Annoyance in the Reading

Johnson argues that oppression and individualistic model of guilt of oppression are actually not oppressed at all because the oppressed play into the system. Johnson mentions the flip side of the coin being the sum of individual failings, but why are their failings at all? Somewhere these groups/races/people have been excluded, thus, of course they do not "know how to make something of themselves." I agree we need to now take responsibility if we want change than we need to change. Yet, I think Allan G. Johnson under plays the historical and cultural system that we, as a large group and society have played into.

He suggest that we must participate to change what is going on, but how is one to participate if their is no escape for them to be able to do so? For example men who beat their wives. If a wife has no or little money to her name because the husband and wife have shared bank accounts or because she is a stay at home mom, how is she to get out of the house and away from the beating? Shelters are often more unsafe due to theft and rape and are even costly. If there is not a system that provides these services for women to get out of their situation than the system is at fault. There is more at play than just "participating." Policy affects a lot, and right now- we like to think of ourselves as developed, but the truth is many American women are going through the same terrors that women of developing nations are. So yes, we need to participate-speak up and change the questions we ask and thus change the policy, but if women cannot get out of there position how is this to be done? How can this be a reality?

Johnson has some good points and some that are irrelevant. His scope is limited. Yes, we make the system and play into it but to stand up and oppose the system take a strong person. We would all like to think of ourselves as being strong and doing what is right but until that moment comes for us to show "who we really are", and "do what's right" no one will know. Fact of the matter most people do not stand up, which is why the system still exists. Example from a previous reading in Listen Up stated that a women who thought of herself as a strong feminist actually apologized for questioning her boss just for speaking her opinion. This exemplifies how the system affects us all. She believed herself to be strong and a good feminist but when the words I'm sorry slipped out of her mouth she was shocked and angry at herself. We may not be happy with the way we act or react but the system has a lot to do with it- we are programed- like it or not.

The Johnson piece is also limited or confusing because he uses words and explanations in two meanings. Participate and System are examples. On one hand he is saying we must participate to change and on the other he says must not participate into the system. System is what we make it yet not what we allow it to be or allow it to control. I understand what he is trying to say, yet he should have used different synonyms/words to reveal his two different meaning and make it more clear.

Frye, although places blame everywhere and does not take much responsibility, does see that there are many hindrances that make participating in the system difficult or make outcomes that we wish to see difficult to produce. There are many wires in the birdcage and these wires are representative of social constructs, policy, family, religion, ect. Just by removing one does not mean you can get out of the prearranged system. Yes it is a step but more needs to be done. I do not agree with her "door-opening" policy. I personally like when men "act like men" and are gentlemen and my own biases show what feminist choose to accept or not accept, label one way or another as not being treated equal. She may be right that men may not be helpful in times when help is really needed, but I still like having a door opened for me, I do not see how that relates. Also if a women need help there is no shame in asking. We are equals and all need help sometimes!