Objectified: Women and Perspective Transformation

Caitlin Geoghan

ENGL C0865: Adult Learners of Language & Literacy

Professor Barbara Gleason

May 6, 2014

Objectified: Women and Perspective Transformation

       

       The capacity of people to exceed all expectations is rooted in their impulse to question and struggle against opposition. Animals react to changes in the conditions of their environment without questioning what caused the change or whether the change is just. “I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself,” wrote the poet, D.H Lawrence. “A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.”  Animals are marvelously adaptive and survive incredible hardship; but, according to Paolo Freire, they are not challenged by their environment; they are stimulated by it.  Human beings have an entirely different relationship to our environment; before we drop frozen from the branch we will – at the very least – question the source and fairness of the conditions that threaten us.  

     Paolo Freire’s premise in Pedagogy of the Oppressed -- that there is need for a specific pedagogical method which would humanize alienated populations -- stems from his assertion that power and resources are unevenly controlled by half of an adversarial duality. 

      The Oppressor, or Subject, holds the major share of power in all realms—economic, social and political. The Subject class, by virtue of their position of power -- cultivated both by individual activism and institutional injustice – are able to act upon another group in a way that maintains their individual status and strengthens the systems that bestow preference upon them.

     The less fortunate participant in this duality, the Oppressed or Object, receives the action of the Subject. They are acted upon and – by virtue of their more passive position—become dispossessed. They are a “culture of silence…their ignorance and lethargy [are] the direct product of the whole situation of economic, social, and political domination—and of the paternalism—of which they [are] victims.  Rather than being encouraged and equipped to know and respond to the concrete realities of their world, they were kept “submerged” in a situation in which such critical awareness and response were practically impossible.” (Macedo 30) It is a consequence of this submersion that the Object class is dehumanized.  They become so immersed in reality that they are unable to see it clearly or to challenge it; instead they are simply stimulated by it and react to it. The Object class, like the small bird freezing on the bough, feels their condition but dehumanization blocks them from perceiving or responding to the cause of their condition.

     The Object class is twice bound:  by the situation imposed upon them by the Subject through direct action and by the effect this direct action has on the psychological and mental processes of the Object class. The adoption of the definitions and language of the Oppressor by the Object class produces a point of view which is as difficult -- if not more difficult-- to overcome than any external pressure. This attitude serves as a major impediment to any real progress and is the result of social conditioning which engenders a pessimistic perspective that views oppression as natural and inevitable.  The dual nature of these bonds requires action on two fronts. 

     For humanization to occur through Freire’s philosophy of education work must be accomplished on two fronts. First, there must be direct resistance to the status quo; however, this activism only addresses the action against the Object class by the Subject class.  The Object class must also come to understand the ways in which they are “hosts of the oppressor.” (Freire 48)   Although the Objects are certainly aware of their own underprivileged status -- both as individuals and as a socio-economic class -- they suffer from a “fear of freedom” (Freire 46) which causes them to behave in a prescribed manner defined by the Subjects.  In other words, Objects use definitions of success established by Subject to measure their own advancement. 

      This adherence to prescribed behavior supports and strengthens the very institutions and social attitudes that constrain them.  An individual of the Object class may become successful by the standards set by the Subject class; however, individual success does nothing to improve the lot of the group as a whole. In fact, that individual will be pushed forward and touted as an example of success for other members of the Object class to emulate; a tact chosen to shift the responsibility for oppression onto the Object class and to present their oppression as a choice.  The Object class—having internalized the attitude that supports the status quo—actually becomes an agent against its own interest. 

     The nature of the relationship between Oppressor and Oppressed is difficult to define on many levels.  A “successful” member of a traditionally oppressed group is, simultaneously, an Oppressor and one of the Oppressed.  In his introduction, Donald Macedo relates an encounter with a “young African American man who attends an Ivy League university.”  When asked about the political affiliation of his parents, the man told Macedo that his parents “usually vote with the white middle class, even if, in the long run, their vote is detrimental to most black people.” Macedo 15) This anecdote perfectly captures Freire’s characterization of how the Object can be a “host of the oppressor.”  The individual success—as defined by the Subject class-- of that African American head of household altered his perspective such that he identified with other members of the Subject class, rather than the traditionally oppressed class of which he is also a member.  Aligning himself politically with the Subject class both signals an acceptance of the rules they impose upon the Object class and shifts the responsibility of failure onto the shoulders of other African Americans. This example illustrates how insidious the effect of social conditioning is and how difficult it is to effect change in the systems that repress.

     According to the 2010 US census, women hold a slight majority in numbers in the United States. Women account for 50.8% of the population.  While it is a mistake to view any group as one unified body, it’s also a mistake to believe that members of the group don’t have anything in common.  Women may differ with regard to race, politics, socio-economic class, religion, and any number of other factors; however, all women in the United States function within a social system that is not unbiased toward them.

     Women have made great strides toward equality in the years since this country’s foundational charter—The Declaration of Independence—declared all men equal.  The battle—hard fought—hasn’t been continuously progressive.  Instead, women seem often in the process of taking back what was taken away.  The universal women’s suffrage movement has its roots in female anti-slavery associations that were beginning to speak out publicly in the 1830’s.   Women of privilege, white and married to property owners, had already held and lost the right to vote.  In New York, the women’s right to vote was revoked in 1777. In 1780, women lost the right to vote in Massachusetts.  In 1784, women lost the right to vote in New Hampshire.  The last state to revoke, New Jersey, did so in 1807.

     Colonial voting restrictions in the United States reflected Victorian notions about gender, defining women as weaker than men—both physically and mentally-- and prone to hysteria. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics. The arguments against women’s suffrage were based on ideas conceived by men, but many of the most outspoken opponents of women’s suffrage were women.

     Anti-suffragists appealed to society’s conceptions of male and female roles and the proper relationship between the genders.  Outspoken anti-suffragette, Helen Kendrick Johnson -- among other women -- accepted the paternalistic protection of men as natural and correct and claimed that women’s suffrage was undemocratic.   She wrote in a New York Times editorial, that the suffrage movement “is bringing this land to the verge of civil war.”(Johnson 1925) She considered the movement to be “the opposite of everything that makes for civic and social righteousness,”(Johnson 1925)  and considered suffrage movement to be humiliating to women in that it suggested that women should enter an arena in which they, in the judgment of both God and men, had no place.  Despite intense opposition, the suffragettes prevailed.  They gained the legal right to vote in 1920.

     The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, did more than grant women the right to vote; it made us citizens by repudiating that language in the Fourteenth Amendment that defined citizens of the United States as male. The legal prohibition was lifted; the suffragettes had gained the power to participate in the process: to elect politicians that would work toward women’s interests and to run for office.  

     A group of determined women had been able, through a process of activism and verbalism, to “construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide future action” (qtd. in Taylor 5).  They had corrected an inequality under the law, however; social mores are often far more intractable and repressive than any legal injunction.  Women, even after the official success of the suffragette movement, found themselves facing intense social condemnation when they exercised their right to vote.  Women were still considered a largely undesirable element in the public sphere. They had changed the law but had been unable to externalize and eradicate the socially accepted role of women, held by many women—suffering from “fear of freedom”-- that women should be confined to hearth and home. Despite social pressure, enough women were willing to overstep their accepted role and exercise their right.

     The right to vote, once gained, was utilized in larger and larger numbers as time progressed.  Although women currently hold only a slight majority in terms of population, there’s a larger gap when it comes to the activity of eligible voters.  Statistics gathered by the National Women’s Political Caucus assert that the proportion of eligible females who voted has exceeded the proportion of eligible males who have voted in every presidential election since 1980.  In terms of raw numbers, female voters have outnumbered males in every presidential election since 1964.

      Women also outnumber males in voter registration.  In 2008, there were 78.1 million registered female voters and 68.2 registered male voters.  In the 2008 presidential election, 60.4% of eligible women voted (70.4 million women) while 55.7% of eligible men voted (60.7 million men.) In nonpresidential election years the gap is smaller but still significant; in 2006, 48.6% of eligible females voted (51 million women) as opposed to 46.9% of eligible men voted (45.1 million men.) The majority, both in proportion and number of eligible voters, is held by women. 

     The question is: who are women voting for? According to the National Women’s Political Caucus, women occupy 20 seats in the US Senate; men hold 80. Women hold 79 (17.9%) seats in the House of Representatives; men hold 356 seats.  There are currently 5 female governors in the United States; 45 male governors.  As of 2013, there are 1,779 (24.1%) representatives in state legislatures who are women. And, 12 of the mayors of the 100 largest cities in the United States are female.  The simple answer to the question: who are women electing?  Men.

     Women are hugely underrepresented in the Fourth Estate which has a deleterious effect on women with political aspirations. Studies conducted by the Women’s Media Center found that women comprise between 35% and 40% of reporters and on camera commentators in four studied areas: broadcast news, print, internet news and wire services.  When women report on issues they’re more likely to deal with health and lifestyle issues and less likely to report or comment on scientific, criminal justice or political topics.  Women are also less likely to be guests or contributors on Sunday TV talk shows which largely deal with political topics.  Women make up only 14% of those interviewed and 29% of round table guests. 

     The scarcity of women both behind and in front of the cameras that daily broadcast news and political commentary is problematic, but equally troublesome is what women say -- or don’t say --  when they do appear.  When commenting on the legitimacy of female candidates, women in the media often espouse a slightly updated version of the anti-suffragettes argument.  They emphasize the importance of family values and traditional marriage. They lament the negative impact the election will have on the female candidate’s children. They use code words to discuss female candidates’ personalities:  emotionally volatile, chatty, shrill or mannish.  

     One of the most prominent women in politics, Hillary Clinton, is often criticized, by women in the media, for her decisions regarding her personal appearance.  During her tenure as Secretary of State, there were regular debates about whether or not she should wear makeup, glasses or a ponytail.  Now, when a 2016 run seems imminent, the Hillary Project, an anti-Clinton PAC with several high-ranking female contributors, has released an online game that “allows viewers to virtually slap the former secretary of state across the face.” (Chozick 2014) This type of vitriol is deeply disturbing. There’s a palpable sense that the goal is not to defeat her politically but to humiliate her publically. 

      Although acceptable behavior for women has undoubtedly changed, the roles remain defined: woman’s domain is hearth and home; the man still considered a better fit for the world outside the home.  The aforementioned commentaries, by women in the media, about a politically powerful woman are further examples of Objects acting against their own social groups’ best interests.  Women in positions of political power are scarce; all women would benefit from greater representation in the legislative process.

           The scarcity of women in legislative positions means that women’s issues are not presented with the frequency that they should.  When they are presented, they may not be treated appropriately, as was the case in 2012 when the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA) convened an all male panel for a hearing on an important --to women-- contraceptive coverage rule.

     The Paycheck Fairness Act, approved by the House of Representatives in 2009 and blocked by Senate Republicans in 4 subsequent votes, is also an important measure for women as it would address a substantial gender gap with regard to pay.  Again, in the vein as female anti-suffragettes, some of the most vocal opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act are prominent women in the media and in public office.  Phyllis Schafly, a well-known conservative activist, believes the best way to empower women is to “improve pay for the men in their lives.” (Woods 2014) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) called the bill “condescending” to women and Terri Lynn Land, currently running as the Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan, said in a 2010 speech, “Well, we all like to be paid more and that’s great, but the reality is that women have a different lifestyle….and they’re more interested in flexibility in job than in pay.” (Woods 2014) The very thinly veiled implication of these statements being that women need flexibility to successfully fulfill  their conventional role as primary caretakers of children and that they should count on  men to take care of any financial shortfall.

     It seems even as women gain power, we subvert it; we are, using Freire’s terminology, “hosts of the Oppressor” and still suffer from the “fear of freedom” which would allow us to truly affect systemic change and further the interests of women as a group.  What is necessary for women is to undergo a perspective transformation.  In essence, the first movement toward true equality is an acknowledgment: we are still not equal.

       The first step, according to Freire’s pedagogy, is praxis: that combination of action and reflection which will allow the Object to “understand [the world] and transform it with [our] labor.” (Freire 125) When the Object understands the world they will no longer merely feel their needs, as animals do, they will be able to perceive and reflect upon the “causes of their needs.” (qtd. in Freire 117) This insight will allow the women to focus on the societal structures to be transformed.  Societal structures can be based in and enforced by institutions, as the legal prohibition against women’s suffrage was, or they could be a socially accepted frame of reference: a “structure of assumptions and expectations that frame an individual’s tacit points of view and influence their thinking, beliefs and action.” (Taylor 5) This “structure of assumptions and expectations” proved difficult to transform in the case of women’s suffrage.  Even after the legal battle was won, many people—women included—believed that women shouldn’t have the right to vote.  The socially accepted assumption behind the prohibition, that women’s purview is the domestic sphere, remained; that assumption has been tempered by time and now remains in only in the fringe.  

     Now at issue, equal pay for equal work.  Women -- more often than ever heads of household and/or primary breadwinners, are disproportionately clustered in minimum wage positions, socially guided toward  “female-typed occupations—such as teaching or nursing”  all of which require a college degree (Dwyer 34) and “have fewer options in the low-education labor market than do men “ (Dwyer 32) -- feel our need. And, as women involved in the fight for suffrage did, modern women are beginning to identify and reflect upon the causes of their own oppression and to act against them.  While women, as yet, lack the political clout to affect policy change regarding unequal pay, we are addressing our disadvantaged position by direct action.

     Women are developing a more critical world view by, using Mezirow’s definition, learning “how to negotiate and act upon our own purposes, values, feelings and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others.” (qtd. in Taylor 5)  The creation of the virtual face-slapping game by the Hillary Project led to a 40% uptick in web traffic and online contributions to Ready for Clinton, a “super PAC” that supports a Clinton candidacy.  Jen Bluestein, a political strategist who formerly ran communications at Emily’s List -- a political action committee that backs female candidates who support abortion rights -- said, “instead of fearing sexist attacks, we wait gleefully for the next one.” (Chozick 2014) She attributes much of the record-breaking fundraising in this election cycle to gender charged attacks such as referring to Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for Texas Governor, as Abortion Barbie or calling Alison Lundergran Grimes, a Senate candidate from Kentucky, an “empty dress.” (Chozick 2014)   Increasing donations to organizations that support women with political aspirations reveals the burgeoning opinion, by both men and women, that women deserve a greater role in the political process.

     Women are further addressing equal pay disparity by becoming an increasing majority of college students.  More education will equal better jobs.  Prohibitions will be lifted and, as more women engage in the process, social expectations will change; the paradigm will shift in favor of women.  Like the women who fought for their right to vote, modern women will struggle to improve their conditions in the workplace. It will be an incremental struggle of victories and setbacks.  A process: lessons learned, reflected upon and talked about; plans will be implemented and discarded, revised and redone. Freire’s theory of pedagogy is best viewed as a cycle rather than a linear model with a beginning, middle and end.  The very notion that learning ends is antithetical to Freire’s theory as the determined end would produce a new static system and static systems resist change.  The success of the women’s movement is dependent upon and reflective of the basic tenets of Freire’s pedagogy: women must engage in the process and use our own language to claim what is rightfully ours. 

Works Cited

Chozick, Amy. "Outrage over Sexist Remarks Turns into a Fund-Raising Tool." New York Times 28 Feb. 2014, New York ed., A1 sec.: 1. Print.

Dwyer, R. E., R. Hodson, and L. Mccloud. "Gender, Debt, and Dropping Out of College." Gender & Society 27.1 (2013): 30-55. Print.

Kendrick Johnson, Helen. "The Suffrage Menace." Editorial. New York Times 23 May 1915: n. pag. Query.nytimes.com. New York Times. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

Macedo, Donaldo. "Introduction." In Paolo Freire.  Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000. 30. Print.

Taylor, Edward W. "Transformative Learning Theory." New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2008.119 (2008): 5-15. Print.

Woods, Ashley. "GOP Senate Candidate Argues She Isn't Waging a War on Women Because She's a Woman." Editorial. Huffington Post, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.