...as I've said several times before, if a social more is not *enforced* it's not oppressive.
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?)
I suppose there are levels of enforcement.
Generally one party has to be in a position of power over the other to enforce conformity in the second party. (For instance, almost every person on this planet has been in a position of subservience to a woman during their most vulnerable and formative years. Suggesting that women have incredible power to enforce conformity. At least in those cultures without counter-measures.)
Sometimes that power can simply be a matter of holding a majority view point. Which you can then turn to for enforcement of that viewpoint.
The greatest level of enforcement is when laws exist against a particular action and the majority of individuals agree with the enforcement (to the point where a majority of *criminals* will enforce it.)
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.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, it's been a while since I went through this before.
Rape in the community(for women) does not suffer from the same lack of compassion (people rarely find community rape funny in the way they find prison rape), enforcement (when charges are brought, they are far less likily to be dismissed), or universal condemnation (even criminals do not condone the rapists of women yet criminals condone rapists of men.)
Would you say, knowing that, that the rape of women is equally oppressive as the rape of men(in prison)?
Or even out, really.
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?
Personally, I don't see how society could stigmatize the rape of women any more. It's criminalized. Almost no one finds it acceptable. It's not a source of levity like the rape of men. Government bodies exist to address it. Laws exist to protect the victims. etc. etc.
So I don't see how rape is an effort by society to oppress women. Society couldn't do much more to stop it, barring even more extreme violations of men's rights.
Now compare that to how the same issue for men is treated. (Or ignored and/or laughed at, rather.)
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.
Okay, tell me how culture is transmitted?
I simply assumed culture was transmitted from the old to the young. Influences of peer groups are important, but realize that those peers are *also* subject to the same transfer of culture from the old to the young. (Unless they are swooping in from some sort of genetics lab where they've been grown in a test tube.)
And since the older parties in closest and most intimate contact with the young tend to be universally female... well... it stands to reason that the majority of culture is being transmitted by women.
(I omitted the poor people thing because I have no idea where I'm going with it anymore.)