Oppression In The Time Of Freedom

We've been talking a lot about oppression in the Middle East. The oppression of women in particular. I think we all need to recognize two things:

1). Men are also oppressed in countries that force religion and morals upon them.

2). We should buy ourselves a mirror.

1. We tend to assume that because laws force some women to wear oppressive clothing (literally physically oppressive clothing and figuratively oppressive), and because some laws are written that either specifically remove or purposely don't grant certain rights to women, that the men in countries with such laws take full advantage of the fact that the government gives them power over women. But these men live in a place that also dictates their behavior and their dress. Muslim countries often prohibit the consumption of alcohol by anyone. In some cases men are allowed to wear only specific types of clothing (certain ties, for example). Laws against public displays of affection (hand holding, even) certainly affect men. Laws regarding courtship impact men.

Additionally, we are sometimes blind to the fact that many men are against nonsecular governments (just as, in the West, many whites fought for the abolition of slavery and many men in the U.S. rallied for women's suffrage) that are oppressive in general and oppressive to women especially. There are a great many men who are involved in the Green Revolution, for instance. Many men, for and against their current governments, are opposed to the way women are allowed to be treated and to the way the laws make them literally worth less.

I think we acknowledge these men, but act as if they are in the vast minority, and then we are given the perception (by what our media chooses to show us, by the books publishers choose to translate, by our own decisions about whether or not to educate ourselves) that all the men who are not opposed to the government treat women like crap or abuse them or think they are stupid. But this is not true, and it's part of what Fatemeh Keshavarz was getting at.

I'm not arguing that women aren't oppressed. Sure they are. I mean to look at the conversations we have regarding that oppression. We seem to become so passionate, and often place so much blame, that we don't, in the heat of a discussion, recognize that not only are most men not the villains we talk about, but that their lives - the ones they may choose to live if they had the choice - are also altered and diminished by the types of government that rule places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

2. Next, I think that if we're going to talk about how terrible a government is and a country is because it oppresses its citizens (in our conversations, specifically its women), then we need to look at the United States before we demonize others. I'd like to say right up front that I know a lot of you will say, "But it's so much worse there. We have laws that ensure equality and give women legal recourse for things like abuse, rape, and stalking. Aren't you really talking about degrees of oppression?" Well, maybe you'll see degrees, but oppression is oppression regardless. If we (the government of the U.S. or any other country) feel that we are in a position to tell anyone how to treat its people, then we'd better make sure we're treating ours properly, or at least acknowledging and taking steps to rectify any mistreatment.

So how are women oppressed here? Well, I think we all know that women make less money than men do. (They also often pay more for the same products and services.) Women with equal or greater education, equal experience, and an equal track record make less money than their male counterparts in the same positions (even C.E.O.s and the like). And women are statistically less likely to be promoted. Our government doesn't seem to see this as a big problem. I mean, at least we let ladies have real jobs, right? If it were to recognize this as the injustice it is, our government would still be too scared to try to somehow mandate pay guidelines to private employers. After all, many raises are merit based. How does the government know that women just don't deserve raises? Employers can't be forced to give raises or equal starting pay, can they?

It's perfectly legal for a man to walk around without a shirt on because it's hot. It is illegal for women to do so. Why is it illegal? Because women can't show their breasts (which, by the way, are not sexual organs any more than men's breasts (which can lactate) are). Because men like breasts and have sexualized them, they're considered dirty and/or capable of inciting riots. Lewd. Inappropriate. Trust me, I've seen many a bare man-boob far larger than anything I've got to show. But if the suggestion is made that women should be allowed to join men in their shirtlessness, we are faced with one of three reactions: 1) That it's indecent. 2) That it's laughable or not serious. 3) That it's a bad idea because then men'd have to look at less than desirable breasts/ladies without their shirts on (this is supposed to be humorous). Yes. Because my favorite thing to look at is fat-hairy-sweaty-guy-without-his-shirt-on. That's what laws should be based upon - prettiness. So women wear tank tops, which takes us to the ever-popular double standard.

Women wear tank tops because it's 90*F and we're not allowed to be shirtless. Men, of course, feel free to ogle us because, as is common knowledge, we wouldn't put it out there if we didn't want someone to look at it. No person has the right to ogle another, to make another feel so uncomfortable - it's as if women are expected to feel ashamed generally because they have something men want and ashamed especially when even a peek of that something comes out because it ought, rightfully, to be covered and uncovering it is a clear invitation. Let me tell you what my grandma would say (seriously): "Yeah, asshole. I'm sweating like a fat man chasing an ice cream truck, it's hotter than hell, and I thought that instead of being comfortable by covering as much of my body as possible, I'd show you my tits. Fuck off." If this ogling happened at work someone'd be guilty of sexual harassment. But in public it's okay because she clearly wants it. Yes this is a form of oppression. Society allows women to be objectified in this way because no one does anything about it. So women have to choose whether or not it's worth it to be less hot, choose whether they're going to fight today or just look the other way. No, we don't cover our women up by law, but we certainly let them know how we feel about their being uncovered.

The opposite? Well, if a woman wears baggy clothes or a large sweater, it is, of course, so that men will wonder what's under there.

And if a woman chooses to wear anything remotely revealing, she'd better not pick that day to get raped, because you can be sure it'll be pointed out that she clearly wanted it. Showing herself in tight jeans like that, enticing the men - her rapist couldn't be expected to help himself. Plus, it's not like she's a virgin or anything. She just regrets it and is whining now. It's not his fault. Doesn't this sound insane??? Doesn't it sound like Hassan in Two Women? Yet this defense is used in court cases. We want to take away women's power, especially their power to express themselves sexually, but then we project power over men on to them in order to excuse the bad (often illegal) behavior of men.

A real, current example of women's sexuality being used against them? Turn on the news and try your hardest not to hear about Tiger Woods. Rather, try not to hear about "his women." News casters love to talk about how they're all "busty" or blonde or seem dense. They insinuate, and watchers write in and say outright, that these women are homewreckers and sluts. Alright, you shouldn't sleep with a married guy. But HE is the married one. Tiger Woods's marriage is his responsibility. And slutty? TIGER is the one that slept with his wife plus at least 12 other women. But men and women want to talk about the morals of the mistresses and how dirty they are. Seriously? If anyone in this scenario is likely to give you the clap, it seems to me like it's probably Mr. Woods.

Think, for a moment, about the names we call opinionated (especially if they're smart) or aggressive women. Both positive characteristics in men, many try to shut women up by attempting to make them feel as if they are less. Less smart, less important. Just plain silly; annoying for expressing themselves.

We're often surprised at what women do. Surprised because we didn't think women could do that. Because women aren't strong enough or don't have enough determination. Or because they have children. I'm certain we all know women who are in a race to begin their careers because they want to be able to have kids and they don't want to have them too late in life, but if they have them too early it'll ruin their careers. How often do we hear men complain of this? I know what you're going to say, "Virginia, having a baby and taking care of it, even if it interferes with work, is a choice." And I agree. I just don't understand why women are uncaring, bad mothers if they don't leave work for a sick kid or if they work more than the standard work week and men who don't leave work and who work late or have meetings after hours are just providing for the family. They never worry about ruined careers because they don't have to leave or call in or skip a meeting so that they can be called by others a "good parent."

We scoff at women's professional sports (because how can they ever be as good?). Anyone who's ever watched WWF or WWE type shows can tell you that the men beat the crap out of each other while the women barely wear clothes, "wrestle," and sometimes meet the fate (oh, no!) of a water gun/hose. Yes, the men are scantily clad also (I imagine so that clothes don't become a hazard), but the women wear fantasy outfits and have their dirty, inappropriate breasts largely uncovered.

Any person who speaks out about these things is mocked (or at least not taken seriously). People say, "Oh, what are you some kind of feminist? I don't want to hear that man-hater crap." Yeah, no one wanted to hear it in the 1920s when women were arrested, went on hunger strike, were force fed raw eggs, and suffered life altering medical complications or death, either. No one wanted to hear it in the 1960s or '70s when women tried to get equal rights under the law, when they spoke out about the thousands of women killed by coat hangers. Since when is "feminist" a dirty word? Demanding equal pay, rights, and protection is not "man-hating." Every self respecting woman is a feminist.

So what we need is to recognize that we are not without fault of our own. Maybe the oppression in the U.S. seems less bad and therefore less worthy of attention to some. But I spent 10 years convincing doctors and insurance companies to perform a surgery for me. One that any 18 year old man can get in one or two doctor visits (I say this without reservation because I know several men who had it performed when they were aged between 18 and 24). But I'm a woman. My pain, my missing class and work, my hospital visits, the fact that years of injections and treatments didn't work, was of little consequence. Because I'm a woman and I might change my pretty little mind one day. This, too, is wrong. But the government and society would side with the doctors and insurance companies. This is discrimination near par with countries wherein women have no rights over their own bodies, where they need a man's permission.

Do I think all men believe that "she is/was asking for it" crap? No. Do I think all men feel that women need to be the only ones to sacrifice for the children? No. Do I think all men secretly hate women and are glad that they have a disproportionately low amount of power and pay? No. Just like not all Middle Eastern men want to see the women they share their lives with oppressed. We still have societal and institutional oppression in the West against women. And against pretty much all non whites (and some foreign whites, if we're being really honest).