Introduction:
In this essay, I will answer the question:” Outline and critically examine Frye’s account of oppression”. Firstly, outline all the opinions of Marilyn Frye and then discuss those opinions which I think can be challenged or extended. Secondly, Discuss them separately and each paragraph includes one opinion. Finally, I will write a conclusion.
Main body:
Definition: The definition of oppression is that: Oppression is a systematic network of forces and barriers. (Frye, M.1983)Oppression names “an enclosing structure of forces and barriers which tends to the immobilization and reduction of a group or category of people”. Oppression is systematic, targets individuals as members of groups, is often internalized, is often experienced as a double bond, and can be hard to recognize.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Frye’s account of oppression: I want to outline Frye’s account of oppression: According to Marilyn Frye, she held the following view: 1. oppression is a systematically interconnected network of forces and obstacles. 2. We are oppressed as members of a special social group. 3. Oppression is not just injury or obstacle. 4. Both the restrictions on men and women are oppressive to women. 5. The gender difference will lead to oppression. Women are oppressed as women, but men are not oppressed as men. 6. If men are also oppressed, then the word “oppression” will become meaningless. 7. The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one’s life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers that are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction. (Frye, M.1983)
Marilyn Frye’s opinions, my challenge, and extension: Then, I examine and discuss Frye’s opinions, for every opinion, I will point out where I can challenge and where I can extend and point out what reason I based.
First of all, Frye held the view: that oppression is a systematically interconnected network of forces and obstacles. She thinks that the forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict, or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility. Mold. Immobilize. Reduce. (Frye, M.1983) On the other hand, Frye emphasized the double bind, she thinks under the double-bind situation, options are reduced to very few and in this situation, every option will lead to the penalty. However, I think this “double bind” can be challenged, I think the “every option will lead to penalty” is a bit like a paranoid, the example given by Frye “anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous.” This example is biased because this is just an individual’s subjective feeling, not an objective feeling, it is just an individual’s fantasy of what others think of them, even if we do not smile or show unhappiness, we still not be perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. The double bind is just a one-sided fantasy, not happen. Similarly, “it’s wrong to have sex or not have sex” is also absurd. Because even if a woman has sex with her husband, people just think this is a normal affair, they will not link her to some bad words. On the other hand, even if a woman refrains from heterosexual activity, others can not link her to man-hated, because she can say that she just doesn’t want to have sex with those men because she doesn’t like them, maybe she likes one specific man. Also, even if women like sex or are heterosexually, it can not be proven that she wants to be raped, because heterosexually and want to be raped do not have a direct relationship. But I think the comparison of oppression to a birdcage is a very vivid explanation of oppression and lets people have a macro view of oppression correctly and indirectly prove oppression is systematical.
Then, Frye thinks: “We are oppressed as members of a special social group.” I agree with that opinion. A good illustration of this point is that: no one will be oppressed as a single person, if there is oppression, the people who have been oppressed must belong to some specific group, that group may be occupation, maybe class, maybe gender. oppression has a relationship with who you are in a category that is considered 'natural' or 'physiological.' The 'residents' of a cage are not individuals, but groups. On the other hand, Frye makes a point that: “there are many things which can encourage or inhibit the perception of someone’s membership in the sort of group or category in question here.” Before evaluating this opinion, I will do an extension that the characteristics of the individual can segment different individuals into different groups. The characteristics can be the nature of people, their income, or their knowledge level. People with different characteristics belong to different social groups, and some of the groups may be oppressed. As a result, people are oppressed as members of a special social group.
Afterward, the third main opinion of Frye can be: that oppression is not just harm or limitation. A good illustration of this point is that: in a way, people all suffer from harm or limitation, but not all of the harm or limitation are oppression, some harm or limitation is not oppression. On the other hand, some elements that neither harm nor limit can also be oppression. Use Frye’s words: “It is clear that if one wants to determine whether particular suffering, harm or limitation is part of someone’s being oppressed, one has to look at it in the context to tell whether it is an element in an oppressive structure.” (Frye, M.1983) In brief, to determine whether an individual is suffering from oppression, it must satisfy 2 requirements: firstly, the individual must belong to some group. Secondly, there must be a systematically interconnected network of forces and obstacles. This conclusion is based on the previous opinions of Frye. If some people suffer from some damage or limitation, but those damage or limitation leads to some benefits, and the benefits are greater than the limitation, this situation can not be determined as oppression, because that man is the beneficiary. Also, even though most harm or limitation can be determined as oppression, there are still some that something not belong to harm or limitation but they are sure enough oppression. For example, some countries set high tariffs, the high tariff is neither harmful nor a limitation, but it is oppression. It satisfies the 2 requirements: specific group ( the country who suffers from the high tariff belongs to the group “exporter”) and systematic forces (the country tariff). I agree with the opinion that oppression is not just harm or limitation and some other things can also be oppression.
Next, the other opinion of Frye, to summarize, both the restrictions on men and women are oppressive to women. It means that the restrictions on women aim to oppress women, but the restrictions on men do not aim to restrict or oppress men, they aim to oppress women well. I think this opinion can be challenged. As Frye’s previous argument suggests: some restriction or harm can not be oppression because even the individual suffers from restriction, but because of this limitation or restriction, the individual becomes beneficiary, and they achieve benefits more than what they suffer from. The Frye gives us the example: a rich man suffers from a broken leg and a blizzard, but after that, someone comes to save him, and his leg is repaired and he enjoys the lavish suite and regal. This example can also prove that some women even if they must face physical restrictions and stride restrictions, they still not oppressed because the benefits they achieve are greater than the pain caused by restrictions on women. For example, if women achieve love from other people because of the physical and stride restrictions, it is not oppression for her. As a result, there are 2 circumstances, if for some women the restrictions on them are greater than the benefit they achieved, then we can conclude that they are oppressed. If the restrictions on them are less than the benefit they achieved, then they are not oppressed, they are just beneficiaries. So I concluded that not both the restrictions on men and women are oppressive to women. It depends, some restrictions on men are oppressive to women, but some of them are not, for example, the obligation for men to take care of their family is not oppressive to women. On the other hand, some restrictions on women are oppressive to women but some restrictions can lead to benefits, those restrictions are not oppressive to women.
Last but not least, Frye’s other opinion is that women are oppressed as women, but men are not oppressed as men. I think this also can be challenged and I disagree with it. Are males not oppressed by male identity? What about the Europeans selling slaves before? There is still a lot of male labor being trafficked up to now! What's more, when they had fought in the past, the king always caught a young male for the army. they never catch a young female. For example, in the black slave trade, the males were trafficked because of their male identity. The slave trade or transatlantic slave trade involved transportation by slave traders of enslaved African people, mainly to the Americas. (Wikipedia.2019) Also, King Louis XV, during the Seven Years' War, (1756–1763), the last major conflict before the French Revolution to involve all the great powers of Europe. (Wikipedia.2019) He caught many young males fighting, so that, the men could also be oppressed as men. We can conclude that women are oppressed by female identity, and men are also oppressed by male identity.
Conclusion:
Marilyn Frye first indicated that oppression is a systematic network of forces and barriers and individuals are oppressed as members of a special social group, based on that 2 thesis, Frye held the view that oppression is not just harm or limitation. both the restrictions on men and women are oppressive to women. Women are oppressed as women, but men are not oppressed as men. I agree with the opinion that oppression is systematic but do not agree with the double bind, I also agree with “individual is oppressed as members of a special group” and “oppression is not just harm or limitation.” I disagree and challenge the thesis:” Both the restrictions on men and women are oppressive to women.” “Women are oppressed as women, but men are not oppressed as men.”
Reference:
- Frye, M. (1983). Oppression. In The politics of reality : essays in feminist theory (pp. 1–16). Trumansburg, N.Y.: Crossing Press.
- The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (August 14, 2019)
- https://www.britannica.com/event/Seven-Years-War
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2019)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
Stuck on your essay?
