It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women being oppressed by men!?!?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this, but out of all this seemed the most likely one, as it pertains to the relationship between men and women.

One of the biggest things i hear these days is how women have been oppressed by men all through history, and now in places like the Middle East.

I agree with this to an extent.

However, I think alot of this "oppression" is a result of women's attitudes as to how they are to act, think, and operate in society.
Many things that are seen, and portrayed (usually by feminists, the bad ones, not the good ones) as male oppression can often be rooted back to females.
Example: Women wearing dirka's in muslim and Middle Eastern societies. This is often a big thing in discussions about oppressive male societies. However, this is not something that is usually enforced by men. These women believe that this is how they are to dress and present themselves in society. Although it is prescribed by their religion, it is also one of those "unwritten rules" that women have to govern THEMSELVES, such as women in this society not going to the restroom without being escorted by another woman.

That is another example i can draw on, the bathroom. Men have rules like looking straight ahead when they urinate, you don't talk to other men in the restroom, YOU GET IN AND YOU GET OUT.
Women on the other hand go in and its like a social party, everyone talks to everyone, you always have an accomplice(if you're with someone), etc.
These rules aren't really enforced by anyone, but they are enforced by each gender on their own gender, not on the other.
Or how about topless beaches. For the most part in the US, most women would not think about going topless at the beach or a pool. Put certain laws restricting it aside, and most women would not consider this an option. If it was up to almost any man, he would just say "HELL YEA, BABY, GO FOR IT"

However, in this society it is just something that almost all women restrict themselves from doing. Females restricting certain actions on females, males opressing males etc.

Those are just examples. I do agree that in alot of societies, many things are a result of true oppression. But think about this, not all these societies are like ours, and many things we see as "oppressive" by men restricting women, really aren't that way. In alot of societies, even in our own, many of these "oppressive" acts just aren't so, only in the sense that it is women governing themselves.

Many of this also applies to men.

I realize i probably have not done the best job explaining this, but i hope you can see where i'm coming from. If you understand what i'm saying, PLEASE EXPAND on this.
If you don't agree, post your opinions on here, as I would like to hear a good discussion on this.

Positive or negative, send em my way!!!




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Sometimes it is not only the outside forces that influence us, but also the cages we build around ourselves. Where did this begin? We learn our gender roles from those around us (in most cases primarily our parents), so we behave (or become) in a way that we believe is acceptible to communal interaction. This, of course, is nothing that we can realize on a concious level at that age so we have little control over our initial development. You learned gender roles from the people around you at an early age...and them the same...and on and on and on to the point where your development is no longer modified by the needs of this age, but rather (or to a much larger extent) the outdated traditions of long ago.

Sure the roles have changed over time, but just look at how little they have in the history of the species.

I was actually thinking about this just the other day. I was pondering that dresses are such an impractical garment and are infact much more confining or limiting then pants. Perhaps this was created with that idea in mind and women went along with dresses as it was portrayed as a social norm for style/properness, all the while not realizing that it was about control. Yes, that idea is a bit extreme and perhaps only thought up subconciously by the men of the time, but it does cause you to wonder.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Let me guess, here... you're male, right?


Originally posted by soshootme
One of the biggest things i hear these days is how women have been oppressed by men all through history, and now in places like the Middle East.

I agree with this to an extent.


Okay.


However, I think alot of this "oppression" is a result of women's attitudes as to how they are to act, think, and operate in society.
Many things that are seen, and portrayed (usually by feminists, the bad ones, not the good ones) as male oppression can often be rooted back to females.


Warning: I'm one of those "feminists, the bad ones."


Example: Women wearing dirka's in muslim and Middle Eastern societies. This is often a big thing in discussions about oppressive male societies. However, this is not something that is usually enforced by men.


You mean by beatings when they don't wear the correct clothing:
www.phrusa.org...

Or prosecuting women who write articles about how the customes were derived:
www.speroforum.com...

Kidnapping and possibly executing women who violate the injunctions:
www.rawa.org...

Beating women who are walking around without escorts:
www.theweekmagazine.com.../27/2006

And you're claiming that the men are not enforcing this? Really?

...and it's "burqua/burqa."


These women believe that this is how they are to dress and present themselves in society. Although it is prescribed by their religion, it is also one of those "unwritten rules" that women have to govern THEMSELVES, such as women in this society not going to the restroom without being escorted by another woman.


Uhm, I don't know where you live, but here in America, women do go to the bathroom without being escorted by other women. Frequently. Just watch any college campus or fast food restaurant.


Women on the other hand go in and its like a social party, everyone talks to everyone, you always have an accomplice(if you're with someone), etc.


And you've visited how many men's restrooms and women's restrooms? Bad Feminists are curious to know how you determined this, other than "someone told you and you believed it without examing it."


Or how about topless beaches. For the most part in the US, most women would not think about going topless at the beach or a pool. Put certain laws restricting it aside, and most women would not consider this an option.


BWAHAHAHAH!!!!

Excuse me. By "most women" you probably mean "women in the age range of 18-25," right?

So you're eager to see your grandmother on the beach topless, are you? And you're dead sure that grandmothers are lining up everywhere to go show off their bodies in topless bikinis.

Uh huh...


Those are just examples. I do agree that in alot of societies, many things are a result of true oppression. But think about this, not all these societies are like ours, and many things we see as "oppressive" by men restricting women, really aren't that way. In alot of societies, even in our own, many of these "oppressive" acts just aren't so, only in the sense that it is women governing themselves.


Might I point out that in most countries, women haven't had the chance to vote on laws or enact legislation until the 1950's or so. No Christian woman has a voice in the Bible (Ruth is Jewish and the book isn't written by her.) Very few religions are founded by and run by women -- or run by a group where women have equal status. So we have nations full of legislative and political bodies run by men, and frankly not many of them have ever enacted legislation to grant equality to women without a whole boatload of women (nasty feminists like me) standing up and shouting "this isn't equal rights and we want something done!"

As of the 109th Congress, there are a total of 84 women in both houses: www.senate.gov...

Compare that to 545 men.

The person in charge of national health issues for women is actually a man, who wrote a book about how PMS is "all in women's heads" and that the best thing for it is to be Christian and pray. He controls funding for programs and research money allocation for women...because, obviously we're not smart enough to do that for ourselves. To imagine the impact -- imagine that the issue of prostate problems was put into the hands of someone who believed that prayer was best for prostate problems and that they were truly "all in your head."

As to "women governing themselves socially", may I point out that almost none of our tv shows are produced by women, that most ad agencies are run by men and targeted to the male audience, that the fashion industry is still dominated by men (telling us what's fashionable), and that tere are very few women film directors (I can't think of one who works for a major studio, though there may be one or two.) Not many women record producers, either.

...and it's not for lack of wanting to do that, either.

You may not understand the social pressures that men put on women to conform to the "stay in the kitchen" arena. When I first landed my best-paying industry job, I went to conferences where I was only one of three or female conference attendees among thousands of men. I was looked on as a freak (as were my colleagues) and as though my company must be a loser because it couldn't find a qualified man. The other women there were the "show girls" who stood around in skimpy outfits and hawked the products (deferring to the men for technical details.)

Y'know what? I quickly got tired of the "you couldn't know a thing about the technical specs" and "you should be demonstrating instead of trying to buy for a company" pressures. It wasn't the women doing this... it was the men.

I also got a little tired of the men who told me I was unwomanly (I had a college degree! In science! How dare I!) and that I would never marry because no man wanted an intellectual wife.

I guess you had to be there and to have this stuff shoved in your face before you could get indignant about it. I hope the older women on this board will chime in with some additional information.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
A bit of women's history for you:

Women were beaten in the US (or had rocks and garbage thrown at them) the first time they dared appear in public wearing pants. A famous (female) Civil War surgeon, Mary Edwards Walker, took all kinds of physical abuse and flak for wearing trousers (which she correctly said were more sanitary than the long skirts that dragged the ground) -- and for being a surgeon (which male-dominated society decided was improper. Nobody asked women because we couldn't vote.)
www.northnet.org...



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I appreciate the comments, all the different sides and what not.

However, what I think everyone needs to realize is just how much power women do have in society, expecially this one.
YOU DON'T NEED TO HOLD HIGH POSITIONS IN SOCIETY TO CONTROL IT OR TO HAVE POWER.

and on the things with fashion, and directing, and what not. Who is it that embraces these things, fashio, limited roles in certain fields, etc. Is it not women in general who accept the status quo? Is it not women who support these things, even if they're not aware that they are? If women did not like the fashion that "men control", than all that ALL these women need to do is buy something else. It would take only a short time for businesses and industries like this to go out of business. That's what it is, business, they cater to the majority, not what "men control." So if all these people who supposedly don't like the fashion thats "run by men" and the entertainment industry thats "run by men", then why do they all by into it? Don't say its because men tell them too. That would be way to ignorant.

Oh, and I am a feminist to the extent that I believe all women should have equal rights, voting, and all that good stuff.

What kind of feminist are you? What kinds of things do you support/believe in



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Victimization is the standard mantra of the womens movements..especially the very vocal femminists.

I myself would like a intellectual woman for a wife...one who would take on all kinds of responsibilitys for me and grant me options from her career earnings. This way I could discovery my "Options" in life over and over..and begin to complain about my "Victimization."

Victimization..expecially in America is a cottage industry among many of these types of femminists. They must constantly put people back in a time warp to get the default settings to play through unchallanged.
The fingerprint of many of these so called underpriveleged is "Victimization." Victimization is a way of enforcing "censorship " on others rather than take risks themselves with thier careers and moneys.

Do all women do this ..no they dont..but the most vocal do. It is thier identifying fingerprint.

THe key index for this fingerprint is ...what are the women willing to do for the structure as a whole...not just for themselves. This is a huge difference not identified for what it is in lieu of constantly promoting "Victimization."

Watch the movement closely...they complain mostly about themselves...not the structure as a whole.
My point in this is exactly what I posted earlier up in this post...what are they willing to do for the structure as a whole..including the men...or the children??? Or are they mostly complaining about themselves and their plight??

You see ..the historical willingness of the male to produce goods and services for the female and family is one of the greatest adaptations of all time...it is hardly spoken about by this group except in ridicule...and criticism. The male actually makes himself disposable and expendable while turning over a great portion of his production to his woman and children.

You will never see this group or women as a whole willing to spend thier career earnings to support a male in this manner. This would be to much commitment when scorn will do instead. This is a clear tell tale indicatior of what this movement is about.

Remember this ...women ..especially in the West have the ability to go out into the workforce and earn a living just like men...or cash in on the social roles of marriage or living with a man and be supported to various degrees. How many women do you know who are willing to support a man in the manner to which he is accustomed from her career earnings. I am not saying this doesnt happen but how many are willing to do it as a career??? Think this through carefully.

Socially ..in the West it is not acceptable for men to be supported by women....it does not wash as a career for Women. It is socially mostly the other way around.

Most men are oblivious to this concept. They are so programmed to day to allow the "victim" mantra play through unchallanged.

When I go into any store and look at the product lines ..even in Home Depot or Lowes...I see clearly how much of this product line is influenced by the women..and for the women. Any of the department stores have a ratio of about 7 times more products directed to women than men...7 times more floor space dedicated to female products and sales.
This is a clear indicator that women are not a "victimized " class of people in this economy. You have to be pubically educated to get this dumb not to recognize this.

I'll give you a clue to the textbook male stupidity which allows so much of this to play through unthinkingly and in dumbness..

The key is who controls the direction for which money is spent in this country. Not who earns the money. The facts are ..the women control the direction that moneys are spent in this country..not the males. This cannot be a "victimized" class of people.
I can assure you that the manufacturers, advertisers, and politicians are very well aware of this fact.
Any car salesperson can clearly tell you that it is the women in this country who determine what kinds of cars are purchased in this economy. This is not victimization here..except for the males in thier natural dumbness. The women are much smarter than this.
How many women do you know who buy cars for males in this manner and pay for them with their career earnings and then maintain these cars for the males while the males explore their "options" all the while complaining about "Male Victimization."

See what I mean about males being dumb and the females playing through virtually unchallanged?? Only natural male dumbness can hide this fact from them and allow others to play through on his labor and moneys.

Politically in this country .the key vote at election times is the womens vote ..not the male.

The average American male is not aware of this fact...He is one of the dumbest creatures to ever take care of buisness between two shoes.
Why would the male ever want to think this far...He has important stuff to think about ...like Hooters, The Redskins, Cowboys, the Lakers, and NASCAR.

My point in all of this is "Beware of Victimization."

It is not all it is cracked up to be. It requires your ignorance to play through,Male and Female ignorance. This happens much more than most can recognize.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Good post...well said on your premise.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
"You have voted Indellkoffer for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Your post was well thought out and your points were backed up very well with links to more info.


I personally believe that imbalance can be unhealthy. Patriarchy is a form of imbalance that harms both women and men. I've posted much on the topic, so I won't rehash it all here. I only hope that some day men can see the harm that is being done to them. I believe that if a substantial majority of men could see the damage being done to them, they would favor balance over patriarchy. Then men and women would naturally have more equal roles and both sides could be happy and healthy.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
YOur joking about this right???

I do think this should be more of a matriarchial socitey. I think women should be alot more responsible in addition to the things they normally do. I think women should have alot more obligations/responsibiltys and less options.
As I stated this way men can explore more of "Their options" from someone elses career labors/moneys.
I think women should practice more female expenability and disposability/risk as do men in doing the work and labor to keep the functions of this social structure in operation. This would be equal. It would even be fair. Dont you think.??

THis way men could spend more time and moneys exploring the "sensitive" side of their lives. Women do want men who are more sensitive right?? Women are willing to do the work and risk it takes to create a social structure of "sensitive men" out of their career earnings arent they?? Women are willing to move over and let men default through in this way yes?? They are in favor of new government programs, laws, regulations, Title IX changes necessary to create conditions for the "new sensitive man." Dont forget government handout programs to finance this change to the "new sensitive man." What do you think??

After all..I Know plenty of women who are looking for "competition" in the feelings/sensitive arena. Especially competition from men!!

I love equality dont you ??
It always looks good on paper.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I long for the day when there is no separation of the sexes. When no one can distinguish between man or woman, when people procreate with out touching, wear identical matching silver plastic tracksuits, and the term "bi-sexual" becomes totally obsolete.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 69decepticons
I long for the day when there is no separation of the sexes. When no one can distinguish between man or woman, when people procreate with out touching, wear identical matching silver plastic tracksuits, and the term "bi-sexual" becomes totally obsolete.


Public schooling right??

I am thinking on the other side you are being facitious here as am I.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Originally posted by 69decepticons
I long for the day when there is no separation of the sexes. When no one can distinguish between man or woman, when people procreate with out touching, wear identical matching silver plastic tracksuits, and the term "bi-sexual" becomes totally obsolete.


Public schooling right??

I am thinking on the other side you are being facitious here as am I.

Thanks,
Orangetom


I believe "facetious" is what you are looking for, my fellow tracksuited advanced citizen!



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Orangetom



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Matriarchal would not be any better. It is my belief that as long as one type of person dominates another type, then damage is being done and there is no balance.

I am not sure how one can say that women should be more responsible. Women work for a living, and in many cases also care for children and a home. I am not sure what these "options" are that orangetom1999 has mentioned. Most women I know have the option of paying the rent or living on the street. feeding the children or letting them starve, going to work or losing their jobs, etc. These aren't really options in my concept of the word. Work, home, and children are obligations.

This is not to say that my experience is all that counts, after all, I don't know every woman in the world. I do know that there are far more single female parents than there are single male parents and that women and children are much more likely to live below the poverty level than are men.

I would like to know what all these "options" are and how a man could explore sensitivity through the expenditure of money.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I agree ..a Martriarchal society would be no better. Probably worse since most of the women I know will not be willing to do the work and risk it takes to keep the social structure going. THe construction, the repairs, the Maintenance, the risk.

What I believe is that women in this social structure are not abused..or oppressed. One trip outside this country will clear this up. Go to the orient or central/South America where so many women work daily much harder than women here. Much harder than many men here too.

What I also believe is that there are a huge number of really stupid men who havent a clue about this line of thinking so it is very easy for women to bamboozle them into allowing them to play through unaccountable...or without risk.

Only public education can dumb a people down this far that they loose thier grasp on reality and adhere to a entitlement mentality. Male and Female.

THanks for your post,
Orangetom.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Wow ot, it sounds like you are just hanging out with the wrong women.
Hang out with me and you'll meet women the likes of which you may never have imagined!



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The New York Times wrote an article about this I think, "God says the end of the world is coming, women and minorities hardest hit"



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The thing is at the end of the day, women have a chip on their shoulder that men are out to oppress them or they have to prove something. I can understand women in the rural setting but this attitude is more prevalant in women in the urban area.

Anyway, today it doesnt matter what parts you have under you clothes, all that matters is the skill you have.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
The thing is at the end of the day, women have a chip on their shoulder that men are out to oppress them or they have to prove something. I can understand women in the rural setting but this attitude is more prevalant in women in the urban area.

Anyway, today it doesnt matter what parts you have under you clothes, all that matters is the skill you have.


IAF101,

I agree...precisely. What skills do you have at the end of the day..not baggage..or drama..but real useful skills. Also agree that women in a more urban setting have more of this attitude. Women in a rural setting work harder than most women in urbania. Harder than many men too.

I have men who work with me who have more female traits than male traits...high consumption levels... straight for the Comfort Zone rather than getting ready to get the work done. Converstations mostly about what new products are out on the market, lots of telephone/cell phone time,and the regular worshiping of the sports gods. When it is time to get the work done you have to go to bat for them..because they are not ready and have spent most of thier time in the "Comfort Zone" rather than getting ready to do the work by having the tools and equipment ready. You get tired and used up bailing them out. When I get tired of bailing them out ..I work on thinking up ways to leave them hanging out in thin air...no safety net under them. It is a clear understanding that you cannot depend on them when the going gets rough. You know you will only find them in the Comfort Zone.

Are all men and women like this no...from time to time you run across some who have actually escaped this virus. It gives one hope for the future when you meet people who are not ate up with this virus. IT is however much more prevalent than ever told and survives very well in the social arena of urbana.
I dont have much use or respect for men or women like I am describing.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join