Part One
The paper seeks to address several questions about oppression.
1) Can a structure be oppressive if the "oppressed" are oppressed because of their own choices
2) Why do the "oppressed" sometimes seem to help in their own oppression
To answer the first question, Cudd points out that it is not that people don't have choices- it's that they don't have any GOOD choices. Her example is this: you're being robbed. You have two choices- give up and losing your property, or fight back and maybe die or being harmed. You have a choice. Your oppression will result from your choice. But you don't have a GOOD, non-oppressive choice. You're coerced into this.
Marxism also follows with this idea- "the working class is exploited or oppressed through its limited choices".
The second question of why the oppressed seem to help in their own oppression might be answered by the fact that, in the example of women, they "are shaped by society to see their situation as natural, inevitable, and some times even preferable." When one doesn't see any better choices, the options all seem to reinforce one's own oppression. There's no real out.
Part Two
Criteria of Oppression
1) needs to have physical or psychological harm, although the oppressed don't need to recognize it as harm
2) oppressed group identifiable independent of oppression- one suffers oppression just by being a part of this group- it's a part of self image
3) some group benefits from oppression- there is a group who suffers and a group who benefits from oppression
4) oppression must involve some coercion or force- it can, however, be subtle and not recognized
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Black Oppression of Black People- Last Walker, I promise
The final point that really jumped out at me from Walker's essay was the part towards the end where it talks about the oppression of blacks, namely black men. The wife reads statistics about how black men were oppressed after the Civil War, how many were abused during what time periods, etc.
There was one line that she skips over pretty much, but that jumps out at the husband. It was, "There were also a number of Black women lynched." Walker then says that maybe the wife didn't dwell on that point because in a way, she is still the more oppressed gender of the race- and so she can't dwell on the fact that, for her, the situation really hasn't changed so much. The man can look at the idea of women being lynched from a distance, because he is much less oppressed. For her, it is still reality.
The point comes up that the power relationships have changed dramatically. Where in the past, it was whites over blacks, now it is men over women. There is still some of the racial elements. But if you look within both the white community and the black community, it is male power over women. This transcends the racial category, suggesting that gender imbalances are stronger than racial imbalances. "...[W]omen... have in a sense become uppity niggers. As the Black man threatens the white man's masculinity and power, so now do women."
There was one line that she skips over pretty much, but that jumps out at the husband. It was, "There were also a number of Black women lynched." Walker then says that maybe the wife didn't dwell on that point because in a way, she is still the more oppressed gender of the race- and so she can't dwell on the fact that, for her, the situation really hasn't changed so much. The man can look at the idea of women being lynched from a distance, because he is much less oppressed. For her, it is still reality.
The point comes up that the power relationships have changed dramatically. Where in the past, it was whites over blacks, now it is men over women. There is still some of the racial elements. But if you look within both the white community and the black community, it is male power over women. This transcends the racial category, suggesting that gender imbalances are stronger than racial imbalances. "...[W]omen... have in a sense become uppity niggers. As the Black man threatens the white man's masculinity and power, so now do women."
Some more Walker
Additionally, there was a large segment of the piece regarding lesbianism. It was interesting to read how people can view lesbians in one context and approve, while in another, the opposite view is taken. For example, the husband doesn't mind looking at "phony lesbians" in the context of porn- in fact, it's kind of a forbidden fantasy, something that really captures his attention. However, when his wife is reading to him, he accuses the author of being a "dyke" and basically says all her words are discredited because of her supposed sexual orientation. This struck me as one of the double binds that Frye talked about- what are women allowed to say or be in certain circumstances.
Another example of the double bind is when the husband is looking forward in life and imagines that he can no longer be with his wife. Because she spoke her mind, she isn't sexually attractive to him anymore. But if she didn't speak her mind, she wouldn't be true to herself. She doesn't have a good option at this point.
Also in that paragraph, the husband thinks, "He feels oppressed by her incipient struggle, and feels somehow as if her struggle to change the pleasure he has enjoyed is a violation of his rights." This goes back to Frye's point that people can struggle and suffer and have aspects of oppression present in their lives, without truly being oppressed. I feel that this is an example of that. He had one bar of the bird cage placed in front of him... she lived with all the bars. Back to microscopic vs. macroscopic views of oppression.
Another example of the double bind is when the husband is looking forward in life and imagines that he can no longer be with his wife. Because she spoke her mind, she isn't sexually attractive to him anymore. But if she didn't speak her mind, she wouldn't be true to herself. She doesn't have a good option at this point.
Also in that paragraph, the husband thinks, "He feels oppressed by her incipient struggle, and feels somehow as if her struggle to change the pleasure he has enjoyed is a violation of his rights." This goes back to Frye's point that people can struggle and suffer and have aspects of oppression present in their lives, without truly being oppressed. I feel that this is an example of that. He had one bar of the bird cage placed in front of him... she lived with all the bars. Back to microscopic vs. macroscopic views of oppression.
Coming Apart by Walker
I felt like with this story, it was easy to see many of the things that Frye talked about in her piece "Oppression"... in the format of a story. The tool of oppression in Walker's piece is pornography.
On the first page, the woman recognizes that her concerns won't be taken seriously... her husband responds with "You are being silly/a prude and/ ridiculous. You know I love you." It made me think of when Frye talked about women's physical restraint. This is an example of verbal restraint- she's not going to say anything or push the issue because she'll just get mocked. It doesn't benefit her... it benefits him.
Throughout the whole piece, there are so many examples of where women are treated as things... white and black women, by white and black men. But especially horrible, to me and to Walker, is the treatment of black women by black men.
The first example is when the wife is standing a little ways behind her husband. She immediately gets questions about her "working"... is she for sale? Her husband struggles at first, but then gets his head around the idea that this is a compliment- his wife is good looking. The second example is related to the first- she's behind him a ways because she stopped to stare in disgust at 4 life size plastic dolls. Women are toys, for the man's pleasure.
Later in the piece, the husband begins to feel disgust for himself, because he realizes he's bought into all the things the porn industry has been telling him about women, and about himself. Women are things to be had; what's worse is that white women, while something to be had, is at least displayed as a human creature... black women are displayed as inhuman things. Furthermore, as he states, he is only as good as "the size, readiness and unselectivity of his cock", as a black man.
On the first page, the woman recognizes that her concerns won't be taken seriously... her husband responds with "You are being silly/a prude and/ ridiculous. You know I love you." It made me think of when Frye talked about women's physical restraint. This is an example of verbal restraint- she's not going to say anything or push the issue because she'll just get mocked. It doesn't benefit her... it benefits him.
Throughout the whole piece, there are so many examples of where women are treated as things... white and black women, by white and black men. But especially horrible, to me and to Walker, is the treatment of black women by black men.
The first example is when the wife is standing a little ways behind her husband. She immediately gets questions about her "working"... is she for sale? Her husband struggles at first, but then gets his head around the idea that this is a compliment- his wife is good looking. The second example is related to the first- she's behind him a ways because she stopped to stare in disgust at 4 life size plastic dolls. Women are toys, for the man's pleasure.
Later in the piece, the husband begins to feel disgust for himself, because he realizes he's bought into all the things the porn industry has been telling him about women, and about himself. Women are things to be had; what's worse is that white women, while something to be had, is at least displayed as a human creature... black women are displayed as inhuman things. Furthermore, as he states, he is only as good as "the size, readiness and unselectivity of his cock", as a black man.
Friday, May 2, 2008
More Frye- benefits, meaning, internalized/self-monitored,
A few more points which are important for Frye's argument:
Benefit- Frye says that all people can encounter aspects of suffering, or even oppression, but that one must look at who benefits in the situation to decide if one is a member of an oppressed group. She gives the examples of the rich white playboy etc. who breaks his leg. He suffers, but isn't oppressed. Her second example is of racial ghettos- they keep people in and people out; both are oppressed by these rules. But the out people generally make the rules for their benefit. They can't go in and their actions are restricted, but not to their detriment.
Meaning- She talks about prison walls for this example. Walls keep people in and keep people out, but they symbolize something entirely different for the two groups. For the people out, it means protection. For the people in, it means confinement and limitations.
Internalized/Self-Monitored behavior- This ties back in to benefit. Frye notes that most of the time, men and women follow in line with what is socially required of them. But that it is men who require it. She gives two examples. For men, they can't cry in front of other men. It's required by men. They're rewarded for this behavior. It benefits them. For women, she talks about posture/physical restraint. It is also required by men, but women don't get rewarded for this behavior. Instead, they get mocked/punished. It is not for their benefit, but they're caught in the double bind of following this, or being seen as not a woman.
Benefit- Frye says that all people can encounter aspects of suffering, or even oppression, but that one must look at who benefits in the situation to decide if one is a member of an oppressed group. She gives the examples of the rich white playboy etc. who breaks his leg. He suffers, but isn't oppressed. Her second example is of racial ghettos- they keep people in and people out; both are oppressed by these rules. But the out people generally make the rules for their benefit. They can't go in and their actions are restricted, but not to their detriment.
Meaning- She talks about prison walls for this example. Walls keep people in and keep people out, but they symbolize something entirely different for the two groups. For the people out, it means protection. For the people in, it means confinement and limitations.
Internalized/Self-Monitored behavior- This ties back in to benefit. Frye notes that most of the time, men and women follow in line with what is socially required of them. But that it is men who require it. She gives two examples. For men, they can't cry in front of other men. It's required by men. They're rewarded for this behavior. It benefits them. For women, she talks about posture/physical restraint. It is also required by men, but women don't get rewarded for this behavior. Instead, they get mocked/punished. It is not for their benefit, but they're caught in the double bind of following this, or being seen as not a woman.
Oppression- Marilyn Frye
According to Frye, the word oppression needs to be more carefully used. Her article isn't about saying who is and who isn't oppressed, but rather, what is and what isn't oppression.
Oppression, for her, is about having one's options regularly and structurally limited, often with the idea of the double-bind... meaning that one may have a few options, but all have serious disadvantages. Her examples for this include the idea that oppressed people generally are made to think that they have to have a cheerful attitude, else they're bitter nasty people.
She also expands upon the idea of a bird cage- her preferred metaphor for oppression. Individual acts of oppression don't appear so when examined individually, but when looked at in context, it is clear that the oppressed is trapped. She says we all need to "take a macroscopic view" in order to truly see what is oppression and what isn't.
An example of the micro- vs. macroscopic view of oppression involves door opening. It looks nice, an individually, it is. But Frye argues that this is a symbol of something bigger- that this service is done to those who can't do for themselves, implying that women are incapable. Furthermore, when and where women really need help (child care, house keeping), men aren't helping... so door opening shows a true disregard for the needs of women. Finally, Frye says that it mocks women and their predicament, because usually servants open the doors for masters, and this tradition is more of an inverse of the typical male-female relationship.
Oppression, for her, is about having one's options regularly and structurally limited, often with the idea of the double-bind... meaning that one may have a few options, but all have serious disadvantages. Her examples for this include the idea that oppressed people generally are made to think that they have to have a cheerful attitude, else they're bitter nasty people.
She also expands upon the idea of a bird cage- her preferred metaphor for oppression. Individual acts of oppression don't appear so when examined individually, but when looked at in context, it is clear that the oppressed is trapped. She says we all need to "take a macroscopic view" in order to truly see what is oppression and what isn't.
An example of the micro- vs. macroscopic view of oppression involves door opening. It looks nice, an individually, it is. But Frye argues that this is a symbol of something bigger- that this service is done to those who can't do for themselves, implying that women are incapable. Furthermore, when and where women really need help (child care, house keeping), men aren't helping... so door opening shows a true disregard for the needs of women. Finally, Frye says that it mocks women and their predicament, because usually servants open the doors for masters, and this tradition is more of an inverse of the typical male-female relationship.
Eddie Izzard... or something like that
This post is about the film we watched on the last day of class... the piece by Eddie Izzard (which I still think would be a great name for a lizard).
To be honest, I didn't realize he was actually a transvesite until after the film. I thought that was just part of his routine.
There were some links between gender and violence, but what I saw more of was religion and violence, which we didn't really get into in this class. I think a reasonable link could be made between gender and religion, making religion a patriarchal organization (at least Christianity and several other big religions). I think we read some articles about this in the beginning of the semester but we didn't really dive too deep into them. From there, with the link between religion and violence, an indirect link can be made between gender-(religion)-violence. However, the comedian didn't really go into this too much.
It would be interesting to see if he has any other related routines.
To be honest, I didn't realize he was actually a transvesite until after the film. I thought that was just part of his routine.
There were some links between gender and violence, but what I saw more of was religion and violence, which we didn't really get into in this class. I think a reasonable link could be made between gender and religion, making religion a patriarchal organization (at least Christianity and several other big religions). I think we read some articles about this in the beginning of the semester but we didn't really dive too deep into them. From there, with the link between religion and violence, an indirect link can be made between gender-(religion)-violence. However, the comedian didn't really go into this too much.
It would be interesting to see if he has any other related routines.
Language in real life
So the other night I was playing racquetball with some of my friends- it's usually me, one other girl, and 4-6 guys. We were taking a break after an intense round of playing, and trying to figure out new teams before we started another match. (Can you tell I'm new at the game? I don't know if they're matches, rounds or games...)
Anyways, one of the guys asked who wanted to be with the chicks. I somewhat jokingly said, we're not chicks, we're girls. (Chick has always been my least favorite word for a girl.... well, one of them.) He laughed and said it was just a word, and I said, ok then you're a rooster. He replied, touche (or however that's spelled) and we divided into teams.
Later he said something like, you know I was just kidding right? And I replied yes, obviously.
But the point is still there... where do we get names for boys and girls, and why are some acceptable and others not? I was just teasing when I raised a fuss about it, but where is the line between just letting it go because it wasn't said with malicious intent and standing up for something that bugs you?
Anyways, one of the guys asked who wanted to be with the chicks. I somewhat jokingly said, we're not chicks, we're girls. (Chick has always been my least favorite word for a girl.... well, one of them.) He laughed and said it was just a word, and I said, ok then you're a rooster. He replied, touche (or however that's spelled) and we divided into teams.
Later he said something like, you know I was just kidding right? And I replied yes, obviously.
But the point is still there... where do we get names for boys and girls, and why are some acceptable and others not? I was just teasing when I raised a fuss about it, but where is the line between just letting it go because it wasn't said with malicious intent and standing up for something that bugs you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
