Let's put the challenge on hold and discuss the "totality of oppression."
Can we agree that, in order to be oppressive, a choice restricting meme has to be applied with reasonable consistantly across an entire gender in a society?
Now I ask you, what are the social institutions/powers capbable of such an expansive reach? What are the causal agents for a "totality of oppression"?
One is government, of course, what are the others?
Can we agree that, in order to be oppressive, a choice restricting meme has to be applied with reasonable consistantly across an entire gender in a society?
No, I'm afraid I can't even agree with that. Gender intersects with class, race, happenstance, history, and probably other factors; and for any general rule, there are always individual exceptions. Nothing is as simple as what you're describing.
Let's take race slavery as an example - probably the simplist and most clear-cut example of oppression in US history. Slavery was not applied consistently across an entire race in our society; northern blacks were not enslaved. There were even some free southern blacks. Nonetheless, the "choice restricting meme" of slavery
was oppressive. So the claim that "a choice restricting meme has to be applied with reasonable consistency across an entire" group in society (whether that group is a sex or a race), or it's not oppressive, isn't true.
You also seemed, in some of what you said on the previous thread, to be assuming that no feminist would ever see any men as being oppressed or disenfranchised. (Sorry if I misunderstood you, but that was what you appeared to be saying). I don't view the world that way; I tend to see sexism as a two-sided coin, in which both women and men are harmed and unfairly limited by sexist gender expectations. My views are very influenced by Sandra Bem (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300061633/ref=pd_sxp_f/002-4411386-5246415?v=glance&s=books), in this regard.
It's true that I see women - in general and on the whole - as being more disadvantaged by gender than men. But a simplistic "men are always on top, women are always victims" view isn't at all the view that I, or most feminists I know, subscribe to.
Can we agree that, in order to be oppressive, a choice restricting meme has to be applied with reasonable consistantly across an entire gender in a society?
No, I'm afraid I can't even agree with that. Gender intersects with class, race, happenstance, history, and probably other factors; and for any general rule, there are always individual exceptions. Nothing is as simple as what you're describing.
Then nothing is as simple as "men oppress women."
Look, either gender is a significant factor for widespread disenfranchisement or it isn't.
And if it is, let's prove it.
Let's take race slavery as an example - probably the simplist and most clear-cut example of oppression in US history. Slavery was not applied consistently across an entire race in our society; northern blacks were not enslaved. There were even some free southern blacks. Nonetheless, the "choice restricting meme" of slavery was oppressive. So the claim that "a choice restricting meme has to be applied with reasonable consistency across an entire" group in society (whether that group is a sex or a race), or it's not oppressive, isn't true.
Northern and southern blacks lived in different societies with different social institutions. The civil war was, apparently, about bringing the social mileu of the south in line with the north.
We can hem and haw about "different sub-groups", etc. or we can attempt to prove or disprove the assertion that gender *is* a significant factor for disenfranchisment in the west.
You also seemed, in some of what you said on the previous thread, to be assuming that no feminist would ever see any men as being oppressed or disenfranchised.
It's true that I see women - in general and on the whole - as being more disadvantaged by gender than men. But a simplistic "men are always on top, women are always victims" view isn't at all the view that I, or most feminists I know, subscribe to.
You believe women are more disadvantaged. I believe the opposite, that men are more disadvantaged.
I hold that belief for many reasons, not the least of which is that I can find multiple issues facing men that meet all criteria of my challenge, whereas you and hugo apparently can find none facing women that can likewise meet my challenge.
It's like this... my challenge is a net with really large holes, it only filters out the most obvious and persistant examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment. Using it you guys can't find anything supporting your assertions about the oppression of women, so, instead, you use a finer net that catches more ambigious examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment and then attempt to use that to "prove" women are more disenfranchised.
I'm afraid it doesn't. In fact, it proves the opposite.
Now you could argue that the "net" you're using, which filters out more ambiguous aspects of oppression, actually gives a more accurate picture of the "totality of oppression."
So why don't we drop this tangent and talk about what constitutes a "totality of oppression" in the west.
Again I said government is one element, what are the others?
In order for something to be part of social oppression I assume it has to influence or direct the actions of people with a majority of power. What non-government, non-media institutions/groups are capable of this?
<edit>
I believe that feminists use this non-government, non-media "totality of oppression" (ie. The Patriarchy) to justify why government should enact protections for women.
Therefore it behooves us to find out exactly what it is and how it generates a balance of power.
(I personally believe The Patriarchy is the name of the broken down, bow-backed gelding women are using to draw their buggy.)
Minor nit-pick: When you edit my text to cut out things I said - as you cut out me saying " I don't view the world that way; I tend to see sexism as a two-sided coin, in which both women and men are harmed and unfairly limited by sexist gender expectations. My views are very influenced by Sandra Bem, in this regard." - it's considered ordinary practice to mark the place you've altered my quote with ellipses, rather than not marking your editing at all.
Then nothing is as simple as "men oppress women."
Exactly! The world isn't that simple, and I'm not claiming it is. The weird thing is, you're acting like you've said something that I'd disagree with.
Look, either gender is a significant factor for widespread disenfranchisement or it isn't.
Since it's clear you're going to be using the word "disenfranchisement" a lot, perhaps you could tell me exactly what you mean by it?
First you wrote this:
Let's put the challenge on hold and discuss the "totality of oppression."
But then you wrote this:
It's like this... my challenge is a net with really large holes, it only filters out the most obvious and persistent examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment. Using it you guys can't find anything supporting your assertions about the oppression of women, so, instead, you use a finer net that catches more ambigious examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment and then attempt to use that to "prove" women are more disenfranchised.
You can't have it both ways. Is the challenge on hold, or isn't it?
I already explained why your challenge - in which only one side is allowed to set the terms of the debate - is not the way that debate is actually done, typically. I explained why different, fairer rules have evolved, and argued that we shouldn't throw away these well-developed and time-tested procedures without good reason. You didn't respond to this argument at all.
If you want to put your challenge on hold, as you claimed, then I'll forget about it. If you insist on using your "I've designed the rules so I can't possibly lose, and I'm not willing to debate in a fair set-up" challenge as a club to beat me with, however, then the challenge hasn't been put "on hold"; on the contrary, you're bringing it up, and we should continue discussing why it is you insist on rules in which you are allowed to arbitrarily set definitions and I'm not, and why you're unwilling to use the long-existing standards of fair debate, in which definitions are set by both parties.
Oh, and by the way...
....more ambigious examples of socially condoned disenfranchisment...
It would be hard to imagine a more ambiguous example of disadvantage than having to register for the draft, in a time when there is virtually no chance of a draft taking place. If that's what you're talking about when you suggest men are disadvantaged, then I think you're ignoring real problems in favor of somethng that, although clear-cut, actually doesn't matter much.
Although I - live virtually every feminist I've ever discussed the question with - agree that the male-only draft registration is sexist and unfair, it seems to me that there are much more important things for men to complain about. Like the way that men are raised to be "tough" and not complain, leading to worse health outcomes for unmarried men, because they tend to ignore things like regular doctors' visits. Like the way that occupational segregation leads some men (especially poor men of color) to take jobs in which they are more likely to be injured or killed. Like the epidemic of schoolyard bullying aimed at boys who are perceived as not being "masculine" enough by our society's standards. Like the way general, sexist social expectations push many men into a "breadwinner" role and many women into a "homemaker" role, to the disadvantage of both.
There are so many more serious problems men face than a nonexistent draft, in my opinion.
* * *
Regarding a debate, if you want to put the idea aside and just have a discussion, that's fine with me.
If you refuse to put the idea aside, however, then here's my suggestion for a format: You put forward a proposition, and then it's up to me to attack it and you to defend it. Or, alternatively, I'll put forward a proposition, and it's up to you to attack it and I'll defend it. Definitions can be suggested by either party, and if we disagree on definitions, then that's just part of the debate.
Note that this is different from "Typhonblue sets all definitions, and the other party isn't allowed to contest it. Tyhponblue decides what proposition the other party will defend, rather than letting the other party choose for himself." In other words, rather than being Typhonblue's party, it's a fair debate format, with both of us on equal footing. Why are you so opposed to that?
(Personally, if it's up to me, I'll probably suggest a very narrow proposition, such as "a significant part of the wage gap is caused by sexism" or "Mary Koss' work on rape prevalence is excellent and should be taken seriously." In my experience, narrow debates tend to have more meat to them than much broader debates. But that's just me, you might disagree.)
I'll make it really simple.
Since you won't provide any examples of oppression of women that's supported by media and government, then let's move on to discussing the "totality of oppression." (Since you use that term to explain why you can't respond to my challenge. As in "your challenge does not cover the 'totality of oppression' therefore it only provides a part of the picture on oppression.")
You believe I'm overlooking some crucial component of oppression. So, minus government or media, what is that crucial component?
BTW, putting the challenge on hold doesn't mean we can't discuss it.
And...
disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right or of some privilage or immunity.
As in:
Registration for draft disenfranchises men by binding them to service for the state and removing their individual autonomy.
Since Typhonblue is discussing this in another thread, I thought I'd respond here, where I'll be able to find the response in the future.
I'll make it really simple.
Yes, I know. That's the problem; I don't think the world is simple, I don't think sexism is simple, and insisting on discussing it only in simplistic terms just guarantees that our discussion will lack both depth and meaning.
In a really, really simplistic view of discrimination, discrimination only occurs in formal, obvious actions of large, well-defined actors (government, media). But I don't think your model has much to do with how real life works, and I don't see any reason to enter a debate predicated on an unrealistic and biased model.
I'm also disturbed by your absolute refusal to discuss any suggestion I make. I've explained, here and on an earlier thread (http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64880#64880), what I think a debate should look like and why. I've suggested a format which I think is a good deal fairer than the format you want. You haven't even bothered to reply; you just totally ignored all of that material. I can only conclude that you don't have a single logical reason why we can't debate in a fair format, rather than a "Typhonblue sets arbitrary rules so she can guarantee a win" format.
Registration for draft disenfranchises men by binding them to service for the state and removing their individual autonomy.
Was this meant only as an illustration of the term "disenfranchise," or was this also intended to be a rebuttal of my argument about registration for the draft?
You will have to explain to me where I made a mistake in the break-down of "condone." I chose three stages that I thought were logical: invisible, visible but ignored, visible and promoted.
First of all, all your "stages" were given in all-or-nothing terms; if there's a single law opposing X, then X is not oppressive at all, according to your terms. In the real world, oppression can exist without being all-or-nothing.
Second of all, your "stages" defined almost any level of government action at all as meaning that oppression did not exist. Contrary to what your definitions implied, the totality of oppression is not governmental inaction.
I had to go look up the original context.
In that context, when I said "totality of oppression," all I meant is "totality" as opposed to "a single particular aspect." In context, all I meant is that government inaction is not the end-all and be-all of oppression; there are other forms that oppression can take. However, in your model, if the government takes any action at all - however minor or ineffectual - then oppression doesn't exist.
Excuse my interuption but I feel the need to point something out. Amp said:
I'm also disturbed by your absolute refusal to discuss any suggestion I make. I've explained, here and on an earlier thread, what I think a debate should look like and why. I've suggested a format which I think is a good deal fairer than the format you want. You haven't even bothered to reply; you just totally ignored all of that material. I can only conclude that you don't have a single logical reason why we can't debate in a fair format, rather than a "Typhonblue sets arbitrary rules so she can guarantee a win" format.
If you go back and read the thread you linked
http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64880#64880
You will find that on June 30 at 2:36 I posted the suggestion that the discussion be moved to this forum. We could give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you missed that. Even still you found this thread on July 2 and commenced discussing things with Typhon and then you were the one who left the thread unanswered for almost 6 months.
I will try to stay out of this discussion as much as possible but felt obligated as moderator to respond to this innaccuracy.
I don't see any inaccuracey, Dr. Evil. Reviewing the material, I see that I TWICE brought up arguments and suggestions about debating formats - once in the old thread, once here - and both times my arguments and suggestions regarding format were ignored - not just disagreed with, but utterly ignored - in Typhonblue's subsequent response. That's part of the reason I gave up on this exchange six months ago.
Oh, I see - my bad, I phrased what I wrote badly. When I said that Typhonblue hadn't bothered to respond, I meant to any of my arguments and suggestions regarding what a fair debate format would be. Of course, it's true that Typhonblue responded to me - she just did so without addressing any of those specific points.
I did respond.
I responded by asking you to define one of your terms. You said a discussion about terms was acceptable and thus I started one.
Also, I think if you go back and look at my challenge I did say something about a law needing to be enforced and in the public eye.
So, now that we've opened the discussion again, I'd like to know what you consider the aspects of oppression to be.
Did I even use the phrase "aspects of oppression?" I don't recall doing so, but my memory often bites. If you can remind me where I said it, I can see the context and that'll give me an idea of what I meant.
In that context, when I said "totality of oppression," all I meant is "totality" as opposed to "a single particular aspect." In context, all I meant is that government inaction is not the end-all and be-all of oppression; there are other forms that oppression can take. However, in your model, if the government takes any action at all - however minor or ineffectual - then oppression doesn't exist.
Aspect as in "a single particular aspect."
I'm guessing you believe there are more then one and I'm interested in seeing what they are.
Well, earlier I quoted this definition of oppression, which I still think is pretty good:
"The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression". Oppression is most commonly felt and expressed by a widespread, if unconscious, assumption that a certain group of people are inferior. Oppression is rarely limited solely to government action."
So yes, direct government action can be an aspect of oppression. Another aspect is social norms which, for example, unfairly pressure men to be tough and unfeeling, or which suggest that men are dangerous predators and cannot be trusted with children.
However, I don't have a list of "aspects of oppression" for you. Sorry.
I'd like to ask, do you consider the widespread acceptance of prison rape, and the disparity in who dies at the workplace, to be valid examples of how our gender-role system oppresses men?
So yes, direct government action can be an aspect of oppression. Another aspect is social norms which, for example, unfairly pressure men to be tough and unfeeling, or which suggest that men are dangerous predators and cannot be trusted with children.
Now we have government action, economic power, media and social norms as "aspects of oppression". Or perhaps they'd be better coined potential agents of oppression. Can you think of any others?
BTW, how do social norms come about? How are they enforced?
I'd like to ask, do you consider the widespread acceptance of prison rape, and the disparity in who dies at the workplace, to be valid examples of how our gender-role system oppresses men?
Yes.
(edit-- added economic power. And the agent comment.)
So yes, direct government action can be an aspect of oppression. Another aspect is social norms which, for example, unfairly pressure men to be tough and unfeeling, or which suggest that men are dangerous predators and cannot be trusted with children.
Now we have government action, economic power, media and social norms as "aspects of oppression". Or perhaps they'd be better coined potential agents of oppression. Can you think of any others?
Sure; direct physical force, or the threat thereof. Crime can be an agent of oppression, as well, in some circumstances. I can't think of any other agents offhand, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any others; I don't claim to have a comprehensive answer to this question.
BTW, how do social norms come about? How are they enforced?
I don't think there's a simple answer; there are entire sociology textbooks essentially devoted to those questions, after all. I'd say that our social norm of gender-typing begins in babyhood: Think of the "baby X" experiments, which showed that most adults perceive a baby they've been told is a boy as more active and aggressive than one they've been told is a girl (regardless of the baby's true sex), and treat babies differently depending on what they've been told the baby's sex is.
That's just one example of thousands of ways social norms are reproduced (which is probably a more accurate, and less loaded, word than "enforced") in each generation.
Once those norms are established, it's possible to resist them, but the load of least resistance is to go along with them. For example, boys and girls who fail to fit the gender norms are teased by their classmates, sometimes in incredibly cruel ways (I guess the word "enforced" would be appropriate here). Those boys and girls who are capable of fitting in to gender norms, do, because that's simply the more rational choice.
That's just two examples, of course. I don't believe comprehensive coverage is possible, given the format here (and my own limitations in knowlege!).
Here's another question for you. Some people say that Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, and other feminists who have made careers specializing in criticizing feminism, are not "real" feminists. Other people say that such writers are real feminists. What's your opinion?
Sure; direct physical force, or the threat thereof. Crime can be an agent of oppression, as well, in some circumstances. I can't think of any other agents offhand, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any others; I don't claim to have a comprehensive answer to this question.
Crime is an agent of oppression?
I guess this begs the question... when are an individuals actions just individual and when do they become part of a larger force of oppression?
What I mean is this... Crime is something that isn't approved of by society, so how can it be a way that society oppresses a certain class of people? Crime appears, at least to me, to be the result of *individual* choices to rebel against the norms of society, not the result of a wide-spread effort to oppress a class of people.
I don't think there's a simple answer; there are entire sociology textbooks essentially devoted to those questions, after all. I'd say that our social norm of gender-typing begins in babyhood: Think of the "baby X" experiments, which showed that most adults perceive a baby they've been told is a boy as more active and aggressive than one they've been told is a girl (regardless of the baby's true sex), and treat babies differently depending on what they've been told the baby's sex is.
So do you think norms arise from an individual's experiences and teachings in childhood?
I think most developmental psychologists would agree with that. Childhood *is* the most impressionable time. And things learned during childhood are the hardest to unlearn and the most fundemental to our belief systems. Everything learned after that is incorperated or discarded based on those fundemental belief systems.
Here's another question for you. Some people say that Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, and other feminists who have made careers specializing in criticizing feminism, are not "real" feminists. Other people say that such writers are real feminists. What's your opinion?
I don't usually challenge someone's self-identification.
Sure; direct physical force, or the threat thereof. Crime can be an agent of oppression, as well, in some circumstances. I can't think of any other agents offhand, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any others; I don't claim to have a comprehensive answer to this question.
Crime is an agent of oppression?
I guess this begs the question... when are an individuals actions just individual and when do they become part of a larger force of oppression?
What I mean is this... Crime is something that isn't approved of by society, so how can it be a way that society oppresses a certain class of people? Crime appears, at least to me, to be the result of *individual* choices to rebel against the norms of society, not the result of a wide-spread effort to oppress a class of people.
Why do you think something has to be a conscious effort to oppress a class of people? All something has to be is 1) moderately widespread, and 2) having bad effects primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) on a particular class of people
To pick an extreme (and hence clear) example, in Pakistan honor killings of brides are illegal, but very few people would argue that's not an agent of oppression there.
I don't think there's a simple answer; there are entire sociology textbooks essentially devoted to those questions, after all. I'd say that our social norm of gender-typing begins in babyhood: Think of the "baby X" experiments, which showed that most adults perceive a baby they've been told is a boy as more active and aggressive than one they've been told is a girl (regardless of the baby's true sex), and treat babies differently depending on what they've been told the baby's sex is.
So do you think norms arise from an individual's experiences and teachings in childhood?
Not exclusively, but to a significant extent, yes.
I think most developmental psychologists would agree with that. Childhood *is* the most impressionable time. And things learned during childhood are the hardest to unlearn and the most fundemental to our belief systems. Everything learned after that is incorperated or discarded based on those fundemental belief systems.
I think we agree about that.
Merry Christmas!
Sure; direct physical force, or the threat thereof. Crime can be an agent of oppression, as well, in some circumstances. I can't think of any other agents offhand, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any others; I don't claim to have a comprehensive answer to this question.
Crime is an agent of oppression?
I guess this begs the question... when are an individuals actions just individual and when do they become part of a larger force of oppression?
What I mean is this... Crime is something that isn't approved of by society, so how can it be a way that society oppresses a certain class of people? Crime appears, at least to me, to be the result of *individual* choices to rebel against the norms of society, not the result of a wide-spread effort to oppress a class of people.
Why do you think something has to be a conscious effort to oppress a class of people?
I never said it had to be a conscious effort. But in order for it to be socially oppressive, don't you think society should at least condone it?
All something has to be is 1) moderately widespread, and 2) having bad effects primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) on a particular class of people.
Do thieves (the poor) oppress their victims(the rich)?
By all accounts thievry is 1) moderately widespread and 2) has bad effects on a particular class of people (rich people). Many rich people that I've known live in fear of having their wealth taken away, far more fear then the poor people I've known. Obviously rich people are more oppressed and affected by theft.
To pick an extreme (and hence clear) example, in Pakistan honor killings of brides are illegal, but very few people would argue that's not an agent of oppression there.
The middle east is a disingenous example. Much of their "leadership" is in the form of dictatorships imposed on them from the outside. Its far less likely to represent the average person on the street then the laws in a matured democracy such as the US.
For instance... in the middle east homosexual sex is illegal. Yet there are not the same social taboos surrounding it as in the west so it's more widespread. In this case, and in many others, social taboos are more relevant to uncovering bias then government action.
But that does not hold true for *every* country. In democracies social taboos tend to be enshrined *as* law.
So, I suppose the question becomes... when does law reflect social taboos and when does it not?
Obviously the government of countries that have experienced colonialism from an outside force (eg. India) are less likely to reflect the social norms of the society. And countries ruled by authoritarian dictatorships(eg. many in the middle east) likewise are less likely to reflect the opinions of the average citizen.
So I suppose a relevant tool would be a way of dividing those governments whose laws reflect social taboos from those governments that do not.
I think most developmental psychologists would agree with that. Childhood *is* the most impressionable time. And things learned during childhood are the hardest to unlearn and the most fundemental to our belief systems. Everything learned after that is incorperated or discarded based on those fundemental belief systems.
I think we agree about that. [/quote]
So the class of people most involved in the raising of children have significant impact(possibly the greatest) on the norms and values of a society?
I never said it had to be a conscious effort. But in order for it to be socially oppressive, don't you think society should at least condone it?
I haven't been discussing "socially oppressive"; I've been discussing oppression generally. I'm not even sure what you mean by "socially oppressive." Nor am I clear what you mean by "society condoning" something. If something is officially deplored but unofficially tolorated or unpreventable, for example, is that something that society condones, in your view? How about something that some people in society tolorate or condone, and others deplore - is that condoned?
I think that for something to be oppressive of a class, all something has to be is 1) moderately widespread, and 2) having bad effects primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) on a particular class of people. Being condoned would make it
more oppressive, but something can be officially deplored yet still oppressive.
Do thieves (the poor) oppress their victims(the rich)?
By all accounts thievry is 1) moderately widespread and 2) has bad effects on a particular class of people (rich people). Many rich people that I've known live in fear of having their wealth taken away, far more fear then the poor people I've known. Obviously rich people are more oppressed and affected by theft.
Our anecdotal experiences have not been the same. I've lived in both rich and poor communities, and the people in the poor communities are much, much more likely to have many good locks, to make sure every window is bolted before leaving their house, etc..
Anecdotes aside, you're mistaken about what "all accounts" say. Every scholarly account I've ever read says the same thing: The very poor are the most likely victims of theft and other property crime. The stats seem to bear this out: See this Bureau of Justice Statistics report - pdf link (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv04.pdf) - the table at the top of the right-hand column on page four.
To pick an extreme (and hence clear) example, in Pakistan honor killings of brides are illegal, but very few people would argue that's not an agent of oppression there.
The middle east is a disingenous example. Much of their "leadership" is in the form of dictatorships imposed on them from the outside. Its far less likely to represent the average person on the street then the laws in a matured democracy such as the US.
The second sentence makes no sense to me. I never claimed that honor killings represent the average person in the street in the U.S.. Nothing here refutes my point that something can be illegal and still oppressive.
Rape in prisons is illegal, but still oppressive. Rape outside of prisons is likewise illegal, but still oppressive.
But that does not hold true for *every* country. In democracies social taboos tend to be enshrined *as* law.
So, I suppose the question becomes... when does law reflect social taboos and when does it not?
Obviously the government of countries that have experienced colonialism from an outside force (eg. India) are less likely to reflect the social norms of the society. And countries ruled by authoritarian dictatorships(eg. many in the middle east) likewise are less likely to reflect the opinions of the average citizen.
On the other hand, as the recent election in Iraq shows, many citizens actually prefer governments that want to impose sharia law (which I'd certainly call oppressive). Honor killings in Pakistan are only illegal now because of pressure from Pakistani women's rights groups (supported by some Western pressure); honor killings are hardly something imported to Pakistan by Western influence. And at least in rural Pakistan, honor killings seem to be approved of by a significant portion of the population.
In short, democracy is not a cure-all for oppression, nor is the West to blame for all misogyny in the Middle East.
So the class of people most involved in the raising of children have significant impact(possibly the greatest) on the norms and values of a society?
In a way.
But at the same time, the class of people you're talking about (which I imagine might generally be termed "mothers" or, more pendantically, "primary caretakers") aren't free agents either; they're facing pressures to gender-norm their children, both directly from the people and society around them, and also because of the thought structures that the caretakers picked up in their own childhoods.
Many scholars now argue that the presence of a father - even as a secondary caretaker - has enourmous effects. And some - most famously, Judith Rich Harris (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684844095/qid=1135723216/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-4411386-5246415?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) - argue that peer effects are larger than caretaker effects.
So while I agree that the caretaker is important, I'm not sure that his or her importance means that other influences are
unimportant. (I'm not assuming that you'd disagree).
If something is officially deplored but unofficially tolorated or unpreventable, for example, is that something that society condones, in your view? How about something that some people in society tolorate or condone, and others deplore - is that condoned?
No, as I've said several times before, if a social more is not *enforced* it's not oppressive. Of course there are variations on enforcement from infrequent enforcement by authority to enforcement by even the criminal, ostracized elements of society.
The first example reflects a more most likely imposed on a society by outside authorities, the last a more held by almost every member in society.
There's a spectrum to laws and mores.
One end is infrequent enforcement and/or indirect encouragement in the opposite direction by authority, authority being a class of people most likely to embrace the mores and laws of society. This end reflects mores and laws with the least sway over a society (or ones that oppose a stronger more or law.)
The other end is enforcement *even* by the criminal class, the class of people least likely to embrace the mores and laws of society. This end reflects mores and laws with the *most* sway over a society (even elements of society that reject other mores and laws, embrace this one.)
Our anecdotal experiences have not been the same. I've lived in both rich and poor communities, and the people in the poor communities are much, much more likely to have many good locks, to make sure every window is bolted before leaving their house, etc..
The essence of what I was saying is that every definable group of people has it's negatives and it's positives. The negatives of some groups of people fall out of their choices and the down side of their greater power in society. Executives have to work harder then people on welfare, housewives in America are more bored then housewives in India, etc. etc.
How do we seperate moderately widespread bad effects on a particular class of people that are the result of greater power and personal choices then moderately widespread bad effects on a particular class of people that are the results of lack of power and personal choices.
Further, you postulate that poor people are more oppressed by theft then the rich? Why? Both experience negative effects, why are the negative effects of one greater then the other?
Rape in prisons is illegal, but still oppressive. Rape outside of prisons is likewise illegal, but still oppressive.
If you did a bit of research into this, you'd actually find that consensual homosexual behavior in prisons is also illegal and is far more likely to be punished. Simply because it is the *prison guards* that are doing the charging, not an inmate.
Again we have a case that's much more complicated in reality then on the surface. Prison rape is illegal, yes, but most prison officials turn a blind eye to it or actively encourage it by enforcing laws against consensual homosexual behavior.
Officials in the community do not turn a blind eye to rape (at least where women are concerned) in fact rapists have to be housed in a seperate facility when they are sent to prison because they will be targeted and often murdered by the general criminal population. (The same population that condones rape of men.)
So, in essence, prison rape is in the the most extreme catagory of "infrequently enforced, indirectly condoned" by authorities. And community rape (of women) is in the most extreme catagory of "even punished by criminal elements."
In short, democracy is not a cure-all for oppression, nor is the West to blame for all misogyny in the Middle East.
This is an odd conclusion to take from what I said.
My point was simply... governments that are colonial or authoritarian are less likely to reflect the mores of the people that they govern, whereas matured democracies are more likely.
But at the same time, the class of people you're talking about (which I imagine might generally be termed "mothers" or, more pendantically, "primary caretakers") aren't free agents either; they're facing pressures to gender-norm their children, both directly from the people and society around them, and also because of the thought structures that the caretakers picked up in their own childhoods.
And from whom(primarily) did the individuals who influence care-takers pick up their own gender-norms?
Many scholars now argue that the presence of a father - even as a secondary caretaker - has enourmous effects. And some argue that peer effects are larger than caretaker effects.
Where do children's peers and men(primarily) get *their* gender-norms?
...as I've said several times before, if a social more is not *enforced* it's not oppressive.
Define "enforced."
For instance, let's say a jock fears to admit that he's gay because he's afraid that his jock friends will abandon him and not consider him a real man anymore. Is that enforcement? (I'd say yes, but what would you say?)
Further, you postulate that poor people are more oppressed by theft then the rich? Why? Both experience negative effects, why are the negative effects of one greater then the other?
Four reasons. First, statistically, all the evidence indicates that the poor are robbed more often than the rich.
Second, anecdotally, the poor seem to spend more time worrying about being robbed than the rich (as in my example of which communities lock doors more, above).
Third, logically, losing a $2000 TV for someone who earns $500,000 a year is a smaller loss, as a proportion of income, than losing a $150 TV for someone who earns $10,000 a year.
Fourth, again statistically, the rich are far more likely to be insured.
Rape in prisons is illegal, but still oppressive. Rape outside of prisons is likewise illegal, but still oppressive.
If you did a bit of research into this, you'd actually find that consensual homosexual behavior in prisons is also illegal and is far more likely to be punished. Simply because it is the *prison guards* that are doing the charging, not an inmate.
Please avoid snide insults like "if you did a bit of research into this" in the future.
Nothing you say disagrees with what I've said. Rape in prison is illegal, but oppressive. Punishment by guards of consensual sex is legal, but oppressive. This supports my view, which is that oppressive elements can be legal or illegal.
Officials in the community do not turn a blind eye to rape (at least where women are concerned)...
So do you therefore conclude that rape of women is not oppressive?
But at the same time, the class of people you're talking about (which I imagine might generally be termed "mothers" or, more pendantically, "primary caretakers") aren't free agents either; they're facing pressures to gender-norm their children, both directly from the people and society around them, and also because of the thought structures that the caretakers picked up in their own childhoods.
And from whom(primarily) did the individuals who influence care-takers pick up their own gender-norms?
From the culture around them. Trying to pick out one person and say "she's the gulity party! Her!" shows a vast misunderstanding of how culture is transmitted.
Many scholars now argue that the presence of a father - even as a secondary caretaker - has enourmous effects. And some argue that peer effects are larger than caretaker effects.
Where do children's peers and men(primarily) get *their* gender-norms?
Well, according to the scholars who argue that peer effects are the largest influence, from peers. Others would say mothers. Others would say that girls get it most from mothers and other female role-models, but boys get it most from fathers and other female role-models.
This line of questioning seems dubious to me. I don't appreciate those few feminists who say that patriarchy should be blamed on men, and I don't appreciate the view that all of society should be blamed on mothers. The truth is, society is much bigger than any one group of people; saying "x group is responsible" is a vast oversimplification.
I'm feeling that this discussion is going nowhere, which is why I haven't been very interested in continuing. For me, a debate consists of one party putting foward a proposition, which the second party attacks and the first defends. We don't seem to be coming to any sort of proposition, and even if one is coming it might not be one I feel any impulse to argue about.
I'm trying to come to an understanding of what you mean by "totality of oppression". What is this power that men have that women don't have access to and that men are using for their own benefit?
How do men put pressure on women to act in a certain way?
TB, I asked you a bunch of questions in my previous post, which you don't address at all. It seems a little unfair of you to ask me questions if you're not going to answer mine.
What is this power that men have that women don't have access to and that men are using for their own benefit?
Er... when have I ever referred to such a power? Could you quote it, please? Because from where I'm standing, this seems like a complete non sequitor.
There are some ways that men, on average, are more powerful than women, on average, after all other factors (class, race, etc) are held equal. Perhaps more importantly, it's also true that our society tends to reserve
most positions of great power for men.
However, it would clearly be inaccurate to generalize from nuanced and "on average" statements to blanket statements such as the ones implied by your question.
How do men put pressure on women to act in a certain way?
Your question seems to assume that men alone pressure others, and that women alone are pressured. I don't think that's true. I think that society pressures women AND men to act in certain ways. And, clearly, "society" includes both men and women, not men alone.
So I don't think I can answer your question the way you phrased it, because the question implicitly assumes things I don't think are true. I could discuss how society puts pressure on both sexes to act in gender-normative ways, if you'd like.
Finally, I want to repeat my concern that this "debate" seems to lack all structure. Do you have a proposition that you're defending? If so, can you state it?
I've divided your questions and my responces into two other threads... enforcement of mores and men's vrs. women's power.