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?