The Combahee River Collective describes the nature of Black feminism with the following quote: “We might use our position at the bottom to make a clear leap into revolutionary action. If black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression.” The first part of it implies their position being on the very bottom, meaning that they were put in the lowest caste of society because of the inferiority of their gender, race, and consequently, social class, which all acted against them simultaneously. The second part of the quote claims that because Black women historically have been subjects to all kinds of such oppressions, they need to fight them all at once to gain freedom. Because of this, the goal of Black feminists becomes very challenging to achieve: the psychological toll and lack of power and resources to rely upon makes it hard to organize a strong movement, leaving Black women with an option to rely on themselves. The Collective defines such an approach as “identity politics,” which evolve from focusing on their own oppression. As they explain, “The most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppression.” This belief seems very logical to me — we seek to improve our lives more than someone else’s because it is in our survival nature. No one would fix an issue better than us if it affects us because we know first-hand what it’s like to suffer from it.

This topic is unfolding in Paris is Burning, when we are shown characters with very different individualities and different dreams. Although they are part of one big community that shares the same values, the characters put their interests first a lot of the time to come closer to their dream or to manifest the vision of their life. At the same time, they share the same burden of oppression and through fighting it they become one, employing identity politics as a whole.

Gender and race oppression are directly connected with mechanisms of capitalism, which at its nature imply the existence of privilege and division of people into classes. Hypothetically, capitalism would not exist in a society where everyone is equal, because it thrives on competition. It is a system in which one individual benefits from the work (read: slow suffering) of others, similarly to what stands behind systems of oppression. Based on the experience of my female relatives, who were born in the USSR, it is true. My grandmother worked as an elevator technician, and it was absolutely normal. From their stories I can tell that there was much less apparent sexism in the work environment. We now know, of course, that there were larger, hidden issues in their society, and that oppression certainly existed at all times of USSR’s history. On that note, the relationship between capitalism and sexism/racism isn’t reciprocal. The Collective states: “We are not convinced, however, that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation.” Capitalism cannot exist without oppression; oppression, on the other hand, can exist without capitalism.

I can understand a liberated woman in two ways. In the context of 1970s, a liberated woman does comply with the standards of marriage, and traditional gender roles, thus achieving sexual freedom. In the context of modern times I see a liberated woman as one who makes an independent decision on her position in society, is self-sufficient, and can pursue any path in life without being restrained or judged. “Politics of Housework” by Pat Mainardi and “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm” by Anne Koedt would refer to the former definition, as these works were written in the 1970s. Pat Mainardi gives a great deal of attention to the unequal housework distribution in a heterosexual family. She explains that throughout history only women have been brainwashed into liking housework and being obsessed with cleanliness by “too many years of seeing television women in ecstasy over their shiny waxed floors or breaking down over their dirty shirt collars.” Pat Mainardi then reinforces this idea with the story of fighting with her husband over the chores. Each time her husband tried to escape doing the chores with excuses like “You will do it better than me” or “I hate it more than you,” consequently gaslighting a woman into thinking that housework is her calling. A liberated woman does not have such a mentality. And with her actions and way of living she sets an example for other women. She becomes proof that other ways of living exist and that they are as satisfying as the traditional ones.

A liberated woman sets an example, first of all, by changing aspects of her personal life. In both “Politics of Housework” and “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm” we can see how a large social idea, such as the superior role of men versus women is affecting private life. In a male-dominated society, one concrete belief of men is “My purpose in life is to deal with matters of significance. Yours is to deal with matters of insignificance. You should do the housework” (Mainardi). But who decides the level of significance? Because of a privilege gap, whatever men choose to do will be deemed important, leaving the rest to women. That same idea of male superiority reaches sexual life, establishing vagina as the main character of sex itself. Anne Koedt in her article explains that this narrative was created mostly by men out of their interests, rather than out of biological facts. The facts are such that the vagina plays no role in sexual pleasure of a woman – only a man, while clitoris remains the center of female orgasm. However, because biologically it is almost identical to the penis, there have been men “trying to ignore the clitoris and emphasize the vagina (as did Freud), or, as in some places in the Mideast, actually performing clitoridectomy.” and thus is “a threat to masculinity” (Koedt 33). Historically the role of the clitoris was hidden on purpose because it served as proof of greater equality between the two genders, which threatened masculinity. This example supports once again the feminist tenet “personal is political.”

We need to view patriarchy as a system and not an individual identity because only through understanding how this system works and how we participate in it, we can recognize which of our actions needs to be changed. In his work “Patriarchy, the System,” Allan Johnson illustrates how exactly systems are created in society and presents everyday examples of it. The issue is, society tends to blame someone specific in a problem, such as patriarchy, which extends far beyond this specific person. “Rather than ask how social systems produce social problems such as men’s violence against women, we obsess over legal debated and titillating but irrelevant case histories so to become made-for-television movies”(28). To eliminate or change a trend that affects more than few people, we should look at a larger picture and analyze “what kind of society would promote persistent patterns of such behavior”(28). And ironically enough, we still need to shift individual actions, because they power a system through so-called “paths of least resistance,” which, according to Johnson, appear to be the culprit of patriarchy and any similar system.

Allan Johnson defines paths of least resistance as a “feature of social systems that guides the conscious and unconscious choices we make from one moment to next”(30). In some cases, I think of it as following the crowd, which is the easiest thing to do. It would not require much thinking and would not cause any judgment or opposition. A simple example would be a man within a group of his male friends who opposes their patriarchal views, but would not say anything for the sake of saving friendship and his image. “When we hear or express sexist jokes and other forms of misogyny, we may not recognize it, and even if we do, we may say nothing rather than risk other people thinking we’re too sensitive or, especially in the case of men, not one of the guys”(39). Surprisingly, even women themselves can participate in patriarchy by accepting these jokes and making fun of themselves on purpose, pretending to be the ones who choose this image themselves to feel less powerless. Along with this interpersonal oppression, patriarchy is also powered on an institutional level by sexist practices and policies: in the workplace and government. In many countries, and perhaps some of the states, women are prohibited from some jobs that require manual labor. The average pay in many occupations also seems to be lower amongst women. Over time, interpersonal and institutional oppression becomes a “norm” and embeds in our culture as a system that impacts our personal beliefs in respect. The loop starts again. This way people get trapped in a circle, where the system affects our actions, and these actions further support the system. To change the system, therefore, we have to first admit that it exists, and then “step off paths of least resistance. . . to alter the way the system itself happens”(31).

This week’s readings strengthened and clarified the understanding of oppression and privilege I already had, while the video gave me a visual idea of the issues. I viewed oppression as humiliating and invalidating acts towards a certain group of people, but after reading Marilyn Frye’s article I learned that oppression is not necessarily is an act, but rather is a set of pressures that immobilize someone by reducing the options and making all of them result in penalty or deprivation. The explanation of the root of the word “oppression” gave me a clear idea of its definition. I now view it as two presses that squeeze something (read: someone) in between. After doing the second reading by Peggy McIntosh, as well as the video, I concluded that privilege is a phenomenon that gives one a benefit based on an aspect of their identity, resulting in dominance over other groups of people.

Being a white person who grew up in a country that is mainly populated by clear-cut white people, it was always hard for me to grasp the concept of white privilege. Upon moving to the US, I barely ever encountered a person of color and didn’t understand where and how it can undermine someone’s life. Neither did I know that I am privileged in some way. In fact, I felt quite the opposite as an immigrant in the first years after moving. After doing the reading, I realized how many things are available to me that may not be available to others. I can be viewed by people as a blank sheet of paper — neutral and without presumptions. I can be sure that my complexion will not affect the impression someone has about me. Neither it will affect my safety on the streets. I also have the privilege of having access to quality food, water, and being able to choose where to live. Being trilingual also gives me an employment privelege, especially in other states, where it is less common. Fortunately, I hardly notice any oppression as a female. Even if some of it existed in regards to my career or lifestyle choices, I let them pass by me to the point that I cannot remember such instances. The only thing I can think of is the societal pressure into having your body look a certain way or to be sexually active. When I mention to someone that I’m simply not interested in sex, I get labeled as a “broken” woman, who needs to see a doctor, or who doesn’t have her life together. Throughout my teen years, I have heard comments about me becoming too skinny, too chubby, having calve muscles larger than any male soccer player can have, wearing tops that accentuate breast too much, and wearing skirts that are “too long for your age.” These comments are in the past, however, and their double-sided nature helped me realize their insignificance early on. After reading the papers and analyzing my position in society, I became even more grateful for the things I have.

According to Aloc, moving beyond the gender binary means acknowledging that there is an infinite number of ways to be men, women, non-binary or transgender. Aloc conveys that there’s too much emphasis placed on the differences between men and women instead of the variety within them. In the book they write “There are many women with body hair and many men without it. Not all women are able to bear children and not all men are physically strong” (52). In the current society, people are divided exclusively into binary of male and female, and there is a certain pre-determined attitude towards them based on the assigned gender. Moving beyond this binary is about the multiplicity of gender, the huge diversity of manhood and womanhood, and being real. I like to think of it as “there are as many genders as there’re people in the world” (I borrowed this phrase from a friend). While it may not be correct for others, in my mind it is the way it should be thought of. Hence one quote that stood out for me is “We don’t consider remembering everyone’s individual name a burden; we just accept that as the way things work. Gender should be the same way” (45). I think this is a very good explanation of my understanding of the multiplicity of gender. There are countless different names in the world, some of which have many variations. There are names with the same root that still sound different and give off a different vibe. Even two strangers with identical names most likely perceive their names differently. The sound, the color, the feeling of the name, as well as the impression it makes on the community would be completely different for these two people. A name is usually given to you at birth, but you will not necessarily like it and can change it. And this is the same way I think of gender.

Many things in my identity conform to the norm and many that are not. I recently started wearing short hair and gave away all the heels I had after realizing I haven’t worn them for more than two years. It gave me a huge sense of comfort as I accepted my true sense of style that came from within. While I often wear baggy clothes, sneakers, and baseball caps, I can still look feminine in them. I always have my nails done (and I am a nail technician/artist myself) and minimal makeup on. I have a very feminine body which sometimes I choose to emphasize and sometimes to hide. I can’t say that I fully identify as female, but I also feel comfortable with this part of me on my own level. Because of this, I don’t feel the need to fight against the perception of me as a female in society. However, I have always had a more “masculine” personality and mindset. I like to lead, be bossy, and be straightforward. I have little compassion and emotions — these are highly selective and rare, contrary to the traditional definition of female characteristics. Interestingly enough, most of my “going against the binary norm” happens internally and is not expressed on the outside. There is a certain way I feel about my gender identity that can be hardly explained verbally and I believe it happens to lots of people. That’s why it is important to let things be less attached to norms and definitions so people can be who they are without being labeled.