Lead post for 2/9

There were many interesting points in Johnson's essay, a few of which I'd like to address. Firstly is the process of socialization, men nor women are responsible for violence against women, but violence against women is ingrained in patriarchal society, a society in which males and females participate. This society then cycles back and affects us: socialization. Socialization, as Johnson defines it is quite similar to the idea of "programming" outlined in Neuborne's essay that we read earlier in the semester. We may not be overtly sexist, but sexism is programmed into our everyday lives.

Another interesting point is the variety of possible actions after one hears a statement of prejudice. I feel it is our responsibility to no longer follow the path of "least resistance," to no longer simply "go along" in fear that we could provoke social resistance. This can be applied to any statement of prejudice whether it is sexism, racism etc. Many people may think statements of prejudice are wrong, but many people are too afraid to stand up for what's right. We need to stand up to prejudice for if we do, soon it will be the racist, or sexist who fears social repercussions rather than ourselves. Johnson brings up a good point when she says--"having a bad experience with someone who wears glasses is unlikely to cause antipathy toward people who wear glasses, but people often say their prejudice against groups such as blacks, women or Jews is based on a few bad experiences" with these particular groups. This statement is sadly quite true. Over the summer, I was talking with an obvious racist and naive person who used the "N Word" and felt they were justified in using such a deragatory term simply because he was once mugged by a group of African Americans. This logic completely baffled me, however, as I tried to explain to this completely ignorant person that just because he was once mugged by people of a certain race does not mean that entire race deserves his racist labels.

Similarly, patriarchal cultures are more likely to support war in fear that being a pacifist is deemed "unmanly." This point made me think of my history seminar in which we have discussed why America felt the need to participate in certain unnecessary wars simply because there was an innate manly sentiment of militarism and imperialism.

The change in vocabulary as society became more patriarchal is another intriguing point to Johnson's essay--words like "crone, witch, bitch, and virgin" used to have positive connotations but are now insults.

One part, however, where I disagreed with Johnson is when she stated that "'real' sex with intercourse" is "far more conducive to men's pleasure than women's." I believe this statement may be true in some cases but is a complete stereotype and generalization. I know many women who enjoy "real" sex just as much if not more than men. Johnson's statement reflects a radical feminist view I've seen and read before: this unfounded (and stereotypically lesbian associated view) that women do not need men for sexual pleasure. Johnson seems to assume that women prefer other sexual acts over intercourse--this belief is completely untrue when applied to the entire female race. I know many women who prefer intercourse. All women have different preferences and the assumption that women don't enjoy traditional "real" sex (intercourse) as much as men is completely unfounded.

What stuck out most to me in the Frye article is something we have discussed in class before: the dichotomy of the whore/virgin and how both are seen as deragatory. This societal sexual dichotomy really frusterates me: if a girl is sexually active, she is deemed a slut / if a girl is a virgin she is seen as cold, frigid, a tease, or may be thought of as a lesbian even if she is straight. There is a particular article in Cosmo that addresses this dichotomy, it's about Fergie and how she tries to be the the Italian image of the whore and the virgin:

http://www.celebitchy.com/79127/fergie_brags_about_josh_duhamel_in_pre-stripper_scandal_interview/

Why does she have to be both? Why can't she be neither?--Why isn't being neither a slut nor a frigid tease an option?

However, like with Johnson's essay, I have a point of disagreement with Frye's as well. I dislike her assumption that men hold the door for us because we are "incapable." This belief is absurd. Personally, I enjoy an act of "chivalry" once in a while; I enjoy when a man opens the door for me, when a man pays for dinner, etc.