Prejudice against women

[Argus]

If an ordinary male public employee made a remark like that in regards to another employee he could very well be fired.

In what country?

So why do we have to tolerate this behaviour at the highest levels of Government? I say kick their asses out in the next election and 50% of the Canadian population may just have a big say in that. Smart mouthed jerk!

But the chicks really like him!

[Argus]

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that. Start with the slaves on the streets of our big Canadian cities. And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

Phhht. People are responsible for the choices they make. None of these women are out on the street corners wearing leg irons. They can run any time they want. Problem is, lots of them are just too stupid. They let some dumbass pimp convince them they love him, then degrade themselves and give him all the money. There are almost no pimps working with men or teenage boy prostitutes because they won't believe the crap or be bullied into giving up the money they work for.

[betsy]

Actually yes, they have, even in the west. You do remember that women couldn't vote in Canada till a few decades ago? Or own property. Or get a decent education? Need I remind you that traditional concepts of "natural" gender roles are responsible for the veil in Islam, genital mutilation in Africa, bride-burning in India and more?

Yes. There are good arguments that traditional cultures had led to oppression of women. But the cultural behaviour is not the oppression itself. The cultural behaviour, we have to assume had been accepted by the entire population...including the women. The enforcement of cultural demands may lead to the oppression of women and also other members of a society...but the actual rules or rituals or whatever are not oppression by definition, because they are accepted by the entire community.

Further, to equate the oppression of women in, for example Muslim societies under such regimes as the taliban with the cultural tradition of women in the west of not voting or owning property is wrong.

What was the oppression? (Perhaps we'll eventually have to define oppression here if you think losing your head and not being able to vote are similarly oppressive).

Why was there no protest against these restrictions earlier? Apparently those restrictions were accepted by the entire population until recently.

The fact that women ultimately protested and won the right to vote and own property is the complete opposite of oppression.

[betsy]

Are you saying the wives of serfs were more oppressed than the serfs themselves?

Generally speaking, yes.

Okay, the serf's lord treated him miserably and made his life hell...and the husband treated her miserably and made her life hell...both, big maybes.

Are we getting down to degrees of oppression now?

Are you saying one was a little bit more...or a lot more...or pretty near the same...or nowhere near the same?

Of course you don't know anymore than I do. Perhaps in a Liberal feudal society, there would've been equality of oppression.

[betsy]

Are you saying Queen Elizabeth I was oppressed?

She certainly had to work harder to prove herself worthy of the power she never earned in the first place.

Eh? How do you know how hard she worked? Anyway nobody worked harder than Henry...

[betsy]

Women may not have had the same rights...but that was the system. It was not oppression.

What doe shat mean? A system which denies individuals' rights arbitrarily is oppressive.

Once again you are concluding that differences in societal rights automatically are oppressive.

Of course it's not so, if the community at large agrees with the rules.

Only when protests against a rule are squashed in an oppressive way do we have oppression.

Let's not be too loose with our definitions.

[betsy]

Rights and oppression don't always go hand in hand.

What is oppression but the denial of rights?

See answer above.

To clarify, oppression is the punishment for protesting to your perceived denial of rights.

Think Duplessis and the Jehovah Witnesses here...

...and think about rolling heads, lopped off hands, life in prison in other parts of the world...now you're talking oppression. Real oppression.

[betsy]

Further more, women in history who'd had more to offer had managed to do it

There are always exceptions. But you've acknowledged that denial of women's rights is systemic. And those who manage to succeed in the face of it did so generally by bucking the system, not accepting it.

No I've acknowledged no such thing. Never having a right is not a denial of right. Society ruled that women should not take part in politics.

You seem to think that cultural rules that provide certain behavioural guidelines for one group in society and different guidelines for other groups is a denial of rights. Not at all.

Cultural norms are not rights in themselves. Rights are enforceable rules determined by law. If a right is not enforceable, it's no right at all. Rights aren't involved in cultural traditions, except as they are reinforced or sanctioned through legislation.

The right of women to vote did not exist...so you can't suggest they were denied the right. The right was the right of men to vote.

All it took was for women to protest for an equal right, a right to vote! No oppression resulted. Just the right to vote.

[betsy]

If the choices you're giving is either natural or cultural roles....are you then saying that childbirth is a cultural role?

No. But the precieved obligation to have kids and to pursue motherhod in large part is.

What do you mean? A perceived obligation has nothing to do with the biological make-up of a woman.

The perception derives from other influences such as modern feminism, post-modern culture, greed, the "me" generation, you name it.....it has nothing to do with the make-up of a woman, biologically.

The women who wants to have children do not have any "perceived obligation" to have children. They just have kids!

[betsy]

It has to do with power. Not gender.

And concepts of "natural" gender roles are used to justify and perpetuate power imbalances in relationships and in societies.

Who says so?

There's ample empirical evidence that power is the controlling factor in every society, not gender.

If women are in power, they have control. If men are in power, they have control.

There are always many, many men...as well as women...that have no power, and no say, and are abused, and suffer the consequences of their lowly positions if they happen to live in a society where those in control mis-use their power. Power and the abuse of power are universal truths. Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What evidence do you have to support your very general statement?

[margrace]

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that. Start with the slaves on the streets of our big Canadian cities. And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

So this is all about general prostitution?

I was thinking of white slavery, when you referred to "slaves."

Well, slaves can serve different "masters." Some slaves work for crack...or heroin. But then again, some slaves end up taking crack or heroin...to dull the pain of being a slave.

It is a big problem.

Prostitution had been around for ages. Perhaps even prehistoric times...maybe women trading sex for a piece of dinosaur meat. Do you think we can totally eliminate it?

If you would make an effort to read this book then you would understand what I am talking about. It is about women in eastern countries being promised good jobs and when they get to Canada they find they are slaves. It is about these same women asking the johns to let them use their cell phone to call home and tell their parents where they are. It is about these johns going right back to the pimps and reporting to them and the women being beaton for asking for help, these women are fed as little as the pimps can get away with, they are beaton if they do not comply completely with what the Johns want.

When occasionally these women do get away and get help they are sent back to the country they came from where they are met at the plane by the same people who kidnapped them originally. They can either be sent back to another country to be enslaved again or the are killed.

Why don't you read the book, that is all I am asking?

Was this made into a tv movie by any chance?

I saw a tv movie (somebody lent me a copy) and it was about Eastern European women, some were pressured into complying under threat that something bad will happen to their family. If I remember it right, the heroine was fearful for her baby.

It was awful. I do not deny that. And I cannot even imagine the horror in those kinds of situations.

I am dubious about those strippers being given quick entry into Canada...somebody ought to take a closer look into that. As I said, immigration should be given some scrutiny. Obviously somebody's being able to get those girls in Canada under false pretenses.

So what did your MP had to say when you talked to them?

Victor Malereck of CTV just wrote a book called "The Anastasias". It was reviewed on a CTV talk show and Shamus O'Neil read it and there was a discussion about the book. Malereck was imbedded with the authourities investigating this treatment of women.

Perhaps if any of you read the book you might have some idea of what I am talking about. Not a fictional TV program but a real situation world wide.

When these women broke away from their masters they were sent back to be met at the planes where they were either murdered or taken to a different country to once again be enslaved.

Why are people so glibe about what is being done to these women? Judges, Police officers, and high government officals are all involved in this. The internet has made it much easier to obtain these services.

Why will people drfend the status quo. Sure there are women who do this for drugs or who just plain do it because it is their way of life. There always have been prostitutes and always will be prostitutes but that does not make it okay for women today to be treated as slaves.

It makes one wonder why people get so upset when it is suggested that maybe this kind of thing should be stopped.

[betsy]

Victor Malereck of CTV just wrote a book called "The Anastasias". It was reviewed on a CTV talk show and Shamus O'Neil read it and there was a discussion about the book. Malereck was imbedded with the authourities investigating this treatment of women.

The movie that I saw was supposed to be based on a true story. It was semi-documentary. And yes, politicians seem to have been involved. Some of those involved with the trafficking of these women were soldiers(s) or peacsekeepers involved with the UN stationed in an Eastern European country (Serbia? can't recall which).

[betsy]

Why are people so glibe about what is being done to these women? Judges, Police officers, and high government officals are all involved in this. The internet has made it much easier to obtain these services.

Why will people drfend the status quo. Sure there are women who do this for drugs or who just plain do it because it is their way of life. There always have been prostitutes and always will be prostitutes but that does not make it okay for women today to be treated as slaves.

It makes one wonder why people get so upset when it is suggested that maybe this kind of thing should be stopped.

Since you wish to search for root causes....let's see if we can find the root cause of this perceived "upset" by some on this forum over your suggestion.

Maybe it is mis-communication.

Maybe, it is the way you introduced this topic.

You sounded upset on your initial post...and quite hostile on your second post.

You were the one who started the topic...and by the looks of it, you were the one who had set the tone of the thread by initiating it with an attitude that was perhaps perceived by some of us to be adversarial.

The tone of the following posts by another poster who obviously shared your passion...only stressed this accusatory and adversarial tone. The others were only responding.

And if you check the responses more closely....some of us were not being "glib" about what is being done to these women and children. We are refusing to equate these very serious crimes to that of a sexist remark.

For some of us, it is no comparison.

Actually, in a way...perhaps we were just "floored" by what came across as insensitivity on your part....and took offense with the perception of you using the actual horrible sufferings of these women and children...to take a cheap jab at those who opposed your views over the McKay and Stronach incident.

It was perhaps perceived, more or less, that it was you and your supporters...who seemed to have been callous and "glib" about it.

You have undermined your true message.

[Black Dog]

Yes. There are good arguments that traditional cultures had led to oppression of women. But the cultural behaviour is not the oppression itself. The cultural behaviour, we have to assume had been accepted by the entire population...including the women. The enforcement of cultural demands may lead to the oppression of women and also other members of a society...but the actual rules or rituals or whatever are not oppression by definition, because they are accepted by the entire community.

IOW women who have their clitoris' sliced off, or who are doused in gasoline and set alight choose to do so? Nonsense. Acceptance implies an element of choice and/or awareness of alternatives. And I think you'll find that in cultures where women are treated as second class citizens or worse, both are lacking.

Further, to equate the oppression of women in, for example Muslim societies under such regimes as the taliban with the cultural tradition of women in the west of not voting or owning property is wrong.

I'm notequating them (to equate, for all of you who like to abuse the term, means to make equal). I'm saying they are two points on a continuum.

What was the oppression? (Perhaps we'll eventually have to define oppression here if you think losing your head and not being able to vote are similarly oppressive).

Um...how about the denial of opportunity based soley on gender? Let me ask you his: if you were told you couldn't drive a car, vote, own property or work outside the home, would you simply say "oh well, at least I'm not getting stoned to death?"

Now if you want to define oppression, oppression is basically the exercise of power to marginalize, disempower and control a particular group or individual. Oppression does not imply violence or coercion. Oppressive cultural or social norms can be acceppted, even by the targetted group (as you indicate above; indeed, conditoning the marginalized to accept their lot is the ultimate acheivement of an oppressive system). The point, though is not cruelty, violenece or even the degree to which the oppressed submit to their oppression, but the simple fact of enforced, arbitrary inequality. In short: oppressin is simply one group excercising its power to keep another group down.

Here's something to help you: The Common Elements of Oppressions

Why was there no protest against these restrictions earlier? Apparently those restrictions were accepted by the entire population until recently.

So? That doesn't make the practice less oppressive.

The fact that women ultimately protested and won the right to vote and own property is the complete opposite of oppression.

The fact that women had to protest and fight for the right to vote is proof of oppression.

Okay, the serf's lord treated him miserably and made his life hell...and the husband treated her miserably and made her life hell...both, big maybes.

Are we getting down to degrees of oppression now?

Are you saying one was a little bit more...or a lot more...or pretty near the same...or nowhere near the same?

Of course you don't know anymore than I do. Perhaps in a Liberal feudal society, there would've been equality of oppression.

You realize that when you make statements like the one above implying that western women had it better than Afghan women., you're implicitly acknowleding the existence of a heirarchy of oppression. Are you now going back on that claim?

Once again you are concluding that differences in societal rights automatically are oppressive.

Of course it's not so, if the community at large agrees with the rules.

Only when protests against a rule are squashed in an oppressive way do we have oppression.

Let's not be too loose with our definitions.

Adressed above.

To clarify, oppression is the punishment for protesting to your perceived denial of rights.

No, no its not. You're doing that thing people do here where they attempt to set the parameters of debate by creating arbitrary definitions for terms (definitions that just happen to support their argument). My definition of oppression is a widely accepted sociological term, yours is intentionally limited.

[Black Dog]

continued....

No I've acknowledged no such thing. Never having a right is not a denial of right. Society ruled that women should not take part in politics.

So why the rhetoric about women's rights to justify our mission in Afghanistan. After all, these women clearly chose to be treated like cattle and, sinc ethey never had rights to begin with, they have no rights to support. By your logic, betsy, we should leave the Taliban alone.

You seem to think that cultural rules that provide certain behavioural guidelines for one group in society and different guidelines for other groups is a denial of rights. Not at all.

So slavery was okay, since it merely sets certain different behavioural guidelines and social roles for different groups. Gotcha.

Cultural norms are not rights in themselves. Rights are enforceable rules determined by law. If a right is not enforceable, it's no right at all. Rights aren't involved in cultural traditions, except as they are reinforced or sanctioned through legislation.

So you don't belive in fundamental human rights. And I thought right-wing types like you abhorred moral relativism...

The right of women to vote did not exist...so you can't suggest they were denied the right.

The fact that men had the right to vote indicates that somewhere along the line someone decided to codify who could and could not participate in the political process and, in doing so, opted to exclude women. In other words, a decision was made to deny women the right to vote.

What do you mean? A perceived obligation has nothing to do with the biological make-up of a woman.

Yes it does. Biologically, women are capable of having children. But society plays a part in telling women they must have kids.

There's ample empirical evidence that power is the controlling factor in every society, not gender.

Congratulations for writing the most obvious statement of the day. As I told you above, oppression is a power excercise.

If women are in power, they have control. If men are in power, they have control.

And yet in most societies, women have less power than men. Why is that?

[betsy]

continued....

No I've acknowledged no such thing. Never having a right is not a denial of right. Society ruled that women should not take part in politics.

So why the rhetoric about women's rights to justify our mission in Afghanistan. After all, these women clearly chose to be treated like cattle and, sinc ethey never had rights to begin with, they have no rights to support. By your logic, betsy, we should leave the Taliban alone.

Isn't the answer obvious? The poeple are facing real oppression.

If the people had chosen to be oppressed, then why were they asking for help?

If they did not need and asked for help, would NATO be there?

[betsy]

You seem to think that cultural rules that provide certain behavioural guidelines for one group in society and different guidelines for other groups is a denial of rights. Not at all.

So slavery was okay, since it merely sets certain different behavioural guidelines and social roles for different groups. Gotcha.

Were slaves free to voice their protest? I've always had the impression they got lynched, hanged, flogged or burned for doing so.

[betsy]

So you don't belive in fundamental human rights. And I thought right-wing types like you abhorred moral relativism...

Black Dog, you're giving me a headache.

What do you mean by fundamental human rights?

[betsy]

The fact that men had the right to vote indicates that somewhere along the line someone decided to codify who could and could not participate in the political process and, in doing so, opted to exclude women. In other words, a decision was made to deny women the right to vote.

How do you know how they've come to that decision?

For all you know, the women of that time just threw their hands up in the air and said..."oooh, leave me be! I've already got a lot to do with my time washing clothes, cooking and baking and feeding the babies!"

[betsy]

What do you mean? A perceived obligation has nothing to do with the biological make-up of a woman.

Yes it does. Biologically, women are capable of having children. But society plays a part in telling women they must have kids.

So society tells its citizens (men and women), they must have kids. What society will not encourage its citizens to produce more, especially when you see the numbers dwindling?

Are they forced to have children though? I'm talking about our democratic society....not some oppressive regimes. Do we drag them screaming and kicking to get inseminated?

[Black Dog]

Isn't the answer obvious? The poeple are facing real oppression.

Not by your logic. They never had rights, so therefore they could not be oppressed.

If the people had chosen to be oppressed, then why were they asking for help?

If they did not need and asked for help, would NATO be there?

Were they asking for help? We invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11 not because anyone was asking for help. As for the idea that they chose to be oppressed, that's your construct, is it not?

The enforcement of cultural demands may lead to the oppression of women and also other members of a society...but the actual rules or rituals or whatever are not oppression by definition, because they are accepted by the entire community.

So a cultural norm that, for example, states women are not alowed to leave the house unaccompanied by a male and must be covered at all times is not in and of itself oppressive,only the enforcement is. And, by virtue of being members of the society and culture they were born into, the women are giving their consent to the restrictions placed on them. Is that an inaccurate interpretation?

Black Dog, you're giving me a headache.

I hope that means I'm making you think.

What do you mean by fundamental human rights?

Let's start with some basics: the right to security of the person, the right to political participation, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

How do you know how they've come to that decision?

For all you know, the women of that time just threw their hands up in the air and said..."oooh, leave me be! I've already got a lot to do with my time washing clothes, cooking and baking and feeding the babies!"

You know that's nonsense. You said yourself: its all about power. Since men had the power, men made the rules and women weren't allowed to participate in the process.

[Black Dog]

So society tells its citizens (men and women), they must have kids. What society will not encourage its citizens to produce more, especially when you see the numbers dwindling?

It's the part where society places so much of the onus on women regardless of their feelings on the matter. even women who don't want kids face pressure to have kids. Not to mention the double standard: as a male, I've never faced any socila pressure to father children, yet many women I know face it constantly, through family, through messages in the media...and, to paraphrase (I think) Gloria Steinem, you never hear men questioning whether they can "have it all" (ie. a career and a family). Because the implicit assumption is that they can, whereas with women, its a struggle.

Are they forced to have children though? I'm talking about our democratic society....not some oppressive regimes. Do we drag them screaming and kicking to get inseminated?

I've already stated that oppression need not entail coercion or violence.

[betsy]

It's the part where society places so much of the onus on women regardless of their feelings on the matter. even women who don't want kids face pressure to have kids. Not to mention the double standard: as a male, I've never faced any socila pressure to father children,

Don't men feel any "pressure" or wish to continue the family line?

[betsy]

Isn't the answer obvious? The poeple are facing real oppression.

Not by your logic. They never had rights, so therefore they could not be oppressed.

How can you say the people of Afghanistan NEVER HAD ANY RIGHTS?

"In this powerful book, David B. Edwards traces the lives of three recent Afghan leaders in Afghanistan's history--Nur Muhammad Taraki, Samiullah Safi, and Qazi Amin Waqad--to explain how the promise of progress and prosperity that animated Afghanistan in the 1960s crumbled and became the present tragedy of discord, destruction, and despair. Before Taliban builds on the foundation that Edwards laid in his previous book, Heroes of the Age, in which he examines the lives of three significant figures of the late nineteenth century--a tribal khan, a Muslim saint, and a prince who became king of the newly created state.

In the mid twentieth century, Afghans believed their nation could be a model of economic and social development that would inspire the world. Instead, political conflict, foreign invasion, and civil war have left the country impoverished and politically dysfunctional. Each of the men Edwards profiles were engaged in the political struggles of the country's recent history. They hoped to see Afghanistan become a more just and democratic nation. But their visions for their country were radically different, and in the end, all three failed and were killed or exiled. Now, Afghanistan is associated with international terrorism, drug trafficking, and repression.

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9314.html

[betsy]

Black Dog, you're giving me a headache.

I hope that means I'm making you think.

Yes. Sorting out your spin.

It makes me think alright. That all liberals must be so convinced, like you, of their own rightness that they can't see through their own fallacies and irrational thought processes and so go on blindly living in their fantasy world...believing that one day the whole world will be right....or should I say left.

I bet your favorite song is, "Imagine." It was voted #1 song of the 20th CENTURY, by the Liberal CBC.

Talk about believing in a pseudo-marxist trudeaupian world.

I've said it all, and you've said nothing of any value that would change my mind. Or change reality.

Hasta la vista. I won't be back, bebe.