I'm not sure if I am
understanding Marilyn Frye's argument in 'Oppression'. My understanding is that
she was saying that men holding the door open for women is oppressive. She
states that this is a "gallant" gesture that makes men seem like princes
and women helpless. She states "The door-opening pretends to be a helpful
service, but the helpfulness is false" and that "the message is that
women are incapable." It seems that she believes that men will go out of
their way to hold the door open for a woman regardless if she is in a better
position to hold the door open. Frye appears to extend this to any instance of
a man holding the door open for a woman.
I disagree with her
argument. I do not consider a man holding a door open for a woman to be
particularly oppressive. Primarily I do not recall an instance of a male
offering to get a door when a woman was in a better position to get the door
herself. If this actually happens, then yes, that is overkill. However, to
extend this particular situation to the whole is just extreme. I do not think
that holding the door for someone should be a gender-ed issue. It
should be something that one does to be polite, regardless of gender. I will
hold a door for men and women if it helps them. I think it would be foolish not
to.
I agree that holding a door for someone is simply a courteous gesture regardless of gender, but I think that you're looking too hard at this one example and missing Frye's actual argument. Seemingly innocent conventions in our society such as holding the door for women are harmless when isolated. However, they are just one rung in the birdcage that is oppression. There are so many societal conventions that reinforce men's power over women, and yet we tend to miss the forest for the trees.
ReplyDelete