Analysis Of Marilyn Frye 's Universal Definition Of Oppression

According to the United Nations, a full 2/3rd of the world’s illiterate population are female. A person’s level of education is a great determining factor for his or her success in life both socially and economically. This startling number is just one example that demonstrates basic gender inequalities exist and are still very relevant in today’s society. So with this and other examples in mind, it would be easy to believe that those who identify themselves as “feminist” would have the same vision regarding gender equality and how best to achieve it. If this is true, then it could be said that feminist all over the world would belong to a single “global sisterhood.” For a global sisterhood to exist, the members of the sisterhood must have a foundation of shared experience and rely on this in to determine the goals and methods of the movement. However in reviewing several primary and secondary sources, a person can see that simply being female, or having empathy for the female cause, is just not enough. I believe that these sources show that the basic foundational differences with respect to race, economics, culture, and the passage of time, are the cause of the major disagreements between feminists. This is what makes it nearly impossible for a feminist global sisterhood to exist.

Women and men are born equal. However, females are receiving unequal judgement and unfair treatment in the society, and thus Marilyn Frye brings up the notion of “oppression”, claiming that women are oppressed. Throughout the essay, I will first give the definition of Frye’s oppression and then list 5 critical qualifications to be considered oppressed. After that, I will explain my appreciation on Frye’s perspective on elaborating oppression using the “bird cage” analogy. I will support Frye’s “double-bind” argument for sexism followed by flaws in the argument. Furthermore, I will point out some social group are mistakenly placed inside or outside the parameters of oppression, once the theory of oppression extends over other marginal groups.

Before the second segment begins, where a modern case study is applied to Marilyn Frye’s theory of oppression; it seems necessary to briefly mention a few ways that Frye believes that oppression can be surfaced unknowingly between men and women. The first example touches on the simple actions that men do for women such as opening a door, “The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them” (12). This particular quote receives a lot of backlash, as many people feel that this act is simply a helpful gesture between a man and a woman. This type of gesture is often times defined as chivalry. Frye argues that these “chivalrous” gestures are condoned oppressive behaviors, “The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable. The detachment of the acts from the concrete realities of what women need and do

In “Oppression,” what Frye is trying to argue is that oppression and being miserable are two different things, which is why she believes that men are not oppressed when they are told not to cry and be masculine. What she wants the readers to understand is that oppression double binds the oppressed. In addition, Frye wants us to understand that the forces and barriers that oppressed people experience are systematically related to each other. It immobilizes them and makes them similar to birds in a cage. The last thing that Frye wants us to understand from her article is that we need to stop seeing oppression at a microscopic level and start seeing it at a macroscopic level. I think the article relates to GSW 100 due to the fact that it talks

The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World by Joni Seager discusses the inequality around the globe with a focus on women with an objection to raise awareness to the public. Eager states “As we enter the 21st century, we need public and civic leaders who will build on these feminist foundations to make unflinching real- not rhetorical- commitments to social justice for women” (Seager 9-10). Seager presents an intriguing idea stating that “leaders” in office must understand the full extent of how serious this issue is; if not, human rights will not be altered. Several women today are not being treated equally. They are harassed and bullied with harsh mental and physical abuse.

People have natural instincts when first seeing, meeting, talking, or spending time with another person and they soon develop opinions or views on who that person is. We judge, stereotype, like or dislike, show approval and pay attention or disapprove and ignore. Society today and also years ago, has always contained oppressors and those being oppressed. Oppression is being caught between those that restraint and restrict the ability to do things any human being should be able to do in life. The strong areas of oppression are racism, sexism, and homophobia/heterosexism.

IV: Feminist scholarship extensively details how the very tools that allow us to interpret the world can also constitute and reinforce inequalities of power. We are given over form the beginning to structures such as language, identity, law, nation and privilege (among many others) that implicate us in processes of exclusion, devaluation, and commodification. Drawing upon at least one reading from classes 15-21, one from classes 22-27 and another from before the midterm, discuss methods of undermining or subverting this inevitable complicity to forge room for resistance.

Shah’s book is organized into four sections. First, “Strategies and Visions” explores how Asian-American feminist movements have been historically effective and envisions how they should develop in the future. “An Agenda for Change” further elaborates on these visions, citing specific issues Asian-American feminists have addressed in the past and must continue to address in the future. “Global Perspectives” expands this movement on an international scale, immediately followed by the exploration of the small-scale individual impacts of activism in “Awakening to Power.” The anthology is pan-Asian in nature, avoiding the trap of only focusing on East Asian voices. It features a litany of diverse and engaging genres from discussions to personal narratives to research essays, all playing an important role in the development of Shah’s argument.

The problematic issues that men has raised is more concerned with maintaining power and privilege over women than it is about equality. To claim that women are the favoured and the privileged ones is a ludicrous statement as represented in “Peggy Orenstein's 1994 text 'Schoolgirls' [in which includes] an anecdote which observed that, for many men and boys, equality is perceived as a loss” (Ford par. 14). In reality, whenever the gender equality is established in a society, either the male or female must give up some of their former privileges (Ford par. 14). As for 'female privileges,’ (Ford par. 14) it is subjective as to what one perceives as a privilege and others as a right. The perception of privileges is diversified considering that “in some places, it is considered a privilege that girls even be allowed to live” (Ford par. 14). Women’s gain in “privileges” and feminist campaigns is by all means not a way to oppress men. Those are the rights women are entitled to which they were not given in the past and a way to feel secure that the female voice is being heard alongside with the men’s. Male activist’s primary intention to speak out to women’s increasing dominance in society as demonstrated in their “agenda, [shows that it] is not to restore 'human rights' for all but to re-establish the dominance that has historically been enjoyed by men both legally and

The challenging and discordant opinions regarding gender equality have origins in various schools of thought, across time and place. Modern feminism heavily borrow from these old ideas and expounds upon them. Feminist worldwide are renowned for the action they must continually take that challenges the negative societal and stereotypical norms

To begin with, the consequences of oppression for these select nondenominational groups are real. Furthermore, I agree with all because about their claims, especially, women and people of color. Not to mention, the LGBT community, experiences of ridicule, judgement ,and disownment. For instances, politics and religion always the topic of discussions.

Many will make the argument that we must all understand each form of oppression due to our all facing oppression under capitalism, a system build upon the inherent oppression of many, however I would like to - using social, political, and historical context - make the argument that all forms of oppression are fueled by and normalised through different (completely harmful and often deadly) ideas and thus, the experiences of those who are directly affected by the aforementioned will be different - and argue that we must address both patriarchy and other forms of special oppression, as well as capitalism, not ignoring, nor favouring either, as even with capitalism alone eliminated, patriarchy would exist independently, at least through societal norms which - without challenge - would be sustained across economic systems, due to its rooting itself in various aspects of our culture and society, I will

Feminism and gender inequality are not just issues that women face in the US, but the entire world. Comparatively, women in the US are actually treated much better than women of other countries, such as those in the Middle East, where women have no rights and are seen as property. Talk about objectification! Transnational feminism takes a look at the same women’s issues that we have in the US and how they affect women in other countries. Transnational feminism also takes into account the various cultural difference that might also affect these issues and create other issues that women of different origins might face. Likewise, these cultural differences also affect the social construction of gender and maintain gender inequality. For example, Asian and African countries still abide by the very traditional patriarch lifestyle, in which the men are the “breadwinners” and women do the housework and take care of the children. Because many of these countries have corrupt governments, women remain having no rights due to the fear of punishment they would receive for trying to combat these issues. It is hard to fight for rights when some countries don’t even consider women as humans, but this is where transnational feminists come in. They fight for equal rights for all women, regardless of their ethnicity, race, sexuality, size, age, etc. because women are worthy of fair treatment and shouldn’t have to prove that.

As we discuss feminism and the equality of the sexes words like oppression, privilege and exploitation are bound to come up. While these words have been defined by the likes of generally accepted dictionaries like Webster and Macmillan the philosophers who write on these topics also define these terms on their own. This is not to say that their definitions will be readily adapted but they do this to better convey the points they wish to make. In this paper we will discuss the thoughts, words, and definitions of three feminist philosophers who have some commonalities and one who stands out quite a bit. These philosophers are Betty Friedan, Marilyn Frye, and Bell Hooks.

In the first reading, “Women’s Studies and Transnational Feminism,” the author discusses how beneficial it would be to have a global perspective from women all around the world and their personal stories. It would bring greater change if women’s stories weren’t only heard mainly from the U.S, but rather told by international women about their experience with oppression and way of living. According to the author the viewpoint of all the women globally is described as “transnational”, a way of challenging current basic understandings of supposed everyday women (specifically western women) and fighting to reconstruct this system to become an advantage to other women around the world. Rather than focusing on “global feminism” which doesn’t