The issue of patriarchy is indeed complex, as Marilyn Frye suggests in her essay “Oppression,” and I agree that to fully understand its scope it is necessary survey the ways in which a societal system affect and influence, either subtly or obviously, our daily lives. Johnson suggests a similarly macroscopic approach and asks us to look beyond the individual experiences of patriarchal oppression and instead consider the system as a whole, which interweaves our understanding of what is ‘natural’ with themes of domination and control.
However, I think it is unfair for Frye to assert that women are the only people who are truly bounded by the patriarchy. She advocates a broad view of the problem, but then focuses her essay to the point of exclusion. While I don’t disagree with the points she makes regarding the oppression women experience under the patriarchy, I don’t think it’s fair to ignore ways in which the patriarchy controls and limits ‘appropriate’ forms of masculinity. Frye argues that women and not men are oppressed by the patriarchy because women find themselves caught in a no-win situation. Sexually, they grapple with the Madonna-whore complex: if they are sexually inactive they are seen as asexual or, worse, prudish, while sexual activity puts them at the risk of being labeled easy or a whore. Similar tension exists in the ways that a woman is coerced by the patriarchy into perpetuating it. She cannot speak out against it for fear of being labeled too sensitive and making obvious her femininity, and so must, as Frye says, smile and become invisible.
While all these points are valid and true, many of the anecdotes Frye employs to get her point across—that women are exclusively and especially oppressed by the patriarchy—can be flipped to show ways in which the patriarchy also encourages men to express their masculinity in a narrowly defined way. For example, Frye argues that the ritual of men opening the door for women mocks them and suggests that a woman is incapable. In this way, a seemingly gentlemanly act actually subordinates women, who would be ridiculed for declining the courtesy extended to them. While that reading is certainly justified, I would argue that men are often expected to hold the door, just as women are expected to be grateful for their kindness. Their expected actions as a member of their gender are just as defined as a woman’s. Were they to acknowledge that the woman is capable of holding the door herself, they would be seen as impolite or ungentlemanly, while holding the door can make them seem patronizing or, worse, sexist. Both sexes participate in the patriarchy equally, although they no doubt engage with it in different ways.
I think Johnson is correct by asserting that both sexes are ultimately participating in an oppressive system. Patriarchy defines the ways in which both men and woman should behave, and as such leaves individuals who stray from those narrow definitions, whether it is because unwanted privilege is given to you unbidden or because your access to those same privileges is jeopardized, open to ridicule. As such, the real bind individuals who engage with patriarchy face is whether to go along with the path of least resistance and accept the system that continues to oppress them or to risk ridicule and social devaluation in order to affect change. In my opinion, realizing the extent to which patriarchy, as a system grounded in gender stereotypes and domination, affects all those who impact it is the only way to see the entire birdcage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The something larger we all participate in is patriarchy, which is more than a collection of individuals (such as “men”). It is a system, which means it can’t be reduced to the people who participate in it” (Johnson 30).
ReplyDeleteOur society has a clear structure: men are seen as superior and dominant, whereas women are inferior and submissive. Most people can admit this much. However, when the word “patriarchy” begins to be used, people get nervous and defensive. There is a tendency to blame men, for they are the ones who hold the power and benefit from the current structure. However, as both Johnson and Frye point out, patriarchy is a system, and one we all participate in. This idea that women contribute to their own oppression and their own “erasure” (as Frye says it) can be a difficult one to accept, but I feel one that we must acknowledge if any lasting change is to be enacted. We are all interconnected so change must be a cooperative effort: we cannot magically expect equality without taking responsibility for ourselves and fighting for it. The double bind that Frye describes certain limits our options (Do we want to be a prude or a whore? Passive or a bitch?), but we can (and must) begin to fight back. As Caitlin points out, we cannot continue to take the path of least resistance. As the feminists before us did, we must challenge convention, even if it makes us uncomfortable. Furthermore, we cannot “buy into” the system. As raunch culture has proven, some women have begin to accept the roles that patriarchy has assigned them and see no use, or no need even, to resist.
There is also a tendency to view patriarchy (and other forms of hierarchy, for that matter) on an individual level. However, patriarchy is truly engrained in our entire social structure and all our institutions. It is not the sum of one man treating one woman as inferior; it is an aspect of our culture. When we acknowledge this, we simultaneously acknowledge the many wires of the birdcage that impede woman’s progress. It is the sum of these many forces and many obstacles that make patriarchy so hard to disable. Again though, we cannot allow this to be a deterrent.
The other aspect of patriarchy that is often misunderstood is the role of the male. Patriarchy is not only damaging to the female, as Caitlin explains. Females may be oppressed by the actions of males, but these males are being forced to subscribe to a definition of masculine that is narrowly defined (although perhaps more open than the definition of feminine). If a woman is supposed to be nurturing, a man is supposed to be tough. If a woman is supposed to be passive, a man is supposed to be aggressive. Our society seems to reward these male traits more than female traits (at least in terms of “success”—however it is measured), but males are also in a birdcage. In order to reach a state of equality, we must dismantle these definitions of what is masculine and feminine from both sides and liberate both sexes to be and do whatever they desire, without fear of judgment or exclusion.
I think the way Johnson describes the patriarchal society as a result of our actions and how we take the "path of least resistance" is extremely interesting and applicable to our everyday lives. Johnson says, "If we try to explain patterns of social behavior only in terms of individual people's personalities and motives....then we ignore how behavior is shaped by paths of least resistance found in the systems people participate in." Johnson takes some of the blame away from men in particular and instead shows how we contribute to oppression in all the ways we communicate, relate, and ultimately live our lives.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that sometimes feminists look too far into certain actions or statements, specifically by men. Marilyn Frye discusses how the act of holding a door for a woman is symbolic, and essentially means that women are incapable. I agree with Caitlin that this is also a way to put men in a sort of birdcage…if they don’t hold the door, they are considered to not be a gentleman, but if they do they may be seen as pro-patriarchy (if that’s a word?)
I can easily see both authors’ points of view. I think it is completely legitimate to state that patriarchy is embedded in our society, but I also don’t think women are the only ones who suffer from this. Men who display feminine characteristics are automatically assumed to be homosexual. In addition, women can get away with being virgins because a lot of men find it attractive, and many women see it as respectable. Men on the other hand are expected to be more sexual, and are more likely to be made fun of by their friends if they are virgins.
We all are definitely forced to live in a birdcage…but by all I mean everyone in society; men, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, feminists, etc. With all the diversity in our country we simply can’t expect flawlessness…we simply have to work towards understanding.
Great comments! This issue that Cait raised about masculinity and oppression is a good one -- and a compelling one, as your interest in it as a group demonstrates. You're right: male actions/behaviors/identities are often pre-defined and stereotyped. For Frye, though, this isn't oppression; she (and Johnson) would likely say that in the end, the stereotypes and behaviors prescribed for men are associated with power and privilege. Thus, while they may cause suffering and discomfort on an individual level, they aren't oppressive on a macroscopic level. However, I think your points are good ones: is oppression this black and white?
ReplyDelete