Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rosemary Mulvey
Prof. Corewyn
Anthro. of Sex and Gender
10 March 2017
Fuchs Epstein Reaction Paper
author overviews the reasons, mechanisms, and necessity for study and
change of gender stratification and subjugation of women seen all over the
world. She argues that the subordination of the women is the foundation of
properly understand societies. This paper makes many intriguing and valid
points about gender stratification, but I found her to be very United States-
centric with her global examples coming across as at least ethnocentric if not
Epstein bases her paper on the assumption that the subjugation of women is
the foundation of all societies, and science has for the most part in the past
She goes on to say that in everywhere, in every social class, males are
more privileged than females and females are subordinate for men, except in
the cases of outliers where women outrank men in some way. She uses this
around which all major institutions of society are organized, (158) and
biological sex is used to create the divide by placing social statuses and roles
on the sexes which are not biologically inherent but social prescribed. She
states first that the prescribed roles of the sexes are the foundation for group
formation and dynamics, second, all societies and institutions rooted in the
society, the stronger the gender differentiation and womens subjugation is,
In the next sections of her paper, Epstein discusses the role of women
in the United States and in the study of sociology and the global context of
female subordination. According to her, Betty Friedan did more than any
their place in the world, through writing The Feminist Mystique and her
advocacy work with NOW (160). The revolution that Epstein attributes to
Mulvey 3
Friedan and her compatriots motivated a lot of research in sociology and the
other social scientists about gender stratification and women. Epstein begins
her global context section by stating that the denigration of women is used
to reinforce male bonds, to protect the institutions that favor men, and to
provide societies the basic work they need to function. She finished the
between males and females, and that these suggested differences have
emotions of males and females are no different. However, Epstein notes that
nowhere in the world to women have the adequate political control to give
women fully equal rights. Wage gaps, glass ceilings, and hostility against
women in the work place keep most women for reaching the full potential of
their careers, and the women outside of the wage-earning structure are often
disregarded even though they are essential to the economy. Women are
gain and to be disposed of if they disobey the family or society (e.g. using
member.)
and theological constructs using both force and cultural and cognitive
point about gender stratification. She was very direct and precise in her
arguments, and her points were very clear. There were parts of the paper
that I fully agreed with and resonated with, such as her point about women
current events, and the political situation of the time. This can be seen very
clearly in current events in the United States, with the 2017 election. Donald
Trumps blatant, unapologetic sexism opened a dam in the United States for
form these social movements although we are being subjugated. The deeply
something I can agree with her on. You can find examples of men taking
world and all through history. Women are the core of society as the child-
became ethnocentric, and focused on a gender binary that does not fully
my eyes. Her paper implied that violence against women is only a problem
the United States. In fact, at the very beginning of her paper, Epstein uses
knowledge outside of the gender binary. The way in which she discussed kin
Middle Eastern and African countries in her discussion in a way that is both
inaccurate and racist. The way she used honor killings, genital mutilation,
and rape to make her point about female denigration globally was offensive
and tactless. These horrible acts against women deserve more respect than
what she gave them, and her portrayal of them exemplified her
ethnocentrism.
Her flavor of feminism does not sit right with me, and it might be due to the
evolution of feminism over the past decade and the generational difference
between Epstein and myself. Women deserve equality with men, but are not
inherently better because of their biology. She states that women are the
Mulvey 6
in the same vein of the hostility against women who are not at home with
her family that she condemns. Epstein seems to place the value of women
on their childbearing and central role in the family. This may be some
ingrained misogyny on her part, but is central to her argument when one
analyzes it.
I think the gap between Epsteins feminism and todays feminism, and
of clothing as a tool for differentiation. Traditional clothing like the hijab is, to
her, a way for men to keep women from performing activities and restricting
their movements. The sheer number of women who wear veils or other head
coverings and religious clothing who have spoken out against the notion in
recent years is astounding. So, her statement that even cultural relativists
who prescribe certain ways of dress, and demonstrates how she believes
that Western feminism is the correct feminism. She explicitly states that as
clothing. Her mentions of religious clothing in Europe and the United States
prescribes. Epstein thinks that all societal institutions are based in the
Mulvey 7
women.
valid, but her universal view of the role of women in society does not account
judgement. Her ethnocentrism sours her valid points. Because she believes
that the subjugation of women is the root of all society, she cannot accept or
including in the United States but especially in the cultures she blatantly
judges. Her bias is clear and understandable because of her background and
world.