Gokova: "Challenging Men to Reject Gender Stereotypes"
I decided to write about this reading first because it was my favorite, not only of this weeks assignments, but possibly of the class thus far. I found it particularly interesting and important that the author, for the first time thus far, was not a woman. Jonah Gokova is someone who could be termed a "male feminist" really wrote a stimulating and evocative piece in which he stresses the role that men need to play in order to bring about women's equality. One of the most important things which I found in his writings is when he says gender "struggle is not about lifting women to the position of men. After all, men have been elevated to a super-human position due through patriarchy and the tensions that result from such a life of pretense are high, unhealthy, and unsustainable for men and society in the long term" (423). I thought that this was an interesting idea which i have yet to come across. It goes hand in hand with his argument that "oppression" and gender stereotypes have negatively affected both men and women. I also particularly liked his argument because he acknowledges that men have to join the fight for women's rights because they will never be able to reach it with out their support. In a patriarchal society, it seems, the men have the cards which can alter the game. Now, it is up to them what hand they want to play ...
Marilyn Frye: "Oppression"
Marilyn Frye also talks about the notion of Oppression, which Gokova touches on in his passage. Frye however, takes a more radical route in her definition. Gokova would open the term as a force which negatively impacts both men and women by constraining them within particular stereotypes. It seems to me that Frye has limited her definition to focus mainly on the struggles of women and she almost seems to mock the men who assert that they too have been oppressed. Both Frye and Gokova address how men feel unable to be emotional or cry in front of women due to the social stereotypes which have been forced upon them. Gokova cites this issue as a real one and highlights men too suffer. Frye on the other hand tries to differentiate suffering from oppression and reserves "oppression" for the feminist plight. One area of her argument which i found disturbing and inaccurate is when she was talking about sexual activity. I agreed with her that women are often labeled for being either active or inactive and face punishment and criticism. However when she stated; "If a woman is raped, then if she has been heterosexually active she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since her activity is presumed to show that she likes sex), and if she has not been heterosexually active, she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since she is supposedly 'repressed and frustrated.'" I found this to be a naive argument and one which is hopefully not supported with fact. I understand that there is often times ambiguity about sexual assault and people may twist facts to put the victim on trial, but i in no way agree that doing so is a common or socially accepted behavior. Although i didnt agree with all of Frye's examples (such as rape and the practice of men opening doors for women) i did agree with her overall argument that "whether it is deliberate or not, people can and do fail to see the oppression of women because they fail to see macroscopically and hence fail to see the various elements of stimulation as systematically related in larger schemes."
Allan G. Johnson: "Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us"
To continue on the theme of "oppression" Johnson also discusses the term in great detail. Similarly to Gokova, he relates it to the term "patriarchy." Johnson asserts that the two notions are often intertwined and misunderstood. Of particular interest to Johnson is the differences between the individual and "they system." The implications of not understanding which was the source of oppression, and its role in regards to gender, was an interesting analysis which i hadn't previously considered. It sort of reminds me of the age-old question: which came first the chicken or the egg. What I really enjoyed about this chapter what Johnson's insistence on participation. I think that this idea is a theme that has linked not only the readings for this class, but also all the readings thus far. Johnson asserts that without active participation (of both men and women) advances cannot be made. He even goes as far to claim that without participation in 'the system' there cannot be a sense of an individual. Thus, the individual and the system, often times associated with society, are inherently intertwined and the actions of each affect both groups in a reciprocal manner. This makes it an important challenge for an individual to take participatory action and alter the social norms, such as rejecting a sexist joke. Johnson argues, that only by understanding the system and all of its parts can we, as individuals, strive to make any great changes to the society. Particularly regarding sexual/gender-based violence, Johnson makes the argument that taking responsibility is the only cure. He states, "The choice ... isn't about accepting blame for a system we didn't create. Nor is it about whether to make ourselves better people so that we can consider ourselves about and beyond sexism as a social problem. The choice is how to participate in this system differently so that we can help to change not only ourselves, but the wold that shapes our lives and is, in turn, shaped by them. Ultimately, the choice is about empowering ourselves to take our share of responsibility for the patriarchal legacy that we've all inherited." I suggest some who may have skimmed his chapter, which at times seemed a little extensive, to go back and re-read (as i am sure i will have to do as well) because Johnson makes some great points and has a multitude of ideas hidden within his larger argument of participation and responsibility in regards to the system and the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment