Response Post Feb. 9

The reading that moved me most today was Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. I took a psychology class called “Race, Racism, and Film” last spring, and we read this article in that class. The professor read some of the statements about white privilege that McIntosh enumerates, and my classmates and I wrote down if we felt the same way as McIntosh or not. We found that, consistent with McIntosh’s argument, white people could identify with the statements much more frequently than people of color.

McIntosh’s article is important for a number of reasons. Because I have read it before, I was not as affected by it the second time around. However, as a white woman, I remember how the article affected me the first time I read it last spring. Her enumerated list is extremely powerful because it makes white people think about “white privilege” in a different way. Before reading the article, I never thought about how people of color may not be able to find band-aids that match their skin tone, or feel that their skin color works against their financial credibility. McIntosh brings up many ideas that I think many white people have never considered before. While I’m fairly confident that most white people have never considered themselves privileged when they are not followed around a store by the salesperson who accuses them of stealing, I’m confident that many people of color have thought about (and encountered) this experience.

One of the points that McIntosh makes is “I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group”. This reminded me of a specific class that I took while I studied abroad in Barcelona, Spain last semester. The program that I was on was extremely homogenous with very little diversity. In a psychology class that I took abroad, there were two African Americans, and we discussed the psychology of racism frequently in that class. For some reason, every SINGLE time that we talked about racial minorities, the professor turned to the African American male in the class and asked him about his “experience” as a minority. The student always handled it well and kept his cool, but if I were him I would have been furious. He should not have been responsible for providing the perspective of a racial minority just because he was one of the few minorities in the classroom. I wonder if that professor has read Peggy McIntosh’s article about white privilege (the professor was white)…something tells me, he has not.

Finally, I want to relate this article to women’s studies, not just to race. McIntosh touches on the fact that men also have an “invisible backpack” full of privileges that they receive just for being men, the same way that white people have privileges just because they are white. I think that if we unpacked this male backpack, we would find a number of items, including: Power in (romantic) relationships, higher pay, more respect in the workplace, less responsibility for housework, and more respect in the departments of math and sciences…just to name a few.

Main Post February 9

Audre Lorde argues that the feminist movement has ignored their greatest strength by not embracing the diversity within the masses of women that share the struggles of patriarchy. She thinks that it has been a mistake (and at some points she makes it sound like a strategy thought up by some international governing board of patriarchy) to teach people that everyone is the same, or that race does not exist and should be ignored. Ignoring race, in Lorde’s opinion, is ignoring the benefits of diversity of experience and creativity. Her article takes on a strong “us versus them” attitude toward the end; she claims that contemporary society’s encouragement of women to educate men (about the female situation) is a distraction tactic used by all oppressors. She also argues that this same “tactic” has been used to put distance between white feminism and women of color or poor women. I find this idea to be particularly confusing because that seems to be exactly what Lorde is doing by expressing this frustration at the conference she is speaking about. I think she has some strong points in that understanding and embracing difference should come naturally to the feminist movement and serve to strengthen it. However, I think Lorde’s emotions complicate her outlook and weaken her ideas, at least as they are articulated in this article.

Peggy McIntosh discusses white privilege as it compares to male privilege and the ways that society has prevented people with these privileges from acknowledging their unearned advantages, even if they recognize the disadvantage of others. As a white, Christian male in America, I have no problem admitting to being fully aware of the many advantages that I did not earn. I can (or will, in the future) identify with every advantage that McIntosh lists and more. Reading this article, I couldn’t help but think of Louis CK’s stand up act on being white (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY).

I don’t think it comes as a surprise that people who are in a power position (whites and males) are reluctant to relinquish that power, regardless of their lack of merit or even their willingness to help others. And I don’t think McIntosh does a particularly good job of showing how relinquishing that power is necessary, or how it will help to make significant change for the better. Granted, big things can be done when people in power use that power to support those that are oppressed. And granted, an understanding of one’s unearned privilege can only broaden your mind and open you to a better understanding of self and society. But McIntosh seems to be arguing that we (males and whites) need to give up that power in order to achieve equality…I think it’s more productive to use that power to promote a broader sharing of these privileges.

I think of it in a way reminiscent of “Good Will Hunting,” the film with Matt Damon, Ben Afflec, and Robin Williams. People are all born into life with no more merit than anyone else, but some are born with extra, albeit unfair, privileges (Will Hunting’s is a prolific gift with numbers). Usually, these advantages are non-transferable. So refusing an opportunity such as a powerful job or any other measure of success does not help another individual or group, it only hurts you. And, Ben Afflec’s character would argue that because he works hard hoping for a similar opportunity, turning it down is just a waste and an insult (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOfFkVCdLQo&feature=related). It’s a strange example, and I understand it is different with race and sex, but I think the message is, in some ways, similar. McIntosh makes a serious, and entirely justified attack on the idea of American Dream. Our society is not merit based, but if people began turning down opportunities, I don’t think it would become any more merit based.

The Black Feminist Statement by the Combahee River Collective is an articulation of black feminist’s position in society and their goals to change it. The article pointed out a few strong points about this demographic that I had not considered (because, like McIntosh says, I have the privilege of not being forced to). This collective of black feminists and lesbians assumes that society views them as the lowest of the social movements. Basically, they acknowledge that to liberate black women means to live in a nearly completely equalized world. The struggles they face are complicated because the nature of their multiple identities (as both a racial minority and women) causes them to occasionally compete with or conflict with one another. This is yet another worry that white women do not have. Black women must have solidarity with black men in their fight for racial equality, but they are constantly aware of their female identity and struggling to see change in the entire society including black men. I think it is a wise choice for this group to encourage the “personal as political” because with so many identities struggling for recognition and equality, it is difficult to have a single agenda. They discuss how they must do what the white women’s feminist movement has failed to do by embracing the marginalized and a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds in order to find the crux of how oppression manifests itself toward their multiple identities simultaneously.

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.

Response Post 2.7

Perhaps I was just in a feisty mood while reading Johnson’s piece, but by the second page of the chapter I found myself bothered. In the opening of the chapter, Johnson takes stabs at American society in a backhanded way, by saying things like “it’d be hard to stir up interest in asking what kind of society would give violent and degrading visions of women’s bodies and human sexuality such a prominent and pervasive place in its culture to begin with” (29). I do agree with Johnson’s main premise that we tend to blame an invisible “system” for societal problems, but I think his argument would be stronger if he just came out and said that he was criticizing American society for not asking important questions about gender discrimination.

Furtermore, I disagree with Johnson’s statement about the general interest in determining what type of society would allow women’s bodies to be degraded. I think that in today’s modern American society, there is a constant discourse about the degradation of women in the media and there is a strong movement against it. In my upbringing at an all-girls school (grades k-12), female empowerment was always a constant topic of discussion both inside and outside the classroom, so perhaps my take on Johnson’s reading is biased. When I have encountered overtly sexist people or ideas in my life, there has always been an opposing voice to counter the sexist voice. For example, the Dove brand of pharmaceuticals has the "campaign for real beauty", which I think serves as a prime example of American society critiquing itself and fighting for gender equality. The Dove ads attempt to dismantle the idea that women have to look like supermodels, and I think the campaign has had some success (see one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U).

Switching gears...Another thing that bothered me about Johnson’s article is that he claims that people have the power to change the system of Patriarchy present in society. While there is no doubt that the members of a society are the only people who can implement change in a system, I think that Johnson needs to be more specific about who has the power to change society. I would argue that, at least in America, white males hold the most power. This may seem like an obvious statement, but this is due to the patriarchal system in America (which Johnson discusses). However, Johnson repeatedly says that the members of society must implement change, but he does not specify who these powerful change-makers are. Unfortunately, I think it would be a mistake to assume that anyone in society has the power to create change, and I think that change must start with white males. It is unlikely that women or racial minority groups would be able to implement nearly as much change as white males can, due to America’s historical discrimination against minority groups.

Leading Post: Govoka, Frye, and Johnson

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.