bashoGWSS1

Karl Marx theorized that one’s power in society is directly related to the amount of material goods one possesses. In Western culture, this theory proves true. A person with much wealth can possess many goods and almost always (if not always) is more influential than one, say, who produces those goods. Those who produce the goods are those who are laboring; yet do not receive much in return thus limiting their access to the goods. Those laboring hold virtually no power in society. Marx believed that equal goods and equal power would be the source of contentment for all.
Johnson’s +5 model is correlative with Marx’s theory. One’s number of “+1’s� determines their place in society. For example, a white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-class male is at a +5 and reaps the benefits of this ranking. On the other hand, a white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-class female is at a +4. She is therefore at a disadvantage in Western culture due to her gender. It is well known that women have a lower income than men in the same occupations. Based on Marx’s theory, men’s greater income gives them access to more goods and resultantly giving them more power. Men indeed hold more power than women in capitalist society.
Why is it that holding an executive position or a position in office as a woman is so impressive? Historically women have had little mobility in the workforce; women have always been the caretakers and the homemakers. Though women’s opportunity in the workforce has increased tremendously in recent times, women are often still limited solely because of their gender. Consequently, they hold less power in society. As a woman, this is infinitely frustrating. Are we not as smart as men? Are we not authoritative enough? Can we not handle it emotionally? Are we going to cry under stress? No.