There is always a problem with the system, no matter who you are or where you are from. In America, there are a lot of issues with our notion of a patriarchy, a system formed by men to serve men. The standard or ideal family format in the US is to have the father work a job, nine to five, to support the family while the mother stays at home and takes care of the kids and has dinner ready when dad gets home, of course this doesn't much hold true anymore for as far as I know. My parents both worked a nine to five job, but my dad also worked several other jobs in his time off, while my mom would take care of me and my sister. I guess in a way they do kind of meet the standard. Would this type of family system be considered as taking the path of least resistance, conforming to the way our society says it should?
In Frye's article, she speaks of oppression and how women are oppressed by labels given to men in relation to their sexual activity or how they express their emotions. Will I admit to participating in such labeling? I'm not going to deny it but I do not actively try and label every woman I see, and it is not just men that do these things, I have heard, on countless occasions, a woman calling another woman a slut or whatever. But that could just be some of the things we have talked about with women trying to "get it."
Andrew brought a number of interesting points in his post. First of all I would not say that his family took the path of least resistance because his mother stayed home after her nine to five job. I think it is important to note that even though it is important for parents to work and have successful careers, they still do have children to care for. Someone had to take care of Andrew and his sister after 5 pm. Additionally, Andrew discussed labeling women for sexual activity. Although he did bring up a very accurate point of women calling one another sluts or bitches there is still a discrepancy with men. Do men call each other manwhores or do they pat each other on the butt if they have a "successful" night? I would lean towards the latter, but yes I think it is important that Andrew brought up the point that women have the tendency to put down their own gender. Overall I think Andrew discussed a number of important points in his post and provided thought provoking questions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Andrew's first sentence. The problem is the system. The problem is always the system. But movie producers aren't going to risk making money to cut out pornography and rape scenes in movies. And a women isn't going to sacrifice her own success to stand up to the ideals of patriarchy. The problem, clearly, is this system of patriarchy. But how exactly, or should I say realistically, going to change. I disagree with Johnson when she says "we are involved, if only by our silence." I don't think it is fair to ask everyone to sacrifice their professions or relationships or social status to stand up to the system. Just because I am silent, it doesn't mean i am pro-patriarchy. I don't think Andrew's family schedule conforms to this "path of least resistance" at all. Both parents work, but his mother just comes home earlier than his father. With my parents, its the other way around. My dad was there when I was growing up and my mom was the one who was always working. I don't think something as simple as one parent coming home earlier than the other is at all, "conforming to society." As far as the Frye article, I agree that women are oppressed. I disagree that men are not oppressed. I like when a guy opens a door for me, I can't say why but I just do. I don't think it's fair to claim that by participating in that simple gesture I am fueling oppression. May I just "get it" or maybe I don't get it. All I know is that when my boyfriend opens the door for me, I am happy. Isn't that enough?
ReplyDeleteFrye does get one thing right..."The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic." Yes opening the door for a woman is symbolic, but its symbolic of a respect that has been engrained into our culture for hundreds of years...by mothers nonetheless. I can't go anywhere with my mom without her yelling at me for not holding the door for her, or any other women we're with for that fact. I think there could be much worse than walking around and never having to open a door.
ReplyDeleteThe prude or slut dichotomy, believe it or not, does exist within the male population. Shocker right? In a world that is becoming ever increasingly gay-friendly, pressure builds on the so-called 'straight' populations of men to assert their heterosexuality on a daily basis. Men risk the same ostracization from their male counterparts that women may encounter. If a guy does not get enough girls then he may be called 'gay' or a 'fag' . Likewise, if a guy was a virgin past a certain age, it would not be unjustified for him to be wary of people finding out, lest he be made into a joke. A guy who is overly sexually active may be respected by some for it, but many, including women will often consider him to be a scumbag which isn't very desirable either.
Good thoughts, all. You've each done a nice job pointing out some of the difficulties with Frye's association of oppression with women, and her door-opening example. What do you think Johnson would say about either of these parts of her argument? Further, despite the problems with Frye (and Johnson), what's useful and/or thought-provoking about these readings? Especially in the case of the lead post, your group needs to summarize the arguments presented in these readings, and think about how these authors' arguments compare/contrast, and THEN move on to discuss why you agree and/or disagree.
ReplyDelete