I think there is much confusion when it comes to the overall scheme of "oppression", rights, responsibilities, etc. in a historical sense.
Historically speaking, typically men made the money, men protected, men provided, men ran the show. Women took care of home and hearth, raised children, and had few other responsibilities. The payoff for men was that in excange for their greater responsibilties, greater risk of injury or death, etc., they also had more freedoms. The payoff for women was that in exchange for their lesser risks and obligations and far greater level of protection, they did not enjoy as many privileges as did men. In it's most highly refined form, this was called chivalry (and as I've commented before, whenever I hear a modern day princess-type harping about how men should be "chivalrous", it's always fun to see the puzzled looks when one suggests that chivalry was a two-way street- women did pay a price for the greater protection, lesser responsibility, and general all-around not having to do things for onesself that chivalry provided).
Now, was this neccessarily what all women would want or consider fair? probably not. Is it what all women want? No. But I'd bet that there were plenty of men in historical context who at times wished they could enjoy the relative safety, stability, and freedom from obligations as well.
To say that being treated as a protected class and in exchange having fewer privileges is "oppression" is at best misleading. To say that women being beaten and raped=oppression or women, in a society that routinely tortures, kills, and castrates men- is likewise at best a flawed argument.
I certainly will not discount the fact that there are plenty of women in history who have been treated poorly, oppressed, abused, or had few rights or freedoms; but just as many men have lived under the same conditions.
I would prefer a scoiety in which neither men or women are stuck with rigid roles based upon gender, and in which unwarranted brutality is not tolerated by or against either gender. But to suggest that throughout most fo history women were "oppressed" simply because they were confined to certain roles and denied certain privileges, when men were conifiend to their own set of roles and held to greater risks and obligations- nope, not buying it. TRy telling a boy who was castrated to provide a high tenor voice that women have it worse. Try telling a medieval landowner dying on the battlefield from the blow of a bearded axe that his wife who is safe at hoem watching teh children, should have greater freedom of speech and action. And also keep in mind that in a ruthless and brutal society, there was much that men were simply more suited to do (in terms of manual labor, weilding heavy arms, etc.). Up until recent times it would have been silly to use women as warriors or keepers of the peace. So as a man, you risked life and limb to protect your women folk. As a woman, you enjoyed this protection and in return deferred power to the males that protected you. Of course if men had to be the responsible decision makes and providers and protectors, it likewise means the men had greater need to be skilled and educated, so men typically enjoyed greater levels of acces to education and training. In very few cases did it have anything to do with a conscious effort to repress women. Even in the 1950s "Cleaver family" scenario, it is still based on this same model- mom may have had less power or privilege, but she also had less responsibility, less stress, and while quite different from 1000 years ago, the men folk were still the protectors, providers, and decision makes. I'm not saying housewives should have been entirely happy with their lot, but it would seem that their husbands would have had plenty to grouse about as well. It was simply a system of roles, not a system of opporession of one or the other.