Combating Oppression

On NPR’s This American Life, the show featured stories pertaining to the idea of long shots or people overcoming the presumed impossible. The first story was about a man, John Smith, that received parole after 30 years in prison for murder only to be denied in the final stages by the governor. Devastated, he continued to try against all odds to attain parole again. He had done everything right while in jail and was the perfect candidate to be released, yet he was literally captivated behind bars. The idea of a man kept behind bars despite his impeccable record and also under the impression he would never be released seemed to parallel our discussion on Frye’s “Oppression” essay. While in class, I sat there wondering if there was even a possibility that despite all odds the ways of our society would change. We have a book over 800 pages long full of essays creating awareness of the sexist system we live in, yet men and women both seem under aware of the changes psychologically, politically, and economically that need to take place. It almost seemed discouraging, because despite all these women’s work there is still no formula or correct way to solve this sexist system that we deem normal in our society.

The prisoner on the show and our discussion of the individual trying to overcome the system of oppression we live in seem to have similarities. While in jail, the prisoner did everything right to keep a perfect record. When women see themselves as individuals fighting against the system, we try to do everything “right.” We open the door for ourselves as a way to try to raise awareness. We pay for our own meals. We work our way to the top of the company. We fight against all odds, yet the bars of our society are still there. Our individual work does not represent the issue as a whole, because every time I act I act as a student, a daughter, a friend etc, just as the John Smith does not act as himself but rather as a prisoner, a killer, an unforgivable person. We can fight against the presumed characteristics of oppression, but the bars are still there.

It seems to me that there is a long shot that the system will change soon. Of course there will be subtle changes, but a drastic change needs to take place in both men and women as well as the society we live in. It seems a little overwhelming, but there is a chance that with women opposing oppression, they can overturn the system. John Smith fought against all odds and in the end his case was approved and he received his freedom. The story made me start thinking to what extreme would it take for the system to be overturned and how would we achieve this? It may be done little by little over time as we have seen, but is there a quicker way to change our sexist system?

Assumptions Regarding Educational Interests

During my pursuit of an education minor at Rhodes I have experienced an intersection between Frye’s Oppression and Bartky’s Psychological Oppression. Apparently, when I decided to pursue an education minor, my education chair advisor and professors automatically assumed that I would be leaning towards becoming a professor. While I do not rule this option out, it was definitely not my first option, as I would prefer to teach middle school if I chose teaching as a profession. However this assumption represents some of the aspects of oppression that Frye and Bartky note. First would be stereotyping, as it is uncommon for males to pursue teaching in the elementary and middle school levels (though this is currently changing), as the assumption is that it is a “woman’s job,” because some would (unrightfully) assume that a woman role to take care of children. It seems that my professors had the same stereotype in mind, as they did not fathom I would prefer teacher children of a younger age than college or high school. While this hardly as oppressive as the kinds of psychological oppression that women experience everyday, it is an interesting oddity, and reinforces Frye’s notions of oppression. She asserts that women are oppressed as women by men, and it is possible that my choice is seen as radical because men’s collective wills have forced the job of school teacher (unless it is a coach, I assume, which again, is another stereotype). That is why this is really not a strict form of oppression; because other men have regulated this notion of teaching that make this such an oddity.

Current literature in the education and ethical field do not aid the stereotypes, as one of the books that I have encountered multiple times throughout my college career might be guilty of such reinforcement: Nel Noddings’ Caring. I tend to agree with her notions of ethical relationships as mirroring a mother’s relationship to her child, although it does not weaken the stereotype that women should only teacher smaller children due to their caring nature. Her insistence on using the feminine as the caring and the cared-for as the masculine (which has nothing to do with gender, I know) only reassert why men would probably keep holding to the notion that women should continue to only elementary aged children and not pursue a doctorate to be a professor.

Once again, this is hardly oppressive, just an observation I have witnessed. It is in no way the equivalent of the inhumane psychological oppression that women have to face everyday

Viva la Revolucion! Down with the Master’s House!

So Thursday we got around to discussing Audre Lourde’s The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” It begs some interesting questions, especially in terms of how to effectively do feminist scholarship. Lourde makes the point that, “It is particular academic arrogance to assume any discussion of feminist theory without examining our many differences, and without a significant input from poor women, Black and Third World women, and lesbians.” Unfortunately I’ve noticed that in the fight for any kind of equal rights, a given group will unite under one cause that doesn’t say much about the diversity of the unit as a collection of individuals. For the Civil Rights Movement it was, of course, racial equality. For the feminist movement it was gender rights but each of these groups always seem to have left of a marginal group, who would still remain oppressed while sacrificing their needs to the good of the movement. Real revolution, as Lourde states, comes when women can recognize one another’s differences and use their nurturing power to genuinely come together for complete change. It begs the question whether, to some degree, the strides of feminist theory have been busy work. Has it been like making a long list of things to do and marking some things off but leaving the larger issues for later. It makes one feel accomplished but you still have a lot to do.

An important facet of oppression in that it doesn’t affect one area of life it is intersectional. However intersectionality recognizes that, although all black people may be affected by the race issue, women have a different narrative than men and homosexuals from heterosexuals. I agree with Lourde when she says that, “It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths.” Structures don’t change very much once they’re in place, but people change and they become more knowledgeable. Autonomy is something that has become an important part of American being ( I’ll limit it to American, until I’ve had the opportunity to further observe our international brethren and sistren), and thus folks are always trying to separate themselves. Even in organizations we all want our own niche, if you will, but it does such a great job of keeping us apart that it masks deeper issues that would come out if we interacted. There’s a lot of inter-verbs in life guys: interact, international, interdependent, intersectional, interfaith. This, I feel, is the structure of the master’s house. Divide and conquer which Lourde talks about in terms of feminist theory, “The failure of academic feminists to recognize difference as a crucial strength is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson. In our world, divide and conquer must become define and empower.”

Well there you have it folks. I think this statement has such broader implications to other issues but the point is we have to get around the campfire and get to know one another so that we can tear down the master’s house with our tools. Peace, Love and Unity. Viva la revolución!

Either/Or

This is a really good article about gender, it raises alot of perplexing and interesting questions. It is about the South African runner, Caster Semenya, and "multi-gendered" people. Its long but worth the read. Enjoy
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/30/091130fa_fact_levy

Is a woman who Accepts Her Life in The Birdcage Sexist

I understand the concept of the birdcage, and how there are many small acts that constitute the birdcage that oppresses women. However, what if a woman enters the birdcage of her own free-will? What if a woman feels that she should be a housewife and cook, clean, etc. Would this woman be a sexist for preferring this kind of treatment. If she thinks that men should open the door women does that make her as bad as the men that commit the act or possibly worse. I feel like the answer to this question would be yes according to Frye. She would be perpetuating a system of oppression toward women. She would be just as responsible as the men in the system.

This idea makes me think back to the argument we had in class that a black person is not a racist if they say something racist against white people. What if a person said something racist about their own race, is this person racist, or is this person exempt. Same thing what if a woman thinks that there are certain tasks men should do, and certain tasks women should do. Is she a sexist?

This thought takes me to my next point. Like I said earlier Frye would say that this woman is possibly a sexist by entering the birdcage of her own freewill. However would Frye say that this woman should not be allowed to make these decisions because they harm the rest of the women. It seems to me that women have at least in small part a choice. They don’t have to be in the birdcage, they can refuse to enter building when a man is opening the door for them, they can pay for their half of the meal, etc. etc. I know there are exceptions like women’s wages in comparison to men’s however not all of it is out of their control. Would Frye say that this person is making an immoral choice by entering the birdcage, and should not make those decisions, can the feminism restrict the choices that women have? I’m trying to argue that Feminism makes it seem like being a homemaker is an occupation a woman should be ashamed to have. That a woman should not make those choices, even if it is something that they really want to do. It seems to me that the philosophy is more trying to gear women toward being like men, rather than having the opportunity to be whatever they want.

Are softball players lesbians? I shouldn't care, but I do.

Last semester, the athletics department brought in an inspirational speaker to drill us about the worthwhile aspects of physical competition and the negative aspects of athletic stereotyping. The speaker, a charismatic former basketball player, put us through an activity in stereotyping. When she spoke a statement, we were to stand up if we agreed. Most of the stereotypes were simple: ‘Athletes are cliquish,’ ‘Non-athletes don’t understand the stress of being an athlete,’ and ‘Sorority girls are dumb.’ Then she got to riskier ones, especially knowing the conservative nature of Rhodes students: ‘I’m uncertain around Arabs at the airport’ and ‘gay men scare me’. The atmosphere was tense, but a scattering of students stood for each statement. Then she got to the kicker, the only one that united all of the athletes in agreement, “Most softball players are lesbians.”

Everyone in the room stood up and turned around to grin at us in the back. We rolled our eyes and shot our friends the bird, not really surprised at all by the question or their reaction. We probably should have been. Because even while none of those other athletes meant harm to us as a softball team or harm to lesbians for their life choice, the flippancy of their reaction and the embarrassment of our team as a whole was a sign that we acknowledge the stereotype and allow it to continue. Through our passivity, we signal to our fellow athletes that it is okay to group us as a 'butch' team. Through passivity, we participate in our own oppression.

In her essay on oppression, Marilyn Frye discusses the double standards and stereotypes that signify the oppression of women in this country. Women who wear certain clothes are either easy or frigid, women who act a certain way want to be raped, and women who are sexually active and others who aren’t both remain at fault for not being the other. In a society that expects so much of us from a myriad of subtle angles, it really is no wonder that everyone assumes softball players are lesbians and without wondering why. There is no other way to quantify the existence of so many double standards than to reify certain stereotypes into everyday life. As a team, we reify the stereotype by being embarrassed by it. By being insensitive to the ramifications such a stereotype means to others, we continue the process in its most hurtful phase, one where we acknowledge that it would be a bad thing to be mislabeled as lesbians, and not just because it stops us from getting dates.

What I wonder, when reading articles by Lorde, Frye, and McIntosh, is how gender oppression got to be such an ingrained, normative aspect of life. Is our embarrassment as a team at being confused for lesbians some vestige of the endless embarrassment other women passed down for generations? Do we as women sabotage our own chances at breaking the metaphorical cage? That we allow such stereotypes to exist, without fighting them for what they are rather than what they say about us, seems like an obvious point to criticize. But as McIntosh points out in her “White Privilege and Male Privilege,” sexism is not always obvious, especially to those who perpetrate it.

Ignorance or Education

Naturally, I have been noticing lately the sex of the people for whom I open doors. On my way to the second class session with Molly, she opened the first door to Buckman, while I opened the second. I also opened the third, as I had simply hopped up the stairs more quickly. My initial response to the door-opening question was similar to probably most other males in the class, that I open doors for everyone. I would roundly deny Prof. Johnson’s claim that I would be more likely to hold a door open for a student or faculty member than a groundskeeper or cleaning person. This is not a testament to some zealous door-opening campaign, but more evidence of an ingrained practice I deem “nice.” Sometimes doors actually are more difficult to open, such as those to Frazier-Jelke or the front doors to Palmer. I have watched women struggle with these doors. However, I recognize that these examples are outliers to the general rule of door-opening constituting a bar to the metaphorical birdcage.

Just as my environmental ethics class is causing me to pause at the possibility of ordering a meat dish, this class has already caused pause in my daily activities, such as door-opening. The list of bars is extensive, and I have been disgusted for some time at how women are conceived in the minds of most men. I can trace this line of thinking primarily to a break consciously made with the ideals of my father, the conservative, sexist, racist, draconian ex-husband of my mother, generally a pig of a man. He’s one of those vulgar “I’m God’s gift to women” sorts of men who talks with his mouth full, constantly. The point is that we can generally predict never finding him in a feminist philosophy class. Personally, I took this class on practical grounds, to complete my major in philosophy and to counteract the sour taste of feminism that popular culture transmits to young people, portraying them as bitches, snobby and boisterous. It seems obvious to me that notice must be given to the conditions of oppression, but it seems to be a fairly liberal group who takes feminist considerations to heart. But what are we to do about those who do not consider them valid or who actively ignore them?

I’m concerned with the outrage in Audre Lorde’s presentation to the Second Sex Conference in New York, 1979. Near the close of her paper she states that the call for women to “stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs” is the primary tool which oppressing males use to “keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns,” (51). She likewise condemns the call for black women to educate white women about their differences as “a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought,” (51). While I would probably have shared her dismay over the small number of black or lesbian commentators at the conference, her final statements unsettled me. Is it the task of the few males who take feminist considerations seriously to sort of proselytize fellow males? Such a suggestion seems to be the only alternative, though ultimately ineffective. Perhaps Lorde’s frustration is double as her paper is doing exactly what she considers a “diversion of energies,” educating the white feminist scholars at the conference on the importance of difference as it relates to creative capacity. The more diverse voices in a room, the broader array of experience explored, the more knowledgeable one becomes on an issue. Thus, her apology for recognition of difference represents to me a reworking of the lesson of perspectivism.