Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire anytime it wanted to go somewhere. It is only when you step back, stop looking

at the wires one by one…and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere ;and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are

as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon. Marilyn Frye, "Oppression" It is safe to assume that every man and woman in America has seen some sort of pornography, whether it is a Calvin Klein billboard, or the latest issue of Playboy. The two may seem unrelated, but the link is that they both objectify women. People who view this material transform the human in the picture into an object of desire, an object that they wish to

possess. As with everything, there are opponents to this sort of pornography, one of which is the feminist movement. A key player in this movement is Gloria Steinem, who has founded several women's foundations and written two books about women's rights. As a feminist, one of the things Steinem believes is that women are in a social position underneath men, and that there are several factors that contribute to this position, one of which is pornography. In Gloria Steinem's essay

'Erotica vs. Pornography', pornography is seen as objectifying women, and in doing so continues to keep them in a position of sublimation. She tries to prove that eradicating pornography would eliminate social injustices against women. Steinem first talks about the separation of "all nonprocreative sex with pornography" (153). She believes that just as work has been separated from play, sex should be separated from pornography. She goes on to assert that the opposition to censoring pornography comes from "friends of civil liberties and progress" (154). These people, she says, oppose censorship because it invades their privacy, despite the fact that it objectifies women. She believes, however, that pornography itself infringes on women's privacy because it infringes on the rights and lives of women everywhere. She next counters the idea that simply enjoying pornography makes it okay. Steinem believes that pornography makes sex synonymous with domination of women, and is therefore an enemy of women's rights in the long run. She concludes by summarizing the legal steps taken by feminists to protest pornography-all they have proposed, she says, is enforcement of existing legal law. However, despite what Steinem's paper says, eradicating pornography would do nothing to provide more equality for women. The first point Steinem fails to address is that there are other barriers to women becoming equal to men. Gender roles, gender stereotypes, and also the natural inferiority of women all contribute to their inequality. All of these barriers, including pornography, contribute to women's inequality, and eradicating just one of them would achieve next to nothing. Take, for instance, gender roles in society. For hundreds of years, a woman's role in society has been to run the household for the man, while he provides for the family. He makes all the major decisions, while she simply carries out his orders. Even today, in a society that has made major steps towards women's equality, these gender roles still exist. The majority of at-home parents are mothers ;most men are still the breadwinners of the family, and some still expect their wife to make them dinner every