
allow to occur. To clarifiy my disagreeing stance towards Frye's concept of rape, I think the 'system' cannot be blamed for rape. Simply chalking up a rape as a contingent quality of a system where brutality and violence against women is accepted is a cheap assessment of much heavier and complex issues surrounding this violent act. I also want to clarify that I do not necessarily know the true depth of this issue and thus cannot formulate the be all and end all of opinions regarding why rape happens. That being said, I completely disagree with Frye's assessments regarding the female role and analysis of rape. In regards to Johnson's piece, I appreciate his assessment of the idea of only seeking solutions that work within the system. My particular opinions on the extent to which the system actually bolsters or inhibits an individuals potential do not necessarily align with Johnson's but I agree that often times radical solutions are shyed away from. Johnson's quote on monopoly, "If you're about to drive someone into bankruptcy, you can excuse yourself by saying, 'I've got to take your money, those are the rules,' but only if you ignore the fact that you could choose not to play or could suggest a change in the rules," highlight this specific issue. Johnson makes a convincing argument that radical changes are needed but it is simple truth in the society we live in today that people and the services they provide are expendable and easily replaced. I think both articles do well in characterizing the patriarchal system and aspects of oppression that are closely linked to this system. While not all points in the respective texts are agreeable, the insight they provide on this issue is interesting and starts the conversation necessary to evoke the radical change that the authors hope for.
I think Dave does a good job unpacking the main points of Johnson’s article on patriarchy. Although it has its flaws, I found Johnson’s piece both informative and thought provoking. Johnson’s comparison of patriarchy to capitalism put a new spin on issue, conveying the systematic nature of the topic. The author uses a reference to capitalism in order to explain the role women play within their own system of oppression. Workers within the system of capitalism “do not participate as equals to the capitalists who employ them or on terms they would choose if they could. Nevertheless, without them, capitalism cannot function as a system that oppresses them” (30). Through this statement Johnson intends to argue that women do not voluntarily participate within the larger structure of patriarchy, but rather are born into its foundation. Even if a woman actively fights against the patriarchal mentality, she still remains a part of the greater scheme.
ReplyDeleteI found this comparison convincing in the sense that patriarchy is an overarching phenomenon that we cannot help but fall victim to when one is born in this country. Additionally, both patriarchy and capitalism organize society in a way that prevents an equal distribution of power throughout the population. Both systems cultivate power among a specific group of people – the elite upper class or males – and make breaking the barriers between divisions extremely difficult. Patriarchy, Johnson argues, is a social system in which people frequently participate in even without realizing. Because our culture favors the male sex to such a great extent, many times we fail to recognize that by following the norm we are actively engaging in patriarchy ourselves. “When privilege and oppression are woven into the fabric of everyday life, we don’t need to go out of our way to be overtly oppressive for a system of privilege to produce oppressive consequences” (33). I think this quotation reflects one of the larger themes we have discussed this semester: people constantly feed the fire of oppression through seemingly harmless and innocent acts. Because our culture is so engrained with male-privilege, we ultimately grow accustomed to the unjustified and unequal opportunities within society for men and women.