Applying stasis theory to Lesley Gore’s song “You Don’t Own
Me” begins with the fact and definition category. Gore’s song can be defined as
a feminist song stating, not arguing, that women are individual people who are
not controlled by men. The causes and effects of this song are fairly clear.
Women were not being treated equally in the 60’s, and with the feminist
movement growing women were starting to speak up and demand fair treatment. The
song can be speculated to have had a pretty significant impact on the Women’s Right’s Movement. It was one of earlier songs of a woman demanding her rights,
and it definitely helped fuel the feminist movement. On a smaller scale, it was
probably one of the first times young girls were hearing someone they looked up
to tell them that they deserved respect. The value of this song is already
related to some of the consequences mentioned. Most people would agree the idea
that women are equal is a positive thing, and that is what this song attempted
to convey through a very popular medium. It was a widespread attempt at raising
public awareness of issues in the current society, which would likely classify
as an honorable goal. Since this is a song from the past, the action category
of stasis theory is a little harder to apply. Examining this song in the past, it
could be argued that the feminist movement and the passing of the Equal Rights
Amendment, as well as overall positive change in public opinion, could be
actions responding to the issues addressed in the song. Looking at the action
category in a modern perspective, this song can highlight gender issues still
present in society that could be addressed by protests, legal changes, and
overall changes in public perception. Finally, the jurisdiction category of
stasis theory questions who has the right to act on the issues brought up in
“You Don’t Own Me.” This is a relatively open-ended question. However, one could argue that all
people in general should be responsible for dealing with these issues, males
and females alike, especially in the current day. Since this issue is about
women, they should likely have the authority over what is the ‘right’ way to
work on resolving these problems. Despite this, it is every human being’s duty to
try to fix discrepancies between genders and strive to create equality in
whatever way they can.
-Ryan Young
What a post! I appreciate how much detail you went into on every aspect of stasis theory, and I liked how you used the singer of the song "You Don't Own Me" as a role model for young girls; that the singer is sending them the message of respect for themselves as a woman. You made one comment saying "everyone would agree the idea that woman are equal is a positive thing..." I wouldn't generalize this statement to include everyone, because sadly, not everyone has this mindset.
ReplyDelete- Jessica Foster
I understand your point that there are some people who might argue against that statement I made. But I feel that in our society today, it has become socially unacceptable to express negative sentiments like that openly. In most cases, if someone were to go up to someone and say they didn't think women deserved equal pay, likely they would not be received well. So while there are undoubtedly still some people who disagree with that statement, I was making it with the assumption that in our current society it has been (for the majority) accepted as a correct belief. However, you were right about the phrasing being too inclusive. I updated it from "everyone" to "most people", and I feel like that makes it more accurate.
Delete-Ryan Young
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRyan, you really covered all the bases here, and very effectively. The one problem I can think of with your writing comes hand in hand with how passionate you are about this issue. I agree with everything you stated here and I believe any rational and intelligent person would too, but this passionate style could certainly come off as biased, and that could take away from the value of your words in the eyes of certain readers. Clearly, your points are accurate and wise, but if you could make the same arguments without making absolute claims like the one Jessica mentioned above, your post could be even better (and that would be very impressive).
ReplyDeleteAgustin Aguerre
I'll start off by saying I definitely relaxed my attempts to make this unbiased. I tried writing it objectively, but applying stasis theory to it just seemed to require some opinion. After all, stasis theory has category of who has the right to decide on the argument. That's a completely objective question. There is no correct, definitive answer to that, just different opinions on what is right. Thats especially why the end of the analysis is so opinionated, because it was the jurisdiction section of stasis theory. So for the overall analysis I did allow some biases, but I still feel now that (reading back over it) that was the right choice. However, like I replied on Jessica's comment, I did go back and make a few changes in places where I felt like I could be more neutral.
Delete-Ryan Young
Excellent post, and the commenters are right--the details here are impressive. Also, like Augustin and Jessica mention, your passion does inflect your writing, in good and bad ways. In my opinion, your fervor is obscuring one small thing I saw, which is that this song seems really rooted in fact/definition, with a dash of jurisdiction. Who owns who? Who has autonomy, etc.? Now, it feels obvious that women ought to be granted absolute freedom, but as Jessica notes, even that isn't ubiquitous. Perhaps, literal self definition--the self as fact--was at stake.
ReplyDeleteThat's really interesting, I hadn't really thought of it that way as much. I've been interpreting the song mostly as a firm argument against male dominance/ownership of women. I haven't really thought as much about the song as an argument of actual self, of whether or not women were even perceived as their own persons. Obviously the song is arguing that she is her own person, but I was taking it more as a possessive thing, than an argument that she even deserves to claim that she is a full person at all. Is that what you meant in your comment?
Delete-Ryan Young