Feminism and Changes in Patriarchy - Essay Example

Feminism and Changes in Patriarchy Introduction Women, for a very long time in history, have been accorded secondary status in many societies. As Millett (1969) puts it, “the situation between sexes now and throughout history is…a relationship of dominance and sub-ordinance” (p. 578) and change in such deeply ingrained perceptions have been slow to come. Long suppressed, and coerced into wiling acceptance by social and religious constructs, women lacked the power or courage, even to recognize their plight and status quo has prevailed until very recently. However, in the late twentieth century, a turnaround started taking place in western societies and in the U.S. in particular. Large and small groups of women mushroomed all over America, protesting their inferior status. They ushered in a new era of equality between sexes, and the evolution of women-centered literature and arts, a re-thinking with focus on their capabilities and sexuality, rather than on their gendered roles as the child-bearer, house-keeper etc. Many women have been in the forefront of such movements, known as ‘Feminist movements’, and have contributed to a change in the societal constructs regarding womanhood. This essay shall take into consideration four articles which offer insights into such turnaround of womanhood – a re-examining of their images, on individual, political, and social levels. The essay endeavors to develop an understanding of ‘feminism’ in its various aspects, and how it aims to change the oppression of women in patriarchy. The articles taken for discussion here are: “Sexual Politics” by Kate Millett (1969), “The Body Politic” by Abra Fortune Chernik (1995), “The Problem That Has No Name” by Betty Friedan (1983), all the three from Sheila Ruth’s book Issues in Feminism An Introduction to Women's Studies (5th edition), and an internet article titled “1970s Lesbian Feminism” by Ara Wilson (1999). Patriarchal Society and Oppression Analyzing the patriarchal system of society Millett (1969) defines it “as an institution is a social constant so deeply entrenched as to run through all other political, social or economic forms” (p. 578). Drawing parallels to patriarchy and the past colonization rules of governments she names the former domination as “interior colonization” and the “more enduring” one (p.578). The underlying concept of ‘domain’ – in this case, entire female gender - as the dominion of males, to rule and to exploit as they please, giving the most fundamental concept of ‘power’ is very relevant to feminism. Importantly, rather than confining the meaning ‘politics’ to governments, rules and power-relationships, Millett redefines the term “politics” in the context of feminism as referring to “power-structured relationships, arrangements of persons whereby one group of persons is controlled by another” (1969, p 577). In terms of feminism, the power struggle between the sexes is ‘sexual politics’ or, in other words, the politics inherent in patriarchy. However, Millett explicates that, unlike governmental politics, “sexual politics” as an ideology gains approval of both men and women through “socialization” concerning three points, namely: “temperament, role and status” (Millett 1969 p. 578). While “status” pertains to the concept that of the “masculine and feminine” genders the former is “superior” and the latter “inferior”, “temperament” is explained as the accepted/expected personality traits of these genders; for example, ‘masculinity’ conveys “intelligence, aggression”; ‘femininity’ stands for the opposite i.e. “passivity, ignorance, docility” and subservience (pp. 578-9). In addition to this, the “role” of the two sexes came to be the symbols of their domains of activity, artificially setting limits to their capabilities. For example, her biological functions such as giving birth to children etc, limited her range of activities to the kitchen and domestic labor. Though Millett (1969) has not explored in detail the consequences of sexual politics on women as individuals, her article has helped in defining the salient features of patriarchal power play and how women compelled to adhere to them. ‘Sexual politics’ posited by Millett, is the hidden, underlying factor in Friedan’s (1983) nameless problem that afflicted American housewives at one period of time. Early twentieth century witnessed two wars, during which more women took to jobs in factories and industries, to keep the household running as the men were away. However, in mid twentieth century women returned or were made to return to their traditional roles in the domestic arena. Scientific advancements had ensured that women of the emerging “middle-class” families had lesser physical labor, giving them more time and energy to spend on aesthetics of home-making (Friedan 1983 p. 571). Friedan (1983) has illustrated the collective restlessness of women, housewives in particular, in the 1950s. Women were “admired, envied, pitied, theorized over,” (p. 573) but, alas, least understood even by their own gender, in a patriarchal society. Science seemed to have hardly impacted the notions of ‘temperament, role, and status’ defining sexual politics referred to by Millett (1969 p.578). Subtle but still strong in even the twentieth century, the underlying political struggle of the sexes in the American society has been well painted by Friedan (1983). For example, it can be understood that the role of woman had remained the same through ages as a woman was supposed to be “concerned only about her husband, her children and her home” (p. 571). Women were expected to be happy and fulfilled since all their aspirations of good family, husband etc were met. The patriarchal society, including women themselves, seemed baffled as to the reason why they should feel dissatisfied! It seemed as though they had no right existence or identity of their own. The spate self-doubts and uncertainty in the minds women illustrate the extent of brain-washing or “socialization” with “consent” that had taken place in regards of their role. The article has also given glimpses into how women as individuals were also pushed into viewing themselves. They developed doubts over their feelings of restlessness and did not understand their “problem that had no name” (Friedan 1983 p. 571), rather than as legitimate boredom, due to monotony of doing the same jobs repeatedly and being restricted to the narrow confines of domesticity, by the social constructs of the dominant male society. If women awakened to their subjugation collectively in recognizing the ‘problem that has no name’, Fortune (1995) has illustrated an individual’s struggle to break free from the shackles of the male dictated social norms concerning female beauty and sensuality. In her autobiographical sketch, Fortune (1995) has vividly explained the disastrous impact of patriarchal expectations on individuals like herself. She has described how despite having had to suffer severe pangs of hunger, she never permitted herself to eat anything beyond “cottage cheese and cantaloupe”; her bid to “blunt” her hunger with the help of cigarettes and chewing gum, “Tab, Camel Lights, and Carefree bubblegum.” (p. 289) Power wielded by the norms of the male-dominated society reflected strongly on her. In order to remain thin and conform to the patriarchal views of a perfect ‘model’ body, she “resolved to eradicate physical symptoms of” her “impending womanhood” (p. 289). She went to the extreme step of repudiating natural process of maturation itself as “unacceptable lapse into fleshiness” (p.289). Her case has been a typical example of power-politics of women controlling women – the latter being the group who have conformed themselves to the masculine perception of female beauty, sexuality etc. This is very perceptible in that having grown up in New York City, she did not “care about the feminist movement”; rather, wanted to follow the “mainstream culture” indicating that the majority still perceived their worthiness, or beauty, only through the standards set by a society that is strongly biased towards males. Furthermore, this constant struggle of self-deprivation led her to “self-hatred” and became “the fuel for self-mutilating behaviors of eating disorder,” (p. 289) in short, self-destruction. Paradoxically, being an “anorexic” made her feel “miserable” and “powerful” (pp.289-91); the former because of the undying hunger she had to endure, and powerful because she had succeeded in suppressing herself and her body into meeting the expectations of the male-dictated-female society. The stratification of power-play is evident here, with the male-dictatorship symbolized in the form of the “young body-builder” and “the other customers in the store” (p.291). However, the turnaround that was only diffidently emerging in Friedan’s American middle class in the form of recognizing their nameless problem, Fortune has gone way ahead in breaking the constructs of patriarchy. She has succeeded in redefining the norms and goals of her life, and also in redefining the way in which she communicated her feelings to the world, “using words instead of eating patterns.” (Fortune 1995 p.291) Her extreme suffering thankfully, has caused her self-obsession and self-destruction to die, giving rise to “new voices” her life, with “an awareness of alternate models of womanhood.” (Fortune 1995 p.291) Likes of this individual’s awakening into new conceptualization of feminism, replicated by many more such individuals who joined force, have marked the “radical feminist” movements of the 1970s, explained by Ara Wilson (1999). Radical feminists have taken feminism further. Pointing out that “heterosexuality” has all along been the “key to male dominated society (a.k.a. patriarchy)” and the way out of this repression for feminists was “to escape heterosexuality, and embrace lesbianism”, so as to free themselves and “overthrow the social order, and create a more just society” (Wilson 1999 par.2). Interestingly, in its tenacious bid to defeat the patriarchal tradition, Lesbian feminism even “produced a plethora of alternative forms of expressions centered on women -- or womyn, wimmin, womon” (Wilson 1999 par.4). Here again it is pertinent to note that rejection of the male sexuality the radical lesbians, was not merely a matter of sexual preference, or style; it was more than that. It was rather, a defiance of sorts. As Wilson explains “lesbianism meant a political act -- the deliberate and passionate orientation to other women in a misogynist, heterosexist world.” (1999 par. 6) It was a long-term plot to completely annihilate male dominance, as it believed that, “The proliferation the politicized erotic and emotional bonds among women would generate the force to create a feminist cultures and overthrow the patriarchal order.” (Wilson 1999 par.6) If one has the view that the patriarchal society of the pre-industrialization era is one extreme, then the radical lesbianism movement of the 1970s is the other extreme. Not only did they seek to redefine female sexuality as attractive and sensual to females, and rewrite language replacing “women” with “womyn” etc, they also redefined spirituality, questioning the concept of “God” as male, “God the Father”; they turned increasingly to “witchcraft or Goddess worship” (Wilson 1999 par.7). Furthermore, radical lesbians advocated the ideology of “separatism”, as the underlying “strategy to redefine physical, social, and political space and allow women to form autonomous worlds”, which Wilson notes as “controversial” (par. 7). What should be considered pertinent in this article is that, is the “sexual politics” referred to by Millett (1969, p 577), dominance of males have been reversed by the radical lesbian movements and feminism has come full circle as assertive independent groups from being victims of subjugation, to empowered, independent, feminists who have the power to reject male domination or sexuality, and even live in different spatial enclaves. Conclusion Oppression and control of women has marked the course of history in many societies. However, in the twentieth century, women have gradually started realizing their secondary status. Individuals have joined hands to form radical feminist groups, which in turn have lead to feminist movements. Such movements have been spearheaded by women who have helped in redefining the perception of women, individually, politically, and socially, as have been elucidated in the four articles discussed in the essay, forging a new era of equality of sexes. Bibliography Friedan, Betty (1983). “The Problem That Has No Name” in Issues in Feminism An Introduction to Women's Studies (5th edition) by Sheila Ruth. pp. 570-4 Fortune, Abra Chernik (1995). “The Body Politic” in Issues in Feminism An Introduction to Women's Studies (5th edition) by Sheila Ruth. pp. 289-92. Millett, Kate (1969). “Sexual Politics” in Issues in Feminism An Introduction to Women's Studies (5th edition) by Sheila Ruth. pp. 577-83. Wilson, Ara (1999). “1970s Lesbian Feminism” website created 1999. Retrieved on October 27 2006. < http://womens-studies.osu.edu/araw/1970slf.htm> Read More