Pollitical Corectness

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Your example is a good one on first glance, though, do you really think that starving a populace (crushing or burdening through abuse of power) through higher taxes can be done without malicious intent? Many people thought Marie Antionette wasn't being very kind to her subjects. Are all the women in North America in the same situation as the populace of France in 1788? And this is a case that you present as one where malicious intent doesn't exist? What about cases where the oppressors are REALLY malicious?

We keep returning to the same point and it's getting tiresome. You believe women are "oppressed" and are victims. Fine. I disagree.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Cry, you're a really smart person. You have great research skills and write well. Why do you feel so strongly that women are victims based on the fact that the average income is less for women than men?

Most jobs are equally open to men or women in the USA, is it not the same situation in Canada? Of course there are some exceptions, National Basketball Association for example. Even warfighter positions are opening up to women in the US military, although not across the board (not infantry for example). Do you feel that women aren't able to make a free choice of their career direction now? More women than men are enrolled in higher education in the US and this has been the case for many years.

Why do you want to stipulate women as victims? If I were a woman, I'd think it would be demeaning to be referred to as a victim.

 

[crysede]

Your example is a good one, though, do you really think that starving a populace (crushing or burdening through abuse of power) through higher taxes can be done without malicious intent?

I wasn't actually intending my example to be realistic, I was intending it to be extreme to make the point that intent wasn't implied by the definition of the word (even in extreme cases).

But yes, actually I think many dictators oppress their populations out of complete indifference rather than malicious intent (as opposed to out of love of their spouse - though perhaps the Marcos' might be an example of the latter lol, Imelda's jewellery and wardrobe could easily bankrupt a small country and her comments about the matter are things like If you're a little presentable, you're called frivolous. Beauty is frivolity it seems, but beauty is love. You can never have an excess of what is democratic, just and beautiful. . . . It is against religiosity to be surrounded by ugliness. But, of course, my example was purely factitious, it was in no way meant to poke fun at the Marcos' - I'd never do that, Imelda can afford really good libel lawyers. )

We keep returning to the same point and it's getting tiresome. You believe women are "oppressed" and are victims. Fine. I disagree.

I think we keep returning to this point, because we have been in complete disagreement over what 'oppression' means. Now that you can see that the dictionary does not imply intent - which was why you said women were not oppressed, you do agree, at least, that some particular women are oppressed (by virtue of the fact that they are female), right?

Just to be very certain I'm clear on what you're saying (since I misunderstood Ishmael about this point) what you disagree with is only my claim that women are victims of systemic oppression, correct? In other words, you would regect the claim that society holds any ideals of 'womanhood' that are unfairly burdensome to women, right?.

If a person is "priviledged" (using your definition of being born into a middle or upperclass background) . . .

And I'm sorry but I do have to bring up definitions again (since this pertains to my answer of you next question): my definition of privileged was not 'born into a middle or upperclass background'.

• my definition of privilege: an unearned advantage or favour that is granted to some individuals (or groups of individuals) and not to others
• my definition of class-privilege: born into an upper class
• my definition of white-skin privilege: born white
• my definition of heterosexual privilege: born heterosexual
• my definition of male-gender privilege: born male

Cry, you're a really smart person. You have great research skills and write well. Why do you feel so strongly that women are victims based on the fact that the average income is less for women than men?

Most jobs are equally open to men or women in the USA, is it not the same situation in Canada? Of course there are some exceptions, National Basketball Association for example. Even warfighter positions are opening up to women in the US military, although not across the board (not infantry for example). Do you feel that women aren't able to make a free choice of their career direction now? More women than men are enrolled in higher education in the US and this has been the case for many years.

Why do you want to stipulate women as victims? If I were a woman, I'd think it would be demeaning to be referred to as a victim.

Thanks, you appear to be a smart person as well. ( I assume we're just talking about academic smarts, right? 'Cause I'm not all that clever in other things, like relationships lol)

I don't feel that all women are victims due to the fact that the average income of women is lower than that of me - as I mentioned before, I feel that I personally am privileged within society, because the unfair advantages I gain by being white, upper-middle class, etc. more than offset the relatively minor (in my case) disadvantage of being female.

I do not think that the only way in which women are disadvantaged is financially, this is just one way in which they are disadvantaged (I'd be happy to discuss other ways too - perhaps we should avoid medicine though, since that is my real area of interest, and my arguments will wind up being so involved as to be utterly tiresome).

What I assert is that the difference in income suggests that women, in general, are disadvantaged economically because there is no earthly reason for claiming that they biologically wish to stay at home while men do not. I believe that society holds out to women that they are not 'real' women and cannot be fulfilled as a woman, unless they raise a family - and that unlike men, women with children, who chose to work, are often faced with negative attitudes that they are being 'bad' mothers, and that a 'good' mother would stay home with her children. Men don't face this, a working father is never accused of being a 'bad' father for not staying home. These unjust social ideals, in my opinion, place unfair burdens on women. The fact that many women do not mind staying home, does not alter the fact that they would find it more difficult than a man to choose not to stay at home.

This economic disadvantage does not simply remain a purely economic issue - it puts women, as a group, at a power disadvantage, as can be seen in cases when the family splits up since women, as a group, much more likely to live in poverty after the death of their husband, or divorce, or as a single mom (single dads are much less likely to live in poverty).

I do not feel that I face this particular burden - in a great part this is due to the fact that my parents have always encouraged me academically, and have never placed any pressure on my to live up to social ideals rather than pursue my own goals. Additionally, my mother has freely admitted that she would have been happier had she remained in her career once I was born (but by the time I was two, she had been made to feel so guilty over not being a good mother that she quit in order to stay at home with me - my father, of course, faced no such social pressure).

I readily agree that the situation for women has drastically improved, and continues to improve - but until working mothers are treated the same as working fathers, and men face equal social pressure to stay at home with the kids, I will continue to hold that women's freedom of choice in the matter is being unfairly impinged on by society through an unjust (burdensome) exercise of society's authority to set social norms.

As a woman, I don't find recognition that I face unfair pressure from society to settle down and raise a family demeaning. I do find the - unfortunately still made (though I realize not by you) - suggestion, that as a female I am biologically engineered to be a mom, and am thus somehow being 'unnatural' for having other priorities, demeaning. I also find the frequent subsequent assumption (again, not by you), that my life can't possibly be fulfilling and therefore I am to be pitied, demeaning.

 

[crysede]

Many people thought Marie Antionette wasn't being very kind to her subjects. Are all the women in North America in the same situation as the populace of France in 1788? And this is a case that you present as one where malicious intent doesn't exist? What about cases where the oppressors are REALLY malicious?

I just realized I didn't address this part of your comment - oops.

The fact that people thought she was being cruel, doesn't mean she did what she did out of malicious intent. For there to be intent, you have to intend the consequences - the fact that the consequences occur, even the fact that you could (or even should) have known that they would occur, does not mean you intended for them to occur.

I actually think most of the harm that is done by people (to others) is done out of blindness (often willful blindness) to the consequences of their actions, not out of a desire to cause harm.

I agree that oppressors can be malicious, the definition says nothing about whether there is malicious intent or not. Malicious intent, or the lack of it, must be added to the concept of oppression.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

What I assert is that the difference in income suggests that women, in general, are disadvantaged economically because there is no earthly reason for claiming that they biologically wish to stay at home while men do not. I believe that society holds out to women that they are not 'real' women and cannot be fulfilled as a woman, unless they raise a family - and that unlike men, women with children, who chose to work, are often faced with negative attitudes that they are being 'bad' mothers, and that a 'good' mother would stay home with her children. Men don't face this, a working father is never accused of being a 'bad' father for not staying home. These unjust social ideals, in my opinion, place unfair burdens on women. The fact that many women do not mind staying home, does not alter the fact that they would find it more difficult than a man to choose not to stay at home.

I readily agree that the situation for women has drastically improved, and continues to improve - but until working mothers are treated the same as working fathers, and men face equal social pressure to stay at home with the kids, I will continue to hold that women's freedom of choice in the matter is being unfairly impinged on by society through an unjust (burdensome) exercise of society's authority to set social norms.

As a woman, I don't find recognition that I face unfair pressure from society to settle down and raise a family demeaning. I do find the - unfortunately still made (though I realize not by you) - suggestion, that as a female I am biologically engineered to be a mom, and am thus somehow being 'unnatural' for having other priorities, demeaning. I also find the frequent subsequent assumption (again, not by you), that my life can't possibly be fulfilling and therefore I am to be pitied, demeaning.

I don't have a lot of time and can't make a large retort at this point. I'll list some quick bullets.

1) "To oppress" implies intent. I cannot "oppress" people without trying to do it. You came up with a clever case where you think there was no intent, but I still think there's intent. A disregard for your citizens (when your job is to be a leader of those citizens) can be considered "intent".

2) Women don't have to stay "at home with the children" unless they agree. They have choice. Your mother had a choice, your grandmother had a choice. They felt pressure from their family, but that doesn't mean they had to agree. You gave an example of societal pressure of "good mothers or bad mothers"...there's an opposite effect also where many women feel they have to go to work because they feel society pressures them to work and that they feel they wouldn't be taken seriously if they don't work. They feel "pressure" in just the opposite direction.

3) As for the biological discussion...I can understand your frustration if it's your choice not to have a family and that you resent that some people make comments to you about it. Many women feel that they'd prefer to be mothers and stay home. Is this choice they make "biologically driven"? I don't know, don't really care, the bottom line is that they're making a choice and so are you. There is nothing in this society that REQUIRES you to raise a family, and there's nothing that REQUIRES you to go to work. Since there's no firm REQUIREMENT, you have a choice. If people second guess you (they always will, ask any NFL football coach LOL). There's nothing that REQUIRES you to take a lower paying job to spend more time with your family.

If you have a choice, you are not being oppressed. The fact that your whole family says 'stay home and be a Mom" doesn't require you to do that. You can run off to South America and work in an Embassy if you want, there you'll be far enough away that you won't hear family members saying "stay home and be a Mom".

No, men don't feel pressure that way. Why is that? I don't know, but it's not a matter of oppression or "to oppress". We can debate it and attribute it to lots of reasons. I don't think that there's ever been a society on earth where men were expected to stay home full-time and take care of kids. I don't know if it's biological or not, but it certainly seems to be a fairly common pattern. Is it "fixed" and unchangable? I don't know, but, as far as I'm concerned, "it just is" and I'm not going to worry or fret about it. (just like I'm not going to stand at the beach and try to hold the tide back..it just is - with the understanding that women can and do choose otherwise).


4) Priviledge isn't part of my discussions, at least not until we get to the point where we're talking about social classes and race. Men and women are both represented across social classes and race. It's an interesting topic for later.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

It's almost as if you're claiming that a mother's harping a daughter about having kids/grandkids is "oppression". (whoa, I think I found the needle in the haystack) and the fact that lots of mothers do the same thing to lots of daughters "systematic oppression". I don't think this is oppression. I don't know what to call it, but it's not oppression.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I just realized I didn't address this part of your comment - oops.

The fact that people thought she was being cruel, doesn't mean she did what she did out of malicious intent. For there to be intent, you have to intend the consequences - the fact that the consequences occur, even the fact that you could (or even should) have known that they would occur, does not mean you intended for them to occur.

In your case, which you admit is a "stretch", there is still intent:

Advisor: Queen, the people have nothing to eat and are starving!
Queen: Let them eat cake!

Theres' no malicious intent there? She was a little crazy maybe, but malicious nonetheless.

If you call me an Oppressor..the hair on the back of my neck stands up. That is not a good way to start a discussion. Then saying "well, you didn't really mean it, you can "oppress" people without meaning it" isn't a good second step either.

Besides, it's not me that's giving advice to single young women to stay home and have babies. So maybe I'm not an oppressor. Lots of your posts seem to indicate it (men, maybe women too) though (if it's systemic). I'm on the defensive. Now you don't have an ally to help you seek answers, you have an opponent. (not that I'm your opponent).

Here's another one case where someone might have been oppressed without intent...

Policeman: The children in your care are starving..they haven't eaten in three days..what are you doing to them?

Woman: I didn't intend to do anything bad, I just forgot about them.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Good afternoon, you two!

LovetoGiveRoses--

I too don't have a lot of time, but I just wanted to let you know that I failed find any sense in your post (the one with the bullets, that is...)

I'll have to research for the details, but I can think of several situations of oppression where intent was not a factor, and sometimes quite the contrary(!).

(Do you think the whole slavery issue had anything to do with intent to cause harm to the slaves, or to simply gain an economic edge?)

You say that women aren't oppressed simply becaused they're not required to stay at home with the children and sometimes they even feel pressured by society for them to work or they wouldn't be taken serious. So, you're admitting women are subject to pressure for no reason other than their gender! You know that men aren't subject to those social judgements, "you don't know why". That sounds a lot like gender-based discrimination. Therefore, priviledge is very much a part of this discussion.

(If you have any doubt concerning the fact that having a choise has nothing to do with the fact that you're oppressed or not, think that, by your reasoning, there would never have been oppression throughout history: the oppressed could always have ran "off to South America and work in an Embassy if they wanted")

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Hello Lauen, I hope your enjoying as fine a day there in Portugal as we're getting here in Washington DC.

Good afternoon, you two!

LovetoGiveRoses--

I too don't have a lot of time, but I just wanted to let you know that I failed find any sense in your previous post...

I'll have to research for the details, but I can think of several situations of oppression where intent was not a factor, and sometimes quite the contrary(!).

(Do you think the whole slavery issue had anything to do with intent to cause harm to the slaves, or to simply gain an economic edge?)

You say that women aren't oppressed simply becaused they're not required to stay at home with the children and sometimes they even feel pressured by society for them to work or they wouldn't be taken serious. So, you're admitting women are subject to pressure for no reason other than their gender! You know that men aren't subject to those social judgements, "you don't know why". That sounds a lot like gender-based discrimination. Therefore, priviledge is very much a part of this discussion.

(If you have any doubt concerning the fact that having a choise has nothing to do with the fact that you're oppressed or not, think that, by your reasoning, there would never have been oppression throughout history: the oppressed could always have ran "off to South America and work in an Embassy if they wanted")

Yes, there was an intent to enslave slaves. That is certainly oppression and there was certainly intent. Saying we didn't really intent to enslave them, it just happened, is not a viable "defense".

There is lots of oppression, but this is not it. Slaves were certainly oppressed. The French citizens of the pre-revolution period were certainly oppressed.

Girls and young women being told to have babies by their mothers is not oppression. Pressure, maybe. Oppression, no.

Pressure does not equal oppression.

Everyone has "pressure". Our parents "pressure" us all the time when we're children and often into adulthood to do what they think is right. I might be told by my mother that having 6 kids is the best thing, but this "pressure" is not oppression.

As a "boy" I was told that I had to go out there and be "athletic". That's pressure, so what. Maybe I don't like to be athletic. So, I can say no. Since I have a choice, I'm not "oppressed".

I might have had a lot of pressure to become a Psychiatrist. I chose not to. So, there was pressure, but pressure is not oppression.

Men have to go "do something with your life" (quoting my father), "you have to earn a living to support a family"..."stop watching TV all the time, do you want to be a bum?" You might say this is "pressure" of a different kind, but it's not oppression.

If there was not a choice, then you might be able to make the case for oppression in some circumstances. Though, if I had become a Psychiatrist, a leading member of society and a good citizen, I'd have a hard time claiming "oppressed" status because my mother "pressured" me to follow that career path.

If you don't want to be a mother, you don't have to. The government isn't telling you that you must fall in love and become a mother. You are not locked out of career choices (except maybe the NBA and a couple other similar places). You own mother might be telling you to get married and have babies, but you can make your own choices. If you feel that you can't disagree with your mother, that's your own problem, but it does not indicate systemic oppression.

You have choices.

 

[crysede]

Hello LTGR and Lauren .

LTGR, I think you are focussing too much on the apparently adversarial nature of debate: just because we are arguing different sides of an issue, does not mean we are working against each other. So long as we are debating (as opposed to throwing temper tantrums and screaming insults at each other like some seem to prefer) we are cooperating in an attempt to better understand the issue. Defending my view from someone's refutations forces me to consider my beliefs carefully, to examine whether they really mesh with my other beliefs, perhaps even change some of them. There is no better way to make sure you understand an issue, then debating it with someone who disagrees with you.

The most important thing, the real goal and purpose of any rational debate, is not winning - it is being forced to really examine our own beliefs to make sure that what we are saying truly represents our opinions. All too often I have gone into debates with one opinion, only to discover that the opinion I had put forward, on closer examination, was not what I believed after all. So long as we have both been made to think about our views, hopefully even to come to a clearer understanding of what our views are, then we have both reaped the benefits of this discussion.

Certainly I've found it beneficial, in that I have a much clearer understanding of my views on what oppression is 'exactly' - not a topic I'd ever really delved into before.

1) "To oppress" implies intent. I cannot "oppress" people without trying to do it. You came up with a clever case where you think there was no intent, but I still think there's intent. A disregard for your citizens (when your job is to be a leader of those citizens) can be considered "intent".

Just to be clear, before I challenge you on this, which of the following is your claim (or perhaps you would claim both?):

1. that if someone acts in a way that is unjust, and harms others, then they have acted with intent even if they did not intend the harm
2. that if someone should have been aware of the consequences, that means that they intended the consequences to happen even if they were not actually aware of the consequences

If neither accurately describes your claim about the definition of oppression, please explain your position in more detail (and please use my example, so it's easier for me to see where our differences lie).

2) Women don't have to stay "at home with the children" unless they agree. They have choice. Your mother had a choice, your grandmother had a choice. They felt pressure from their family, but that doesn't mean they had to agree. You gave an example of societal pressure of "good mothers or bad mothers"...there's an opposite effect also where many women feel they have to go to work because they feel society pressures them to work and that they feel they wouldn't be taken seriously if they don't work. They feel "pressure" in just the opposite direction.

Yes, I absolutely agree that radical feminism has responded to the recognition of social oppression by exerting an equal, but opposite, pressure on women - asserting that a woman is not a real person unless she has a career. This is equally oppressive, since in is an abuse of the authority of feminism (as an organization that claims to be founded on the principles of fighting oppression in all its forms) to assert that women must have jobs.

At this point in time, however, I do not think it would be possible to make a convincing case that the norms touted by one group of feminists (which are vocally objected to by the majority of feminists) carry as much authority as the norms touted by society as a whole (and object to by a feminist minority). What is a actually happening, is that women are being caught in the double bind of being pressured to 'raise their children properly' (ie, stay at home) and to 'not allow themselves to be taken advantage of' (ie, have a career). In this respect radical feminism has actually increased the social burden on women, and is one of the many, many reasons why I'm a vocal opponent of radical feminism.

3) As for the biological discussion...I can understand your frustration if it's your choice not to have a family and that you resent that some people make comments to you about it.

I do not resent that some individual people make remarks to me. What I object to (I do not resent it, since I do not see it as intentional) is society continuing to operate on the assumption that what I am doing is 'unnatural' in some way.

Women who choose to devote themselves to their work rather than have a family are responded to very differently than men who making the same choice. The men are seen only in positive terms, as being dedicated - the women are also seen as dedicated, but there is an underlying sense that there is something very odd about them: their lack of a family is routinely brought up in articles written about them as something that needs to be explained (often there is some analysis of what happened in the early life to make them willing to accept the isolation of not having a family.) I object to both the outright claims, and the thinly veiled insinuations, that women who choose this path are abnormal in some way (or are confused/misguided), when men who chose this path are not.

Many women feel that they'd prefer to be mothers and stay home. Is this choice they make "biologically driven"? I don't know, don't really care, the bottom line is that they're making a choice and so are you. There is nothing in this society that REQUIRES you to raise a family, and there's nothing that REQUIRES you to go to work. Since there's no firm REQUIREMENT, you have a choice. There's nothing that REQUIRES you to take a lower paying job to spend more time with your family.

If you have a choice, you are not being oppressed.

We have agreed that we are using terms according to their standard English usage, so let's consider the standard usage of 'free choice'.

• For you to be considered to have given consent, it is required that your choice is free. If you can demonstrate that the consentor was under some sort of pressure, then there has been no consent. You do not have to demonstrate that the other party would have chosen differently had there been not pressure, nor does the pressure have to have been so extreme as to entirely eliminate their choice entirely (as in a gun to the head).
• Free choice is a choice that is free - if you are pressured to make one choice over another, then your choice is not free.
• If it is not free, then it has been restricted, and the entity doing the restricting has acted in such a way as to limit your choice (note, this does not entail that limiting your choice was the intent - only that limiting your choice was the/a result).
• If your choice is limited just because you happen to have been born female/black/etc. then this limiting is unfair, and the entity limiting your choice has acted unjustly.
• If the entity has unjustly limited your choice, then it has unjustly exercised its power/authority over you.
• If the entity in question is society, then society has unjustly exercised its power/authority, therefore society has been oppressive.

(I'm quite sure you'll be objecting to this argument , when you do so could you please be specific about exactly which parts to disagree with - I'm guessing it will be (a), but I'm not certain.)

 

[crysede]

I'm posting this part separately because I'd like to deal with it separately, since this is an argument you are making, as opposed to your other comments which were direct refutations of things I was saying. But if you don't see it this way, then you can always recombine the two in your reply.

No, men don't feel pressure that way. Why is that? I don't know, but it's not a matter of oppression or "to oppress". We can debate it and attribute it to lots of reasons. I don't think that there's ever been a society on earth where men were expected to stay home full-time and take care of kids. I don't know if it's biological or not, but it certainly seems to be a fairly common pattern. Is it "fixed" and unchangable? I don't know, but, as far as I'm concerned, "it just is" and I'm not going to worry or fret about it. (just like I'm not going to stand at the beach and try to hold the tide back..it just is).

There have been societies in which men were assumed to share the responsibilities of raising children equally with women. And since, as you yourself have pointed out, there is much less pressure on women to stay at home than there used to be, it is obviously not unchangeable.

Why should we (as a society) not worry about it? If no one had fretted about it 100 years ago (and incidentally, those fretting were also told that "it just is" that way - I know, I know, that doesn't prove a darn thing, it just struck me as funny to see the same argument ), then women like me would not have the choice to pursue the careers we wish. Women were known to be unsuitable for academia in general, and totally incapable of being members of faculty, due to our emotional temperaments which rendered us incapable of rational thought. Indeed to even allow us to make the attempt was irresponsible since it would do irreparable mental damage to us.

If it was all right for people to fret about the situation then, why is it not alright to fret about it now? I know things are dramatically improved for women since then, but why should we (as a society) settle, and put up with the social injustices that are left just because they are relatively minor?

If you had managed to push the tide almost all the way back, wouldn't you assume that you would be able to push it back the rest of the way? Surely you would at least try, rather than assuming that you could not, wouldn't you?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

As a secondary meaning in one of these, it says that oppress can be used in the form "The heat is oppressive today" which does not require intent. So, intent is not neccessary. If you look at the primary meanings in these, it is almost always present, but the weather cannot be seen as having an "intent" to make humans uncomfortable.

Now, this is still a very strong word. Are you arguing that women are 'crushed', 'burdened by abuse of power', 'kept down by severe and unjust use of force or authority', or 'treated harshly, brutally, or unfairly'. If so, run and run quickly to your neighborhood superhero and have him or her eradicate those evil people who are so brutal to women.

Or are you stating the position that some mothers keep their daughters down by severe and unjust use of force or authority. These must be ninja mothers. LOL.

The secondary meaning in the first dictionary is "to weigh heavily upon" which is getting close to what I think you're trying to convey. But I still think it's far too strong a word, especially because many people will "default" to it's primary meaning (Crush/Tyranize).

I'll talk about "free choice" down below in another post.

___________________________________________________
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary: Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French oppresser, from Latin oppressus, past participle of opprimere, from ob- against + premere to press -- more at OB-, PRESS
Date: 14th century
1 a archaic : SUPPRESS b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
2 : to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon
synonym see WRONG
- op•pres•sor /-'pre-s&r/ noun


American Heritage
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: op•pressed, op•press•ing, op•press•es
1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny. 2. To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit. 3. Obsolete To overwhelm or crush.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English oppressen, from Old French opresser, back-formation from oppression, oppression, from Latin oppressi , oppressi n-, from oppressus, past participle of opprimere, to press against : ob-, against; see ob– + premere, to press; see per-4 in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: op•pres sor —NOUN



4) Wordsmyth
Inflected Forms oppressed, oppresssing, oppresses
Definition 1. to treat harshly, brutally, or unfairly.
Example a government that oppresses its people.
Synonyms tyrannize , abuse (2)

Crossref. Syn. grind , persecute

Similar Words subjugate , prosecute , maltreat , brutalize , mistreat , grind , ride roughshod over {roughshod (PHR)}

Definition 2. to cause (someone) to be burdened, harried, or depressed.
Example Her responsibilities oppress her ; The humid heat oppressed us.
Synonyms overwhelm (3) , weigh down {weigh (PHR 3)}

Crossref. Syn. depress , encumber

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Yes, I absolutely agree that radical feminism has responded to the recognition of social oppression by exerting an equal, but opposite, pressure on women - asserting that a woman is not a real person unless she has a career. This is equally oppressive, since in is an abuse of the authority of feminism (as an organization that claims to be founded on the principles of fighting oppression in all its forms) to assert that women must have jobs.

Not!

My mother complained about this all the time. In fact, I think it's a large factor in her decision to go back to work (even though she worked for free as a psychologist). I hear it at the community pool all the time and at work as well. My wife's friends talk about it. I heard it much more frequently 5 years ago than I do now, but I still here it. I hear it much more frequently than I hear any comments to the effect that women should stay home and have babies. I'd say I hear this comment 5 times for every once that I hear the other. Could it be that your perspective is largely shaped by your own situation, that you're hypersensitive to it? (Probably because I see "working" women in the workplace more frequently than I see stay at home Moms).

LOL. It's actually kind of funny. Women can be catty sometimes. The women that work seem to look down their noses at the women who stay home and the women who stay home do the same to the women who work. LOL. Maybe it's a matter of where you stand. In either case...no one is being "tyranized" (yes, that still remains as a synonym in the some of the dictionary definitions). Maybe cat-fightingerized, but not tyranized.

Tyrannized is what happened to Jews in WW2, Tyranized is what happened to slaves, tyranized is what happend to Chinese at the hands of the Japanses in the late 30's in China....are you equating a mother admonishing her daughter to "raise a family" with slavery or mass murders?

Or, are you just using the word to grab attention?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Oppress again...

Let's see..here are some of the groups claiming oppression..

1) A group in Denver is trying to raise money to purchase slaves from the Sudan to free them.
2) Demonic Possession, Demonic Oppression, & Exorcism - that's a cool group.
3) This one's not too far off: The Role of Xianity in the
Oppression of Women
Xianity has always been an institution run by men solely for the benefits of men. Priests have always been men, and even now, in the 1990s, it is an uphill struggle for women to begin to change the minds of most men to accept women as priests. Thus, since the institution of xianity has never had the benefit of the insight or opinions of women because of their total exclusion from it, it is logical to assume that there could potentially have been some abuses of the power which this system grants to men. In addition, the exclusion of women from this sort of "boy’s club" has provided the opportunity for the existence of a conspiracy of silence as to the specific activities which its members could possibly conduct behind closed doors, for which man would betray the confidence of another by speaking out the sometimes unpleasant truth. (but she's saying...assume that there could potentially have been some abuses of the power which this system grants to women).
4) South African English: Oppressor or Liberator? Good paper... William 7 might find it interesting.
5) Relief for Oppressed People Everywhere (ROPE) - aim is to relieve poverty at a grass-roots level in developing countries as well as UK inner cities.

There are some good programs in there.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I'm posting this part separately because I'd like to deal with it separately, since this is an argument you are making, as opposed to your other comments which were direct refutations of things I was saying. But if you don't see it this way, then you can always recombine the two in your reply.There have been societies in which men were assumed to share the responsibilities of raising children equally with women. And since, as you yourself have pointed out, there is much less pressure on women to stay at home than there used to be, it is obviously not unchangeable.

Why should we (as a society) not worry about it? If no one had fretted about it 100 years ago (and incidentally, those fretting were also told that "it just is" that way - I know, I know, that doesn't prove a darn thing, it just struck me as funny to see the same argument ), then women like me would not have the choice to pursue the careers we wish. Women were known to be unsuitable for academia in general, and totally incapable of being members of faculty, due to our emotional temperaments which rendered us incapable of rational thought. Indeed to even allow us to make the attempt was irresponsible since it would do irreparable mental damage to us.

If it was all right for people to fret about the situation then, why is it not alright to fret about it now? I know things are dramatically improved for women since then, but why should we (as a society) settle, and put up with the social injustices that are left just because they are relatively minor?

If you had managed to push the tide almost all the way back, wouldn't you assume that you would be able to push it back the rest of the way? Surely you would at least try, rather than assuming that you could not, wouldn't you?

Read more carefully, I was specifically talking about men being the primary caregivers for children. Most societies "share" the responsibility. I don't know of any where men are the primary caregivers as a general rule. Do you? I don't think that will ever change and I'm not going to waste my time trying to bring it about.

You can wish for it all you want. I don't think it will happen. I don't know the cause of it, but I really don't care. This is what I was refering to in holding the tide back...men haven't been primary caregivers to children and I don't think that you'll ever change it. Is it oppression to women that men aren't the primary caregivers to children?

I know that there's been a great deal of change over the last 100 years in women getting more choice in careers. I've mentioned that several times, but that's not what I was talking about.

As for women having the capability, capacity and willingness to do lots of jobs, it's something I support completely. I've made my preferences known on these boards many times, that I prefer a smart woman, capable and confident as a partner. But that doesn't change that men have not historically been primary caregivers for children.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Is this an accurate reflection, or am I all wet?

Start with a group of men and women in a room.

Case 1: A couple women call out to the room, "ladies, ladies, please come with me into the other room." Assume all the ladies willingly go into the room.

The men look about, say "Oh, that's nice", and go back to their conversations with each other, probably privately pleased that they can delve into discussions about last nights game.

Case 2: A couple of men call out to the room, "Gentlemen, Gentlemen, please come with me into the other room." Assume all the gentlemen willingly go into the room.

The women start suffering from apoplexy wondering what is going on. Why are the men going into the other room? What am I missing? Why can't the women be included?

Is this the case?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

For you to be considered to have given consent, it is required that your choice is free. If you can demonstrate that the consentor was under some sort of pressure, then there has been no consent. You do not have to demonstrate that the other party would have chosen differently had there been not pressure, nor does the pressure have to have been so extreme as to entirely eliminate their choice entirely (as in a gun to the head).

You're right. It's (a), but it's also (b) (BTW, I stopped reading it when I got to the social class/race stuff cause I'm not ready to talk about that yet)

It's not so much the logic that I disagree with as your application of it, including your presumed definition of "pressure" as has been indicated in your earlier posts.

A mother making her opinion known to a daughter is not infringing upon a persons "free choice" I presume that you're over 25 (might not be a fair assumption). If your mother calls you up at night and tells you to vacuum your rug, do you feel that your free choice to watch a movie instead has been threatened under pressure? I realize that talking about a life's choice of occupation is different from the choice between a TV show and a vacuum. I also realize that many women, (some men too) feel that maternal pressure can be considerable. Nevertheless, it is not oppression, even in the secondary definition because most people are able to keep "Mom's" suggestions in context. "Mom's comments are certainly important and should be weighed with serious consideration, but it doesn't carry the weight of law nor does 'serious consideration' mean the usurpation of a person's free choice.

If you are going to tell me that a woman can't exercise free will against the recommendations of her mother, I'm going to tell you that the daughter is still a ward of her parents. If that level of discussion impinges free will, then that person is certainly a victum, and should be protected. She should also have her ability to make decisions taken away from her through a legal document because she isn't responsible enough to take care of herself.

If you can demonstrate that the consentor was under some sort of pressure

Define "pressure". You seem to be indicating that any suggestion "Darling, you really should stay home and have babies" constitues "pressure" and that the person recieving the suggestion no longer has the free choice to ignore the suggestion and that then constitues "oppression".

Is 'peer pressure' enough to invalidate free choice? If a friend says "Darling, you shouldn't go to Yale any longer, you should join me at haircutting school instead and then meet a boy and have babies." Is that pressure enough to invalidate free choice and cause oppression? There's always that old adage "If your friend tells you to jump off the end of the bridge, would you?"

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Pssst. Cry, I think we hijacked this thread.

Maybe we can debate the roll of political correctness in the discussion of the difference in average income in men's and women's average income.

 

[crysede]

If it's OK with you, I'd like to put the issue of 'free choice' aside for the moment, we've got more than enough on our plates right now with out it lol (I will get back to your post about it later).

As a secondary meaning in one of these, it says that oppress can be used in the form "The heat is oppressive today" which does not require intent. So, intent is not neccessary. If you look at the primary meanings in these, it is almost always present, but the weather cannot be seen as having an "intent" to make humans uncomfortable.

Nope, I definitely mean the first meaning - I have not been quoting the second definition because that is not what I mean.

You are now saying that with the first meaning intent "is almost always present" - this is a perfectly acceptable definition to me since you are no longer claiming intent is necessarily present by virtue of the meaning of the term 'oppression'. It is of no matter to me if the use of the word 'oppression' usually coincides with the 'intent', my one and only objection was to your insistence that the word 'oppression' necessarily entailed intent.

I am using 'oppression' in the first sense of the word, and I am not implying intent.

Are you arguing that women are 'crushed', 'burdened by abuse of power', 'kept down by severe and unjust use of force or authority', or 'treated harshly, brutally, or unfairly'. If so, run and run quickly to your neighborhood superhero and have him or her eradicate those evil people who are so brutal to women.

Yes, this is what I am arguing. If you read the definition (taking note of where the word 'or' occurs), you'll notice that one of the possible groups of meanings it lists is: "treated harshly, brutally or unfairly". Thus, according to this definition, if society treats women unfairly, society is oppressing them.

My mother complained about this all the time. In fact, I think it's a large factor in her decision to go back to work (even though she worked for free as a psychologist). I hear it at the community pool all the time and at work as well. My wife's friends talk about it. I heard it much more frequently 5 years ago than I do now, but I still here it. I hear it much more frequently than I hear any comments to the effect that women should stay home and have babies. I'd say I hear this comment 5 times for every once that I hear the other. Could it be that your perspective is largely shaped by your own situation, that you're hypersensitive to it? (Probably because I see "working" women in the workplace more frequently than I see stay at home Moms).

You think that I see more stay at home moms than working women in university? *giggling* I hate to break this to you, but all the women in university with me are either students, teachers, administrators, or researchers - none of them are stay at home moms.

You seem quite willing to believe women's claims that they are being unfairly pressured by other women - I cannot understand why you are so unwilling to accept other women's claims (indeed the claims of the vast majority of socially active women) that they are being unfairly pressured by society.

LOL. It's actually kind of funny. Women can be catty sometimes. The women that work seem to look down their noses at the women who stay home and the women who stay home do the same to the women who work. LOL. Maybe it's a matter of where you stand. In either case...no one is being "tyranized" (yes, that still remains as a synonym in the some of the dictionary definitions). Maybe cat-fightingerized, but not tyranized.

That's all very well, but I am not claiming women are tyrannized, I am claiming they are oppressed - and since we are using dictionary definitions of words, I do not have to be implying that women are tyrannized. Let's see if we can finally put this definition issue to rest (I apologize for the painful detail that will be following, but I just wanted to be very, very sure that this has made quite clear this time).

Your definition is: oppress = 'crushed', 'burdened by abuse of power', 'kept down by severe and unjust use of force or authority', or 'treated harshly, brutally, or unfairly'.

Let's break this down. You'll notice that there are four groups of words inclosed by single quotes, to make things clearer let's label these groups a-d as follows:

• =crushed
• =burdened by abuse of power
• =kept down by severe and unjust use of force or authority
• =treated harshly, brutally, or unfairly

Now substituting the letters for the groups of words, we can rewrite the definition as follows: oppress = a, b, c, or d

The 'or' in the above definition means that 'd' is oppression all by itself - 'd' does not also have to be 'a', it does not also have to be 'b', it does not also have to be 'c' (if this had been the case, there would have been an 'and' not an 'or').

Therefore, it is clear that 'd' = oppression: which means that 'treated harshly, brutally, or unfairly' = oppression.

Now, if we substitute letters for the words 'harshly', 'brutally', and 'unfairly' we get: treated a, b, or c = oppression

This means that treating 'c' is oppression all by itself (since 'or' is used). Therefore, treating unfairly = oppression all by itself, it does not also have to be harsh, it does not also have to be brutal.

Just because you want me to be using the word 'oppression' to mean 'treated brutally', does not mean you can decided that this is my meaning - I am very familiar with English, and I really am capable of deciding what I mean. I have told you several times before that I mean 'oppression' in the sense of 'treated unfairly' - you need to respect my choice of meaning, and stop claiming that I actually mean something else.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

You seem quite willing to believe women's claims that they are being unfairly pressured by other women - I cannot understand why you are so unwilling to accept other women's claims (indeed the claims of the vast majority of socially active women) that they are being unfairly pressured by society.

Why is it "unfair" when most women, it seems, welcome the opportunity to have children with open arms? Many that have difficulty having children go to great lengths to try. Those that don't want children have the to choice not to have them, don't they?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The word oppression is too strong a word for what you're describing. Your case gets lost in the word. I can't take you seriously if you use it.

 

[crysede]

Your message gets lost in the word, it's too strong for your argument. I can't take you seriously if you use it.

This is the word that's always used to describe it though, I can't think of another word that would have the same meaning - unless I just use the defintion, and say 'systemic unfair treatment' rather than 'systemic oppression', that would convey the same meaning I guess.

Read more carefully, I was specifically talking about men being the primary caregivers for children. Most societies "share" the responsibility. I don't know of any where men are the primary caregivers as a general rule. Do you? I don't think that will ever change and I'm not going to waste my time trying to bring it about.

I assumed that your comment must have been a typo, and the you meant your statement to be that men would never be given equal responsibility in the care of children. Where on earth did you get the idea that I want men be the primary caregivers of children? I have explicitly stated that I want the social pressure, and social responsibility, to be shared equally between men and women. I don't want men to be treated unfairly instead of women - I want no one to be treated unfairly.

Now that you know I want equality (not the subjugation of men), would you still say that the current situation is unchangeable, and that fighting for equality would be pointless, and that the lack of equality 'just is' and should not be fretted about?

Or would you agree, given that tremendous progress towards equality that has been made thus far, that it makes sense to continue to try for still more progress?

Pssst. Cry, I think we hijacked this thread.

Maybe we can debate the roll of political correctness in the discussion of the difference in average income in men's and women's average income.

What?! We have not, I never hijack!!

Well, ok, maybe we've hijacked it a little bit

But everyone else left ages ago, so they've only got themselves to blame: what do they expect to happen if they go gallivanting off, leaving a thread completely unattended? I mean really, it's not like they didn't know perfectly well that it was only a matter of time before someone came along and started using the thread to discus gender inequality.

 

[crysede]

Why is it "unfair" when most women, it seems, welcome the opportunity to have children with open arms? Many that have difficulty having children go to great lengths to try. Those that don't want children have the to choice not to have them, don't they?

I want women to have the choice - what is unfair is that we are pressured, and told what is best for us, rather than being allowed to freely choose what is best for ourselves.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

This is the word that's always used to describe it though, I can't think of another word that would have the same meaning - unless I just use the defintion, and say 'systemic unfair treatment' rather than 'systemic oppression', that would convey the same meaning I guess. I assumed that your comment must have been a typo, and the you meant your statement to be that men would never be given equal responsibility in the care of children. Where on earth did you get the idea that I want men be the primary caregivers of children? I have explicitly stated that I want the social pressure, and social responsibility, to be shared equally between men and women. I don't want men to be treated unfairly instead of women - I want no one to be treated unfairly.

Now that you know I want equality (not the subjugation of men), would you still say that the current situation is unchangeable, and that fighting for equality would be pointless, and that the lack of equality 'just is' and should not be fretted about?

Many women want to have children and a large number look forward to being the primary caregiver (whether they stay home full-time or not). There are some families that are already 50-50. So, to get the overall "systematic" 50-50 balance that indicates 'equality' in this arena (indicating an "equal choice" between men and women in regards to caregiving and career), then there should be approximately the same number of men operating as primary caregivers as women with some number of families in the "shared" catagory.

As far as pressure to have children. I'll agree with you that men don't recieve as much "pressure" as women to have children. Though, I must admit, in the process of bringing a child into the world, a women bears the brunt of the workload and are percieved to have the primary role. That probably won't change..LOL.

However, men do have some "pressure" to get married and have children. Parents generally want to have grandkids and are usually not shy about being vocal about it whether their offspring are male or female. There is probably some internal "pressure" to procreate, though it's hard to quantify. Another source of pressure is "society". If a man doesn't get married, then he is often percieved to prefer the company of men. Though some don't consider that as a "negative pressure", many still do.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Everyone recieves pressure. Women probably get a little more because they have a bigger roll (no pun intended) in childbearing. Is it unfair?...I don't know. Unfortunate maybe, unfair..I don't know.

The amount of pressure varies also based on the society. As far as the amount of pressure on our society (North American), I'd guess it's fairly light in comparision to many others.

In many societies where war has been a frequent guest, the "pressure" to have children can get quite acute.