Are all women oppressed on the basis of their sex?

[brasty]

Okay this is inspired by another thread. But it is worth its own thread.
I would say that Feminism 101 is that all women are oppressed because they are women. All women experience sexism and male domination. The form that takes varies from women to women, and some experience far greater oppression than others. But every woman is oppressed.
What do you think?

Yes, I believe that women are oppressed by virtue of our sex. The system that achieves that is patriarchy. Its function is to privilege men, and to secure them access to women's reproductive and domestic labour. It achieves this by a system of reward and punishment based on sex roles. That is a basic of feminism.

Now, I am an enormously (in a global sense) privileged white women. As oppression goes, it's a gilded cage. I know how fantastically lucky I am. But had I been born male, I would have had access to one further layer of privilege, the cherry on the icing on the cake of my good fortune of having been born in the place and time that I was. I would have won the genetic lottery.

Most women aren't as lucky as I am, and that's why I am, and will always be a feminist.

(my post was supposed to be illustrative of how many ways women can be fortunate, and still be oppressed by sexism. It reads a little smug, which wasn't what I intended, but pressed post instead of preview).

I liked what you said FWS - I'd add 'sexual labour' to your list as well though ...

Brasty, do you then mean that newspaper articles don't oppress people because it is the writers of newspaper articles who are oppressing people?

I didn't read the other thread - I just found the question to this one interesting in its own right.

You're right, spartacus, that should be in there too.

I skimmed the other thread but didn't join in as I have mixed feelings about JB, so didn't feel I had anything to contribute.

Oh, that thread. I did read some of it, but to be honest I can only get so far with most media articles that are obviously designed to inflame / get attention without eye rolling and giving up.

The English Queen is a bad example - she doesn't have that much real power, so I'd wager she is actually more oppressed than some other women of equal wealth.

I mean, no doubt people try to oppress J.K. Rowling, too, but Rowling doesn't have to smile and wave to the masses. Rowling can wear jeans and a t-shirt without causing a scandal, but I don't think the Queen could.

Women who have lots of money can pay their way out of some of the effects of oppression. But that, right there, is money a man would not have to spend.

The Queen would not have been Queen if she'd have had a brother (would she?).

I think that all women are oppressed because we are female.

This does not mean that some women do not have some privilege when compared to some other people.

I don't want to be oppressed, I don't like being oppressed and I want to stop male-dominated patriarchy oppressing me and other women. I think this is the opposite of the victim mentality that deniers of women's oppression like to accuse feminists of possessing.

annandale wrote "there are times and places when men are oppressed for their sex... Fathers do get ignored in antenatal care and labour; boys do get circumcised because they are male"

I think men who are excluded from antenatal care would be oppressed only if some kind of science-fiction scenario became reality - perhaps something like men as a group being deliberately excluded from antenatal classes by law but forcing all these untrained fathers to then be the default primary carer for their child. But this doesn't actually happen, does it? (nor do I advocate it).

I think circumcised men would be oppressed if, for example, their activities and opportunities were restricted by social taboos and even laws, and if they were publicly shamed by other people. Society would deem circumcision to be a marker of inferiority and we'd often hear insults about circumcision, equivalent to comments like "how can a woman bleed for a week but not die?" that are used today by men to shame menstruating women. Women would reject all circumcised men as unsuitable for marriage. But, as far as I know, circumcised men as a group don't have this sort of negative life experience, do they? (nor do I advocate it).

Yes, in so many ways. Not least that every single one of us is at risk of gendered male violence each and every day, whatever we're doing, wherever we are, whoever we are. No privileged upbringing changes that. There are many other reasons all women and girls are oppressed but this is most stark to me.

Even in the sci vi scenario, what would that have to do with antenatal classes?

I went to NHS antenatal classes and how to care for a newborn was not covered. It was all about pregnancy and childbirth.

It depends. There is nothing in the human condition that says that women have to be oppressed. There's nothing inherently oppressive about being a woman. It's just something that lots of modern societies do for convenience.

Some societies in earlier history did not oppress women. For example many Native Americans had equality in gender or even reversed gender roles, and many other indigenous people have multiple genders with multiple roles, and no oppression attached to those genders. Today some indigenous people are trying to bring back the traditional ideas about gender, such as "two-spirit" people who have both male and female genders and play an important spiritual role.

Or for another example, indigenous Australian women traditionally had equality and parity with the men of the tribe and were not oppressed because of their gender, because they had equal rights and responsibilities in the tribe. During colonialisation, their social and gender roles changed and now indigenous Australian women experience lots of gendered violence at the hands of men. The Aboriginal men now argue that this is normal and that women have always been oppressed, and it is traditional/natural to be violent with them. But historical evidence and anthropology says the opposite, and agrees that for most of their history indigenous Australian women were not oppressed. The society just became oppressive after being colonised. This is an interesting summary of research by the government: aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-abuse-and-family-violence-aboriginal-communities/aboriginal-beliefs-about-gender

So while most of the societies we currently experience DO oppress women based on gender, this is not the default state of human societies.

There are still societies in the world today in which women have different gender roles than we would consider normal. For example in rural China there is a matriarchal tribe called the Mosuo who are famously described as "not having husbands or fathers" and they continue to live that traditional lifestyle. Now they have made it into a tourist thing.

I think if you say "all women are oppressed by society" you are maybe only thinking of Britain/America, or maybe the Middle East. But that is not all of the women in the world. And saying it this way suggests that oppressing women is a default state, which is problematic. It isn't natural, it's just common.

Even if there are only tiny minorities of women around the world who live different lifestyles, I think it it is important to recognise them, especially since they give good examples of how gender roles could be different and it makes us respectful of how other cultures live.

almondpudding - My antenatal classes were the same as yours - only pregnancy and childbirth, but I did a web search before I wrote my previous message and I discovered that some antenatal classes apparently include after-birth baby care, which was news to me. Ironically, I didn't want to be too exclusionary about what antenatal classes can cover, even though baby care wasn't in my own experience of such classes.

To take it out of the sci fi argument ...

as antenatal classes with a baby care element do exist, that still would not give fathers a right to attend them, or mean they are being discriminated against by not being allowed in.

Because there are many other ways of getting information about how to care for a newborn.

And we do see that kind of thinking pushed more and more - father's sleeping on maternity wards etc. Midwives have also pointed out how opportunities to deal with DV are being missed by fathers attending antenatal appointments.

I wish that there hadn't been fathers at my antenatal classes, as they monopolised the whole thing. But perhaps NHS classes just for women do exist.

We had a right arse at our antenatal class. And we did learn some bits about caring for newborns. My partner didn't attend and yet he still managed to look after a newborn and get very involved.

Oppression is about denying opportunities for power and wealth to a group of people based on a characteristic and, generally, enforcing that through violence. Excluding men from antenatal classes or maternity ward is not about excluding them from power or wealth. It is about creating spaces (arguably safe spaces) for women to be able to talk about things that matter to them possibly more freely than with strange men present. The fact that men are whingeing about not being included and women are moving over to let them in is all about male privilege.

Our antenatal classes was all couples, all very smiley and happy. No men monopolising, no arses.
On the other hand several friends have complained about lack of support from their husbands not accompanying them to antenatal classes so my experience is that women very much do want their male partners there.
And I have never heard of them not being allowed.

Deydo, the first poster to mention it was suggesting men were oppressed by being ignored at antenatal classes.

In terms of men not being allowed to attend, that would probably more like situations where the individual mother does not want the individual father there. For example, if they are not in a relationship or she prefers support from someone else.

I believe there has been a case (perhaps in the US) where the father brought a court case because to attempt to force the mother to allow him to attend the birth. I think he lost the case.

In the context of antenatal classes, it would be possible I suppose for a father to attend one without the mother, with her at a different one, if it was that important to him.

And having googled it, it turns out there are men only antenatal classes in the UK!

And the NHS does offer mother only ones.

Oh most of the time the classes were smiley and happy. But I think there would have been a different dynamic if men hadn't been present. Perhaps more forthright and explicit questions would have been asked.

Support doesn't come in the form of attending antenatal classes though. I kind of think that is more a symbol of support. Support is more permanent than that and is all about actions when needed. Anyone can turn up to an antenatal class when you aren't particularly stressed; you are probably still getting full nights sleep and your world hasn't yet shifted on its axis and become relentless. Will that same person drag themselves out of bed for the fourth time that night to try and settle a baby? Or just take the load off a very tired and potentially worried partner? If they are kicking up a fuss about having to go to antenatal classes then I suspect not.

I don't think men are excluded from antenatal classes. That was just a possibility if men carry on not behaving themselves amongst a range of scenarios, I took it as meaning. They are apparently 'ignored' when there though. The Voice. Of. Reason. is clearly not being heard. 'Tis sad.

Overall yes. I have never felt oppressed personally though. However I do/did earn less than my male colleagues who did the same (sometimes less) work as I did.

I think a lot of sexism isn't noticed though as it is so ingrained into us. Even little things like being pushed up against on a crowded train I used to think nothing of until I started reading this part of the forum. Now I seem to notice subtle sexism everywhere.

Yes, I agree although I agree I don't necessarily feel personally oppressed in everyday life. I'd argue that's because the oppression is institutional and everywhere, like wallpaper to our lives.

I also suggest that women who don't think women are oppressed have simply not realised yet that they are.