• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All men are complicit in oppression of women.

No it's not all men, that's completely unfair. Many men go above and beyond fighting against treating women 2nd class and many men simply don't support oppression on a basic everyday level. The real issues is. like racism it's systematic and exist on a large scale whether people choose to admit it or not. Years of it being the norm or viewed as "the way it is" makes it harder to improve. Society has ingrained it in us all (men and women) to a certain extent but that doesn't we are all complicit. Things are definitely getting better though, it's not all doom and gloom just like things are getting better with racism
 
Nilly said:
Do you think that racism has been eradicated because Obama became POTUS?
Click to expand...

Do know what the word patriarchy means? It's bit hard to say we are patriarchy when young women earn more than younger men, when women are CEO's, when women are in all parts of government including the presidency(assuming Clinton wins) and as governors all over the country, but feminists will try anyways.

Oh wait, you're running off the feminist definition of the word, which is of course only accepted by them.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What are you talking about? I'm just talking about social reality. You have probably been in that situation every time you've ever interviewed for anything, actually.

The OP is not about who is doing the oppressing. It is about being complicit. In that scenario, you are complicit. It doesn't really matter if you know, because it's happening, and you know it happens even if you don't know exactly how or when.

This is not about who's "to blame." It's about understanding how it works so it can be dismantled. I personally have better things to do than listen to people play hot potato with a society-wide problem, and so most activists I know, whether they're the one benefiting or the one being hurt by this social system. Hot potato is for children. We just want it solved. So if everyone will kindly stop crying about how it's not their fault as if that makes any kind of difference, we could just move on and fix it already.

And I would definitely say, with the example given in the original article of men who stay silent while their friends joke about raping people, they are worse than simply complicit.
Click to expand...

Anytime you say I do not know something is happening, but I am complicit in it happening anyway... it is a failed excuse to hold people responsible outside of those actually doing the oppressing.

Participating in dismantling the culture is still not good enough for people that suggest the things you do, the standard has nothing to do with education and helping some condition.

I already do my part, have despite the actions of others, and in the face of opposition who actually oppress. But to foolish people such as yourself the interest is in pointing a finger, and it promotes the very divisiveness you claim you are seeking to end. It is unnecessary and it ends up a passive attempt to place on the outside the very people who ideologically agree with you that women should not be oppressed. But even me saying that and doing all I do is not enough for people like you.

It damages the argument and creates combatants to the issue that you damn well know you do not need. We have enough of them with the vast numbers of people out there who actually believe women are second to men. What an absolute waste to make a problem worse, all under the guise of claiming to help.
 
Henrin said:
Do know what the word patriarchy means? It's bit hard to say we are patriarchy when young women earn more than younger men, when women are CEO's, when women are in all parts of government including the presidency(assuming Clinton wins) as governors all over the country, but feminists will try anyways.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know what it means, and I also believe we live in a patriarchal society.

Just because 'women are CEOs' or 'a woman is president' doesn't mean the patriarchy doesn't exist. The current president is black but racism still exists at a societal level.

LaylaWindu said:
No it's not all men, that's completely unfair. Many men go above and beyond fighting against treating women 2nd class and many men simply don't support oppression on a basic everyday level. The real issues is. like racism it's systematic and exist on a large scale whether people choose to admit it or not. Years of it being the norm or viewed as "the way it is" makes it harder to improve. Society has ingrained it in us all (men and women) to a certain extent but that doesn't we are all complicit. Things are definitely getting better though, it's not all doom and gloom just like things are getting better with racism
Click to expand...

Really I think you're on the same page as the article, it's just down to a matter of semantics (specifically the bolded). Does existing in a rigged system make you complicit in it?

Regardless of if your answer is yes or no, the system still exists the way it does, and still leads to issues that need to be tackled.
 
Nilly said:
Yes, I do know what it means, and I also believe we live in a patriarchal society.

Just because 'women are CEOs' or 'a woman is president' doesn't mean the patriarchy doesn't exist. The current president is black but racism still exists at a societal level.
Click to expand...

Even though the world patriarchy deals with systems where only men can rule, are heads of households(women are breadwinners all over the country and have ruled the house way before that)? Your idea of patriarchal society is worthless apparently.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Anytime you say I do not know something is happening, but I am complicit in it happening anyway... it is a failed excuse to hold people responsible outside of those actually doing the oppressing.

Participating in dismantling the culture is still not good enough for people that suggest the things you do, the standard has nothing to do with education and helping some condition.

I already do my part, have despite the actions of others, and in the face of opposition who actually oppress. But to foolish people such as yourself the interest is in pointing a finger, and it promotes the very divisiveness you claim you are seeking to end. It is unnecessary and it ends up a passive attempt to place on the outside the very people who ideologically agree with you that women should not be oppressed. But even me saying that and doing all I do is not enough for people like you.

It damages the argument and creates combatants to the issue that you damn well know you do not need. We have enough of them with the vast numbers of people out there who actually believe women are second to men. What an absolute waste to make a problem worse, all under the guise of claiming to help.
Click to expand...

The underlined is called a kafkatrap.
It's a lame ass logical fallacy
 
And what kind of pathracial society has female wages increase for decades while male wages decrease at around the same pace all through that time? Kind of curious if people have any understanding of why a male dominated society where women have no power whatsoever would tolerate that. I don't even get how that works. So I'm a man in a male dominated society and I allow women to work and gain a wage. Because of this decision my wages start to decrease, but instead of combating that problem I ignore it and continue to fight for female wages. That's weird, isn't it?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What are you talking about? I'm just talking about social reality. You have probably been in that situation every time you've ever interviewed for anything, actually.

The OP is not about who is doing the oppressing. It is about being complicit. In that scenario, you are complicit. It doesn't really matter if you know, because it's happening, and you know it happens even if you don't know exactly how or when.

This is not about who's "to blame." It's about understanding how it works so it can be dismantled. I personally have better things to do than listen to people play hot potato with a society-wide problem, and so most activists I know, whether they're the one benefiting or the one being hurt by this social system. Hot potato is for children. We just want it solved. So if everyone will kindly stop crying about how it's not their fault as if that makes any kind of difference, we could just move on and fix it already.

And I would definitely say, with the example given in the original article of men who stay silent while their friends joke about raping people, they are worse than simply complicit.
Click to expand...

Sure there are pigs and idiots out there. The "oppression" pendulum however has swung the other direction. Women are far bigger oppressor of men (in general) than the other way around.
 
Nilly said:
I agree with this, but think it's important to add that it would also imply women as complicit. Women benefit from the patriarchy in certain ways too, and many (all) women are complicit with that, even if they don't want it.

I think the idea of blaming all men for a sexist society is similar to blaming all whites for a racist society, that is to say, a massive oversimplification. If society at large is stacked certain ways, then that's an issue for everyone to fix, not just the people who benefit from the stacking of the deck the most.
Click to expand...

Well, no, not exactly. On some occasions, women benefit from a misfiring system that is a result of partially, but incompletely, dismantled patriarchy. For example, custody cases. They aren't ruled for women because patriarchy favors women. They're ruled for women because patriarchy thinks raising children is women's work. Previously, they couldn't benefit from this, since they had no legal rights.

It's not an over-simplification. We all live it every day.

It's an issue for everyone to fix, but the people who benefit are the ones who have the most freedom to do so. To place a higher burden on the people who are robbed of a decent living and routinely suffer violence is a really easy way of just letting the issue continue for longer; the people with all the benefits damn well know they don't have the time or resources to do it by themselves. Gee, that's a convenient excuse, isn't it.

What's truly amazing is how much rights movements HAVE done on their own (all of them, not just feminism), despite poverty and violence and enslavement and outright genocide in some cases. But to basically release the people with all the benefits from doing something unless they're being looked at is disingenuous.

Again, this has nothing to do with "blame." That's just a silly hot potato game to avoid discussing these issues at depth that I am not interested in playing.

I am also not interested in filling up a conversation about the struggles of a discriminated-against population with apologetics designed to pet the egos of the ones on the benefiting side of the equation, such as this constant cry of "not all men" or "but, but women!". I don't care about that. I am not out to harm your egos (and I would hope you'd agree, in reading my above post, that I am living up to my word on that), but I am also completely uninterested in whether this conversation offends them.

What we are talking about sexism against women right now. Not the male ego.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The underlined is called a kafkatrap.
It's a lame ass logical fallacy
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you need to.

But I find it absurd that there is such an effort to alienate people from a position, whom agree with them anyway, just to spread complicit oppression onto those who do not oppress and in fact fight that oppression themselves.

You two are manufacturing a problem, just to say you did so.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What are you talking about? I'm just talking about social reality. You have probably been in that situation every time you've ever interviewed for anything, actually.

The OP is not about who is doing the oppressing. It is about being complicit. In that scenario, you are complicit. It doesn't really matter if you know, because it's happening, and you know it happens even if you don't know exactly how or when.

This is not about who's "to blame." It's about understanding how it works so it can be dismantled. I personally have better things to do than listen to people play hot potato with a society-wide problem, and so most activists I know, whether they're the one benefiting or the one being hurt by this social system. Hot potato is for children. We just want it solved. So if everyone will kindly stop crying about how it's not their fault as if that makes any kind of difference, we could just move on and fix it already.

And I would definitely say, with the example given in the original article of men who stay silent while their friends joke about raping people, they are worse than simply complicit.
Click to expand...

You're out for drinks with your girlfriends one night. You dress conservatively and are really focused just on having a good time with your friends but one of your companions is a little flirty and entices a couple of guys to join your group and buy you drinks. You stay silent and don't participate but enjoy your free cocktail anyway. Your silence makes you complicit in oppressing men since you recognize that your friend's behavior is what got you the free drink.

The "system" isn't rigged. It's just that some people play the system a little bit differently than you do and that's the way it's supposed to work. This world is made up of billions of different people with different ideas, different needs, different desires and different motivations. There isn't and never should be huge blocs of "men" or "woman" or "blacks" or "whites". Yeah, a little bit of the people we associate with most rubs off on us but unless we're completely devoid of personality it shouldn't change who we are.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Call it whatever you need to.

But I find it absurd that there is such an effort to alienate people from a position, whom agree with them anyway, just to spread complicit oppression onto those who do not oppress and in fact fight that oppression themselves.

You two are manufacturing a problem, just to say you did so.
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant the argument that "all people are guilty of X" is a kafkatrap.
 
If anyone's interested, here's a good video covering this subject (it's a bit long):

 
OrphanSlug said:
Anytime you say I do not know something is happening, but I am complicit in it happening anyway... it is a failed excuse to hold people responsible outside of those actually doing the oppressing.

Participating in dismantling the culture is still not good enough for people that suggest the things you do, the standard has nothing to do with education and helping some condition.

I already do my part, have despite the actions of others, and in the face of opposition who actually oppress. But to foolish people such as yourself the interest is in pointing a finger, and it promotes the very divisiveness you claim you are seeking to end. It is unnecessary and it ends up a passive attempt to place on the outside the very people who ideologically agree with you that women should not be oppressed. But even me saying that and doing all I do is not enough for people like you.

It damages the argument and creates combatants to the issue that you damn well know you do not need. We have enough of them with the vast numbers of people out there who actually believe women are second to men. What an absolute waste to make a problem worse, all under the guise of claiming to help.
Click to expand...

Essentially feminists are asking guys to let go of their egos. To understand that even if you actively work against sexism, when something sexist happens and you ignore it or take no action you are essentially complicit.

It's a tough sell, and I don't think it's particularly wise for feminist publications to go down that route, especially because often what they're asking you to do is more than what they're doing themselves, but if you understand the issues you can understand the intent behind it?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Call it whatever you need to.

But I find it absurd that there is such an effort to alienate people from a position, whom agree with them anyway, just to spread complicit oppression onto those who do not oppress and in fact fight that oppression themselves.

You two are manufacturing a problem, just to say you did so.
Click to expand...

I know it doesn't sound like it at first glance, but Harry was actually agreeing with you.
 
Nilly said:
Essentially feminists are asking guys to let go of their egos. To understand that even if you actively work against sexism, when something sexist happens and you ignore it or take no action you are essentially complicit.

It's a tough sell, and I don't think it's particularly wise for feminist publications to go down that route, especially because often what they're asking you to do is more than what they're doing themselves, but if you understand the issues you can understand the intent behind it?
Click to expand...

The argument itself implies that there is something inherently wrong with being born male.
That is the essence of sexism.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Anytime you say I do not know something is happening, but I am complicit in it happening anyway... it is a failed excuse to hold people responsible outside of those actually doing the oppressing.

Participating in dismantling the culture is still not good enough for people that suggest the things you do, the standard has nothing to do with education and helping some condition.

I already do my part, have despite the actions of others, and in the face of opposition who actually oppress. But to foolish people such as yourself the interest is in pointing a finger, and it promotes the very divisiveness you claim you are seeking to end. It is unnecessary and it ends up a passive attempt to place on the outside the very people who ideologically agree with you that women should not be oppressed. But even me saying that and doing all I do is not enough for people like you.

It damages the argument and creates combatants to the issue that you damn well know you do not need. We have enough of them with the vast numbers of people out there who actually believe women are second to men. What an absolute waste to make a problem worse, all under the guise of claiming to help.
Click to expand...

But we are all responsible because we all know it's happening. That includes you.

Yes, it is. What I tire of is people saying that because they think they do enough, that means they are somehow exempt from existing in this system, and their lives are completely unproblematic. That's nonsense. And it's nonsense that, when you tell it to yourself, means you stop working on it.

Pointing a finger? The only one doing that is you, complaining that someone is pointing out you still live in this society whether you admit it or not. There's nothing divisive about that. That has nothing to do with the writer and everything to do with your ego.

You know what would be enough for me? For men to stop making every discussion about sexism revolve around their ego.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The argument itself implies that there is something inherently wrong with being born male.
That is the essence of sexism.
Click to expand...

And by the way, it's not just men that have giant egos. A good chunk of feminists out there are egomaniacs.
 
Nilly said:
Essentially feminists are asking guys to let go of their egos. To understand that even if you actively work against sexism, when something sexist happens and you ignore it or take no action you are essentially complicit.

It's a tough sell, and I don't think it's particularly wise for feminist publications to go down that route, especially because often what they're asking you to do is more than what they're doing themselves, but if you understand the issues you can understand the intent behind it?
Click to expand...

That is not quite the problem. To people like SmokeAndMirrors even if I do not know it happened, I am still complicit on the chance it happened. And that is absurd.

You and SmokeAndMirrors both would have a point if I knew something happened and did nothing about it, but that was not the scenario she put forth then doubled down on.
 
I for one have no intention of changing how I address my ego for other peoples desires. :mrgreen:
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Nope, it doesn't. It's unavoidable, even in those of us who are activists, and requires no intent. Here, let me show you...

You and a woman both apply for the same job, for which there are two slots. You have equally good resumes. You're equally good interviewers. We'll assume you're the same race, similar educations, socioeconomically similar, etc. Only difference is your sex. You have no idea a woman is applying, so you obviously can't intend to be sexist against her, can you.

You're both hired. But the boss decides to pay her a third less than he pays you.

Or, if the boss doesn't think she's pretty enough, he just doesn't hire her at all.

You may not be the one making the call, but you are complicit, because you are living the benefit of your sex. You're participating in a system that we all know is stacked a certain way.

What do you do about that? Well, in the moment, what could you? Nothing you can do, since it's happening even when you don't know it's happening. And hey, you need to eat too. It's not like it's reasonable to expect you to just decide not to make a living. It's not really up to you if your employer is quietly sexist and that gives you an edge you didn't know you had.

What you can do is, in the grander scheme of things, participate in things that dismantle the culture that inherently values men more than women.

And yes, an example of that would be not letting **** slide when you find out that your buddy thinks raping women is funny.
Click to expand...

Why would your hypothetical boss not know in advance that he would need to pay the man he hired one-third more than the woman? And if he knew that, why would he ever hire the man? As for being pretty, if that had anything to do with it many of the women lawyers I've worked with would never have been hired. Of course, some of them were very pretty--and I'd make it a point to smile and tell them how nice they looked. They always seemed to enjoy it.
 
Lutherf said:
You're out for drinks with your girlfriends one night. You dress conservatively and are really focused just on having a good time with your friends but one of your companions is a little flirty and entices a couple of guys to join your group and buy you drinks. You stay silent and don't participate but enjoy your free cocktail anyway. Your silence makes you complicit in oppressing men since you recognize that your friend's behavior is what got you the free drink.

The "system" isn't rigged. It's just that some people play the system a little bit differently than you do and that's the way it's supposed to work. This world is made up of billions of different people with different ideas, different needs, different desires and different motivations. There isn't and never should be huge blocs of "men" or "woman" or "blacks" or "whites". Yeah, a little bit of the people we associate with most rubs off on us but unless we're completely devoid of personality it shouldn't change who we are.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a free beer to denying someone a living wage, dude. I can't even.

Please explain to me how someone else giving me a drink I didn't ask for is "oppressing" them. It was their choice, on their budget, and at least in my gen, no one assumes men have to buy drinks anymore.

But again, you're comparing a free beer to denying people a living wage. Are you even serious?

By the way, forcing "free" drinks on women is a common way of trying to date rape them in bars. Happens a lot -- drinks just show up even after you've said no, and some women feel obligated to drink them and then let him hang around, for fear he'll start problems if she refuses. Usually young women who don't know their tolerance, of course. The drinks come fast, and it's not long before they're in black-out territory.

This happened to me just last week, actually. I left, drink untouched, and made sure he saw me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom