PHL323H1 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Double Bind, Intersectionality, Gender Role
Frye on Oppression
What is one of the author’s arguments (from the source) for a view on the topic?
(Lay out the argument as clearly as you can.)
1.
Frye's central argument deals with the fundamental claim of feminism, namely that
"women are oppressed" and that men cannot be. Many will claim that any
experience of limitation can be considered oppression, but Frye argues that it is
only when one is in a situation where there are few options, each with some form
of penalty attached, is the person oppressed.
You can be miserable but not oppressed if you do not have lots of different
structures in place to restrict your freedoms
•
Clarifying what it is to be oppressed
•
Oppression from "press" - prevent mobility by being caught in between
barriers so related to each other that they jointly restrain, restrict or prevent
motion or mobility
•
Double bind - situations in which options are reduced to very few, all of
which come with penalties or deprivation
E.g. oppressed people must smile & be cheerful
Docility + invisibility vs. bitterness/anger
§
○
E.g. women and sexuality activity
Loose vs. frigid/bitch/lesbian
§
Wanting rape, not really raped at all
§
○
Being caught in a bind between systematically related pressures
○
•
Complex tension for women between marriage, sexuality, economic
necessity, sexual harassment, discrimination, competing expectations and
judgements, political ideas, racial/ethnic loyalties, etc. - restrict mobility
All systematically related, not accidental/occasional
○
•
Central analogy of a birdcage - you cannot see the cage if you look closely at
only one wire, only when you step back and look at the whole cage
macroscopically can you see why the bird does not go anywhere
It is easy to miss the larger structure of oppression if your conception is
determined by a myopic focus
○
E.g. male door opening ritual is oppressive if it supports the larger
barriers that the woman must deal with
It is selective and has no practical meaning except reinforcing the
idea that women are incapable ad mocking female servitude
§
It is impossible to see the symbolic meanings of such seemingly
embedded and gallant social structures if we focus on individual
events and perceptions
§
○
•
We exist within social structures - we need to look within it to see what
individual actions are elements of oppression and which are not
We have to look at the greater context to tell whether the enclosing
structures are oppressive
○
•
Examples of non-oppressive structures of suffering
Rich white man who breaks his leg skiing
○
Driving on one side of the road
○
White people not being allowed in the "ghetto"
○
Women in the service sector keeping men out
The system has been built and maintained by men, to benefit
men
§
○
•
You cannot tell how strong oppression is by complaints, only by looking at
the limitations they encounter
•
Many restrictions and limitations are "internalised and self-monitored"
Men benefit from emotional suppression in their praise and upper
hand in society
○
Their restrictions contribute to their acceptance and respect - you are
more empowered if you fill your gender role as a man than as a woman
But that is only applicable if filling this role comes naturally -
otherwise it simply contributes to the pressure placed upon men
to be the strength of a family or group
§
○
"Acceptable behavior for both groups, men and women, involves a
required restraint that seems in itself silly and perhaps damaging. But
the social effect is drastically different. The woman's restraint is part of
a structure oppressive to women; the man's restraint is part of a
structure oppressive to women."
○
•
One is marked for oppression by one's membership in a group
Women are oppressed because they are woman
○
Men are not oppressed as men
○
•
What is the importance of this argument and view for the notions of oppression
and/or resistance? (Feel free to cite specific historical examples if you wish; but if
you do, provide at least one reference.)
Her argument alerts us to our tendency to view things microscopically and
ignore the larger oppressive structures that govern our society.
•
2.
If you know of an objection to the argument, or have one of your own, feel free
to give it.
Male gender norms can also be imprisoning in the exact same way
Saying that they have aspects of privilege discounts the double binds in
which they are caught
○
Emotional stuff
○
Responsibility of caretaker and breadwinner
○
Expectations to fight and die
○
Conscription
○
•
Danger of being blind to the microscopic cases of oppression
Intersectionality - creating so many divisions that the pits groups
against each other rather than seeing how we can all come together to
fix a greater societal problem
○
Focusing on social structures alienates us from the intricate
complexities of individual existence
○
•
The solution for women being suppressed by having the door opened for
them is not to have men stop opening the door for women but for women to
open the door for men as well
Recognising the societal structures that work to confine all of us is the
key to a better society - dividing us will get us nowhere
○
•
Reductionist to think that patriarchal society was built and sustained by a
class of men that collectively plotted to suppress woman
The societal structure that imprisons women has built organically from
a hunter-gatherer mentality that has placed men and women in roles
that hold both advantages and disadvantages for both men and women
○
E.g. men being stuck in physical labour roles such as construction which
are equally menial
○
•
Questioning who maintains a barrier seeks to place blame on a class or group
in society from which we wish to alienate ourselves
•
3.
Paper 1
Saturday, February 11, 2017
3:49 PM
