Totality of Oppression

[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?

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?

[typhonblue]

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.

[ampersand]

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!

[typhonblue]

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?

[ampersand]

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 - 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 - 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).

[typhonblue]

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?

[ampersand]

...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.

[typhonblue]

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?

[ampersand]

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?

[typhonblue]

I've divided your questions and my responces into two other threads... enforcement of mores and men's vrs. women's power.