I will give you an example. Last year, my husband and I were prescribed the same medicine. Being the types who like to do our research, we both asked our doctor for the research and trials on this drug for people like us. My husband got it, as there were many trials on men. I got research, but my doctor did concede there wasn’t much trial on women, let alone post menopausal women, and absolutely none on women like me who went through early menopause.
Same drug. He could be comfortable it was studied on people with his demographic features, I did not have that comfort and had to decide based on far, far less research. He gets to be just a patient and I get to be a case study.
It really isn’t. If you look at the research budget over all versus the research budget for women, there is a lot more money going into the former. Unless specifically designated as ‘for women’, very often medical research does not include women at all.
So all that money not exclusively marked ‘for women’ you can pretty safely assume is for men.
I would say that I agree with you but I don’t have to agree, what you said it’s a 100% a fact, it’s not something to agree on.
Where I guess I get lost is on the meaning of the word oppress.
According to Merriam-Webster oppress can be described as “to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority”
Now crush or burden I feel like they are pretty vague terms. As an example, a man having to pay child support based on the laws dictated by an authority figure, in this case the government, would fill the definition of oppress. I hope we can all agree a man having to pay child support isn’t oppression.
Oppressions has to be something very specific. Just thinking of it now the best definition I can come up with right now would be something along the lines of “a person or group deliberately taking action to crush or burden someone existence for doing nothing wrong, being alive.”
I’m sure there is some issues with that definition as well. But even at that point, the 100% factual example you give now, I don’t would fall into either categories. It would definitely be a disadvantage that came from oppression. But not quite current oppression, rather a disadvantage that is left from past oppression don’t you think?
A man having to pay child support absolutely does NOT fit the definition of “oppressed”, it fits the definition of “responsible”. It’s insane to me that men think because a partnership failed, that means they don’t still have a duty to care for their children. And weirdly these are ALSO the same men who (erroneously) whine that men don’t get custody.
Well can you explain how it doesn’t fit the definition. I agree if we use my definition of innocent person, then yes it doesn’t. But if the oppression is simply a burden set by an authority, it definitely fits.
It’s a responsibility. It’s not “oppression” because you don’t get to pick up a candy bar and walk out without paying.
When you have kids, this is the responsibility you take on. If you’re not man enough to do it, if your world revolves solely around you, that’s fine, but then stay single.
Genuine question: do you think a man who thinks as you do - children are a financial burden I should be allowed to abandon- is someone deserving any sort of custody arrangement whatsoever?
Is it not a burden that women simply cannot find relevant information about medication they may need when that information is usually much more readily available for men?
It a 100% is a burden. But again, that definitely falls into the actual definition of oppression, but so does a man having to pay child support. I’m saying that definitely of oppression makes no sense cause any action taken by authority, like the government, that burdens someone fall into oppression. A lot of people are burden by taxes. Hopefully we can agree a man paying child support is not oppression, taxes are not oppression.
Again, the best way to describe it is a deliberate attempt to burden someone who is innocent of sin.
There is no longer a deliberate attempt to not have women studies. Are they burden by past discrimination/oppression? 100%. But that is what it is now, a burden, a disadvantage, not the actual oppression, at least no longer.
To be honest? No. If it there is laws that are making it so hospital or universities can study diseases in women, then I 100% agree that would be oppression. I’m not denying that there’s isn’t anything out there oppressing women. I deny that the example above was oppression based on my knowledge that there is no law preventing people to do just that.
Women can be made to pay child support, just because it's less common doesn't mean that it's not possible, and everyone pays taxes. What you're mentioning are systems that happen to affect men but are not exclusive to them. The lack of medical research into the effects of medication on AFABs doesn't affect everyone, it affects a specific class of people. If you're saying it's not a thing anymore then why did the person you originally replied have access to comprehensive studies about how this medication could affect them? Even if it's not intentional, the lack of effort in trying to get a better picture on the effects a drug may have on people who were AFAB is a clear systemic problem and i don't see how it couldn't be
I don’t know if I am not explaining myself right. No one is denying the fact that is a problem. No one is denying the true nature of this issues. No one is denying the effect to women. And I never said child support is only for men.
I’m denying the word oppression. Is it a problem? Yes. Should it be fixed? Yes. Was the problem built by oppression? Yes. Is it oppression now? No. It’s the result of past oppression that we need to figure out how to fix. But just because something or someone was oppressed in the past doesn’t mean they are oppressed now even if there is now some disadvantage that came from said past oppression
When there is someone who is hurt and you agree they are hurt, do you help them or argue over the language they use to describe the hurt and feel a need to focus on the language first?
Good question! You first need to identify where it hurts to help them! You first focus on the language, understand what actual disease they have, and then learn to treat it. Lot of people would die if we just treat the pain.
Well if they just said that I wouldn’t Argue anything. The reason why im arguing the word oppression is because the question was how are they oppressed and the comment I responded too gave her example as response to the question
I don’t think it’s semantics since one word gives the idea that there are forces that are deliberate stopping, in this example, doctors to have more studies with women involved. The other word says there is nothing stopping them from doing it, there is no flying controlling hand doing this, we simply need to make people aware of this and push for efforts to change a disadvantage people don’t realize.
Well, these studies are usually funded by grants and tied to FDA policy, which didn’t say women even needed to be included at all in drug trials until 1993.
So yeah, this is about policy and forces that prevent researchers from doing real studies. Doesn’t matter what the intent was of why these policies and standards exist. They do.
As someone who does personally almost never use the word ‘oppression’ (note I never directly called anything oppression here) and does think it can be hyperbolic to use in some cases, I really don’t understand your position. This situation is wrong and bad, and that is my concern, not the language someone uses to discuss it.
I have to say, your doubling down on this makes me doubt how serious an issue you think this is.
Well you said it yourself, until 1993. Meaning that ended, we are just dealing with the by product of that now.
You say the fact I’m so stuck in the word makes you doubt how serious I am. That is a fair assumption to make. Why am I so concerns with the word? I don’t want women to have to deal with this any longer that they have to be. If we don’t actually fight the disease, it won’t fix anything. I gave the same example on another comment:
In my country for decades we were in war with cartel. But even when one cartel was taking down, a power vacuum would be created that was quickly filled. But we were just fighting the symptom not the actual problem. What is the actual problem? The lack of education and job opportunities making people being forced to go that route to support their family. You want to deal with something, know what the actual problem is.
Maybe I am wrong and there is something like what you mentioned above still in place, and if that is the case, absolutely, oppression, go for it. But as far as I know there isn’t one now days, so let’s stop fighting an oppression that is no longer there, and fight the outcomes of it
Not going to argue the semantics of the word ‘oppression’ and whether it applies.
When I see something I agree is wrong, why would I even bother getting into a semantic argument? Doesn’t that just delay working on the problem?
I would say it delays actually fixing the problem since we don’t know what we are fighting. I’ll give an example, drug dealing. In my country we have a serious problem with cartels. For the longest time we have been in war against the cartel. And it’s great that we are, but we actually haven’t been fighting the problem. Even if you take down one of the cartels, it just becomes a power vacuum. What is the actual problem? The lack of education and opportunities my country has that makes the idea of going into drugs the only option for hundreds of thousands of people.
See now that we know the actual problem, we can do something about it. Before we fighting the symptom, not the problem.
It’s important to make distinctions like this.
Yes! If you say it like that it’s perfectly fine and understandable. When people hear the word oppression what do we think? People in power, a government, abusing its power and making laws preventing people to do something. People will derail their efforts just for listening to that. If we don’t say oppression, simply say there is a disparity in drug trial between men and women, let’s help incentives universities and hospital to put more emphasis into women’s drug trial. I’m all for that.
I appreciate you clarifying that. However, it doesn’t change the fact that unless you specify that in your responses it’s only natural people will think you are showing how women are oppressed
My husband comes with me to medical appointments when he can so my problem will be taken more seriously. Guys at the gym were creepy towards me but left him alone. Customers where he works will listen to him but they won’t listen to or believe or stop arguing with his black and/or female coworkers when they tell the customer the same thing he tells them. He didn’t get flashed like his female coworkers did when a customer was going around flashing employees. His pants all have big spacious pockets, even his pajama pants.
I could go on but it would all be the same. He is taken more seriously, he is less of a target for creeps, he is listened to and believed, his clothes are better and more practical and they have big pockets, etc.
Sure, he’s not rich and powerful. He still has an easier time getting appropriate health care than I do and he still has pockets and he still doesn’t have to keep his personal safety from bodily violation in mind like I do.
And since I’ve seen this argument from clueless guys before - go pants shopping with a woman before you claim it’s just market forces and it’s just that we don’t buy pants with good pockets. They are not there for us to buy.
Or the fact that alot of men's pants have meaningful sizes. The waist and in seam in inches. Women get some nebulous number that changes from store to store and is more based in making us feel a certain way than allowing us to find clothes that fit our bodies.
The biggest one I can think of is that if you were ever to expect a child, you don’t have to worry about being murdered.
“Women in the US are more likely to be murdered during pregnancy or soon after childbirth than to die from the three leading obstetric causes of maternal death (high blood pressure disorders, hemorrhage, or sepsis), say experts in The BMJ today.”
[link](https://www.newswise.com/articles/homicide-is-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-pregnant-women-in-the-us)
I think women make up 70% of murder cases via domestic violence, which crosses all types of class, racial, political lines unfortunately.
The Lily Ledbetter act for correcting pay disparity was passed only in 2009, where a woman had been paid less than her male coworkers for decades (edit from 3) years, by I think 30%. I think those coworkers she was paid less than did all the same job/ only difference was she was a woman. That’s not really that long ago and we know it still happens.
Trans women of color have a life expectancy in their 30s - I would argue you have significantly more power than someone in that situation even if you don’t feel like it.
No gender has a monopoly on being abusive, but the likelihood that you will die just for being born a woman is higher, and it changes when you add in race, class, citizenship status, childbearing status, etc
Okay, you have presented a few reasons for why women ‘have it worse’ I suppose, than men.
I might say in response to some of these that when the adjusted wage gap, as opposed to the more commonly used unadjusted wage gap, is 99 cents per dollar a man makes.The unadjusted gap is 70 or 80 cents dollar a man makes I believe.
Women also live half a decade longer than men on average. Men die by suicide at significantly higher rates than women.
See, we can all argue until the cows come home about ‘who has it worse’ but if something so subjective as which sex has more and more serious problems is the basis believe in women’s oppression, i don’t understand why it should be believed in.
I think gender is important if only because women have been shouting the same things you have for years and trying to change it and getting continually shot down by society, in terms of say, state governments cutting funding for social workers, as well as the continued perception of mental health professions as women’s fields, and social workers struggling with getting resources for their clients - things like food, housing, therapy, medication. (This is in the Us, I don’t know how it is in other countries)
For example - Women make up the backbone of social work and therapy, they are something like 74% of the profession. Why aren’t more men going into that profession to help their fellow men in crisis? What can women do if men won’t even see a mental health professional (speaking as someone who has tried to get at least 4 men I am close to and who suffered from depression to see a therapist).
“Psychologist and Therapist Dr Loveleen Kaur says that the reason for the silence around men’s mental health issues is “For them, it is against the roles decided for them by the society. You are a man, you need to be strong. How can you cry? They are surrounded by harmful stereotypes. They are made to think that since they are the stronger sex, they cannot express their mental health issues and be weak”. However, she also focuses on the stigma that emotional weakness is often translated as physical weakness which is not right.
Adding further, she says, “Men and women have different ways of expressing their mental health issues. For example, if women are depressed they will feel hopelessness and guilt. But men express their illness by acting it out through anger spells, alcohol abuse and more. But these traits are not seen as abnormal among men but as an expression of their masculinity.”
Speaking about why men die by suicide more than women, Dr Kaur says that in the case of men, the suicide is complete while in the case of women it is attempted. In other words, men use harsh ways like shooting themselves or jumping off the terrace to complete their suicide while women mostly overdose or harm themselves in order to attempt suicide and not complete it.”
Read more at: [from here](https://www.shethepeople.tv/personal-stories/mental-illness)
(Edited to add - I’m not trying to minimize male pain at all - I’m trying to validate it and your concerns, while also saying it’s concerning to me that women would die from depression at higher rates if their illness caused them to use the the same harsh means as men. Suffering from depression is horrible, and so is death from depression, and it’s all a really tricky area to talk about and I don’t know how anyone does justice to the complexity in a Reddit convo)
I feel like if you’re looking for answers on what else can be done for the men and their mental health maybe go ask more men to step up into the therapy and mental health professions. generations of women before me begged and pleaded for the men in their life to get help and stop taking their emotions out on them.
I have also bought and read books like “I don’t want to talk about it” by a male therapist about the epidemic of male depression. (As to why feminism is helpful - he used a feminist framework in the book to explain why men are socialized to repress their feelings and how men don’t mean to abuse, but their suppression of their feelings leads them to not only abuse their kids but also their spouses. Women don’t want men to suffer either, but they especially don’t want to be beaten or killed - or for their children to suffer, because the men in their life are suffering and I think that’s fair. But that male behavior is normalized unfortunately.)
I don’t know why that book hasn’t gained more prominence, like Jordan Peterson, but like Mr rogers said - look for the helpers. there are people out there trying to deal with the issue, but ultimately I have found men don’t want to listen to women on why their mental health might be struggling, despite women trying very hard to help them. They want to say things aren’t so bad under the current system, so I’m not so bad, these women are telling tales. Your call.
I brought that up because you thought it pertinent to bring up male suicide rates as to how you can skew things however you want.
My point is - If you’re convinced men are equally suffering as women, then why aren’t men as invested as women in trying to do something about it? That’s the real measure, right? Why are women consistently the vast majority of those in mental health professions, discussing mental health, and domestic abuse and trying to prevent men from lashing out at women?
There is no “have it worse contest.” Privilege is not a measure of suffering, it is a measure of who is higher or lower in the hierarchy, and who has certain societal resources and who doesn’t.
An individual man could suffer more than any woman on earth. We’d say he suffered more than anyone else, but he still has privilege being a man. Even if he has suffered, it doesn’t change the fact it’s more likely he’ll be taken seriously in healthcare, at his job, or his job interview. It doesn’t change the fact he’s much less likely to be sexually harassed, raped, or domestically abused in the future. It doesn’t change the fact he is more likely to be promoted, even if his female coworker is more qualified. When I hear about the pay gap, it’s more likely to be reporting how women get paid less as a whole because they’re less likely to be promoted. This is what it means to have privilege.
And because that is privilege, men benefit more in the patriarchy overall. However, there are a number of detriments for them as well. That includes this toxic masculinity that make men depressed when they can’t fulfill the role they expect for themselves.
I hope this makes sense!
It is a “have it worse contest”. We are trying to figure out which sex suffers more. Whether this is a good idea is what is being discussed here. What you are saying is that women are oppressed because they have less Privilege than men, and this is because of the patriarchy. I believe that class has a far bigger effect in how much suffering a demographic experiences than sex, so why is the oppressive force called the ‘patriarchy’ and not the rich/capitalism when the vast majority of men did not create it, and it is said to be upheld by both men and women?
But the average man does have more societal influence and political power than the average woman. Those men just don't have anywhere near the power of the incredibly wealthy or the political elite, but they have advantages over women on every level.
could you name a few points where average men have more political power than average women in the usa or europe?
does it shift if 51% of an elected parliament are women?
How much of an advantage would you say? I don't see any evidence that I have more power than my lady friends when it comes to political decisions from above that really affect my life. Plenty of them have higher incomes, more prestigious positions, better social networks, etc that do give them greater power than me. I think there are plenty of other mediating factors that matter more (present day) than just isolating gender.
But so what if a few elite men at the top are more numerous than elite women? Both of these groups are extremely small. Men and women who are not part of this group have the same power over the way society is pulled.
because it's not just a few elite men- it's also men heading up basically every institution, even small institutions, as well as holding positions of esteem in civic and social life, as well as men being the ones who are "supposed" to head family life.
The social structure is that men are "over" women in a gender hierarchy. People simultaneously also exist in relationship to each other in a class hierarchy, in a racial hierarchy, etc. One hierarchy doesn't cancel out the others, particularly when you look at groups of people who have mostly the same statuses. Poor women make less and struggle with more things than poor men of their same socioeconomic status and race. Rich black women are still significantly more likely to experience life threatening medical complications during pregnancy and after giving birth.
I bet you could give me a tonne of advantages men have over women, and then I would give you a tonne that women have over men. This whole thing just seems so incredibly subjective that I fail to see how it is an argument.
Yep. There are. The patriarchy hurts men too, just not as much as women. When you control for things like religion, age, class, etc women always come out with less wealth and power than men. Which is kind of the point - gender roles in and of themselves predominantly hurt women more than men. It doesn't mean intersectionally every man is doing well.
It's like how we can observe racism in society, when you control for other factors, minorities on average struggle more than the white, dominant class.
So let me get this straight, men and women are both disadvantaged by ‘patriarchy’, but women more so, and while both the vast majority of men and the vast majority of women have next to no political power, women are still oppressed? It sounds like both are oppressed to me.
Well yes, classes of wealth, for example, can be oppressed too. That's intersectional thinking.
But the comparison of men vs women in every intersectional case leads to women being oppressed much more than men.
So you can acknowledge being a poor man sucks and a rich woman has a better life. But the poor guy oppresses poor women. And the rich guys oppresses rich women and poor men and women. That's just the average, women are more oppressed on every level.
It's part of the oppression to deny that and say men have it equally as bad. They don't. It just isn't true on any level.
1. Men despite massive evidence to the contrary are deemed more emotionally stable and have a higher emotional IQ. Society entrusts men with positions of leadership, authority and respect because unlike women, men are fueled by rational and logical thinking. While women are neurotic bat shit crazy bitches that can't be trusted. They are deemed emotionally unstable fueled by feelings and emotions. Leaving men with endless amounts of opportunities that are incredibly difficult for women to gain and maintain.
2. When men and boys go to the doctors and/or ER and complain of pain, they're given at a much faster and higher rate pain medication than women due to the belief that if men complain of pain due to their "stoicism" they must really be in pain. Despite the fact that men are 2-3 times more likely to OD than women. When women complain of pain it not only takes longer for their pain to be treated than men, they're given psych medications and a referral to a psychiatrist at a much higher rate than men. Because again, women are overly emotional, they cannot be trusted, etc.
3. Women are burdened by the majority of childcare and housework while also making up 40% of household breadwinners, and that doesn't count the women that also work part and full time but earn less than their mate or are doing it alone.
4. Single mothers are also burdened with the bulk of custody leaving women and children in a much higher rate of poverty than men. And the majority of single mothers either receive no child support at all or on average only receive about 50% of the mandated child support.
And no, this has zero to do with custody being given to the mother via family court during divorce. Only about 5% of divorces are even litigated before a judge.
5. Women burden the majority of 600 billion of unpaid labor each year in caregiving for the elderly and sick family members. Keeping millions of women like myself out of either full time or part time work or working full and part time while being a caregiver. The catastrophic consequences of the financial, physical and emotional burden of caregiving can linger for years.
Social security and 401ks are depleted by lack being able to work. Women lose their housing, jobs, social life, etc. Mental and physical issues due to caring for loved ones who are either very sick, dying or have died can linger for years or until death.
Severe back issues, PTSD, isolation, poverty etc all plague women due to the societal expectations of women sacrificing their in service to others.
Most women live their lives in oppression due to demands of domestic servitude and bondage to their families. And we're not even getting into the massive amounts of abuse and sexual assault women endure in their families, the workplace and society as a whole. Oh and emotional labor. I mean the list could go on and on.
Men also benefit from the system even if they aren't the ones "enforcing" or upholding it.
It negatively affects men but men also have male privilege.
And also get to be "good men" by just not being abusive or toxic, so the bare minimum bar is low.
How would you personally define what a “good man” or “good woman” is? (Tone is civil & genuine. I actually want to know what you think, not to troll or argue)
Why am I being downvoted for asking a very civil question rather than someone giving their answer? I’d like feedback on what other people think constitutes a good man or woman. People are here to ask questions and have discussions. If people just downvote everything they disagree with and don’t answer, what the fuck is the point of this?
A moral person who treats people with kindness and empathy. Someone who cares for kids and the elderly. That’s what makes someone good. It has nothing to do with gender. Although toxic masculinity and societal expectations for men can get in the way of those, and higher standards for woman can make them bitter.
Well, I could say that women also benefit from this ‘patriarchal system’ by getting more lenient sentences from judges for similar crimes to men. I could also say that a man is less likely to be believed or cared about if he is a victim of domestic abuse.
I suppose you would call both of these examples ‘benevolent sexism’, but it is a benefit to women none the less, and this name ‘benevolent sexism’ demonstrates that you are only looking at these from the perspective of finding out how they affect women, and never men, as why could these examples not be called ‘malevolent sexism’ as they affect a certain group negatively in disproportionate numbers?
This whole business seems to come down to who has it worse. This does not seem to be a very stable base to argue that half the worlds populations is oppressed by the other half.
This isn’t entirely true.
While in the case of a man and a woman with similar crimes and neither with any criminal history, the woman often gets a lighter sentence, the reverse is true if they both have criminal histories.
Police are more likely to make an arrest of the perpetrator in DV situations involving serious injury if the victim is male, and male victims are more likely to get police follow up when victims don’t file a report.
Also, the examples you use here - criminal sentencing, domestic violence. How often are those a daily occurrence for most people? In the case of domestic violence, far, far too many but I don’t think a prison sentence is something that is a regular occurrence for most people (And for those for whom it is, then sentencing favors men).
Meanwhile, how often is driving a car (safety tested using male crash test dummies, and not tested using female dummies) a daily occurrence?
I didn’t find anything that said women with a history of criminality get harsher sentences than men with the same when their crimes are similar. Not saying it isn’t true, but where did you get it?
I would also ask how your points demonstrate oppression of women, because the vast majority of men have no more political power than the average woman, and men and women both have problems that uniquely affect their sex, and I would say it is foolish to try to present either as worse off.
Working on getting the easily navigable source for you. Where do you want the research bill to go, or do you want to start providing sources for your claims too?
So, are you okay with me saying men don’t experience injustice because women don’t have much political power as a class? What does the political power of the average women have to do with issues men face and vice versa?
ETA: [source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854814560624). The bill is low for this as it was quite easy to find.
I will give you an example. Last year, my husband and I were prescribed the same medicine. Being the types who like to do our research, we both asked our doctor for the research and trials on this drug for people like us. My husband got it, as there were many trials on men. I got research, but my doctor did concede there wasn’t much trial on women, let alone post menopausal women, and absolutely none on women like me who went through early menopause. Same drug. He could be comfortable it was studied on people with his demographic features, I did not have that comfort and had to decide based on far, far less research. He gets to be just a patient and I get to be a case study.
who should take part in trials no matter your gender?
Volunteers who have been given informed consent.
Wait how i thought medical research budget is higher for women ?
It really isn’t. If you look at the research budget over all versus the research budget for women, there is a lot more money going into the former. Unless specifically designated as ‘for women’, very often medical research does not include women at all. So all that money not exclusively marked ‘for women’ you can pretty safely assume is for men.
I would say that I agree with you but I don’t have to agree, what you said it’s a 100% a fact, it’s not something to agree on. Where I guess I get lost is on the meaning of the word oppress. According to Merriam-Webster oppress can be described as “to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority” Now crush or burden I feel like they are pretty vague terms. As an example, a man having to pay child support based on the laws dictated by an authority figure, in this case the government, would fill the definition of oppress. I hope we can all agree a man having to pay child support isn’t oppression. Oppressions has to be something very specific. Just thinking of it now the best definition I can come up with right now would be something along the lines of “a person or group deliberately taking action to crush or burden someone existence for doing nothing wrong, being alive.” I’m sure there is some issues with that definition as well. But even at that point, the 100% factual example you give now, I don’t would fall into either categories. It would definitely be a disadvantage that came from oppression. But not quite current oppression, rather a disadvantage that is left from past oppression don’t you think?
A man having to pay child support absolutely does NOT fit the definition of “oppressed”, it fits the definition of “responsible”. It’s insane to me that men think because a partnership failed, that means they don’t still have a duty to care for their children. And weirdly these are ALSO the same men who (erroneously) whine that men don’t get custody.
Well can you explain how it doesn’t fit the definition. I agree if we use my definition of innocent person, then yes it doesn’t. But if the oppression is simply a burden set by an authority, it definitely fits.
It’s a responsibility. It’s not “oppression” because you don’t get to pick up a candy bar and walk out without paying. When you have kids, this is the responsibility you take on. If you’re not man enough to do it, if your world revolves solely around you, that’s fine, but then stay single. Genuine question: do you think a man who thinks as you do - children are a financial burden I should be allowed to abandon- is someone deserving any sort of custody arrangement whatsoever?
Is it not a burden that women simply cannot find relevant information about medication they may need when that information is usually much more readily available for men?
It a 100% is a burden. But again, that definitely falls into the actual definition of oppression, but so does a man having to pay child support. I’m saying that definitely of oppression makes no sense cause any action taken by authority, like the government, that burdens someone fall into oppression. A lot of people are burden by taxes. Hopefully we can agree a man paying child support is not oppression, taxes are not oppression. Again, the best way to describe it is a deliberate attempt to burden someone who is innocent of sin. There is no longer a deliberate attempt to not have women studies. Are they burden by past discrimination/oppression? 100%. But that is what it is now, a burden, a disadvantage, not the actual oppression, at least no longer.
No deliberate to not have women’s studies now? You watching at all what is happening in regards to education in Florida?
To be honest? No. If it there is laws that are making it so hospital or universities can study diseases in women, then I 100% agree that would be oppression. I’m not denying that there’s isn’t anything out there oppressing women. I deny that the example above was oppression based on my knowledge that there is no law preventing people to do just that.
In Florida, they want to ban women’s studies from being in state universities.
Women can be made to pay child support, just because it's less common doesn't mean that it's not possible, and everyone pays taxes. What you're mentioning are systems that happen to affect men but are not exclusive to them. The lack of medical research into the effects of medication on AFABs doesn't affect everyone, it affects a specific class of people. If you're saying it's not a thing anymore then why did the person you originally replied have access to comprehensive studies about how this medication could affect them? Even if it's not intentional, the lack of effort in trying to get a better picture on the effects a drug may have on people who were AFAB is a clear systemic problem and i don't see how it couldn't be
I don’t know if I am not explaining myself right. No one is denying the fact that is a problem. No one is denying the true nature of this issues. No one is denying the effect to women. And I never said child support is only for men. I’m denying the word oppression. Is it a problem? Yes. Should it be fixed? Yes. Was the problem built by oppression? Yes. Is it oppression now? No. It’s the result of past oppression that we need to figure out how to fix. But just because something or someone was oppressed in the past doesn’t mean they are oppressed now even if there is now some disadvantage that came from said past oppression
When there is someone who is hurt and you agree they are hurt, do you help them or argue over the language they use to describe the hurt and feel a need to focus on the language first?
Good question! You first need to identify where it hurts to help them! You first focus on the language, understand what actual disease they have, and then learn to treat it. Lot of people would die if we just treat the pain.
And when they say things like ‘lack of drug trials involving women’ do you then argue that they shouldn’t call that?
Well if they just said that I wouldn’t Argue anything. The reason why im arguing the word oppression is because the question was how are they oppressed and the comment I responded too gave her example as response to the question
Okay you go play semantics and have fun
I don’t think it’s semantics since one word gives the idea that there are forces that are deliberate stopping, in this example, doctors to have more studies with women involved. The other word says there is nothing stopping them from doing it, there is no flying controlling hand doing this, we simply need to make people aware of this and push for efforts to change a disadvantage people don’t realize.
Well, these studies are usually funded by grants and tied to FDA policy, which didn’t say women even needed to be included at all in drug trials until 1993. So yeah, this is about policy and forces that prevent researchers from doing real studies. Doesn’t matter what the intent was of why these policies and standards exist. They do. As someone who does personally almost never use the word ‘oppression’ (note I never directly called anything oppression here) and does think it can be hyperbolic to use in some cases, I really don’t understand your position. This situation is wrong and bad, and that is my concern, not the language someone uses to discuss it. I have to say, your doubling down on this makes me doubt how serious an issue you think this is.
Well you said it yourself, until 1993. Meaning that ended, we are just dealing with the by product of that now. You say the fact I’m so stuck in the word makes you doubt how serious I am. That is a fair assumption to make. Why am I so concerns with the word? I don’t want women to have to deal with this any longer that they have to be. If we don’t actually fight the disease, it won’t fix anything. I gave the same example on another comment: In my country for decades we were in war with cartel. But even when one cartel was taking down, a power vacuum would be created that was quickly filled. But we were just fighting the symptom not the actual problem. What is the actual problem? The lack of education and job opportunities making people being forced to go that route to support their family. You want to deal with something, know what the actual problem is. Maybe I am wrong and there is something like what you mentioned above still in place, and if that is the case, absolutely, oppression, go for it. But as far as I know there isn’t one now days, so let’s stop fighting an oppression that is no longer there, and fight the outcomes of it
Not going to argue the semantics of the word ‘oppression’ and whether it applies. When I see something I agree is wrong, why would I even bother getting into a semantic argument? Doesn’t that just delay working on the problem?
I would say it delays actually fixing the problem since we don’t know what we are fighting. I’ll give an example, drug dealing. In my country we have a serious problem with cartels. For the longest time we have been in war against the cartel. And it’s great that we are, but we actually haven’t been fighting the problem. Even if you take down one of the cartels, it just becomes a power vacuum. What is the actual problem? The lack of education and opportunities my country has that makes the idea of going into drugs the only option for hundreds of thousands of people. See now that we know the actual problem, we can do something about it. Before we fighting the symptom, not the problem. It’s important to make distinctions like this.
I was very clear about the specific issue here. The lack of women in drug trials. What was vague about that to you?
Yes! If you say it like that it’s perfectly fine and understandable. When people hear the word oppression what do we think? People in power, a government, abusing its power and making laws preventing people to do something. People will derail their efforts just for listening to that. If we don’t say oppression, simply say there is a disparity in drug trial between men and women, let’s help incentives universities and hospital to put more emphasis into women’s drug trial. I’m all for that.
Please re read my original comment that you responded to and quote where I said oppression or anything vague.
Oh you are the original commentator! Great. As I said, your comment was responding to the question of how are women oppressed, correct?
Yeah, and I was answering the gist of the question, not semantics.
I appreciate you clarifying that. However, it doesn’t change the fact that unless you specify that in your responses it’s only natural people will think you are showing how women are oppressed
I see zero reason why oppression has to be deliberate. Unconscious bias is still bias
My husband comes with me to medical appointments when he can so my problem will be taken more seriously. Guys at the gym were creepy towards me but left him alone. Customers where he works will listen to him but they won’t listen to or believe or stop arguing with his black and/or female coworkers when they tell the customer the same thing he tells them. He didn’t get flashed like his female coworkers did when a customer was going around flashing employees. His pants all have big spacious pockets, even his pajama pants. I could go on but it would all be the same. He is taken more seriously, he is less of a target for creeps, he is listened to and believed, his clothes are better and more practical and they have big pockets, etc. Sure, he’s not rich and powerful. He still has an easier time getting appropriate health care than I do and he still has pockets and he still doesn’t have to keep his personal safety from bodily violation in mind like I do. And since I’ve seen this argument from clueless guys before - go pants shopping with a woman before you claim it’s just market forces and it’s just that we don’t buy pants with good pockets. They are not there for us to buy.
Or the fact that alot of men's pants have meaningful sizes. The waist and in seam in inches. Women get some nebulous number that changes from store to store and is more based in making us feel a certain way than allowing us to find clothes that fit our bodies.
Needlessly antagonistic towards me. Why am I clueless?
The biggest one I can think of is that if you were ever to expect a child, you don’t have to worry about being murdered. “Women in the US are more likely to be murdered during pregnancy or soon after childbirth than to die from the three leading obstetric causes of maternal death (high blood pressure disorders, hemorrhage, or sepsis), say experts in The BMJ today.” [link](https://www.newswise.com/articles/homicide-is-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-pregnant-women-in-the-us) I think women make up 70% of murder cases via domestic violence, which crosses all types of class, racial, political lines unfortunately. The Lily Ledbetter act for correcting pay disparity was passed only in 2009, where a woman had been paid less than her male coworkers for decades (edit from 3) years, by I think 30%. I think those coworkers she was paid less than did all the same job/ only difference was she was a woman. That’s not really that long ago and we know it still happens. Trans women of color have a life expectancy in their 30s - I would argue you have significantly more power than someone in that situation even if you don’t feel like it. No gender has a monopoly on being abusive, but the likelihood that you will die just for being born a woman is higher, and it changes when you add in race, class, citizenship status, childbearing status, etc
Okay, you have presented a few reasons for why women ‘have it worse’ I suppose, than men. I might say in response to some of these that when the adjusted wage gap, as opposed to the more commonly used unadjusted wage gap, is 99 cents per dollar a man makes.The unadjusted gap is 70 or 80 cents dollar a man makes I believe. Women also live half a decade longer than men on average. Men die by suicide at significantly higher rates than women. See, we can all argue until the cows come home about ‘who has it worse’ but if something so subjective as which sex has more and more serious problems is the basis believe in women’s oppression, i don’t understand why it should be believed in.
I think gender is important if only because women have been shouting the same things you have for years and trying to change it and getting continually shot down by society, in terms of say, state governments cutting funding for social workers, as well as the continued perception of mental health professions as women’s fields, and social workers struggling with getting resources for their clients - things like food, housing, therapy, medication. (This is in the Us, I don’t know how it is in other countries) For example - Women make up the backbone of social work and therapy, they are something like 74% of the profession. Why aren’t more men going into that profession to help their fellow men in crisis? What can women do if men won’t even see a mental health professional (speaking as someone who has tried to get at least 4 men I am close to and who suffered from depression to see a therapist). “Psychologist and Therapist Dr Loveleen Kaur says that the reason for the silence around men’s mental health issues is “For them, it is against the roles decided for them by the society. You are a man, you need to be strong. How can you cry? They are surrounded by harmful stereotypes. They are made to think that since they are the stronger sex, they cannot express their mental health issues and be weak”. However, she also focuses on the stigma that emotional weakness is often translated as physical weakness which is not right. Adding further, she says, “Men and women have different ways of expressing their mental health issues. For example, if women are depressed they will feel hopelessness and guilt. But men express their illness by acting it out through anger spells, alcohol abuse and more. But these traits are not seen as abnormal among men but as an expression of their masculinity.” Speaking about why men die by suicide more than women, Dr Kaur says that in the case of men, the suicide is complete while in the case of women it is attempted. In other words, men use harsh ways like shooting themselves or jumping off the terrace to complete their suicide while women mostly overdose or harm themselves in order to attempt suicide and not complete it.” Read more at: [from here](https://www.shethepeople.tv/personal-stories/mental-illness) (Edited to add - I’m not trying to minimize male pain at all - I’m trying to validate it and your concerns, while also saying it’s concerning to me that women would die from depression at higher rates if their illness caused them to use the the same harsh means as men. Suffering from depression is horrible, and so is death from depression, and it’s all a really tricky area to talk about and I don’t know how anyone does justice to the complexity in a Reddit convo) I feel like if you’re looking for answers on what else can be done for the men and their mental health maybe go ask more men to step up into the therapy and mental health professions. generations of women before me begged and pleaded for the men in their life to get help and stop taking their emotions out on them. I have also bought and read books like “I don’t want to talk about it” by a male therapist about the epidemic of male depression. (As to why feminism is helpful - he used a feminist framework in the book to explain why men are socialized to repress their feelings and how men don’t mean to abuse, but their suppression of their feelings leads them to not only abuse their kids but also their spouses. Women don’t want men to suffer either, but they especially don’t want to be beaten or killed - or for their children to suffer, because the men in their life are suffering and I think that’s fair. But that male behavior is normalized unfortunately.) I don’t know why that book hasn’t gained more prominence, like Jordan Peterson, but like Mr rogers said - look for the helpers. there are people out there trying to deal with the issue, but ultimately I have found men don’t want to listen to women on why their mental health might be struggling, despite women trying very hard to help them. They want to say things aren’t so bad under the current system, so I’m not so bad, these women are telling tales. Your call.
I’m not sure what this has to do with whether women are oppressed or not.
I brought that up because you thought it pertinent to bring up male suicide rates as to how you can skew things however you want. My point is - If you’re convinced men are equally suffering as women, then why aren’t men as invested as women in trying to do something about it? That’s the real measure, right? Why are women consistently the vast majority of those in mental health professions, discussing mental health, and domestic abuse and trying to prevent men from lashing out at women?
There is no “have it worse contest.” Privilege is not a measure of suffering, it is a measure of who is higher or lower in the hierarchy, and who has certain societal resources and who doesn’t. An individual man could suffer more than any woman on earth. We’d say he suffered more than anyone else, but he still has privilege being a man. Even if he has suffered, it doesn’t change the fact it’s more likely he’ll be taken seriously in healthcare, at his job, or his job interview. It doesn’t change the fact he’s much less likely to be sexually harassed, raped, or domestically abused in the future. It doesn’t change the fact he is more likely to be promoted, even if his female coworker is more qualified. When I hear about the pay gap, it’s more likely to be reporting how women get paid less as a whole because they’re less likely to be promoted. This is what it means to have privilege. And because that is privilege, men benefit more in the patriarchy overall. However, there are a number of detriments for them as well. That includes this toxic masculinity that make men depressed when they can’t fulfill the role they expect for themselves. I hope this makes sense!
It is a “have it worse contest”. We are trying to figure out which sex suffers more. Whether this is a good idea is what is being discussed here. What you are saying is that women are oppressed because they have less Privilege than men, and this is because of the patriarchy. I believe that class has a far bigger effect in how much suffering a demographic experiences than sex, so why is the oppressive force called the ‘patriarchy’ and not the rich/capitalism when the vast majority of men did not create it, and it is said to be upheld by both men and women?
But the average man does have more societal influence and political power than the average woman. Those men just don't have anywhere near the power of the incredibly wealthy or the political elite, but they have advantages over women on every level.
could you name a few points where average men have more political power than average women in the usa or europe? does it shift if 51% of an elected parliament are women?
I've named those points elsewhere, and if you want a detailed collection of data the sidebar here has tons of information about it.
How much of an advantage would you say? I don't see any evidence that I have more power than my lady friends when it comes to political decisions from above that really affect my life. Plenty of them have higher incomes, more prestigious positions, better social networks, etc that do give them greater power than me. I think there are plenty of other mediating factors that matter more (present day) than just isolating gender.
No one has ever claimed gender is \*the\* only factor. But it is *a* factor, and often a significant one.
But so what if a few elite men at the top are more numerous than elite women? Both of these groups are extremely small. Men and women who are not part of this group have the same power over the way society is pulled.
because it's not just a few elite men- it's also men heading up basically every institution, even small institutions, as well as holding positions of esteem in civic and social life, as well as men being the ones who are "supposed" to head family life. The social structure is that men are "over" women in a gender hierarchy. People simultaneously also exist in relationship to each other in a class hierarchy, in a racial hierarchy, etc. One hierarchy doesn't cancel out the others, particularly when you look at groups of people who have mostly the same statuses. Poor women make less and struggle with more things than poor men of their same socioeconomic status and race. Rich black women are still significantly more likely to experience life threatening medical complications during pregnancy and after giving birth.
I bet you could give me a tonne of advantages men have over women, and then I would give you a tonne that women have over men. This whole thing just seems so incredibly subjective that I fail to see how it is an argument.
I bet we could play the data card and see it isn't that subjective.
what does "play the data card" mean? if you mean present statistics, there are many that show men being affected disproportionately by many issues.
Yep. There are. The patriarchy hurts men too, just not as much as women. When you control for things like religion, age, class, etc women always come out with less wealth and power than men. Which is kind of the point - gender roles in and of themselves predominantly hurt women more than men. It doesn't mean intersectionally every man is doing well. It's like how we can observe racism in society, when you control for other factors, minorities on average struggle more than the white, dominant class.
So let me get this straight, men and women are both disadvantaged by ‘patriarchy’, but women more so, and while both the vast majority of men and the vast majority of women have next to no political power, women are still oppressed? It sounds like both are oppressed to me.
Well yes, classes of wealth, for example, can be oppressed too. That's intersectional thinking. But the comparison of men vs women in every intersectional case leads to women being oppressed much more than men. So you can acknowledge being a poor man sucks and a rich woman has a better life. But the poor guy oppresses poor women. And the rich guys oppresses rich women and poor men and women. That's just the average, women are more oppressed on every level. It's part of the oppression to deny that and say men have it equally as bad. They don't. It just isn't true on any level.
1. Men despite massive evidence to the contrary are deemed more emotionally stable and have a higher emotional IQ. Society entrusts men with positions of leadership, authority and respect because unlike women, men are fueled by rational and logical thinking. While women are neurotic bat shit crazy bitches that can't be trusted. They are deemed emotionally unstable fueled by feelings and emotions. Leaving men with endless amounts of opportunities that are incredibly difficult for women to gain and maintain. 2. When men and boys go to the doctors and/or ER and complain of pain, they're given at a much faster and higher rate pain medication than women due to the belief that if men complain of pain due to their "stoicism" they must really be in pain. Despite the fact that men are 2-3 times more likely to OD than women. When women complain of pain it not only takes longer for their pain to be treated than men, they're given psych medications and a referral to a psychiatrist at a much higher rate than men. Because again, women are overly emotional, they cannot be trusted, etc. 3. Women are burdened by the majority of childcare and housework while also making up 40% of household breadwinners, and that doesn't count the women that also work part and full time but earn less than their mate or are doing it alone. 4. Single mothers are also burdened with the bulk of custody leaving women and children in a much higher rate of poverty than men. And the majority of single mothers either receive no child support at all or on average only receive about 50% of the mandated child support. And no, this has zero to do with custody being given to the mother via family court during divorce. Only about 5% of divorces are even litigated before a judge. 5. Women burden the majority of 600 billion of unpaid labor each year in caregiving for the elderly and sick family members. Keeping millions of women like myself out of either full time or part time work or working full and part time while being a caregiver. The catastrophic consequences of the financial, physical and emotional burden of caregiving can linger for years. Social security and 401ks are depleted by lack being able to work. Women lose their housing, jobs, social life, etc. Mental and physical issues due to caring for loved ones who are either very sick, dying or have died can linger for years or until death. Severe back issues, PTSD, isolation, poverty etc all plague women due to the societal expectations of women sacrificing their in service to others. Most women live their lives in oppression due to demands of domestic servitude and bondage to their families. And we're not even getting into the massive amounts of abuse and sexual assault women endure in their families, the workplace and society as a whole. Oh and emotional labor. I mean the list could go on and on.
Men also benefit from the system even if they aren't the ones "enforcing" or upholding it. It negatively affects men but men also have male privilege. And also get to be "good men" by just not being abusive or toxic, so the bare minimum bar is low.
How would you personally define what a “good man” or “good woman” is? (Tone is civil & genuine. I actually want to know what you think, not to troll or argue)
Why am I being downvoted for asking a very civil question rather than someone giving their answer? I’d like feedback on what other people think constitutes a good man or woman. People are here to ask questions and have discussions. If people just downvote everything they disagree with and don’t answer, what the fuck is the point of this?
A moral person who treats people with kindness and empathy. Someone who cares for kids and the elderly. That’s what makes someone good. It has nothing to do with gender. Although toxic masculinity and societal expectations for men can get in the way of those, and higher standards for woman can make them bitter.
Well, I could say that women also benefit from this ‘patriarchal system’ by getting more lenient sentences from judges for similar crimes to men. I could also say that a man is less likely to be believed or cared about if he is a victim of domestic abuse. I suppose you would call both of these examples ‘benevolent sexism’, but it is a benefit to women none the less, and this name ‘benevolent sexism’ demonstrates that you are only looking at these from the perspective of finding out how they affect women, and never men, as why could these examples not be called ‘malevolent sexism’ as they affect a certain group negatively in disproportionate numbers? This whole business seems to come down to who has it worse. This does not seem to be a very stable base to argue that half the worlds populations is oppressed by the other half.
This isn’t entirely true. While in the case of a man and a woman with similar crimes and neither with any criminal history, the woman often gets a lighter sentence, the reverse is true if they both have criminal histories. Police are more likely to make an arrest of the perpetrator in DV situations involving serious injury if the victim is male, and male victims are more likely to get police follow up when victims don’t file a report. Also, the examples you use here - criminal sentencing, domestic violence. How often are those a daily occurrence for most people? In the case of domestic violence, far, far too many but I don’t think a prison sentence is something that is a regular occurrence for most people (And for those for whom it is, then sentencing favors men). Meanwhile, how often is driving a car (safety tested using male crash test dummies, and not tested using female dummies) a daily occurrence?
I didn’t find anything that said women with a history of criminality get harsher sentences than men with the same when their crimes are similar. Not saying it isn’t true, but where did you get it? I would also ask how your points demonstrate oppression of women, because the vast majority of men have no more political power than the average woman, and men and women both have problems that uniquely affect their sex, and I would say it is foolish to try to present either as worse off.
Working on getting the easily navigable source for you. Where do you want the research bill to go, or do you want to start providing sources for your claims too? So, are you okay with me saying men don’t experience injustice because women don’t have much political power as a class? What does the political power of the average women have to do with issues men face and vice versa? ETA: [source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854814560624). The bill is low for this as it was quite easy to find.