Absolutely, it is harder to see oppression when it doesn't affect us. But unless you think every group is oppressing every other group all the time*, there are at least some contexts where oppression isn't happening, and it's important to be able to distinguish those. Saying "anyone who disagrees with me is blind" is not a convincing argument -- particularly when significant numbers of women themselves say they are not oppressed, but this gets dismissed as "internalized misogyny."
*If you define oppression as "sinning against", then indeed, every group really is oppressing every other group all the time. But this would imply that women are oppressing men as well as vice versa, a conclusion that I am expect you disagree with -- please correct me if wrong.
Do you agree that women in the USA are less oppressed today than 100 years ago? That they are less oppressed than women in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Thailand, the DR Congo, Colombia, or India? That they are less oppressed than the vast majority of women in the history of the world?
What level of life-outcome statistics would convince you that oppression isn't happening on a systemic level (i.e. that a society is treating women at least as well as it treats men)? If the answer is "no such level exists," why not? Is there an iron law of nature that women are *always* oppressed by men, no matter what? Do you think they are oppressed in the Scandinavian countries or New Zealand (generally considered the most egalitarian, least oppressive countries in the world)?
I don't think there's any argument i could make, statistics I could cite, or reframing I could offer that would change your mind, Edmund.
I believe oppression of women exists (as a group, and some individuals experience this oppression more than others) everywhere where the ideology and systems of Patriarchy aren't explicitly and intentionally dealt with. Some countries do better than others.
And you're right - no one is a perfect victim or victimizer. We are all both. But white cis-gender educated affluent able-bodied men like me need to reckon with how we benefit from systems of oppression if we are going to also talk about the ways in which we've been oppressed (neurodivergence, ptsd, sexual abuse, etc). This is called intersectionality and it's vital.
Looking at the USA today, I don't see the boot or the neck.
I fully grant that women were broadly oppressed in some other times and places, including with laws that expressly denied women various rights (to own property in their own names, to vote, to be educated, etc.) Such laws are absent in the USA now, and indeed our legal and regulatory code specifies "no discrimination on the basis of sex" in hundreds (at least) of different contexts.
I do not see the negative skew in life outcomes that would result from "boot on neck" oppression of the sort you and the Instagram poster described. We would expect an oppressed demographic to (on average) live shorter lives, be more likely to die by violence, be more likely to become homeless, be more likely to be imprisoned, and be *less* likely to get higher education. All those stats actually show men at a disadvantage now (for education, looking at current college enrollments). Now, I believe many-though-not-all of those negative outcomes result from men's choices, so I am not jumping to conclude that we have systematic oppression against men, but I don't think we have it against women either. In light of these stats, what evidence would be sufficient to convince you that women aren't systematically oppressed?
If you're postulating oppression of the common people by an economic-cultural elite, that the stats at least make sense (the common people do worse than the elites on those life-outcome metrics), but that shouldn't be framed in terms of sex, given that entrance to the elite isn't sex-gated.
The fact that progress has been made doesn’t seem like a good reason to stop.
For example are you familiar with the gender pay gap? Does this seem like a problem to you?
Absolutely, it is harder to see oppression when it doesn't affect us. But unless you think every group is oppressing every other group all the time*, there are at least some contexts where oppression isn't happening, and it's important to be able to distinguish those. Saying "anyone who disagrees with me is blind" is not a convincing argument -- particularly when significant numbers of women themselves say they are not oppressed, but this gets dismissed as "internalized misogyny."
*If you define oppression as "sinning against", then indeed, every group really is oppressing every other group all the time. But this would imply that women are oppressing men as well as vice versa, a conclusion that I am expect you disagree with -- please correct me if wrong.
Do you agree that women in the USA are less oppressed today than 100 years ago? That they are less oppressed than women in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Thailand, the DR Congo, Colombia, or India? That they are less oppressed than the vast majority of women in the history of the world?
What level of life-outcome statistics would convince you that oppression isn't happening on a systemic level (i.e. that a society is treating women at least as well as it treats men)? If the answer is "no such level exists," why not? Is there an iron law of nature that women are *always* oppressed by men, no matter what? Do you think they are oppressed in the Scandinavian countries or New Zealand (generally considered the most egalitarian, least oppressive countries in the world)?
I don't think there's any argument i could make, statistics I could cite, or reframing I could offer that would change your mind, Edmund.
I believe oppression of women exists (as a group, and some individuals experience this oppression more than others) everywhere where the ideology and systems of Patriarchy aren't explicitly and intentionally dealt with. Some countries do better than others.
And you're right - no one is a perfect victim or victimizer. We are all both. But white cis-gender educated affluent able-bodied men like me need to reckon with how we benefit from systems of oppression if we are going to also talk about the ways in which we've been oppressed (neurodivergence, ptsd, sexual abuse, etc). This is called intersectionality and it's vital.
Looking at the USA today, I don't see the boot or the neck.
I fully grant that women were broadly oppressed in some other times and places, including with laws that expressly denied women various rights (to own property in their own names, to vote, to be educated, etc.) Such laws are absent in the USA now, and indeed our legal and regulatory code specifies "no discrimination on the basis of sex" in hundreds (at least) of different contexts.
I do not see the negative skew in life outcomes that would result from "boot on neck" oppression of the sort you and the Instagram poster described. We would expect an oppressed demographic to (on average) live shorter lives, be more likely to die by violence, be more likely to become homeless, be more likely to be imprisoned, and be *less* likely to get higher education. All those stats actually show men at a disadvantage now (for education, looking at current college enrollments). Now, I believe many-though-not-all of those negative outcomes result from men's choices, so I am not jumping to conclude that we have systematic oppression against men, but I don't think we have it against women either. In light of these stats, what evidence would be sufficient to convince you that women aren't systematically oppressed?
If you're postulating oppression of the common people by an economic-cultural elite, that the stats at least make sense (the common people do worse than the elites on those life-outcome metrics), but that shouldn't be framed in terms of sex, given that entrance to the elite isn't sex-gated.
This is a good example of what I referred to in my post. i.e. how hard it is to see oppression when it doesn't impact us.