Johnson's article, Patriarchy the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us aims to identify the relationship between individuals, their behavior, social structure and the male-dominated society in which we all participate. In the past, the term "the system" has been used as an umbrella, scapegoat term used whenever injustices are brought into question and blame needs to be placed. The current system and the way it perpetuates patriarchy and dominance has not been sufficiently analyzed and evaluated so that anything can actually be done to bring about change. This is not surprising; those who have accepted the patriarchal system and profited from it fear upsetting the status quo. The root of society need to be addressed, however, so that the "social problems reflected and manifested through individuals" don't continue (Johnson).
In my Environmental Justice class, we spend a great deal of time discussing paths of least resistance and how they relate to environmental degradation. It is often the case that the marginalized groups that are least able to cope with environmental degradation are disproportionately burdened because they represent paths of least resistance. Zoning laws, lack of political connection and representation, economic status, gender, institutional racism, age, and cultural differences are only some of the many factors that prevent minority groups from resisting the placement of environmentally hazardous materials in their established neighborhoods. Additionally, low-cost housing will often be constructed near or on environmentally hazardous areas, and without economic means to live elsewhere, marginalized groups have little choice but to face dangerous health circumstances. Johnson defines paths of least resistance as the conscious and unconscious choices we make as we participate in society.
Johnson states that it is not necessary for a person to be outwardly oppressive to be participants in an oppressive society, because if a society is inherently oppressive, individuals will "accept, identify with,and participate in it as normal" (Johnson). It is imperative that when analyzing our society we don't forget that social behavior is shaped by the paths of least resistance, rather than just individual motives, personalities, experiences, etc. It is through the systematic encouragement of oppression and privilege that mistreatment and wounding of certain groups can continue, unaddressed. It is very interesting to me that Johnson believes education, consciousness-raising, communication, etc. cannot effectively solve social problems. These methods were discussed in my Environmental Justice class and most of my Geography classes as the key to community improvement and equitable treatment of all parties. Johnson would most likely attribute this to the widespread fear in our society of upending the patriarchal system at its roots. Johnson believes that empowerment is the vital approach, in order to fully appreciate the power of the system, the importance of individual roles in the system, and alter the way in which we actively participate.
Similarly to Johnson, Frye takes issue with the fact that too many people take too narrow of a view when looking at the social patterns of male oppression and violence. Her paper, however, is much more example based where, in my opinion, she takes extreme situations and presents them as the norm while also making generalizations. Her comparison of oppression to the micro vs. macro analysis of a bird cage was helpful in conceptualizing the difficulties in understanding oppression without understanding the larger picture. Pressures regarding sexual activity--the choice of when to become sexually active and to what degree--are very stressful and damaging for women in general. The underlying social disapproval of both rampant sexuality and prudishness, even from family members, traps women between "systematically related pressure," as Frye states. The further assumption that if a sexually active woman is raped, she is presumed to have liked it because she likes sex, or if she is not sexually active, she liked it because she had been repressed, in no way helps to convince of me of Frye's "trapped" argument. While I'm sure these ignorant assumptions do occur frequently, the extreme nature of this claim undermines an argument that has the potential to be strong, if supported by realistic, relatable examples.
I have mixed feelings about her door-holding analysis, where she describes the male gesture of holding the door as a false message of male gallantry, female dependence, the insignificance of women, and contempt for women. The seems to directly attack the men engaging in this act, who as she points out are noticeably absent from mundane or threatening situations. I think she would do well to read Johnson's paper; he would argue that it is unhelpful to focus on the individual actions of men but to consider all participants, men and women, who have been shaped by a social structure focused on gallantry and male dominance.
No comments:
Post a Comment