5 ms·

>Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history? And where could we be now if we hand't repressed all of our so

by nawitus 13y ago

>Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history? And where could we be now if we hand't repressed all of our society throughout our entire history? Men were repressed too, and in many cases more than women (hard labour, conscription etc). Men and women have gender roles which limit their lives.

marquis 13y ago
>Men were repressed too Ah, this old argument. Yes, and modern feminism would not disagree with you. What this argument does is try to shift the responsibility away from the oppressor (in this case, patriarchy), akin to the slave owner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life.
- rjknight 13y ago
  Nonsense. It's equivalent to a Victorian child tin miner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life. The set of people who actually owned slaves was always a tiny minority who were only able to own slaves because they were wealthier and more powerful than the vast majority of people alive in their own time. This is not to say that the child tin miner had a worse life than the slave, but they clearly both have more interests in common than either of them do with the slave owner.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Slave owner wasn't sent to do part time in a coal mine, BECAUSE he was slave owner. You can't equate some people having hard life with all people having because they had some role in society. And yes some people managed to eschew their role, but they are exceptions. Don't get me wrong. There is a lot to hate in patriarchy, it's a very bad system, but it has some advantages for women. As well as disadvantages for men. However paltry they are.
- farginay 13y ago
  Everyone posits an oppressor. Maybe it all happened naturally. http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
tptacek 13y ago
What's your point? Stipulate that we agree with you. Now what?
- nawitus 13y ago
  My point is that the quote makes the impression that men were not repressed, even though they were.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No, it doesn't. But say it did. What now? What's your point? The quote also doesn't make note of the struggles of the Australian Aboriginal peoples; why not take issue with that too? Where are you going with this?
    - nawitus 13y ago
      >No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. >why not take issue with that too? The problem is not that it doesn't highlight the oppression of men, but that it implies that men were not oppressed.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Repeating the same false argument won't make it true, but aside from that: what is your point? Were you conscripted? Were you "oppressed" as a man? Are women not oppressed? What are you actually trying to say here? A middle-schooler knows that the world is full of oppressed people, and that no one group has an exclusive license to the title of "oppressed". What's the goal of trying to deflect attention from this example of repression? Are you sure this was a smart argument to make? A reasonable person might attribute unfortunate subtext to it.
runarberg 13y ago
So what you are saying, is there is a hierarchy of hierarchies. Westerners suppress non-westerners. Within western society, whites suppress non-whites. And within white westerners, the upper-class suppresses lower classes. And within the white- upper-class western society, males suppress females... One can continue. Perhaps there is a tradition of suppression, starting at the bottom and reaching the top. I mean, women are suppressed within all classes, all societies, all races. (Generally speaking of course). Perhaps any kind of repression breeds further repression? My point is. There is no need to stop focusing on systematic suppression on one group, just because other groups are also being suppressed. EDIT: Before anybody comments on this, I know this presented hierarchy doesn't exist. I mean, I could as well have started with, "males suppress females, and within male society western males suppress..." (so there is more like a heap of hierarchies). I just used this as an example to make a point.
- rmc 13y ago
  Yep. This is called "intersectionality". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
  - runarberg 13y ago
    Sometimes I hear animal right activists argue that there is a direct link between animal oppression and minority oppression. I think they might not be far off. If you have the heart to oppress non-human animals, what's stopping you from oppressing the homeless, and if you have the hart to oppress the homeless, why do immigrants deserve your respect? why do the gays, why do women? I hadn't heard about intersectionality before, but knowing how dynamic the societal hierarchy is, and knowing that individuals are often times worse oppressors then governments, it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy.
    - rmc 13y ago
      > Sometimes I hear animal right activists... Yep, some vegetarians claim that people who claim to be feminist should be vegetarian. Me? I'm a speciesist. > it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy. It's not always linear. A black man might be margalized in the work place (or the criminal justice system), but in a position of power at home over his wife, but if he is in prison, he might be in a position of power. "It's complicated" is a term commonly used by people within the social justice scene. And just because there are loads of systematice oppressions doesn't mean we can't fight them all and try to end them all. Classism and sexism and homophobia and ... are all wrong.
rmc 13y ago
A lot of the marginalisation that men suffered were actually misogynistic patriarchial systems. ("Women are delicate flowers, ergo only the men should do the hard work", "Women are too weak to fight, so only the men should be conscripted"). Modern Feminism aims to get rid of these gender roles. Women should be able to be in the army and men should be able to be full time dads.
- nawitus 13y ago
  >Women should be able to be in the army Yes, the feminists in my country succeeded in giving women the right to be in the army, but not the responsibility. Conscription still forces men to be in the military, but women have the freedom to choose. They haven't really talked about the military after that.
  - rmc 13y ago
    And in Norway they have extended conscription to both sexes. And I agree with that. If you have conscription, it should apply to men and women. The existence of a patriarchial system in a country doesn't mean "all feminism is now incorrect".

by nawitus 13y ago

marquis 13y ago

>Men were repressed too Ah, this old argument. Yes, and modern feminism would not disagree with you. What this argument does is try to shift the responsibility away from the oppressor (in this case, patriarchy), akin to the slave owner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life.

rjknight 13y ago
Nonsense. It's equivalent to a Victorian child tin miner saying to the slave that he's also had a hard life. The set of people who actually owned slaves was always a tiny minority who were only able to own slaves because they were wealthier and more powerful than the vast majority of people alive in their own time. This is not to say that the child tin miner had a worse life than the slave, but they clearly both have more interests in common than either of them do with the slave owner.
Ygg2 13y ago
Slave owner wasn't sent to do part time in a coal mine, BECAUSE he was slave owner. You can't equate some people having hard life with all people having because they had some role in society. And yes some people managed to eschew their role, but they are exceptions. Don't get me wrong. There is a lot to hate in patriarchy, it's a very bad system, but it has some advantages for women. As well as disadvantages for men. However paltry they are.
farginay 13y ago
Everyone posits an oppressor. Maybe it all happened naturally. http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

tptacek 13y ago

What's your point? Stipulate that we agree with you. Now what?

nawitus 13y ago
My point is that the quote makes the impression that men were not repressed, even though they were.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, it doesn't. But say it did. What now? What's your point? The quote also doesn't make note of the struggles of the Australian Aboriginal peoples; why not take issue with that too? Where are you going with this?
  - nawitus 13y ago
    >No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. >why not take issue with that too? The problem is not that it doesn't highlight the oppression of men, but that it implies that men were not oppressed.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Repeating the same false argument won't make it true, but aside from that: what is your point? Were you conscripted? Were you "oppressed" as a man? Are women not oppressed? What are you actually trying to say here? A middle-schooler knows that the world is full of oppressed people, and that no one group has an exclusive license to the title of "oppressed". What's the goal of trying to deflect attention from this example of repression? Are you sure this was a smart argument to make? A reasonable person might attribute unfortunate subtext to it.

runarberg 13y ago

So what you are saying, is there is a hierarchy of hierarchies. Westerners suppress non-westerners. Within western society, whites suppress non-whites. And within white westerners, the upper-class suppresses lower classes. And within the white- upper-class western society, males suppress females... One can continue. Perhaps there is a tradition of suppression, starting at the bottom and reaching the top. I mean, women are suppressed within all classes, all societies, all races. (Generally speaking of course). Perhaps any kind of repression breeds further repression? My point is. There is no need to stop focusing on systematic suppression on one group, just because other groups are also being suppressed. EDIT: Before anybody comments on this, I know this presented hierarchy doesn't exist. I mean, I could as well have started with, "males suppress females, and within male society western males suppress..." (so there is more like a heap of hierarchies). I just used this as an example to make a point.

rmc 13y ago
Yep. This is called "intersectionality". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
- runarberg 13y ago
  Sometimes I hear animal right activists argue that there is a direct link between animal oppression and minority oppression. I think they might not be far off. If you have the heart to oppress non-human animals, what's stopping you from oppressing the homeless, and if you have the hart to oppress the homeless, why do immigrants deserve your respect? why do the gays, why do women? I hadn't heard about intersectionality before, but knowing how dynamic the societal hierarchy is, and knowing that individuals are often times worse oppressors then governments, it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy.
  - rmc 13y ago
    > Sometimes I hear animal right activists... Yep, some vegetarians claim that people who claim to be feminist should be vegetarian. Me? I'm a speciesist. > it makes sense that people would cast their oppression in various ways down the hierarchy. It's not always linear. A black man might be margalized in the work place (or the criminal justice system), but in a position of power at home over his wife, but if he is in prison, he might be in a position of power. "It's complicated" is a term commonly used by people within the social justice scene. And just because there are loads of systematice oppressions doesn't mean we can't fight them all and try to end them all. Classism and sexism and homophobia and ... are all wrong.

rmc 13y ago

A lot of the marginalisation that men suffered were actually misogynistic patriarchial systems. ("Women are delicate flowers, ergo only the men should do the hard work", "Women are too weak to fight, so only the men should be conscripted"). Modern Feminism aims to get rid of these gender roles. Women should be able to be in the army and men should be able to be full time dads.

nawitus 13y ago
>Women should be able to be in the army Yes, the feminists in my country succeeded in giving women the right to be in the army, but not the responsibility. Conscription still forces men to be in the military, but women have the freedom to choose. They haven't really talked about the military after that.
- rmc 13y ago
  And in Norway they have extended conscription to both sexes. And I agree with that. If you have conscription, it should apply to men and women. The existence of a patriarchial system in a country doesn't mean "all feminism is now incorrect".