Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Na.

[Costa Fierro]

Virtually every social group in every country faces societal issues. That doesn't mean everyone is oppressed.

I'm not saying there is institutional oppression anymore, I'm simply saying oppression only exists if it's like Saudi Arabia is ridiculous.

So explain what kind of oppression you think still exists against women in the West?

[Llamalandia]

No not really. At least not in any meaningful economic way that they themselves can't rectify. No at the lower end of the socio economic scale perhaps there is some exploitation of the uneducated rubes

[Felrik]

Like the actual fuck Feminists, your practically eternally tainted because of these stupid ass things.

[Liriena]

And the fallacy of relative privation rears its head.

Right, because whatever trivial bullshit feminists come up with that constitutes "oppression" is exactly the same as being stoned to death for being raped, or being married off as a child.

Trans women in the West face disproportonate rates of harrassment, abuse and assault, including at the hands of law enforcement. To add insult to injury, you have years of the "trans panic" defense being successfully used to let people get away with transphobic hate crimes, and constant attempts by both the right and transmisogynistic feminism to deprive trans women of equal rights under the law.

Add to that several states introducing countless policies to reduce access to women's health services, and you have quite the horrible cocktail.

Sure, perhaps it is not as outrage-inducing as public stonings for rape or child marriages in far-away countries, but it's not something that can be dismissed with a lazy whataboutism.

[Makghia]

Under the law? No. Is there still problems in our society? Certainly.

Basically this.

The wage gap and 1-in-5 statistic are explainable as the issues of chosen career paths by women and a generalized definition of sexual crimes by censuses, but the former is still worthy of collective contemplation as more women should at least see if they could go into high-level work, and although the latter is in reality perhaps not as 'violent' as it is implied, many places could still use some changes in how people conduct themselves sexually so as to avoid breaking boundaries and thus damaging people.

That being said, the vocal feminists have NOT been helping their stated cause, and the vocal anti-feminists are just as bad, if thankfully not nearly as influential.
Both sexes have issues; some are shared, some are exclusive. Some problems have been twisted, some have been hushed up, few have been accurately spoken of.

I think clearing things up is needed, if we are to solve these dilemmas and be that little bit closer to egalitarianism in practice.

[Pandeeria]

Right, because whatever trivial bullshit feminists come up with that constitutes "oppression" is exactly the same as being stoned to death for being raped, or being married off as a child.

Trans women in the West face disproportonate rates of harrassment, abuse and assault, including at the hands of law enforcement. To add insult to injury, you have years of the "trans panic" defense being successfully used to let people get away with transphobic hate crimes, and constant attempts by both the right and transmisogynistic feminism to deprive trans women of equal rights under the law.

Add to that several states introducing countless policies to reduce access to women's health services, and you have quite the horrible cocktail.

Sure, perhaps it is not as outrage-inducing as public stonings for rape or child marriages in far-away countries, but it's not something that can be dismissed with a lazy whataboutism.

Those are societal issues that definitely need to be dealt with, but that isn't oppression. Almost every group faces issues including, women, trans-people, blacks, Muslims, atheists, gays, poor people, etc.

But that shouldn't be classified as oppression.

[Liriena]

Trans women in the West face disproportonate rates of harrassment, abuse and assault, including at the hands of law enforcement. To add insult to injury, you have years of the "trans panic" defense being successfully used to let people get away with transphobic hate crimes, and constant attempts by both the right and transmisogynistic feminism to deprive trans women of equal rights under the law.

Add to that several states introducing countless policies to reduce access to women's health services, and you have quite the horrible cocktail.

Sure, perhaps it is not as outrage-inducing as public stonings for rape or child marriages in far-away countries, but it's not something that can be dismissed with a lazy whataboutism.

Those are societal issues that definitely need to be dealt with, but that isn't oppression. Almost every group faces issues including, women, trans-people, blacks, Muslims, atheists, gays, poor people, etc.

But that shouldn't be classified as oppression.

And what exactly do you consider oppression? Because you apparently don't see structural, systematic problems caused by a visible power disparity between those suffering those problems and those creating, perpetuating, or worsening them, to fit the definition.

Also, in my opinion? All those groups you just mentioned are oppressed.

[New Edom]

As a whole? Several problems remain, some more damaging than others. Also, let's not forget that the West includes not only Europe and North America, but also Latin America, where machismo is, sadly, alive and well.

Compared to other regions of the world? The injustices faced by most women in the West may not be as profound, widespread and horrifying as those faced elsewhere. Still, injustices remain. Let's not forget, also, that women include trans women, and they in particular certainly do face an awful lot of harrassment, abuse, assault and marginalization on a regular basis in the West.

I have a few thoughts on your post.

1. Are problems the same as oppression? Like for example was women not being depicted in some kinds of roles on movies and television back in the 1970s oppression, or was it simply a set of customs that could be challenged but hadn't been? Is it possible that some people use the word oppression where they might really mean 'inconvenienced' or 'treated unfairly'?

2. Would it be possible do you think for trans, LGBT, and feminist activists to recognize that transgender people are controversial in the West rather than merely oppressed? Oppressed doesn't really recognize the truth, which is that some people support their rights and some do not. So could it possibly be the same for women? In which case how is it oppression if it is a controversy and by no means unilaterally official?

[Giovenith]

Under the law? No. Is there still problems in our society? Certainly.

Basically this.

The wage gap and 1-in-5 statistic are explainable as the issues of chosen career paths by women and a generalized definition of sexual crimes by censuses, but the former is still worthy of collective contemplation as more women should at least see if they could go into high-level work, and although the latter is in reality perhaps not as 'violent' as it is implied, many places could still use some changes in how people conduct themselves sexually so as to avoid breaking boundaries and thus damaging people.

That being said, the vocal feminists have NOT been helping their stated cause, and the vocal anti-feminists are just as bad, if thankfully not nearly as influential.
Both sexes have issues; some are shared, some are exclusive. Some problems have been twisted, some have been hushed up, few have been accurately spoken of.

I think clearing things up is needed, if we are to solve these dilemmas and be that little bit closer to egalitarianism in practice.

This so much.

[New Edom]

Define oppressed?

Because if the implication is that some system is oppressing them, I don't believe that. But yes there are problems unique to women in the west.

For the purpose of this thread, I take 'oppressed' to mean 'denied the basic human needs and freedoms described in the link to 'universal human rights' as declared by the United Nations. I am using this definition because Emma Watson, who is generally recognized as being the feminist representative of the UN women organization, also claims that as the definition.

[Minzerland]

De jure equality is certainly rather different than de facto equality.

While at one point women were considered only a little more than mere property in the US and elsewhere, we have made tremendous progress in that area. In most areas in the "western" world women have de jure equality to men.

But discrimination still remains. Women applying to jobs in STEM positions at companies, even with the same credentials, tend to be turned down at a higher rate than men. There are other cases as well that will go unmentioned as I do not have the will to waste the time to dig them up, but the problem in STEM is rather present and obvious.

I just read the link you gave; however, I was unable to find anything indicating to, 'Women applying to jobs in STEM positions at companies, even with the same credentials, tend to be turned down at a higher rate than men.' could you quote it, please.

I'll play devils-advocate here. Contrary to your link, a study shows that women are twice as likely to be hired to men with the same credentials. Although, I'll have to dig deeper for the study, here have a link.

[Costa Fierro]

Trans women in the West face disproportonate rates of harrassment, abuse and assault, including at the hands of law enforcement.

That is discriminatory and yes, there needs to be something done about it. But it's not oppression. It's a matter of discrimination. And nowhere in my original post did I even remotely say that women were not discriminated against.

Add to that several states introducing countless policies to reduce access to women's health services, and you have quite the horrible cocktail.

Considering those states that have attempted to introduce restrictions or even outright bans on women's health services like abortion have failed, I don't see what your point is. Also, the United States is not "the West", not when you're throwing places like Europe and some other first world countries in there.

Nothing here looks like any kind of institutionalized or social oppression.

[Liriena]

As a whole? Several problems remain, some more damaging than others. Also, let's not forget that the West includes not only Europe and North America, but also Latin America, where machismo is, sadly, alive and well.

Compared to other regions of the world? The injustices faced by most women in the West may not be as profound, widespread and horrifying as those faced elsewhere. Still, injustices remain. Let's not forget, also, that women include trans women, and they in particular certainly do face an awful lot of harrassment, abuse, assault and marginalization on a regular basis in the West.

I have a few thoughts on your post.

1. Are problems the same as oppression? Like for example was women not being depicted in some kinds of roles on movies and television back in the 1970s oppression, or was it simply a set of customs that could be challenged but hadn't been? Is it possible that some people use the word oppression where they might really mean 'inconvenienced' or 'treated unfairly'?

2. Would it be possible do you think for trans, LGBT, and feminist activists to recognize that transgender people are controversial in the West rather than merely oppressed? Oppressed doesn't really recognize the truth, which is that some people support their rights and some do not. So could it possibly be the same for women? In which case how is it oppression if it is a controversy and by no means unilaterally official?

1. Problems are not necessarily the same as oppression. But I do believe that some specific problems do constitute oppression (namely, policies to reduce access to women's health services and infringe upon their reproductive rights, as well as the systemic issues faced by trans women due to the state being either complacent or complicit, such as disproprtionate amounts of harrassment, abuse and assault at the hands of law enforcement, impunity for hate crimes, and public policies explicitly aimed at marginalizing trans people, and trans women in particular).

2. To refuse to recognize someone's human rights is to oppress them. Whether a vast majority of the population agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. Whether the legitimacy of someone's human rights is a matter of controversy is irrelevant. To deny someone their rights is to oppress them.

[Pandeeria]

Those are societal issues that definitely need to be dealt with, but that isn't oppression. Almost every group faces issues including, women, trans-people, blacks, Muslims, atheists, gays, poor people, etc.

But that shouldn't be classified as oppression.

And what exactly do you consider oppression? Because you apparently don't see structural, systematic problems caused by a visible power disparity between those suffering those problems and those creating, perpetuating, or worsening them, to fit the definition.

Also, in my opinion? All those groups you just mentioned are oppressed.

All those groups by law have (or at least should) equal protection, can participate in the politics of their country by voting, running for office, organizing assemblies, etc. and while in practice they still definitely face issues, those issues I would say don't constitute as oppression.

What is oppression? I honestly don't know exactly where to draw the line. I believe that women and religious minorities in the third world that still suffer from inequality that would make our society look perfectly egalitarian in comparison are definitely oppressed, while rich (in comparison to the rest of the world), wealthy, and politically free feminists, gays, and blacks in the first world aren't oppressed, but from there I'm not quite sure.

Though I must say, if you can freely voice your opinion without being beaten or shot, you can vote and even run in elections in your country, that you can hold political assemblies without fear that the State will detain you, then I don't believe you're oppressed.

[Dinake]

No.
No one is oppressed in the west.

[Liriena]

Trans women in the West face disproportonate rates of harrassment, abuse and assault, including at the hands of law enforcement.

That is discriminatory and yes, there needs to be something done about it. But it's not oppression. It's a matter of discrimination. And nowhere in my original post did I even remotely say that women were not discriminated against.

How is it not oppression when a group is disproportionately affected by state-sanctioned violence and way too often with impunity?

Add to that several states introducing countless policies to reduce access to women's health services, and you have quite the horrible cocktail.

Considering those states that have attempted to introduce restrictions or even outright bans on women's health services like abortion have failed, I don't see what your point is. Also, the United States is not "the West", not when you're throwing places like Europe and some other first world countries in there.

Nothing here looks like any kind of institutionalized or social oppression.

Except they have not quite failed. Several clinics have closed down in several states, and women have been put in jail for terminating, or attempting to terminate, their pregnancies.

Indeed, the United States is not the West... and neither is Europe. As I mentioned in my first post, the West includes Latin America, where machismo is, sadly, alive and well, and often reflected in public policies.

[New Edom]

De jure equality is certainly rather different than de facto equality.

While at one point women were considered only a little more than mere property in the US and elsewhere, we have made tremendous progress in that area. In most areas in the "western" world women have de jure equality to men.

But discrimination still remains. Women applying to jobs in STEM positions at companies, even with the same credentials, tend to be turned down at a higher rate than men. There are other cases as well that will go unmentioned as I do not have the will to waste the time to dig them up, but the problem in STEM is rather present and obvious.

I'm not sure that this is discrimination. I have one of several studies I've looked at here: Discrimination Against Women in Science? which suggests other issues. Here are some:

1. Women tend to put family before work more often. This is not the only study that suggests this. There are ways of responding to this issue if it is indeed an issue worth dealing with, and they vary widely. They can include tenure tracks with family leave for example or improving family care at universities.

2. An interesting one on differences in math ability and interest, a factor but not necessarily a decisive one:
pquote]Regarding the role of math-ability differences, potentially influenced by both socialization and biology, twice as many men as women are found in the top 1% of the math score distribution (e.g., SAT-M, GRE-Q). A 30-y study of 1.6 million talent search participants revealed the male-female ratio of SAT-M scores in the top 0.01% has remained relatively stable since the mid-1990s at roughly 4:1 (60). This upper-tail difference is more pronounced for spatial ability (61) due partly to sex differences in variances in cognitive abilities (4). However, ability differences are a secondary explanation for the dearth of women in math-intensive fields because, even given these differences, we would still expect more women in these fields (e.g., a 4:1 ratio would engender 20% female professors in, say, engineering, and a 2:1 ratio would lead to 33%, whereas actual percentages of women are lower[/quote]

3. The study refers accurately to women's growth in areas of education and scientific/medical practice such as biological fields, family medicine, dentistry and other professional fields. However there does seem to be a stronger preference towards working with people in some capacity. The reasons for this are being studied.

So I think that it cannot be put down to just discrimination.

I also disagree that women were thought of as little more than property. If we can take popular literature and history to give us exaples, then looking at the depictions of women in the plays of Shakespeare or even a medieval piece of writing like La Morte D'Arthur we see women depicted as characters, as clever, tragic, foolish, love struck, wise, etc showing the full range of human emotion. The issue I think for women in the West is that they occupied different roles which kept them for the most part out of public life and its freedom of range. Along with this comes sacrifice of a different kind and I think that women are struggling with this. I don't know if there are any easy answers.

However it may just not be a bad thing if some women prefer to stay with their children at home at least when they're very young. Maybe that is good for both the women and the children. And why not? It doesn't have to put a cfareer to an end if that is really important--people live longer in the West now and so putting off a few years of work and going back into work is certainly possible.

[Liriena]

No.
No one is oppressed in the west.

You do realize that the West includes the whole of Latin America? Which includes several countries where homosexuality remains illegal, free speech is regularly undermined, ethnic minorities are constantly subjected to abuse at the hands of the state... Seriously, just start with this site.

[United Marxist Nations]

There may be some residual issues, but no, I would say that women in the developed Western world are not oppressed, and, in some measures, may even have it better than men (such as life expectancy and criminal sentencing).

[Pandeeria]

No.
No one is oppressed in the west.

You do realize that the West includes the whole of Latin America? Which includes several countries where homosexuality remains illegal, free speech is regularly undermined, ethnic minorities are constantly subjected to abuse at the hands of the state... Seriously, just start with this site.

I'm pretty sure when people say the "west" they mean countries that are politically and culturally western, IE the US and Canada, most of Western Europe, and even some geographically far-eastern states like Australia and New Zealand.

[The East Marches]

No.
No one is oppressed in the west.

You do realize that the West includes the whole of Latin America? Which includes several countries where homosexuality remains illegal, free speech is regularly undermined, ethnic minorities are constantly subjected to abuse at the hands of the state... Seriously, just start with this site.

I don't usually consider Latin America as part of the West as I think of things in terms of how Huntington defined them. However, I can see where you are coming from.

[Liriena]

And what exactly do you consider oppression? Because you apparently don't see structural, systematic problems caused by a visible power disparity between those suffering those problems and those creating, perpetuating, or worsening them, to fit the definition.

Also, in my opinion? All those groups you just mentioned are oppressed.

All those groups by law have (or at least should) equal protection, can participate in the politics of their country by voting, running for office, organizing assemblies, etc. and while in practice they still definitely face issues, those issues I would say don't constitute as oppression.

What is oppression? I honestly don't know exactly where to draw the line. I believe that women and religious minorities in the third world that still suffer from inequality that would make our society look perfectly egalitarian in comparison are definitely oppressed, while rich (in comparison to the rest of the world), wealthy, and politically free feminists, gays, and blacks in the first world aren't oppressed, but from there I'm not quite sure.

Though I must say, if you can freely voice your opinion without being beaten or shot, you can vote and even run in elections in your country, that you can hold political assemblies without fear that the State will detain you, then I don't believe you're oppressed.

Does that mean those affected by voter suppression laws in the United States are oppressed? What about peaceful protests suppressed by police in several parts of the American continent? What about opponents of Western governments who died in suspicious circumstances?

[Costa Fierro]

How is it not oppression when a group is disproportionately affected by state-sanctioned violence and way too often with impunity?

Because the "state sanctioned violence" doesn't exist. It's an emotional hyperbole. Transgender individuals are not subject to state-sanctioned violence nor do they face any impositions or restraints placed against them by the state or by society.

Are transgender people discriminated against? Sure. Is it legal? No. Is it oppression? No.

Except they have not quite failed. Several clinics have closed down in several states, and women have been put in jail for terminating, or attempting to terminate, their pregnancies.

What states have imprisoned women for attempting to terminate or terminating their pregnancies?

Indeed, the United States is not the West... and neither is Europe. As I mentioned in my first post, the West includes Latin America, where machismo is, sadly, alive and well, and often reflected in public policies.

Except Latin America generally doesn't really get a mention in many definitions of "the West".

[New Edom]

I have a few thoughts on your post.

1. Are problems the same as oppression? Like for example was women not being depicted in some kinds of roles on movies and television back in the 1970s oppression, or was it simply a set of customs that could be challenged but hadn't been? Is it possible that some people use the word oppression where they might really mean 'inconvenienced' or 'treated unfairly'?

2. Would it be possible do you think for trans, LGBT, and feminist activists to recognize that transgender people are controversial in the West rather than merely oppressed? Oppressed doesn't really recognize the truth, which is that some people support their rights and some do not. So could it possibly be the same for women? In which case how is it oppression if it is a controversy and by no means unilaterally official?

1. Problems are not necessarily the same as oppression. But I do believe that some specific problems do constitute oppression (namely, policies to reduce access to women's health services and infringe upon their reproductive rights, as well as the systemic issues faced by trans women due to the state being either complacent or complicit, such as disproprtionate amounts of harrassment, abuse and assault at the hands of law enforcement, impunity for hate crimes, and public policies explicitly aimed at marginalizing trans people, and trans women in particular).

2. To refuse to recognize someone's human rights is to oppress them. Whether a vast majority of the population agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. Whether the legitimacy of someone's human rights is a matter of controversy is irrelevant. To deny someone their rights is to oppress them.

Your first point doesn't seem to be true though. In Canada, for instance, there is a very good health care system generally, and there is no infringement on women's reproductive rights at all. There may be a lack of funding in some areas but I would argue that in those provinces or areas there is a general lack of funding for social services.

And you are misunderstanding what I said in my second point. What I mean is that the society itself finds it controversial in practice and therefore it is not oppression by the society as a whole. It's disagreement within the society about how people should be treated. So oppression implies that the society as a whole is agreed or at least coplicit in treating people unfairly--but that's not the case in the West. Otherwise it wouldn't be a public argument so much as a desperate struggle for any recognition at all. The bathroom issue in North Carolina wouldn't have been controversial or have caused a public outcry and debate--it would have been generally accepted.

Opression is a much more succinct word though so I get why it is used--it enables people to point fingers and establish blame and put themselves on the side of the angels. It theoretically gains some zealous followers--after all soem will not want to be seen as oppressors. I think ultimately that this approach is divisive. Now some progressives scorn that and say they will proudly be disvisive if that means winning a moral victory.

I actually believe that approaching the trans issue pragmatically is more effective though. If the issue is treated as one of how people treat bathroom use, security in bathrooms and appropriate bathroom etiquette then the trans issue is removed entirely and the potential harmt hey might do is eliminated. This is the Canadian way of doing things, and it very often works very well.