Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who are more oppressed in modern western society? Men or women? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who are more oppressed in modern western society? Men or women?
    Women
    49
    37.98%
    Men
    55
    42.64%
    Both are equally oppressed
    25
    19.38%

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    No worries at all. It seems very strange for anyone to claim that men are the oppressed sex.

    It really is very simple to work out; all you have to do is look at which sex overwhelmingly occupies the major positions of power in government, military, central banks, intelligence agencies and business.

    Even in 2014 (the last year for which I had numbers), when I looked at the numbers of male and female attainment of pupillages to become barristers, and even considering a majority of law graduates are women, it was still the case that 9 out of 10 pupillages at the top chambers practising the most prestigious areas of law (chancery) were male. The only areas where females attained more pupillages were in areas that might be traditionally considered "womens' work" (family law and immigration)

    So the argument that some people make that equality has arrived and we just need to wait for the current crop of female graduates to make their way through the system doesn't wash.

    Looking at business, it's still the case that there are many boards of directors in top UK companies which have no women at all, or if they do they have a single woman (invariably the HR director, again stereotypically "womens' work".

    I cannot understand why some people insist on asserting this complete reversal of reality by claiming men are the oppressed sex. Of course there are mens' issues; men do undertake the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. They have shorter life expectancy. There are issues surrounding male suicide, confused expectations of the male role, issues around male sexuality... but these do not overturn the fundamental fact that men dominate the real centres of power in our society
    You're saying the reason behind low number of women in these fields is purely due to sexism. Can you not possibly comprehend that it's because simply less women enter these fields of work that you mention. I don't se the argument here. What I don't understand is why people think that companies don't hire women. Why would employers just do that because they're women? I don't know anyone who thinks like that, what would the logic be in that reasoning?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I was a feminist for the longest time, but I'm not anymore.
    Neither men or women are oppressed as neither of them face legal, economic or political, systemic discrimination for being born male/female.
    The injustice is social and cultural. Both men AND women go through that. Neither is more oppressed than the other and by diverting the focus on men OR women you're ignoring the actual issue which is gender inequality. We all face that.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully we can keep this debate civil. But we'll see.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano9901whichone)
    I would say women have legal superiority. You won't be able to say one aspect of where men have legal superiority. Although I challenge you to do so.
    You're the one making the positive assertion; you claim women have "legal superiority". How? Specifically, cite chapter and verse what statute, what case law, what regulation, gives women superiority over men?

    My position is that both sexes have formal legal equality, but that it is not reflected in the actual distribution of power. Please cite specifically in which area women have "legal superiority"

    Also here's a few things, the wage gap does not exist, well it does but it's because women, in general, tend to go into lower paying professions, so even though there are more women graduating from university, they still have a lower chance of earning as much as STEM graduates, who are mostly male
    Utter nonsense. The wage gap has been clearly shown by comparing like-with-like; comparing men and women in the same profession and in many cases with exactly the same continuity of service. And your theory doesn't account for the instance I cited where in the distribution of pupillages men beat women at a ratio of 10 to 1 to attain pupillages in the most prestigious sets (chancery sets) even though they receive similar numbers of applications from both sexes.

    Also more men go into politics than women, more men go into the army, the armed forces than women so it makes sense that it's mostly men that make up the higher power positions in these jobs.
    The reason less women than men go into the army is because until recently they were barred from pretty much all the important positions in the armed forces (combat positions in the infantry, artillery, submarines). More men going into politics is a reflection of the bias and prejudice that existed against women and the difficulties they faced; it is a symptom of the imbalance, not its cause.

    If you want to understand more about that, read any biography of a woman politician form the older generation like Margaret Thatcher or Shirley Williams to understand just how unwelcome they were made to feel when they arrived in the House of Commons.

    You can't argue against this.
    I can and I just did. It's called a debate. You can't offer up flimsy, barely-evidenced assertions as you just have and then imperiously proclaim "You can't argue against this". I can and did, so put that in your pipe and smoke it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano9901whichone)
    You're saying the reason behind low number of women in these fields is purely due to sexism. Can you not possibly comprehend that it's because simply less women enter these fields of work that you mention.
    The situation I cited with pupillages blows your proposition out of the water. There are more female law graduates than male. There were an equal number of applications for pupillages at top chancery sets from male and female candidates. And yet males got 9 out of 10 of those pupillages at top chancery sets, and the only practice areas where women got more of the pupillages were areas like family law and immigration law (traditionally "womens' work").

    The numbers speak for themselves.


    What I don't understand is why people think that companies don't hire women.
    It's not that companies don't hire women. It's that women are less successful at climbing the ladder than men are; for historical and social reasons they often don't have "sharp elbows" in the way men do, they are less inclined to take credit for their work and push themselves forward.

    I've seen this in my own family. My Mum is a very senior civil servant in my home state in Australia. Her areas of expertise was in the treasury and the policing portfolios (also the most prestigious). When the next round of promotions came through and she applied for the director position at the Ministry of Policing, the post went to a much less qualified male and she went to her fourth choice at the Department of Education (again, "womens' work"). She had to work twice as hard to get into the Ministry of Police and then the Treasury at that senior level as her less qualified male colleagues. It was and is very much a boys' club.

    The same with my aunt, my Mum's sister. She was General Counsel at one of the largest banks in Australia and was considered by the financial press to be the best qualified and most likely successor to the CEO. When the decision was made, they brought in a man from outside the bank (who ended up being a disaster).

    I can see in my own family that when it comes to senior levels of management, women are often pushed aside. If they act in a "lady-like" manner then they are giving up the most effective tools for advancement. If they adopt the tools suited to realising one's ambition (properly networking, giving and calling in favours, etc) then they get labelled a "ball-breaker". If they have kids they're called a "bad mother" for spending so much time at work. If they don't have kids they're labelled "barren" or a lesbian.

    You really have no idea, do you? Then again, you're young and you've never operated at that level in business or government so it's perhaps to be expected that you really have no clue really how hard it is for women to strike the right balance
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    You're the one making the positive assertion; you claim women have "legal superiority". How? Specifically, cite chapter and verse what statute, what case law, what regulation, gives women superiority over men?

    My position is that both sexes have formal legal equality, but that it is not reflected in the actual distribution of power. Please cite specifically in which area women have "legal superiority"



    Utter nonsense. The wage gap has been clearly shown by comparing like-with-like; comparing men and women in the same profession and in many cases with exactly the same continuity of service. And your theory doesn't account for the instance I cited where in the distribution of pupillages men beat women at a ratio of 10 to 1 to attain pupillages in the most prestigious sets (chancery sets) even though they receive similar numbers of applications from both sexes.



    The reason less women than men go into the army is because until recently they were barred from pretty much all the important positions in the armed forces (combat positions in the infantry, artillery, submarines). More men going into politics is a reflection of the bias and prejudice that existed against women and the difficulties they faced; it is a symptom of the imbalance, not its cause.

    If you want to understand more about that, read any biography of a woman politician form the older generation like Margaret Thatcher or Shirley Williams to understand just how unwelcome they were made to feel when they arrived in the House of Commons.



    I can and I just did. It's called a debate. You can't offer up flimsy, barely-evidenced assertions as you just have and then imperiously proclaim "You can't argue against this". I can and did, so put that in your pipe and smoke it
    The wage gap is true? That's how I know you're a feminist. But anyway, why would any employer just pay a woman less all because she is a woman? That doesn't make sense, what's the motive? Also that's just plain illegal. Not matter what you claim, you're not comparing like for like. You're looking at statistics that involve taking averages, and where there are averages there can be misleading data (hopefully you did statistics at school or learnt it since so should know that). Just think about what you experience in your daily life, who typically work less hours or work part time? Women do.
    In fact there is some data that suggests younger women (20-40 years although I'm not sure exactly about the age group but it's roughly around that) actually make a little bit more than men the same age in the same jobs. How true that is, I don't know.
    And the big legal thing really is custody over kids. Women 'always' get custody of the kids, (~90% of the time? Something like that). Women getting lower sentences for similar crimes.
    Also the domestic abuse thing is stupid. I've seen somewhere that even if a man calls the police about his partner being violent, most times it is the man who is removed from the house and sometimes even arrested himself-crazy.
    I could go and find these stats but I really cba to do so they're easily retrievable, a quick google search.
    Although I agree with what you said there is no formal law that disadvantages men or women. (Except maybe that stuff to do with abortions although it's not a nice topic to talk about as there are some difficult issues that arise).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Women.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano9901whichone)
    Although I agree with what you said there is no formal law that disadvantages men or women
    Then it seems we are in agreement. Women do not have legal superiority over men.

    You will also find that things have changed a lot over the last ten years in terms of custody, and it's an ugly fact that often men don't even want full custody. But the law says the judge looks at the suitability of both parents not their gender.

    As for the poor treatment of male victims of domestic violence, that is an issue in the culture of the police but in many ways it is a function of mens' historical superiority over women (i.e. "You should be able to control your woman"). Both men and women suffer from sexism aimed at women and rigid gender roles.

    As for discrimination in employment, the situation regarding male attainment of pupillages in top barristers sets in the chancery practice area, at a rate of 9 to 1, despite equal numbers of applications, evidences my point that such discrimination does exist.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)

    You really have no idea, do you? Then again, you're young and you've never operated at that level in business or government so it's perhaps to be expected that you really have no clue really how hard it is for women to strike the right balance
    Come on, you don't know me, you don't know how old I am or if am a man or woman, so no personal stuff please.
    Also I know you know that anecdotes are just irrelevant, however true it may be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano9901whichone)
    Come on, you don't know me, you don't know how old I am or if am a man or woman, so no personal stuff please.
    I'm guessing you're a student, as this is the student room. So the likelihood is that you've never been, say, a director of a FTSE 100 company or a senior civil servant? Am I right or am I right?

    Also I know you know that anecdotes are just irrelevant, however true it may be.
    An account can be perfectly relevant if it evidences the systemic bias to which I refer.

    Anyway I'm off to the pub so I'll see you round.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Let's be honest here, most of the peoe saying men are oppressed are men, and most of the people saying women are oppressed are women. Being a man or woman it's probably difficult to see the other genders arguments/problems as you don't experience them and probably brush them off more than if they were happening to your gender.

     \displaystyle \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\sin x}{x} \text{ d}x = \pi .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    we are all braindead zombies
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    I'm guessing you're a student, as this is the student room. So the likelihood is that you've never been, say, a director of a FTSE 100 company or a senior civil servant? Am I right or am I right?



    An account can be perfectly relevant if it evidences the systemic bias to which I refer.

    Anyway I'm off to the pub so I'll see you round.
    Have a good one. I can't disclose personal information as I don't like people having any prejudices. If I'm young and a student, in too young to know the real world. If I'm older, I'm some old loser who hangs about on the student room as I have no life. Maybe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think in the modern, western society either are oppressed.

    In terms of are some still disadvantaged - yes. In some areas men are, in some women are. Overall, I would still say women have a slight disadvantage.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Let's face it, do I really know what I'm taking about? No. Do most people know what they're talking about when it comes to issues like this? No not really. It's just people putting their biased opinion forward which is normal (me included probably).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Exactly. Just think of all those poor women who were forced to fight and die in the trenches during WW1, whilst all the men were allowed to stay at home and raise their families and...... oh wait.
    Women weren't allowed to fight in the war which is why there was so much movement in those times to allow women to work in the factories to help the war effort. They weren't allowed to fight so they wanted to help the war in any way they could by making bullets, working in the factories to keep the country going and training in medicine to help the wounded who were brought home.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    I'm guessing you're a student, as this is the student room. So the likelihood is that you've never been, say, a director of a FTSE 100 company or a senior civil servant? Am I right or am I right?



    An account can be perfectly relevant if it evidences the systemic bias to which I refer.

    Anyway I'm off to the pub so I'll see you round.
    Ugh..what a snobbish, 'I am better than you' type of response.

    Also, having scanned your responses, they are deeply flawed in that you can't base an argument about the whole of society on how many heads/executives are male. Very few people in society are heads or executives. There are also perhaps very real reasons why men are more likely 'to get to the top' if they so wish...women taking time out to have children, many men by their nature being more competitive, many women having different aspirations. Your views are extremely simplistic and then you underscore it with 'there are some issues with male suicide'. I mean...really!? A man is over 3 times as likely to commit suicide as a woman, a younger man even more so. That is as serious as it gets and yet it is barely giving any attention in the grand scheme of things. Issues affecting women which are way less serious are constantly all over the front pages. As i have repeated on here many times now, the BBC section on sexism does not have ONE article about sexism against men yet it happens every day.

    I have no shame in saying that I can't stand modern feminism. It has become some ugly, deluded, victimised movement which completely ignores reality and all the areas in which women actually have advantages over men. And claims by some feminists that they also fight for male issues too is absolute BS. The clue is in the title and they state that only when attacked before carrying on their nonsense about how a guy had the nerve to chat them up in the street.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethwalker85)
    Women weren't allowed to fight in the war which is why there was so much movement in those times to allow women to work in the factories to help the war effort. They weren't allowed to fight so they wanted to help the war in any way they could by making bullets, working in the factories to keep the country going and training in medicine to help the wounded who were brought home.
    Damn those awful men putting their lives on the line and protecting their women. Work in shops and factories or dodge bullets for as long as you can stay alive...
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano9901whichone)
    Let's face it, do I really know what I'm taking about? No. Do most people know what they're talking about when it comes to issues like this? No not really. It's just people putting their biased opinion forward which is normal (me included probably).
    I'm very confident in my opinion that female issues get way, way more attention than male issues, even when issues facing men are far more serious and have more impact on the man's wellbeing.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jd_uk)
    Damn those awful men putting their lives on the line and protecting their women. Work in shops and factories or dodge bullets for as long as you can stay alive...
    Did you not read my first sentence? Women weren't allowed in the war. Not allowed e.g couldn't go e.g had no choice.

    Just like the men who had no choice but to be drafted in the war. But, the difference was that women actually wanted to help in the war but weren't allowed whereas men had all the rights in the world to go fight, but weren't allowed to say no.

    They were both oppressed in some ways, but saying that WW1 or WW2 shows oppression to just one gender is silly because both parties didn't really have a choice in what they did.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.