Monday, February 8, 2010
Total Institutions
I would have to disagree with the claims of Both “Oppression,” by Marilyn Frye, and “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us". They both talk about the patriarchy system as if it can be fixed. To think about it in a greater context they are forgetting about who else this system is affecting. I am a black man and they have failed to put anything in words about race. Most of the article is speaking about white men and women that do fit into the system. They are white and are already privileged. They both speak about people coming together to create change, but from the looks of it nothing will change. Systems are put in place for reasons, meaning its selective for the people that are chosen. The solution that they have for the oppressed group is not at all a solution. I would have to agree with many of the perspectives that our country finding a solution is very untrue. He explains that patriarchal culture includes and involves people, but cannot be reduced to the people who participate in it because it is a system. What is not being fixed? The more marginalized people that really suffer from the system. Shame on the people who see the system but don't do anything to stop the perpetuation of it. Johnson argues that people who are in the patriarchal society should do something, but they are not. They can't because they love the power, with power comes money. This system trully reflects our current society. I would have to disagree with people who do not believe. To solve these problems of gender inequalities and racism, the patriarchal system must fall. Otherwise "normal "will never change and we will perpetuate the system as long as it will last.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A scholar once told me that if they ever saw a white, male sociologist that they would praise them simply based off the fact that in our society, those in power are subconsiously taught to hold onto that power by any means. Reading these article really forced me to think about what she ment by this. We use things like the "American Dream" to ignore the inequalities in the world by implying that hard work and persistance can get you where you want to be, and that if you are at the top then its because you deserve to be there because you have worked the hardest and therefore if you cant obtain that goal then it becomes your individual problem. it was interesting to me to think about how through this our society makes it hard for those in power to even see that their actions are supressing others because they too have been taught that everone has equal opportunity. I was sitting at lunch with a student who just moved here from Africa and we were talking about relationships and it was refreshingly eerie to hear his percepton of male and female relations. He was talking about how he had cheated on his girlfriend and was very non chalant about it because she had to understand that it was just a male thing to do and then my friend asked him what would happen if she had cheated on him and he responded "the thought of her being dominated by another man is something that i would never be able to forget, it is something that is understood, women in America have so much power but i have learned that they still understand how far they can go with it." And this is so true, women forgive men all the time for cheating and it is internalized that for them to do the same is much worse. Women may appear to have a lot more power than women in Africa but how much more power does a woman have who needs to use her sex appeal and body to obtain that? and how much power can a woman, or a black man have in a society where majority of the people truely believe that everyone is of equal opportunity? I agree that the first step that needs to be taken is realization from EVERYONE of their position in life and the barriers or non barriers that they posses. unfortunately those in power as well as those being supresses are still very ignorant to these things and until then patriarchal norms will never be broken. Anyone who is in power, whether they be women, black, white, gay, ect arent going to want to give up a position in power unless they can truely see how detrimental these heirarchies are to society as a whole
ReplyDeleteI would agree with what Charles is saying in that both articles seem to address the issue of patriarchy in a very white-centered way. However, I think it’s important to remember that these articles are probably not looking at the race dynamic, but the gender dynamic. They are looking to find the faults in the system as they apply to women. That’s not to say that the system does not also fault minorities and other people, but I don’t believe that the goal of these articles was to focus on them. Instead, the articles really only looked seriously at how the patriarchal system related to women. I don’t think it’s right to ignore the race aspect, but to delve into that would probably make the points of the articles entirely different. I’m sure if you looked, there would be many articles dealing with the issue of patriarchy and minorities or race. This is not one of them, but I’m not sure that should be held against it.
ReplyDeleteThe system is flawed, that much is obvious. Charles has a point in saying that it is entirely unlikely that things will change unless those in power feel the need to change it, and for that to happen, they would have to give up that power. Our society is hinged on those who govern us, and I’d imagine it’s probably very idealistic to think that these people would welcome change into a system that provides them with so much. Johnson says that it’s not the individuals, but the individuals working within the system that keep it going. We’re all working in the system, but how many of us can change it? How many would be needed? It’s not an easy question to answer.
To say that the patriarchal system needs to “fall” is easy. But what will go in its place? And is it even possible to entirely collapse a system, a lifestyle, that has been totally engrained in us? I’m not sure that it is.
Frye's article had some pretty good arguments but there were many problems that I had with it. I do believe that many times young women today are confined to two kinds of people, sluts and prudes. However in the same paragraph Frye tries to argue that both sexually active and non-active women who are raped are "subject to the presumption that she liked it". I found this a pretty ridiculous statement lacking in any validity. The birdcage example made a lot of sense with the micro/macro viewpoints. But right after she establishes this theory she uses the example of a guy holding a door for a girl. I think where she goes wrong in this is how she defines the act of holding a door for someone. She calls it an act of helpfullness. I don't think it has anything to do with helping another person. Sure I would definitely hold a door for anyone who had their hands full. But when I hold a door for a girl or even one of my guy friends, it's an act of politeness. In no way am I suggesting that they need help or are subordinate. This was my biggest problem with Frye but who knows maybe I'm still looking at the cage throught a microscope.
ReplyDeleteI think that Johnson is really aiming to describe a problem, not solve it. Our society is indeed a patriarchal one which we all participate in. Shame on everyone because everyone participates in it. It isn't just the responsibility of the CEO's and bosses of America to fix this but everybody's. I think Johnson's monopoly example perfectly describes the problem with the system and how hard it is to break out of it. Johnson compares our society to monopoly because of people's influenced motivations in a fixed environment. When playing the game nobody feels sorry for other players if they can't pay. Like Johnson says the game makes people feel good about being greedy and taking people's money. The same person might feel sorry for that person if they weren't participating in the game. The same thing exists today in the patriarchal system. People act accordingly to the game they are playing and usually it is the path of least resistance. Johnson points out soldiers who take the path of least resistance in their game because they "do what they think is expected of them". Until everyone starts taking the path of most resistance in the our patriarchal system it will continue. And as Johnson says it won't be easy because taking the more resistant path brings more social resistance.
Great thoughts, all! You've done a fantastic job, as a group, of getting at some of the promises and problems with these two essays. You've also done a really nice job of responding to the ideas of other group members. Most of all, I'm thrilled to see that you're now all able to post on your blog! Let's bring up these race-based concerns and other issues in class today.
ReplyDelete