Of Critiquing Marilyn Frye’s “Oppression”

Listen Siblings, I come in peace,

“Then we get to the heart of Oppression: It moulds one for particular cause.” — Onitaset Kumat

A most able dialogue is the dialogue on race.  Enjoy that.  This here is a critique on an old paper.  It’s a good read.  But there’s a time to rally and that time is now.  Write the ABS about rallying for an African Blood Siblings Community Center and distribute our flyer.  It’s the resistance against our “Oppression.”  Subscribe, share, love.

Of Critiquing Marilyn Frye’s “Oppression”
By Onitaset Kumat

Em Hotep Siblings,

The quest for knowledge is the quest for instruction.

Search this site, and you should find the admonition that “Africans should love everyone.” Search further, and you should read the words of an Ancestor to a sage of Greece, Solon: “Solon, Solon, you Greeks are perennial infants. Not a single Greek is an Elder.” Putting these two together, along with understanding that to ‘love’ something one must ‘know’ it, we come to the understanding that European scholarship has African merits. That is, the infants, the Occidentals, best merits are from us, the Originals.

This said, when I was in University, I studied a significant gamut of writings and this one essay, by an Occidental, Marilyn Frye, in it’s critical lens upon the Occidental tradition, struck me as memorable, especially in its use of analogy (see the bird cage below). Returning today to the essay, I see that it’s not independently recommendable; however, in juxtaposing certain commentary, it can facilitate my series discussion on “race,” a worthwhile dialogue for our people’s self-understanding.

To preface the essay, I should warn that it is White feminism. There is something about White feminism that needs to be understood. Significantly, the movement’s three waves in America have an undeniable timing with African movements; and, as Claude Anderson had said, Black men complained about doing all the work and getting no benefits, whereas White women complained about doing no work and getting all the benefits. A comical and meritorious statement. However, when one thinks on it, and the African Lucy Parson’s 1905 statement “We are the slaves of slaves; we are exploited more ruthlessly than men” or Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a woman” we can begin to understand what issues we Originals need to take and what diverging from these issues are doing to us as a people. For instance, some of us have taken up the Palestinian, or “Native American,” or Homosexual or Socialist causes but not with an understanding of why; this essay on “Oppression” along with the dialogue enlighten “why not.”

Oppression
by Marilyn Frye

It is a fundamental claim of feminism that women are oppressed. The word “oppression” is a strong word. It repels ant attracts. It is dangerous and dangerously fashionable and endangered. It is much misused, and sometimes not innocently.

Removed from an ethical critique, every word is meaningless with regard the liberation of a people; “Oppression” is no different. This is the realization that this Occidental comes to.

The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too. We hear that oppressing is oppressive to those who oppress as well as those they oppress. Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry. It is tough, we are told, to be masculine. When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word “oppression” is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. We are accused of insensitivity; even of bigotry. For women, such accusation is particularly intimidating, since sensitivity is on eof [sic] the few virtues that has been assigned to us. If we are found insensitive, we may fear we have no redeeming traits at all and perhaps are not real women. Thus are we silenced before we begin: the name of our situation drained of meaning and our guilt mechanisms tripped.

Here she exposes the ridiculousness of a lack of ethical analysis. Hence the need for we Originals to study Ethics. For the thing with “Oppression” is that though the connotation is negative, it is not on it’s own negative. So to speak, a “criminal” can be rightly “oppressed.” See the importance of ethics?

But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer….

No comment.

The root of the word “oppression” is the element “press.” The press of the crowd; pressed into military service; to press a pair of pants; printing press; press the button. Presses are used to mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them by squeezing out the gases or liquids in them. Something pressed is something caught between or among 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.

Here is the word’s etymological break down to deeper analyze. This is a typical piss-poor tactic of Occidentals that ignores the dearth of the Occidental’s vocabulary. It pays little to break down a word that has little meaning. However, you can see in our own papers, that we often use the same tactic; this is an affront to logic: it assumes that hidden in words are secret meanings of merit; as if Occidental ancestors had such an ability.

The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue. One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind – situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation. For example, it is often a requirement upon oppressed people that we smile and be cheerful. If we comply, we signal our docility and our acquiescence in our situation. We need not, then, be taken note of. We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure. On the other hand, anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. This means, at the least, that we may be found “difficult” or unpleasant to work with, which is enough to cost one one’s livelihood; at worst, being seen as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous has been known to result in rape, arrest, beating, and murder. One can only choose to risk one’s preferred form and rate of annihilation.

Recent conversation on another blog [1] revealed an enlightening reality herein. Though Marilyn Frye speaks for the White woman, it’s worth noting that Africans friending Europeans take issue with a phenomenon known as “Microaggressions” (small, subtle marginalizing actions on marginalized populations.) A recently famous example of this is Chescaleigh’s video on the things White girls say.

Some would argue that Africans justly get these “microaggressions” for friending Europeans and others would excuse the European as ignorant; however, an honest European would admit to the conscious trialing of African people: this trial being for the sake of cooperation against Africans. So to speak, as Marilyn Frye alerts her White women of their conscious docility to avoid repercussions and thus enjoy partnership with their male oppressors; the same phenomenon goes to Africans. That is–our docile–are our docile.

Some argue that these docile are status-seeking, and so it appears. But I argue that these docile are self-hating, purposely distancing themselves from Africans, as per European propaganda, which announces that all followers will hate Africans but will either distance themselves from or fragment themselves amongst Africans. Therefore, women like Chescaleigh are a part of the group whom distance themselves from Africans and are passive aggressive to the point of putting on a “sunny countenance” in her day-to-day but making comedy of the matter in disguise.

Another example: It is common in the United States that women, especially younger women, are in a bind where neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right. If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore. The “punishment” comes in the form of criticism, snide and embarrassing remarks, being treated as an easy lay by men, scorn from her more restrained female friends. She may have to lie to hide her behavior from her parents. She must juggle the risks of unwanted pregnancy and dangerous contraceptives. On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her into it and pressure her to “relax” and “let her hair down”; she is threatened with labels like “frigid,” “uptight,” “man-hater,” “bitch,” and “cocktease.” The same parents who would be disapproving of her sexual activity may be worried by her inactivity because it suggests she is not or will not be popular, or is not sexually normal. She may be charged with lesbianism. If a woman is raped, then if she has been heterosexually active she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since her activity is presumed to show that she likes sex), and if she has not been heterosexually active, she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since she is supposedly “repressed and frustrated”). Both heterosexual activity and heterosexual nonactivity are likely to be taken as proof that you wanted to be raped, and hence, of course, weren’t really raped at all. You can’t win. You are caught in a bind, caught between systematically related pressures.

No comment. I was not even concerned with youth culture in my youth. Not that I am not concerned today, but I can not draw much from this example. It’s truly culturally specific. Sure, some African women can relate, but that’s because these African women are kidnappees. By and by, this we ought remember: ideally, the African’s sex depends on the communities’ set-up. It’s from the European where we learn to just have sex. ‘Spose that was a comment.

Women are caught like this, too, by networks of forces and barriers that expose one to penalty, loss or contempt whether one works outside the home or not, is on welfare or not, bears children or not, raises children or not, marries or not, stays married or not, is heterosexual, lesbian, both or neither. Economic necessity; confinement to racial and/or sexual job ghettos; sexual harassment; sex discrimination; pressures of competing expectations and judgements about women, wives and mothers (in the society at large, in racial and ethnic subcultures and in one’s own mind); dependence (full or partial) on husbands, parents or the state; commitment to political ideas; loyalties to racial or ethnic or other “minority” groups; the demands of the self-respect and responsibilities to others. Each of these factors exists in complex tension with every other, penalizing or prohibiting all of the apparently available options. And nipping at one’s heels, always, is the endless pack of little things. If one dresses one way, one is subject to the assumption that one is advertising one’s sexual availability; if one dresses another way, one appears to “not care about oneself” or to be “unfeminine.” If one uses “strong language,” one invites categorization as a “lady” – one too delicately constituted to cope with robust speech or the realities to which it presumably refers.

This follows her explicitly stated thesis that Oppression “molds.” It reads horribly. A habit of Occidental writing.

The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one’s life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers which 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. It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped.

This leads to a brilliant and memorable analogy.

Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.

Good for her. Here’s the interpretation.

It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.

Another “good for her.” You understand now why I put her writings on my blog.

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. “Now how,” one innocently asks, “can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress.” But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.

“Puzzles many people” is what one should take away from this paragraph. Though Marilyn Frye will attempt to justify its usage, it’s worth noting for one that it’s a nice gesture to open a door. It’s also worth noting that unfortunately our African women are buying the European propaganda that a man ought not hold a door (huh?) Finally, Susan B. Anthony, in her “Ain’t I a woman?” speech, said how “[t]hat man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman?” [2] So to speak, there’s more to this door phenomenon than meets the eye.

The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false. This can be seen by noting that it will be done whether or not it makes any practical sense. Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first. The act is not determined by convenience or grace. Furthermore, these very numerous acts of unneeded or even noisome “help” occur in counter-point to a pattern of men not being helpful in many practical ways in which women might welcome help. What women experience is a world in which gallant princes charming commonly make a fuss about being helpful and providing small services when help and services are of little or no use, but in which there are rarely ingenious and adroit princes at hand when substantial assistance is really wanted either in mundane affairs or in situations of threat, assault or terror. There is no help with the (his) laundry; no help typing a report at 4:00 a.m.; no help in mediating disputes among relatives or children. There is nothing but advice that women should stay indoors after dark, be chaperoned by a man, or when it comes down to it, “lie back and enjoy it.”

This is an excellent commentary for an individualistic culture; but that’s not our {Original} culture {though ironically it is the Occidental’s}. In a communalistic culture, man or woman will be universally helpful. More, already today, our siblings in Africa, like the Dagara, put their elderly, their family people, or their pregnant, before their able bodied regardless of gender. The young African man then, in an individualistic culture, should hold the door for all but able African men–mostly because the ‘nice’ gesture is a statement of masculinity for which respectful connotations are abound.

That is to say, she speaks of the White man and thus this paragraph should not concern us.

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 not need is a vehicle for the message that women’s actual needs and interests are unimportant or irrelevant. Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

All true of the Occidental man, but this paragraph should not be repeated against the Original man. It would be worth learning from where this practice came that it is so ironic in Occidentalism.

One cannot see the meanings of these rituals if one’s focus is riveted upon the individual event in all its particularity, including the particularity of the individual man’s present conscious intentions and motives and the individual woman’s conscious perception of the event in the moment. It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic view and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macroscopically. At any rate, whether it is deliberate or not, people can and do fail to see the oppression of women because they fail to see macroscopically and hence fail to see the various elements of the situation as systematically related in larger schemes.

This is a great paragraph. The dichotomy between myopia and a macroscopic viewpoint is one I regularly invoke. The issue with Marilyn Frye relates to the difference between “Oppression” and “Cultural Oppression” [the question asked in my series on race.] This same issue relates with most of us educated by Occidentals. Fundamentally, it follows like this, “Can one be oppressed in one’s own culture?” See, the reality is that the Occidental since he could first write hated Occidental women. So do we pity the Occidental woman for being hated? That’s their culture, no? What is “cultural imperialism” but dismissing another’s culture? Something to think on.

As the cageness of the birdcage is a macroscopic phenomenon, the oppressiveness of the situations in which women live our various and different lives is a macroscopic phenomenon. Neither can be seen from a microscopic perspective. But when you look macroscopically you can see it – a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live….

From: Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality (Trumansburg, N.Y.,: The Crossing Press, 1983).

By and by, it’s an agreeable statement. But the Occidental woman’s oppression is literally as old as her literal genesis. Eve was cursed to servility to Adam; therefore Occidental women are molded to servants. This is an ancient practice.

Edit [2012]: Fundamentally, Feminism–as an opposition to Patriarchy–is African.  The European’s attachment is out of cultural ignorance.  Patriarchy is the European way and it’s not ‘Oppression’ to be cultural.  We as Africans need to adopt Matriarchy, hence Feminism, to return to the African way, Originalism.

Source: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500Oppression.html

Share, Subscribe, Search:

GrievancesOur Grievances
Allegory of the ClassroomBlack Leadership
Letter from MerilanFilm Purposes
Diop’s Two Cradle TheorySouthern/Northern Cradle
Fable: The God-fearing HunterOccidental Theology

[1] http://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/microaggression/
[2] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp

A reading man and woman is a ready man and woman, but a writing man and woman is exact.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s