~ archived since 2018 ~

The Myth of Women's Oppression

[deleted]

April 24, 2011

4 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/04/03/the-myth-of-womens-oppression/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The Myth of Women's Oppression
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	4
Comments	10
Date	April 24, 2011 3:01 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gw3d9/the_myth_of_womens_oppression/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-myth-of-womens-oppression.1040601 https://theredarchive.com/post/1040601

Comments

[–]YIdothis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This man's thinking has all the clarity of a South Dakota blizzard.

Paid work is hard... but that doesn't mean it was a privilege to not be able to offer your services for pay in the labor of your choice.

Being responsible for children and property is taxing... but that doesn't mean it was a privilege to have no legal right to your children and no legal right to accrue and maintain wealth.

I will never understand these assholes who ENUMERATE the deep-seated legal and social inequalities that led to the First Wave, and still don't get it.

They have the information, obviously. Where's the disconnect? How much empathy does it take to think, "Oh shit, I would not want to be forbidden to go out and get a job when I became an adult. I would not want to have to enter into an intimate relationship with whatever woman would take me in order to leave my father's house and establish my own home. I would not want my wife to take legal control of my property upon marriage. I would not want my wife to be legally allowed to beat me and rape me, and to cheat on me without social sanction. I would not want to be deprived of the right to vote or hold public office."

This is the 21st century. Would ANYBODY trade those basic rights in exchange for getting doors opened and not having to hear swear words? How can 19th-century social policy possibly look like a good deal for women, from the contemporary perspective?

(And this is leaving out the fact that most women didn't get the "safety" (gag, retch) of staying in the domestic sphere, nor did they get to enjoy the use of of a big pile of property their man had piled up. They just got to work hard at shitty jobs, live hand-to-mouth AND have no civil rights.)

[–]YIdothis -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Paid work is hard... but that doesn't mean it was a privilege to not be able to offer your services for pay in the labor of your choice.

I do agree, but that is not oppression either for the people who aim to achieve such not doing so in matching amounts. An advantage in a field does not make someone an oppressor of the disadvantaged, it makes them better competitors in that field. A universal reduction by another class of competitors with the intents and purposes of reducing competition would be. Women had expectations of a particular role as much as men had, but these expectations are only a preconception of their abilities (held by both camps) not an objective truth. In saying this, the article is a marker of how indignation is being equated to oppression.

Being responsible for children and property is taxing... but that doesn't mean it was a privilege to have no legal right to your children and no legal right to accrue and maintain wealth

Yet again, I agree. I would also ask that this discrepancy in the law is based on another preconception which is in need of equal regression under the present legal structure. It is the point that the clarity of the post is not persay the overall attack on the conception of oppression but rather the indignation underpinning it's volition. The factor here is that it is yet again a counterpoint to the claims that it was an oppression. That was not orchestrated, but formative in the matter.

How can 19th-century social policy possibly look like a good deal for women, from the contemporary perspective?

How can it look like a good deal for men either? The contemporary perspective is not equal, it is skewed. Assuming the rights are inherent and not made is another flaw. The right to these things also bears the responsibility to concede that some individuals may wish to waiver it. A right which is imposed is not a right but a dogma. Just another reason why if one chooses to waiver their right, they are enacting another right and in as much another responsibility; the responsibility to concession. This is why (IMHO) I believe the equalisation of rights is necessary so as to not impose the false dilemma of being conforming or being oppressed. This brings me to your other point:

Would ANYBODY trade those basic rights in exchange for getting doors opened and not having to hear swear words?

Yes they would and have. In recent times the freedom of expression and the right to free speech is under continual scrutiny by the masses due to the claims of some negative outcomes. The counteractive measures taken have normally been the way of passive compliance. This is a roll-over mentality which quite frankly I don't agree with but appears to be more and more people enacting the right to conceed. It is a shame. The only reason why faults like these rise is because people aren't so willing to confer the maintainance of the whole and choose to overlook the cracks. So when often this comes about, a singular perspective of indignation raises its ugly head like "Gaww, I have to do everything!" and suddenly the contrast comes about: "No, I do everything. So aye, the article is a counterpoint. But it remains clear and concise in that manner.

They just got to work hard at shitty jobs, live hand-to-mouth AND have no civil rights.

A problem that men face today as women demand a 50/50 split of only the highest paying and most sendintary fields. What kind of indignation is it that if you demand a woman to go into base level jobs such as manufacturing and construction do you see the real middle-class motives of feminism.. Only the finest pretty lady.

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"An advantage in a field does not make someone an oppressor of the disadvantaged, it makes them better competitors in that field. A universal reduction by another class of competitors with the intents and purposes of reducing competition would be. Women had expectations of a particular role as much as men had, but these expectations are only a preconception of their abilities (held by both camps) not an objective truth. In saying this, the article is a marker of how indignation is being equated to oppression."

This seems to me a sensible assessment of the situation as it is now, in 2010. Not so much a sensible assessment of the prefeminist era, when the attitudes about proper gender roles were enshrined into LAW. A woman in 1910 who had a "preconception" of her abilities that included making enough money to live on, marrying for love, and exercising the rights of citizenship was pretty much screwed. She may have been indignant, but she was ALSO oppressed by her social system, in ways that are concrete, self-evident and easy to understand - there was as, you put it, "a universal reduction by another class of competitors-" male employers, male legislators, male voters, etc. etc.

"How can it look like a good deal for men either?"

I never said it did. Formal social equality is a better deal for everybody.

And the only way there can be a problem with women competing for jobs (ANY jobs, desk jobs, jobs on a fishing trawler, WHATEVER) is if men have a greater right than women to work at the jobs of their choice. I'm sure you don't believe that. If you have a problem with the kinds of jobs men and women are choosing these days, talk to your elected representative about scholarships for people going into fields currently dominated by the other gender.

[–]YIdothis -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not so much a sensible assessment of the prefeminist era, when the attitudes about proper gender roles were enshrined into LAW.

An equal assertion could have been made in prefeminist era for men. In fact prefeminist laws still echo today in terms of men.

I never said it did. Formal social equality is a better deal for everybody.

You may not have said it, but it was heavily implied. ("And this is leaving out the fact that most women didn't get the "safety" (gag, retch) of staying in the domestic sphere, nor did they get to enjoy the use of of a big pile of property their man had piled up. They just got to work hard at shitty jobs, live hand-to-mouth AND have no civil rights.")

And the only way there can be a problem with women competing for jobs (ANY jobs, desk jobs, jobs on a fishing trawler, WHATEVER) is if men have a greater right than women to work at the jobs of their choice.

My issue on this matter is rather simple. The quality of these jobs suffers due to imposed rules of quotas on the sex representation in particular job markets. Not that it is a choice of which jobs, but rather the compulsion of designation to these positions. If you think I should go talk to my legislature for to get a balance, then I am sorry to say you are buying into an inoperable zero-sum game of fighting sexual oppression. You cannot enforce equality, some people choose different jobs, sure, but when you enforce limits on who may be where you only fuel the fire of making it about quantity and not quality or capacity.

Women in majority have incentives due to law enforcement to enter certain markets, fair enough. However,having an incentive to enter a market does not equate to being benefitial to that market. Regardless of the perceived right of a person to be doing something reflects nothing on the merit of that person being their.. I think this is where the confusion is rearing its ugly head. I don't go complaining to legislatures because I fail to meet the mark of demand in a field, I do not go into that field because I am aware of my capacity to perform the task. So the main problem really is not the ability to do a job, but rather a failure to do the job. I can make a point indeed that assisting the reassessment of an imbalance in allowances is fair, but I will not make the assumption that a group is universally capable of living up to a right they demand. Some versus all.

[–]chavelah 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"I will not make the assumption that a group is universally capable of living up to a right they demand."

Neither will I. I'd be in for a lot of disappointment from men and women both.

Do you have some specific fields you're worried about, where you feel that quotas are ruining the workplace? Because I think you may be vastly overestimating 1) the existence of actual gender-based quotas in modern corporations and 2) the negative effects of having a workplace where the presence of at least SOME women and racial minorities is expected. If you are willing to explain your concerns in more detail, I'm willing to listen.

And while you CAN'T enforce equality, you CAN increase opportunity and incentive socially beneficial choices. Since I think that more male teachers and nurses and more female electricians and construction workers would be good for our society, I support programs that work toward that result.

[–]YIdothis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because I think you may be vastly overestimating 1) the existence of actual gender-based quotas in modern corporations

I am not American, but I will introduce you to European propositions which are intended for introduction.

For purposes here I will draw your attention to the following background provided in the article.

No governor of a European central bank is female, for example. Gender equality is also far from being a reality in the political field. In Europe, only 24% of members of national parliaments are women. And only 27% of government members are female.

The problem underlying this issue is not essentially a discriminatory factor though, women only lists would only present a limitation of options for the intents and purposes of artificially presenting a choice of representatives which is not a democratic principle. The choice of candidates is based on voters' choices not on a manufactured choice of X/Y sets. If such were the case it would be logically conducive to demand that within male and female categories there would require more attention to sub-sets of these groups in the interest of equality, but this does not say anything about participant policies or competencies, making the issue into a circus.

2) the negative effects of having a workplace where the presence of at least SOME women and racial minorities is expected.

I don't know if this is an intentional misrepresentation or the result of you misunderstanding what I am saying and conflating the issue of discrimination with racism/sexism? The points I make are in relation to meritocratic discrimination, not based on grounded factors such as race, sex, age etc.

To be quite frank, if you are willing to listen then you would have been upto this point. Let me clarify my points:

I agree with your point:

you CAN increase opportunity and incentive socially beneficial choices.

However, you cannot assume that the opportunity cost of particular incentivisation schemes is justified in the light of equality. If equality is to be addressed, one will be willing to concede that the distinctions which make up degrees of difference are that of the person and not of the whole. If you intentionally incentivise in favour of a certain group you are intentionally detracting attention and resources for others and quite frankly is removing from the incentive of natural competition. Likewise, to consider that people would want to protect their position if it is favourable to themselves, there may be the choice to try out incentives to groups whom present the greatest amount of threat to your advantage. Such things go beyond any obtuse notions of gender, race, age etc. And even playing field if you will.

Now to make myself even more stated, when you ask for specifics let me ask this.

What makes you think incentives for a group won't present an exploit for them to abuse to their advantage? What makes you think that state endorsement of incentive tactics assists anyone but those who can use demographics as a tool to their own advantage?

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

With regard to quotas (of any kind) on political slates, I agree with you. The ends don't justify the means on that one. Restricting the choice of candidates - by gender, religion, race, anything - is too extreme a measure.

With regard to the gender imbalance at the top of European businesses, I'm not going to tell Europe how to handle its social problems, but I wouldn't want a formal quota system imposed on American businesses. We have a lot of practices that makes our workplaces inhospitable to humanity in general (lack of vacation, lack of parental leave, chronic unpaid overtime), and I think that's a better place for us to start. But when it comes to incentivizing entry into certain fields through scholarships etc., I think the opportunity costs are definitely worth it. If fact, I don't think there have to BE opportunity costs in equality. Gender balance is gender balance, and the government that wants more female engineers should ALSO be the government that wants more male nurses, teachers and social workers.

[–]YIdothis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But when it comes to incentivizing entry into certain fields through scholarships etc., I think the opportunity costs are definitely worth it.

Incentive schemes are there for what reason? Ask yourself that. In general, scholarships aim to attain the best of a particular subset of students. They do provide opportunity, but at what cost? Generally the quotas are presented to enhance representation of that subset at the cost of giving a chance for those who excel in one area but wish to attain a chance of mediocrity-excellence in another. It remains to be seen how this implies equality. Conversely, standard coverage for tuition based on minimum requirements (i.e. like european grants and subsidised tuition) emphasises the difference between your impressions of the value of scholarships and that of which exists in Europe. Although certain countries abstain from automatic tuition sponsorship - e.g. England.

If a government wants more of a particular gender in a field it helps to as who such an endeavour actually benefits. I won't assume there aren't more ellaborate complexities in the American or European systems, but in Europe it doesn't present as much of an issue. Most means-tested students (from families not earning over a certain joint-salary) are provided for in terms of tuition fees so it detracts from there being anything but a political motive for such quotas.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Incentive schemes are there for what reason? Ask yourself that."

To encourage a behavior that we think will benefit society! You can disagree that greater gender-balance across the various professions leads to a more egalitarian society, but since I DO think that it does, naturally I'm in favor of working towards that outcome.

If this issue seems less truly pressing to you, and more of a political football, that makes sense, because you're working within a system that subsidizes education more IN GENERAL. Many very truly excellent students in America either can't afford higher education at all, or can't afford higher education in the field they feel best fitted for. There are many Americans who are capable of contributing more to our society, who don't, because we don't make the front-end investment in higher education.