Totality of Oppression

Started by typhonblue, Jun 30, 2005, 11:50 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

typhonblue

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?

ampersand

Quote from: "Typhonblue"
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, 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.

typhonblue

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Typhonblue"
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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

typhonblue

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.)

ampersand

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.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
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.

Quote from: "typhonblue"
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:

Quote from: "Typhonblue"
Let's put the challenge on hold and discuss the "totality of oppression."


But then you wrote this:

Quote from: "Typhonblue"
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...

Quote from: "Typhonblue"
....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.)

typhonblue

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.

ampersand

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.

Quote
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, 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.

Quote
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?

ampersand

Quote
Quote
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.

dr e

Excuse my interuption but I feel the need to point something out.  Amp said:

Quote
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.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

ampersand

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.

typhonblue

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.

ampersand

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.

typhonblue

Quote from: "ampersand"

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.

ampersand

Well, earlier I quoted this definition of oppression, which I still think is pretty good:

Quote
"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?

typhonblue

Quote from: "ampersand"

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?

Quote
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.)

Go Up