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.