with women is concerned” (Freedman, 422). Moreover, they are imprisoned by stereotypes. This is exemplified when Gokova says that men in Zimbabwe are not supposed to work in the kitchen because it is perceived as women’s work. They cannot do so because they live in fear of compromising their “manhood” (422). Gokova goes on to say that men need to talk about their assumptions that lead to the oppression of women. He states, “Out of this process, a new definition of manhood is emerging. Men are understanding that the gender struggle is not about lifting women to the position of men”(423). In other words, men need to change their vision of what it means to be a man and develop this new ideology. And thus, a new breed of men will be created.
Marilyn Frye, “Oppression”
Frye begins by stating that the word oppression is applicable to both men and women. She claims that oppression becomes meaningless and equivalent to all human suffering when “the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing” (Frye, P.2). However, to deny that a group is oppressed is perceived as insensitive. And this insensitivity is unladylike. Frye goes on to say that women are caught in double binds. For instance, if a women dresses in a particular way, then it can be assumed that she is advertising her sexual availability. But if she dresses in another way, then she is seen as “unfeminine” or “not [caring]” about her appearance (P.7). This means that they experience “situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation” (P.5). It’s a double-edged sword. Barriers define these experiences. If we look at a birdcage, in relation to women, it may seem as if women are free from a microscopic view. That like the bird, we can just go around any single wire or barrier. However, if we view the cage macroscopically, then we can see a system of barriers to enable oppression. Furthermore, Frye says that many of us fail to see the oppression of women because we are not seeing macroscopically.
Allan G. Johnson, “Patriarchy, the system: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us”
In this excerpt, Johnson focuses on society and its social systems producing social problems. Johnson goes on to say that we are shaped as individuals because of our involvement in social systems. And so, personal identities are formed. He writes, “In addition to socialization, participation in social systems shapes our behavior through patterns of least resistance” (Johnson, 32). However, what does this mean? Johnson defines patterns of least resistance as choices that are comfortable and safe. He says that the only way we can change these systems is by stepping off the path of least resistance. An example of least resistance can be seen in the board game monopoly, in which players feel restricted by the rules and goals of the game.
Later on in the article, Johnson talks about what it is like to live in a patriarchal culture.
Sorry guys, I accidentally read and wrote about the readings from 3/8 instead of 2/8. I will read the readings for tomorrow in the morning and repost. This is my post for what I read just because it was interesting. See you tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI would like to focus on a quote for my post that I think sums up Ettlebrick's entire argument. "The moment we argue, as some among us insist on doing, that we should be treated as equals because we are really just like married couples and hold the same values to be true, we undermine the very purpose of our movement and begin the dangerous process of silencing our different voices" (Ettlebrick 306).
The reason I find this particular quote, and Ettlebrick's argument in general, fascinating is because she is going against what I have heard about gay and lesbian rights for my entire life. I completely agree with Ettlebrick when she says that allowing gay people to marry each other will not necessarily solve all problems that a gay couple might encounter. However, it doesn't make any sense to me that she wouldn't want to be treated equally as a gay woman. While it is clear that gay and straight people are not the same in their sexual preferences, why a gay woman would want to be treated differently in terms of her rights seems peculiar. The fight for equality for gays has been an extremely long and only somewhat successful fight. For Ettlebrick to come out and say that something (gay marriage) that could contribute to equality between gays and straights goes against the purpose of the gay rights movement, makes no sense. I understand that she does not want the voices of gay people to be silenced but that doesn’t mean that something that leads toward equality, such as gay marriage, is a bad thing.
I found Gokova’s “Challenging Men to Resist Gender Stereotypes” very interesting and relatable. He talks about how men need to begin to buy into the feminist movement and treat women with respect and equality. Essentially, a new breed of man must be created because men in our society are dominating and stereotyped. This passage reminded me a lot of the men that we have spoken about in the show 90210. Douglass talks about these men as being ideal men. They are sensitive, caring, non-stereotypical men who don’t care about gender. Douglass talks about this because women see these men on television and are convinced that all men are like that and that there is no need for a feminist movement. Gokova would argue that these men should be used as examples. Instead of turning women away from feminism, the men on shows such as 90210 should act as an example to men all over the world. If this is possible then a new breed of man is possible. All of this being said, I think that Gokova’s central point, that men need to completely change and a new breed of man needs to be created, is quite far fetched. I am always a proponent of taking small steps toward a larger cause and while Gokova’s proposal is nice for an end goal, it is a little too far fetched for me to be able to relate to it very well.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed Aprils point about how women should not be excused from the system. Just like men can choose not to be part of the social norm, oppressing women, so too can women choose not to be oppressed. I always enjoy when an author evens the playing field. There is no doubt that women are oppressed in our society but whenever an author puts men and women on the same level instead of making it seem like women are always the victim I appreciate it.