“Oppression” by Marilyn Frye and “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us” by Allan G. Johnson discussed the notion of gender roles through oppression and patriarchy, respectively. Both authors conclude that examining the micro aspects don’t do justice to the issues at hand. Rather a macro perspective is needed.
I found Frye’s “double bind,” in which “options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation,” very interesting because it made sense to me. Her example about young women and their sexual lives holds very true in today’s society. If a female is very flirty she is seen as a whore and without morals. On the other hand, if she is prude, people consider her uptight and sometimes even a lesbian. In the past I have definitely fallen victim to being a person who has called another girl a slut or prude just because of her actions. I feel like this happens a lot at college, especially surrounding parties at frats and the nights at the Jug. When someone sees a girl dancing all up on a guy they consider her to be a whore. However, this does not occur in reverse. Do you know any examples of when men are held to similar standards as females? People do not use words with similar connotations when referring to guys who participate in the same behavior. This is a double standard, which we have discussed in many of our readings thus far. This parallels Levy’s point about men feeling uncomfortable about being the object of a women’s attention. Frye states that this happens to women because they are caged in like birds, which cannot move throughout their cages without experiencing some type of barrier. No matter how a women acts she will receive criticism!
Johnson makes an excellent point early on in the chapter by saying “we can’t understand a system, then, just by looking at the people who participant in it, for it is something larger and has to be understood as such. “ This line shapes the rest of the chapter which goes on to discuss how a macro perspective is needed to truly understand how our society works. I found it very interesting when Johnson mentioned how our society sees men and women. Toughness vs beauty, protectiveness vs vulnerability, and a career vs child caring. If you look at many of the sitcoms and tv shows a couple decades or so ago the gender roles and identities are separated just as Johnson mentions. However, today’s shows capture a much wider range of emotions and characteristics that women were never connected to before. For example, women are now in power positions, Geena Davis played the US President in Commander in Chief, S. Epatha Merkerson, plays the Lieutenant on Law and Order, and Lisa Edelstein plays the Dean on Medicine and hospital administrator on House.
At the end of the chapter Johnson mentions in relation to domestic violence against women “involves everyone who participants in the life of patriarchal society, even though only a minority of individuals may actually do it.” I saw this as a very bold statement because it looks past the individuals who commit the crime to the entire society. He believes that it is society fault that crimes like these occur so frequently. In order to allow change to happen, the society at a whole, a macro perspective, must be looked at. Since the way a society operates shapes the individuals who are a part of it, the beliefs of the society must be changed in order for the individuals to alter their actions. Thus for people to move away from a patriarchy controlled lifestyle, it needs to change at the top and then individuals will be affected in a trickle-down manner. This can be achieved by creating a wider distribution of female roles. I believe that our society has made progress since the feminism era, but there is still more that can be done. Furthermore, women need to use the idea of “sisterhood” and start holding each other accountable. Specifically in relation to women objectifying themselves and others by playing into raunch culture mentioned in Levy’s The Female Chauvinist Pigs. Every women needs to be on board before a complete shift from patriarchy can occur.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can admit to being just as guilty as Marissa when she described labeling girls as either sluts or prudes. I too have spotted many drunk girls flailing their bodies around and grinding on guys at the jug, and remember thinking, wow that girl is out of control, what a slut. But just because girls like to go out and flirt and have fun, or chose to remain abstinent from these behaviors, does not mean they have to be labeled with such negative connotations. As Marissa said, we do not see the same type of negative connotations given to males. The sexually aggressive male is given a pat on the back and considered more of a man if he admits to having multiple "hook ups" in one night, while if a female were to do the same she is automatically viewed as some type of whore. On the other hand, I think the men that actually chose to save themselves for marriage are often given negative connotations just like females. They are seen as being "less than a man" because they are not giving into their sexual instincts, and I think that for this reason many men refrain from making that life decision. I think today's society has really done a number on the way that people view themselves and others. Just because a female wants to let loose and have fun one night at the jug, or a male decides to remove himself from the "hook up culture" does not mean that the are doing anything wrong or that they should be viewed as lower than societies norms.
ReplyDeleteGreat posts for today, all! Marissa, you've done a really wonderful job leading off the discussion today: you offer a clear and thoughtful summary of these readings, and demonstrate beautifully how Johnson and Frye relate to one another. Excellent work -- it was a pleasure to read!
ReplyDelete