I have no problem when a woman states that our patriarchal society objectifies women because that statement is true. My problem was the statement that women are oppressed in our society which is clearly not the case. Women, in our society, are not oppressed and all you have to do is look at how women are treated in other countries, some Middle Eastern countries come to mind, and you will se what true oppression is. Women in this country have the same rights and freedoms as men and while they are treated differently, which is unacceptable, it does not even come remotely close to being oppression. To me it is insulting to even state that when true oppression, of women, exists in other countries
It's interesting to trivialize the experiences of Group A because you think that acknowleding their experience is trivializing to the experiences of Group B. Why can't everyone's experience be valid?
No one is saying that American women are more oppressed than women in Africa... or even equally oppressed.
But yours seems to be a kind of all-or-none approach. It's like saying, although I'm beat up regularly by my boyfriend, that doesn't count as valid/abusive/oppressive because some other women are killed by their boyfriends.
Does the prostitute (man or woman) objectify the "John"?
Probably, to a certain extent. Although, I think it's probably debatable, especially considering that's it's the John who has the power in this dynamic.
the thing with oppression as it pertains to north american culture is that it exists in a multitude of levels - there is race oppression, class oppression, sexuality, etc ... much of it is intertwined ...
it's not to advocate that one concept of opppression justifies another ... just simply that the prevalance of it makes it hard to pinpoint strictly a sole victim ...
having said that - if any female wants to objectify my body - it'll cost you $10 and a box of choc. chip cookies ... be the best 7 minutes of your life ...
It's interesting to trivialize the experiences of Group A because you think that acknowleding their experience is trivializing to the experiences of Group B. Why can't everyone's experience be valid?
No one is saying that American women are more oppressed than women in Africa... or even equally oppressed.
But yours seems to be a kind of all-or-none approach. It's like saying, although I'm beat up regularly by my boyfriend, that doesn't count as valid/abusive/oppressive because some other women are killed by their boyfriends.
See what I'm saying?
I'm not saying that the experiences of inequality or discrimination by women in this country are not valid simply because other women have it far worse in other places. I definitely believe that women in this country should fight for equal rights, equal pay and that we should stop objectifying women. All I'm stating is that I don not equate that to oppression. I'm sorry that you and VG are having such a hard time understanding this but that is the way i see it.
Also your example is just horrible.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Here is the definition of oppression from the Merriem-Webster dictionary:
OPPRESSION – unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.
Now, maybe it's just me, but I have yet to see the unjust or CRUEL exercise of authority or power over women in our society. Is their inequality, definitely. Is there unjust, definitely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does "or" not mean that both characteristics need not be present? And did you not just say that one of them is present? I'm pretty sure you just proved yourself wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does "or" not mean that both characteristics need not be present? And did you not just say that one of them is present? I'm pretty sure you just proved yourself wrong.
Look if it puts a smile on your face and makes your day your right and I'm wrong. Women are oppressed, men are oppressed, we are all oppressed for some reason or another. God what miserable oppressed lives we all lead.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
When you own a business and you pay your worker based on the number of cars parts they make in a day, you're doing the same thing. ANY society based on money objectifies people by putting a dollar figure on their value to the buyer. I see nothing inherently wrong with this, unless it is so ingrained to the point of psychopathy (serial killers... all humans are just to be used). But most people acknowledge each other's humanity but still say "look, I need your help/services and I'm willing to pay this for it" and I don't think that is inherently wrong.
For one thing, studies have shown that the objectification of women is a contributing factor to violence against women. (No, I don't have time to go did up the studies, but I read them in college when I did research on this subject.)
Secondly, I tend to agree with Immanuel Kant, who said something like, "Always act so as to treat others as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end." We could debate exactly what that means, but that would probably stray too far from the topic.
I think this is an excellent point... although, in the end, I disagree. It's an excellent point because it illustrates what people are likely thinking when they get defensive. Like I've said before, they hear the words oppression, objectification, patriarchy, etc. and feel like they are being accused of participating in an active conspiracy to harm people.
Except you don't know what they are thinking. What you believe they are 'likely thinking' can be far from the truth. And what you consider defensive isn't always defensive but just disagreement.
Do you think the millions of people (men & women) who participate in these societies do so because they have an active hatred of women, an active intent to harm and oppress women? Or is this, to them, just a normal, acceptable way of structuring society?
If it's just a normal way of life and there is no conscious, intentional malice, does that mean these women are not oppressed?
And that is your opinion. To me the use of the word oppression is disingenuous. It is a mockery of what true oppression women in other countries face. To hear a women in this country, who can go to college, have a career, vote, own property, have the same freedoms and liberties as there male counterparts use that term is ridiculous. They have no idea what it is like to live in a truly oppressive society. Hence my overboard comment to Allison (VG) about female genital mutilation, etc...
Interesting to me that you think you can judge the life experiences of people about whose lives you know nothing. I'd be careful there....
Are women so oppressed in the Western society that it is through inequal pay and employment discrimination that they are pushed or forced into a more lucrative business?
Are you asking me if women become prostitutes solely because they get paid less than men and are restricted by a "glass ceiling"? No, I don't think it's all about that. I think it's much more complicated than that.
How could it be done more sefely, if one party involved is still breaking the law? If that is the case then in order to actually make money for a prostitute, business would have to be done in a shady, hidden way to keep their clients from being arrested (which is what I think violent people use to their advantage now). Now if both parties are doing something legal it can be done "out in the open" as it were, and safety of everyone can be easily monitored.
fyi - legalizing prostituion in no way guarantees health insurance, condoms, STD tests, living wages, etc. about all i see guaranteed is some police protection and the HOPE of many of those things. i mean seriously, there are PLENTY of currently legal professions right now without health insurance or truly livable wages, etc. just sayin'.
Yeah, of course I'm unfortunately well aware of this. But we have to legalize it before we can really regulate it, no?
Probably, to a certain extent. Although, I think it's probably debatable, especially considering that's it's the John who has the power in this dynamic.
I don't understand how the "john" has the power? It is not a boss/underling relationship.
It is two consenting adults making a proper transaction.
When you(female) go and get a massage at a spa, does the (female) client have the power over the masseur(female)? (for example)
I don't see how there is a power angle? please clarify?
We are not talking about rape here, just casual, for payment sex.
I'm not saying that the experiences of inequality or discrimination by women in this country are not valid simply because other women have it far worse in other places. I definitely believe that women in this country should fight for equal rights, equal pay and that we should stop objectifying women. All I'm stating is that I don not equate that to oppression. I'm sorry that you and VG are having such a hard time understanding this but that is the way i see it.
I'm not having a hard time understaning you, I'm just behind on the thread.
the thing with oppression as it pertains to north american culture is that it exists in a multitude of levels - there is race oppression, class oppression, sexuality, etc ... much of it is intertwined ...
it's not to advocate that one concept of opppression justifies another ... just simply that the prevalance of it makes it hard to pinpoint strictly a sole victim ...
having said that - if any female wants to objectify my body - it'll cost you $10 and a box of choc. chip cookies ... be the best 7 minutes of your life ...
i'm a huge advocate of the theory of interlocking oppressions. the problem with that and this thread is that i don't have the time to write a dissertation on it, which is why it may look like i'm only a believer that women are oppressed.
oppression and inequality aren't exactly the same thing. oppression includes the element of power over another. i'm not saying this to you polaris, but addressing other things in the thread. so white, middle or upper class men can hardly be oppressed in situations in which they have the racial, economic, and gender power advantage.
oh and scb if you read this, i think of anyone here you can probably speak for me. you haven't misconstrued anything i've said.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Except you don't know what they are thinking. What you believe they are 'likely thinking' can be far from the truth. And what you consider defensive isn't always defensive but just disagreement.
Of course I don't know exactly what everyone is thinking. But he was telling me how some people feel and I was conceding that it sounded reasonable. It sounds reasonable to me given the conversations that roughly go like this:
A: "Patriarchy, objectification, and oppression are problems."
How could it be done more sefely, if one party involved is still breaking the law? If that is the case then in order to actually make money for a prostitute, business would have to be done in a shady, hidden way to keep their clients from being arrested (which is what I think violent people use to their advantage now). Now if both parties are doing something legal it can be done "out in the open" as it were, and safety of everyone can be easily monitored.
Hey, man, I already said I haven't really thought this part through...
Look if it puts a smile on your face and makes your day your right and I'm wrong. Women are oppressed, men are oppressed, we are all oppressed for some reason or another. God what miserable oppressed lives we all lead.
day, you're
you haven't yet learned your lesson
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Wait - aren't you the one who's always saying men ARE oppressed as well, and talking about sexism against men, etc.??
I'm not always saying that
I believe inequalities exist for men and women. I believe both men and women are being discriminated against, and both are treated unfairly.
Anyway, if oppression is the unjust treatment of someone then yes men are definitely being oppressed.
This kind of goes against that theory you threw at me the last couple of times. You know, that power + prejudice = oppression and that those in power cannot be oppressed. With those in power you meant men.
Patience, my friend, I'm falling behind on this thread...
No hurry, I'm going to a party and will reply tomorrow. Well, better get some money because I'll have to pay to get in unlike the females
Are you asking me if women become prostitutes solely because they get paid less than men and are restricted by a "glass ceiling"? No, I don't think it's all about that. I think it's much more complicated than that.
Yes, that was what I was asking, the reason why is this:
I'm sorry but if you choose to sell your body for money because you want to make easy money then that is their choice to be objectified. They could get a job elsewhere, making less, and retain some dignity. Don't place the blame on society, these women are adults and their decisions are their own.
yeah. they could get a job elsewhere where they face discrimination in the hiring process, unequal pay for equal work, and sexual harassment. but, hey, they'll have dignity.
This and the notion that if women weren't being oppressed - see glass ceiling - and objectified that prostitution wouldn't be seen as a last resort.
I have already explained why I think it'll always be there and it'll always been seen as a last resort even if we get rid of the oppression of women and the objectification. I believe you didn't entirely disagree.
i'm a huge advocate of the theory of interlocking oppressions. the problem with that and this thread is that i don't have the time to write a dissertation on it, which is why it may look like i'm only a believer that women are oppressed.
oppression and inequality aren't exactly the same thing. oppression includes the element of power over another. i'm not saying this to you polaris, but addressing other things in the thread. so white, middle or upper class men can hardly be oppressed in situations in which they have the racial, economic, and gender power advantage.
oh and scb if you read this, i think of anyone here you can probably speak for me. you haven't misconstrued anything i've said.
i question whether it is actually oppression or a societal pressure to conform? ... it is clear that whether you are looking at jobs and opportunity or even bike lanes - things are geared towards a certain demographic ... is it a matter of wanting women to conform or oppressing them?
I don't understand how the "john" has the power? It is not a boss/underling relationship.
It is two consenting adults making a proper transaction.
When you(female) go and get a massage at a spa, does the (female) client have the power over the masseur(female)? (for example)
I don't see how there is a power angle? please clarify?
We are not talking about rape here, just casual, for payment sex.
I say the John has the power because prostitutes (as a group) are a vulnerable population. They are frequently either being forced to do this or are in some compromising, desperate life circumdstance. Many are very young. Most are women, which puts them at greater risk of rape, other physical assault, STDs, and pregnancy. Oftentimes they need to get high in order to numb themselves up enough to engage in the act, which puts them in a vulnerable position as well. Many are homeless. Et cetera.
I guess the primary contributing factor, though, is the desperation that put them in this situation in the first place.
i say prostitutation underage should be forbitten for sure !!!!
if the women really wantto do that it should be legal
b y force forbitten for sure
and there should be one street in each city for that sh...nowhere else
no bordeles elswhere
and marriage for money ....there are scouts for that sh...
i'm a huge advocate of the theory of interlocking oppressions. the problem with that and this thread is that i don't have the time to write a dissertation on it, which is why it may look like i'm only a believer that women are oppressed.
oppression and inequality aren't exactly the same thing. oppression includes the element of power over another. i'm not saying this to you polaris, but addressing other things in the thread. so white, middle or upper class men can hardly be oppressed in situations in which they have the racial, economic, and gender power advantage.
oh and scb if you read this, i think of anyone here you can probably speak for me. you haven't misconstrued anything i've said.
Thanks! At least I'm pretty sure I understand the ideas you're trying to explain, and I agree with them.
Comments
It's interesting to trivialize the experiences of Group A because you think that acknowleding their experience is trivializing to the experiences of Group B. Why can't everyone's experience be valid?
No one is saying that American women are more oppressed than women in Africa... or even equally oppressed.
But yours seems to be a kind of all-or-none approach. It's like saying, although I'm beat up regularly by my boyfriend, that doesn't count as valid/abusive/oppressive because some other women are killed by their boyfriends.
See what I'm saying?
Probably, to a certain extent. Although, I think it's probably debatable, especially considering that's it's the John who has the power in this dynamic.
it's not to advocate that one concept of opppression justifies another ... just simply that the prevalance of it makes it hard to pinpoint strictly a sole victim ...
having said that - if any female wants to objectify my body - it'll cost you $10 and a box of choc. chip cookies ... be the best 7 minutes of your life ...
I'm not saying that the experiences of inequality or discrimination by women in this country are not valid simply because other women have it far worse in other places. I definitely believe that women in this country should fight for equal rights, equal pay and that we should stop objectifying women. All I'm stating is that I don not equate that to oppression. I'm sorry that you and VG are having such a hard time understanding this but that is the way i see it.
Also your example is just horrible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does "or" not mean that both characteristics need not be present? And did you not just say that one of them is present? I'm pretty sure you just proved yourself wrong.
Look if it puts a smile on your face and makes your day your right and I'm wrong. Women are oppressed, men are oppressed, we are all oppressed for some reason or another. God what miserable oppressed lives we all lead.
I'm just refuting his suggestion that prostitution is not intrinsically related to objectification.
For one thing, studies have shown that the objectification of women is a contributing factor to violence against women. (No, I don't have time to go did up the studies, but I read them in college when I did research on this subject.)
Secondly, I tend to agree with Immanuel Kant, who said something like, "Always act so as to treat others as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end." We could debate exactly what that means, but that would probably stray too far from the topic.
Except you don't know what they are thinking. What you believe they are 'likely thinking' can be far from the truth. And what you consider defensive isn't always defensive but just disagreement.
Good point.
naděje umírá poslední
Interesting to me that you think you can judge the life experiences of people about whose lives you know nothing. I'd be careful there....
If you are telling me that I can't do that then you my friend are oppressing me.
The same way they make it now, just more safely?
Wait - aren't you the one who's always saying men ARE oppressed as well, and talking about sexism against men, etc.??
Patience, my friend, I'm falling behind on this thread...
Are you asking me if women become prostitutes solely because they get paid less than men and are restricted by a "glass ceiling"? No, I don't think it's all about that. I think it's much more complicated than that.
How could it be done more sefely, if one party involved is still breaking the law? If that is the case then in order to actually make money for a prostitute, business would have to be done in a shady, hidden way to keep their clients from being arrested (which is what I think violent people use to their advantage now). Now if both parties are doing something legal it can be done "out in the open" as it were, and safety of everyone can be easily monitored.
Yeah, of course I'm unfortunately well aware of this. But we have to legalize it before we can really regulate it, no?
I don't understand how the "john" has the power? It is not a boss/underling relationship.
It is two consenting adults making a proper transaction.
When you(female) go and get a massage at a spa, does the (female) client have the power over the masseur(female)? (for example)
I don't see how there is a power angle? please clarify?
We are not talking about rape here, just casual, for payment sex.
I'm not having a hard time understaning you, I'm just behind on the thread.
I agree... it's horribly analogous to your example.
i'm a huge advocate of the theory of interlocking oppressions. the problem with that and this thread is that i don't have the time to write a dissertation on it, which is why it may look like i'm only a believer that women are oppressed.
oppression and inequality aren't exactly the same thing. oppression includes the element of power over another. i'm not saying this to you polaris, but addressing other things in the thread. so white, middle or upper class men can hardly be oppressed in situations in which they have the racial, economic, and gender power advantage.
oh and scb if you read this, i think of anyone here you can probably speak for me. you haven't misconstrued anything i've said.
cross the river to the eastside
Of course I don't know exactly what everyone is thinking. But he was telling me how some people feel and I was conceding that it sounded reasonable. It sounds reasonable to me given the conversations that roughly go like this:
A: "Patriarchy, objectification, and oppression are problems."
Z: "Hey! Stop calling me a misogynist pig!"
Gee, thanks!
I'm just saying you don't have any knowledge of how intact my clitoris is.
Hey, man, I already said I haven't really thought this part through...
Ok you are right, I don't know the condition your clitoris is in.
day, you're
you haven't yet learned your lesson
cross the river to the eastside
I'm not always saying that
I believe inequalities exist for men and women. I believe both men and women are being discriminated against, and both are treated unfairly.
Anyway, if oppression is the unjust treatment of someone then yes men are definitely being oppressed.
This kind of goes against that theory you threw at me the last couple of times. You know, that power + prejudice = oppression and that those in power cannot be oppressed. With those in power you meant men.
No hurry, I'm going to a party and will reply tomorrow. Well, better get some money because I'll have to pay to get in unlike the females
Yes, that was what I was asking, the reason why is this:
This and the notion that if women weren't being oppressed - see glass ceiling - and objectified that prostitution wouldn't be seen as a last resort.
I have already explained why I think it'll always be there and it'll always been seen as a last resort even if we get rid of the oppression of women and the objectification. I believe you didn't entirely disagree.
naděje umírá poslední
i question whether it is actually oppression or a societal pressure to conform? ... it is clear that whether you are looking at jobs and opportunity or even bike lanes - things are geared towards a certain demographic ... is it a matter of wanting women to conform or oppressing them?
What can I say besides being a horrible speller I am stubborn as hell.
oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
Unjust exercise of authority or power. Believe me, men suffer from this as well.
But men cannot oppress men therefore men aren't oppressed.
Either way, I believe the patriachal society that oppresses is male and female.
naděje umírá poslední
I say the John has the power because prostitutes (as a group) are a vulnerable population. They are frequently either being forced to do this or are in some compromising, desperate life circumdstance. Many are very young. Most are women, which puts them at greater risk of rape, other physical assault, STDs, and pregnancy. Oftentimes they need to get high in order to numb themselves up enough to engage in the act, which puts them in a vulnerable position as well. Many are homeless. Et cetera.
I guess the primary contributing factor, though, is the desperation that put them in this situation in the first place.
if the women really wantto do that it should be legal
b y force forbitten for sure
and there should be one street in each city for that sh...nowhere else
no bordeles elswhere
and marriage for money ....there are scouts for that sh...
Yay for hookers!
Thanks! At least I'm pretty sure I understand the ideas you're trying to explain, and I agree with them.