Govoka’s Challenging Men to Reject Gender Stereotypes
Govoka’s main point is not for men to put women at the same level of privilege and status as male’s, but for males to realize what he calls the “myth of male superiority” and reject this image of manhood. Govoka insists that society’s current image of manhood is detrimental to not only women, but also men themselves as they feel the pressure to conform to the domineering, non-feeling mold that society suggests. It is also in men’s best interest to be active in this fight for women’s rights since gender issues should not be left for the female gender to fight. Govoka even suggests that what should be on the top of the male’s agenda is to end domestic violence. Following that, Govoka calls for a change in attitude about sex, echoing the sexual revolution from the 2nd wave of feminism.
This excerpt gave a fresh, new perspective to all the other feminist literature we have been exposed to this semester. Not only is this text written by a male, but is also coming from an international point of view. This not only intrigues me, but also shocks me since I don’t see this kind of activism in America, where we pride ourselves in our democratic ideals. Well, this piece of literature that calls for equality, understanding, and activism is coming from Zimbabwe and I wonder when America will follow suit.
Frye’s Oppression
Just as the word feminism has its problems, Frye brings up problems with the word oppression. Frye claims that the word is often misused and used in such a manner that it loses its power and meaning. Those that are criticized for being oppressors defend themselves by claiming that the oppressed are also oppressed, but by oppressing others. Frye’s response is that this is exactly what she means by misusing the word. In this situation, the defendants are implying that everyone is oppressed and those simple feelings of misery or unhappiness leads to oppression. In this usage, the word oppression is reduced to no meaning at all.
In contrast to that usage, Frye breaks down and examines the make up of the word. After establishing that, Frye suggests that oppressed groups are characterized by the double-bind that society gives it. For example, she brings up the pressure for young women of our age to balance out sexual activity and sexual inactivity – once can’t win in fear of being called “loose” or “too uptight”. This oppressed group – the young females – is “pressed” between two social standards.
Frye also examines the strange in the familiar (C. Wright Mills) – the polite gesture of a man opening a door for a woman. She criticizes this gesture by using a micro and macro approach to reveal how misleading and unreliable a microscope view can be. At the micro level in the isolated event that a man opens a door for a woman, there is nothing wrong with society’s pressure for our men to learn this gesture. However, Frye suggests that the meaning behind that gesture, given a larger historical context, is the incapability of women. For a woman to accept the gesture seems acceptable in this isolated, microscopic view of it, but Frye expands it and questions the reader to translate that gesture to society’s expectations for women to “sit back, relax, and enjoy” all the benefits of being a woman by staying home, being restricted to household chores, and being chaperoned by the men in their lives. Society is suggesting that this is a privilege and should not be seen as oppressive.
Johnson’s Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us
I have wanted to read about this topic – patriarchy as a system where everyone is involved and for men not to feel constantly attacked and left out whenever women’s rights are advocated. This way of thinking is actually hindering social progress. Johnson brings up that it’s also dangerous to blame everything on the “system” because this places no one at fault and there is no motive to change anything since the “system” is perceived as something that is beyond us and external. What Johnson wants to highlight is that we are the ones that make social systems happen and though we don’t think that we can change the rules, we can. Through our participatory roles in social systems, we can either reinforce the social structures or change it. Johnson suggests that socialization and the paths of least resistance shape how we play our roles in society. This way of thinking makes change very difficult because we tend to naturalize the rules already set.
The patriarchic system has a dynamic relationship with the people; “Both exist through the other and neither can exist without the other.” This dependency reminds me of a dialectical relationship. Just as the idea of a master would not exist if there were a slave to contrast from that relationship, the idea of patriarchy would not exist if there were not people acting out the roles and suggesting the legitimacy of patriarchy. As Johnson suggests, patriarchy is a fluid system that can be changed, though the popular belief is that systems are static. If people are the ones creating, influencing, and playing into the system, then people are the ones who can influence and mold patriarchy into something else. Johnson challenges us to look at the ways we “normalize and support…[certain] patterns of behavior.” Most is subconscious due to how engrained patriarchy is in our system, but if we bring this all up to the conscious, we can change the rules and maybe the game itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment