Response Post Feb. 8

I thought that these articles brought something new to the discussions we’ve had up until now. They each had a little different approach to the issue and broadened the focus on the concepts of oppression, patriarchy, and stereotypes. I think Govoka makes a good argument for the idea that anyone who lives in a society with such defined roles and behavioral expectations is being oppressed, or pressured. It is refreshing to consider that not every man is basking in the glow of patriarchy and feels totally content with the way our society has taken shape. I don’t think that I liked this argument solely because I am male, either; I think it is one of the more promising approaches for female advancement because it takes into account more fully the entire scope of our society’s pressures, which any progressive movement must be aware of.

Frye’s strongest argument comes in the discussion about terminology and the complications that accompany some of the words associated with feminism. Frye is right to expand “oppression” more broadly to apply to any kind of pressure, because contemporary society pushes people in many different directions back to a “norm,” not just down. Her discussion on the “male door opening ritual” makes a surprisingly strong argument. But…I’m still going to do it. I don’t think it is impossible for these gestures to continue without a mentality of superiority or suppression attached to them. Also, my mother would kill me if I stopped performing the manners she taught me, even if it were in the name of feminism.

Johnson’s discussion of patriarchy and the paths of least resistance, in my opinion, offer some of the most encouraging and logical approaches to making changes in this society. It seems like a more academic explanation of things we learned in first grade. It’s a more grown up version of the idea we were all taught early in life: “if a bully makes fun of someone, do what is right and don’t be tempted to join the bullying.” But there are some complications to enacting this strategy.

For example, I have to respectfully disagree with Callie’s assessment of the Dove campaign. Even though I respect the company for trying something different, I think the Dove campaign still puts these women on display as the “other” type of women. Perhaps they have the best intentions in mind, and perhaps I only think this because their ad campaign still stands relatively alone, but undoubtedly when an American viewer looks at those ads they think “its nice that those girls who aren’t beautiful in the conventional sense are getting on TV.” At this point in time, ads like that give a primary message that these women are not what we are used to seeing, rather than showcasing them as what is normal/good/beautiful.