Marilyn Frye on opression, racism and sexism - Essay Example

number: Marilyn Frye on opression, racism and sexism The issue of racism or sexism paves the way for a range of thoughts and dis s integrating various ethical concepts. There are many philosophical perspectives linked up with these issues and one of them include the point of view of Marilyn Frye integrated with her concept of oppression. In this paper, the proponent tries to assess Frye’s perspective on oppression applied in the context of sexism and racism. Frye defines oppression by including cultural and economic structures, which according to her are the reasons why ‘dominators’ and ‘subordinates’ exist. She describes oppression by trying to explain the thought that the society itself builds up the idea of sex marking, sex announcing or generally sex identification that according to her must have created advantages among men but disadvantages among women (p.236). This according to her has become the root cause of oppression which she strongly defines as, “A system of interrelated barriers and forces which reduce, immobilize and mold people who belong to a certain group, and effect their subordination to another group (individually to individuals of the oher group, and as a group, to that group)” (p.238). Based on this definition, she tries to explicate the point that for as long as women could be generally defined as subordinates and men as dominators, oppression would take place against the former. The suggestion of what is masculinity and feminity has something to do with the existence of this oppression as Frye argues that as our cultural system tries to train us to behave differently as men and women, extreme dimorphism has become a very obvious outcome (p.239). This according to her has always placed men on the advantage side as they could take power over women. The idea of Frye concerning oppression seems to originate in the cultural foundation and so she tries to conclude that either masculinity or feminity is just a biological transformation that culture inculcates us, which according to her could be changeable the moment we are able to understand how the the things operate and go around us (p.240). She tries to argue this point based on her experience and as a feminist trying to correct the elemental principle linked up with how the fundamental cultural background of every individual could contribute to the prevailing oppression against women, particularly on the ground of sex identification. Clearly, Frye’s discussion on the ways in which oppression operated in society, and the effects it has on both women and men in the case of sexism have to be evaluated, but prior to that it is important to know how she defines sexism. According to her, sexism could involve “the forces which make us mark and announce sexes are among the forces which constitute the expression of women, and they are central and essential to the maintenance of that system” (p.238). As stated earlier, Frye opposes the idea of domination and subordination and eventually sex identification, as for her these could potentially build the essential foundation of oppression against women. She is trying to look at the negative implication of oppression in this case and is more closely concerned on the welfare of the women who are strongly defined as the subordinates to men’s dominition. On the ground that oppression would lead to overall negative consequences, from the consequentialist point of view, Frye’s idea of oppression would remarkably make sense (p.233). This means that if men’s dominition would lead to negative impacts against women, then the associated oppression is the end itself to justify the presence of male dominance and eventually domination against women. However, if in the case that dominition by itself, which would allow men to dominate over women is a primary form of a natural, cultural or biological design of putting the society in order, then there must no associated negative connotation of feminity or masculinity. They would just elaborate the appropriate role that the culture assigns to every person. If there is substantial evidence to prove that men treat women in a discriminatory manner, then from the Kantian moral theory, the idea of Frye would also make sense (p.233). In the same way, if men do not totally respect women knowing that sex identification could bring the former to the advatageous side as Frye defines it, then the idea of feminity and masculinity from the point of view of ethics of Prima Facie Duties would totally make sense (p.234). Therefore, Frye’s idea of oppression must strongly determine the presence of negative consequences (Consequentialist principle), discrimination (Kantian moral theory), disrespect (Prima Facie Duties) and associated virtues (Virtues and vices principle) in order that her point of view of sex identification and oppression would totally make sense. At some point, Frye fails to take a look at this point view as she is too narrowly focused on criticizing on how the way society together with its cultural foundation has raised every person with the capability for sex identification. In the same way, it could therefore be a matter of identifying other relevant moral theories to confirm whether Frye’s conception of oppression has to be equally applied well in the case of racism. For this, let us take the case of Kantian moral theory. This theory tries to evaluate the point whether a certain action is adopted by all. If everybody seems to be doing a certain act, there is a strong point to conclude the universality of it. The Kantian moral theory is so strong in pointing out this universal perspective in order to determine the moral value of everything. Frye agrees that generally it is the society or the prevailing culture that trains us to behave differently as men and women. In this case, she adheres to the idea that there is universality associated with the idea behind masculinity and feminity. From the point of view of Kantian moral theory, Frye’s strong resistance against sex identification must eventually violate the idea of what is a a universal cultural act. If we based it on the Kantian principle, sex identification could possibly mean that the existence of a masculine or feminine behavior is the ultimate way of the society to define that people have roles to play because of sex identification. There are roles that a masculine behavior could play well, but not when applied in the context of feminity and the converse applies equally well. This must suppose to balance everything and allow us not to identify who is superior or inferior because in reality our associated roles should make everyone of us unique and equal. Since the universality of the idea of feminity and masculinity is acceptable based on the Kantian principle, this means that sex idenfication could apply to every race all throughout the world because everything about this is rooted at the core foundation of cultural or economic system as Frye herself agrees. Therefore, there is enough reason to disagree with Frye’s conception of oppression to be applied equally well in the case of racism. Frye is taking the path to re-establish what the society has universally started. She is trying to conceive a new society where sex identification has to be eliminated, which in reality is a strong opposition against how every race tries to formulate its actual working society with a strong orientation on the existence feminity and masculinity. On the other hand, Frye is correct and it is inevitable that oppression may potentially exist because of sex identification, but the idea of the society for establishing roles when it comes to sex or gender must not suppose to promote disunity, but for the establishment of general role of each individual on the ground of sex identity if we based it on the perspective of Kantian moral theory of what is culturally acceptable. If critically analyzed, other moral theories adheres to this principle and it is evident in the presence of emancipating respect (Prima Facie Dities), virtues (Virtues and vices moral principle) and warding off negative consequences (Consequentialist point of view) within the society, that as determined by Frye, has exercised sex identification. Therefore, if anything is owed to the victims of oppression in the form of reparation for instance, it would be something that is based on the evaluation whether there is a significant evidence as to how individual role is violated. The concept of subordination or domination should not be literally taken with negative implications as they could just be roles by themselves. If domination for instance works its way beyond what is universally accepted, then it must be ground to potential violation and the associated reparation given to the victims or oppressed should be determined by the society depending on the linked up damages with it. Frye might have overlooked the great implication of the fact that masculinity and feminity are universally accepted ideas initiated within a culture or race. This therefore would mean that the associated concepts and practices behind these terms are universally acceptable, so Frye could not eliminate them provided that her claims are making sense concerning the presence of oppression associated withs sex identification. However, her claims are just potential instruments for the society to determine the required reparation in favor of the victims provided there is an actual presence of oppression. Reference Source: Given reading materials (no idea about the info of the book and other requirements) Read More