Customer Reviews

Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (Crossing Press Feminist)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I use "The Politics of Reality" as the primary textbook for my course on philosophical issues in feminism. Frye is extremely lucid and intelligent; beginning students appreciate her useful analogies and well-structured essays, and I still get something new out of the book every time I read it. Her discussions of the difference between oppression and suffering, the purpose of sex-marking (i.e. behavior that informs others of one's sex), coercion, love, why lesbians scare the hell out of some people, and the meaning of anger are among the best I'm aware of, and her analysis of oppression provides a wonderful framework for understanding social realities. One of her themes is the importance of radical imagination; Frye's book itself goes a long way towards helping readers envision a more just world in which women are free, independent subjects, rather than enslaved objects who are shaped to the service of men. Frye is an outstanding philosopher, an excellent writer, and an inspiration to all feminist thinkers, as well as to anyone interested in the liberation of all those who are oppressed. I only wish I'd read her books (check out "Willful Virgin") a few years earlier!

I think what the last reviewer didn't understand is that no men are oppressed on the basis of their maleness, therefore they are not oppressed as men. They can be oppressed by homophobia which sees femininity in a man as a weakness, they can be oppressed by class, race, religion, etc...but not on the basis of being a man.

Oppression happens to individuals, but not individually. People who belong to certain groups can be oppressed as a result of their group membership or perceived group membership, but there is a difference between oppression and suffering.

That said, this book is brilliant and heavily cited in works by other genius thinkers and in my own personal life.

An example of why philosophy and feminist theory are valuable- provides those ah-ha! moments for those who get it-this excellent book is a perfect introduction to the wonderful world of 1970's, second wave feminism. That "birdcage" still very much exists, though, which is why this book is a great introduction to feminism- great to give to young women. accesible, even funny. don't let anyone tell you there is no need for feminism anymore or use radical as if it is a bad word!

This is one of the clearest, most carefully argued explorations of feminist themes I have encountered. Indeed, It is one of the most accessible works of philosophy around, period. I use it in my intro to phil classes and in intro to gender studies. Read it--it's very good.

Marilyn Frye's introduction to feminism and her clear discussions of the principle vital subjects relevant to our society is timeless - and priceless!
This short intense book contains articles and previous lectures presenting analyses of the relationships between women and men, blacks and whites, gay men and women.
The chapter on women's anger and how it is responded to in society, the chapter "On being White", the chapter on women in general called "In and out of Harm's Way: Arrogance and Love", and the brilliant discussion of lesbian identity, "To Be and Be Seen:the Politics of Reality" - all are classics, creating a foundation for understanding the structure of society.

Thank you Amazon for continuing to sell it and for your speedy delivery, even overseas!!!

The writing is logical, thorough, precise, and clear. It's written to be accessible without losing the force of its arguments. Its egalitarianism is a brilliant solution to the problem of form vs. content, without ever losing her great philiosophical and linguistic clarity. I believe that the label of "lesbian separatist" has dissuaded many from reading her, or from taking her seriously as a philosopher, which is a very mistaken judgement.

frye is an amazing writer that discusses theory in an interesting way that interacts with the reader. the arrogant and loving eye theory has changed my perspective on things

I'm a student at Michigan State University, Professor Frye's current appointment. The good doctor commands quite the following of radical feminists here (and I do not use that term disapprovingly...these feminists I speak of are self-described). Unfortunately, Professor Frye's arguments are a bit difficult to swallow. While her use of analogy is quite impressive (the cage, for example), there is no real development of what she means by "groups" that are capable of being oppressed. The concept of the double bind, for example, could easily apply to feminine men (even heterosexual feminine men), as a friend of mine was quick to point out. They are a group of men targeted as men to serve the aims of masculine men...it is their sex and their unwillingness (or perhaps even inability) to live up to a set of social demands that results in their poor treatment at the hands of sexist hierarchies. I am certain that Doctor Frye would reply that their suffering is still aimed at what the oppressors believe to be some higher good for the feminine men in question, but this is not very compelling. The same could be said of the male expectation of women or minorities. In other words, they are oppressed as men, as particular kinds of men, for the benefit not of men as a sex or social group, but for masculine men as a particular and exclusive category. Any male is well aware of the pressure to conform to a certain set of traits identified as 'masculine,' regardless of their own desire to conform as such. A young man crying is the ultimate sin, and he is immediately attacked for the expression of this weakness. He is not aware that he is being groomed for a patriarchy, that one day he will rise in the ranks and dominate women. He is simply hurt, but this is not the condition that Frye finds repulsive; she is simply concerned with his anatomy. Ultimately, her emphasis on groups (as is the case with much of the more radical, 'campus' left, unfortunately) will not allow her to approach such cases individually.

The first thing that one should realize when reading Marilyn Frye's book is that it is not a work of philosophy. It is propaganda. The only people who will be convinced by her arguments are those people who agreed with her to begin with.

Frye's analogy of the birdcage is often cited, but her actual argument is circular in nature. She says that if one only looks a one bar of the birdcage, it will seem like no oppression is happening. With a single bar, the bird could just go around by sidestepping. To see the birdcage, oppression, one has to move from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Instead of looking at one bar, you have to look at the whole to see that there is a system of oppression, a system of bars. Sounds good, right?

The problem is that it is circular when Frye puts that analogy to work proving the oppression of women. Take one of her examples of female oppression such as men opening doors for women. If you look at opening doors as an isolated event, you cannot see it as a "cage bar." But if you look at door opening in the macroscopic, that it is one event in a system of oppression, you can see that the action of opening a door for a female is oppressive. Did anyone see the problem there? To prove systemic oppression she must display the "bars" that create that oppression, and to prove that some event is a "bar" in a systemic oppression, one must look at that event in the perspective of its participation in a system of oppression. She came full circle.

But the force of Frye's argumentation isn't with its soundness (which it has little), it is with her persuasiveness as she makes ad hominem arguments. She attempts to trick her reader into agreeing with her arguments. She does this by clever examples, such as juxtaposing a rich, pampered male skier with a poor, black ghetto mother. She includes an entire section about abduction and brainwashing, and hopes that her reader doesn't realize that the whole section is a weak analogy (which she conveniently forgets to posit how the analogy relates to actual world events.)

In the end, her conclusion that women should separate themselves from men into lesbian communes is ridiculous. I don't see many women converting to lesbianism at whim and moving into the country. But I don't think they would be able to anyway, Frye gives no clear idea of what a "woman untouched" would actually be, so no woman leaves the book with a clear path to what she should be working toward.

If you like man bashing, especially homosexual male bashing, you will enjoy this book. If you are trying to get a sense of what Feminism is about, don't read this book. This is radical Feminism, and should not be taken as representative of what sane feminists believe.