Who determines what oppression looks like?

[RoseGoesToYale]

There is undoubtedly a lot of talk about "oppression" within the latter half of this decade. It's become something of a buzz word, which is sometimes used correctly and other times not. Merriam-Webster defines it as "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power". Specifically within the framework of social justice the concept of social oppression is explored frequently. Sociologist Adam Podgórecki wrote a book with this title, which I've yet to read, but discusses how groups can be socially oppressed through pressures of normality and conformity.

 

But rather than talking about who is oppressed, I want to discussion how oppression is determined. Who counts as oppressed, and who makes this determination? Can a group reliably determine its own state of oppression? Is it fair or right for an outside person or group to determine whether another group is oppressed, regardless of whether this group believes itself oppressed or not? To what extent can a person define their own freedom within the structures of their society?

 

I'm going to use a very controversial example to start these questions, specifically body alteration of women and female genital cutting (FGC). In more developed countries, we have determined that FGC is wrong and should not be carried out, because we believe a woman has the right to have her body intact so she can experience sexual pleasure if she chooses. There are many groups and cultures, especially in the Middle East and Africa, that practice FGC as social rituals or rites of passage. There are different types of FGC, some that are more dangerous to health than others (you can research these if you wish, but they do include graphic descriptions, so I will leave them out of here). I didn't fully understand why FGC was still being practiced, so I delved into it, and found this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

 

In certain cultures in Africa, the human body is seen as naturally androgynous, and circumcision is seen as right of passage to affirm manhood or womanhood by removing the parts considered to belong to the opposite sex. For women specifically, FGC is seen as a test of strength and ability to tolerate pain, which are considered essential female traits (this contrasts pretty sharply with western culture, where men are overwhelmingly expected to display strength and pain tolerance). Women in the cultures face enormous social pressure to undergo FGC, and she will likely do it in order to be accepted by other women and viewed as a "legitimate" adult woman. She could refuse, but she'd face social stigma and the emotional upheaval that comes with that. It is easier to just say yes. The WHO considers all FGC to be a violation of human rights, bearing no health benefit, and can ultimately cause health risks, especially if the FGC is carried out in unsanitary conditions. Nonetheless, the WHO is very much a western organization and this determination does not take cultural factors into account.

 

Now a more western example... "compulsory ear piercing" for women. We should establish whether this really a fair comparison. Both FGC and ear piercing involve the manipulation of body parts with sharp instruments. If done improperly or under unsanitary conditions, both can lead to infection (I got my ears pierced when I was 16, because my female cousins kept goading me to do it, so their mother pierced my ears, and I later got three infections before deciding it wasn't worth it and let the holes close). In most cases for both, women are not physically forced to undergo it, but face social pressure to conform, especially from other women. In other cases for both, the procedure is performed without say or consent, i.e. mothers getting their infant daughter's ears pierced. The biggest argument is that genitals are inherently more valuable than earlobes, but even this can get fuzzy. E.g. if any man in the US who had never been circumcised walked into a doctors office and requested circumcision, the doctor would very likely perform the procedure. If any woman in the US, of her own volition, walked into the same doctors office and requested circumcision, she would very likely be met with refusal, confusion, disgust, or psychological evaluation. And especially in this forum, we acknowledge a person has just as much right to experience sexual pleasure as they have to refuse the experience, and that people have the right to modify their bodies at their wish and consent.

 

Women in western society do face societal pressure to get their ears pierced, mainly in order to conform to conventional beauty standards and ideals of what is considered feminine. Young girls especially feel this pressure from their peers, and may choose to undergo it even if they don't want to just so they can fit in. The procedure can be quite painful and requires careful adherence to piercing practices and hygiene to stave off infection. Somewhere between 10-20% of women in the US do not have pierced ears, which is a shockingly small percentage. See here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-04-20-0504190327-story.html Women can choose not to undergo the procedure, but the literal deluge of why nots, but you'd look so prettys, but I bought these earrings for yous, you're just chickens, and everybody does its is a pretty strong incentive. We are finally beginning to see some internal backlash at beauty standards imposed on women (I didn't bring them up here, but also consider shaving, labiaplasty inspired by the porn industry, and other cosmetic surgery).

 

In western culture, we accept a woman voluntarily undergoing ear piercing as normal, just like in those African cultures, they accept a woman voluntarily undergoing FGC as normal. In this framework of societal norms, are both groups of women oppressed? Are neither? Can anyone reliably make this determination? And is any woman in either of these societies capable of truly exercising her own free will in the presence of such pressures?

 

(Other food for thought... do I as a white woman raised in a primarily white culture with middle class white definitions of the female human body have the right to look at non-white cultures and determine which of their practices are wrong, harmful, or unnecessary? It would seem to assume any non-white woman from these cultures also has the right to turn around and do the same to my culture, and my cultural practices would be just as wrong, harmful, and unnecessary.)

 

Sorry for the essay again, I've been having deep thoughts lately.

[Alawyn-Aebt]

33 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

do I as a white woman raised in a primarily white culture with middle class white definitions of the female human body have the right to look at non-white cultures and determine which of their practices are wrong, harmful, or unnecessary? It would seem to assume any non-white woman from these cultures also has the right to turn around and do the same to my culture, and my cultural practices would be just as wrong, harmful, and unnecessary.

Either yes to both, or no to both. I personally cannot learn if I am not criticized, so if everyone criticizes everyone and everyone learns from that criticism then there is nothing wrong with that. Just keep an open mind and look at things from each angle. Therefore, I would say yes, you have the right to criticize them, but in return they have the right to criticize you. It is too bad that in the Western World we do not hear much cultural criticism from Africa, South America, or Asia.

36 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

In certain cultures in Africa, the human body is seen as naturally androgynous, and circumcision is seen as right of passage to affirm manhood or womanhood by removing the parts considered to belong to the opposite sex. For women specifically, FGC is seen as a test of strength and ability to tolerate pain, which are considered essential female traits (this contrasts pretty sharply with western culture, where men are overwhelmingly expected to display strength and pain tolerance). Women in the cultures face enormous social pressure to undergo FGC, and she will likely do it in order to be accepted by other women and viewed as a "legitimate" adult woman.

The cultural and anthropological reasons for FGC are interesting; however I am not a cultural relativist ethically, so I think they should be criticized. I like you comparison to ear piercing and FGC, although I think they are not quite an accurate comparison. I do think that society should evaluate its position on ear piercing and lessen the cultural importance of it, same with FGC. I remember hearing about some anthropologists who were trying to come up with culturally-acceptable substitutes for FGC to stop it, but I do not know how that has progressed. 

[Serra]

The people who feel like they're experiencing it? thats my guess...
Oppression can be different for everyone..and look different to everyone..
Its not a clear cut thing.

[catra]

58 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

Can a group reliably determine its own state of oppression? Is it fair or right for an outside person or group to determine whether another group is oppressed, regardless of whether this group believes itself oppressed or not? To what extent can a person define their own freedom within the structures of their society?

these are difficult questions, because it really depends on the situation. i suppose, thought, that overall it depends on how societal structure affects the group in question. LGBT people, women, and POC know they are oppressed because of their clear and harsh disadvantages in society, and most other groups have realized that each of those groups are oppressed. i think that groups can determine for themselves because they know what they experience and how it isn’t different from other groups. i don’t think an outside person/group can completely decide whether the group in question is oppressed, but they can help decide by offering their own experiences to compare. people can define their own freedom to whatever extent is real. for example, western women. our freedom in society has come a long way, and it is certainly more than women of other countries have, but it is still limited in certain ways. we can define our freedom by what we can do, and what limitations are placed on that. of course, these limitations also depend on other factors of our identity (race, sexuality, religion) so each definition of freedom will vary.

58 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

In this framework of societal norms, are both groups of women oppressed? Are neither? Can anyone reliably make this determination? And is any woman in either of these societies capable of truly exercising her own free will in the presence of such pressures?

technically, both groups are oppressed because of their subjection to societal norms, but in very different ways. western women have a small standard of beauty imposed upon them (in this earrings situation, not in general) that is not as serious as others and does not affect us nearly as bad as other things. our body is still being modified and damaged, but a little hole in our ears does not cause us to lose any sensation of any type. african women, however, are having their bodies mutilated in order to conform to societies standards, and the pressure to do it is a lot worse. not getting your ears pierced generally won’t cause others to look down upon you. not going through fgc will chase others to think less of you and believe you’re not legitimate, for lack of a better word. i think it can be reliably determined if enough people weigh in (the majority of those people being the ones subjected to it). in western society, you can exercise your own free will (in this situation) without much consequence. in african cultures, however, i don’t believe women can, after what you’ve stated. 

 

in the end, though, i am not an african women and have never experienced the culture, so i can’t truly decide whether or not these women are oppressed. i can only offer my opinion and see if it lines up with the opinion of those who have experienced this. 

58 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

do I as a white woman raised in a primarily white culture with middle class white definitions of the female human body have the right to look at non-white cultures and determine which of their practices are wrong, harmful, or unnecessary? It would seem to assume any non-white woman from these cultures also has the right to turn around and do the same to my culture, and my cultural practices would be just as wrong, harmful, and unnecessary.)

i think it depends on the cultural practice. in this specific case, the practice in question has been declared as wrong and harmful by the WHO, so we just get agree with that. again, we can only ever offer our opinion because we haven’t experienced this and do not have the extensive knowledge the WHO does. same thing for other cultures. any women from an african culture could offer her opinion on our practices, but i don’t think she’d be able to fully determine whether it’s good or bad (unless she was very educated in the subject). 

[DuskFire]

I wanted to get rid of body parts (nards) that do nothing For me but cause pain. But nobody will do it because it's not "normal" or "healthy"

I think guys that are not "stereotypical" guys are oppressed because of what they like or do...

I like painting my nails and I like "girly" stuff like unicorns and rainbows etc. And I get the feeling of people judging me when I do it sometimes.

I HATE sports and football and practically every other thing that guys are supposed to like.

I think most of the time the oppressed are the minority that struggle with judgement and hate for being different. And especially those who are in areas where they are treated like property or subhuman. Those who have no voice or their voice is silenced or ignored these are the oppressed.

[uhtred]

I think its  a sliding scale. 

 

An asexual may feel uncomfortable about how common sex is in the media. 

 

A  black person in the US may face job and police discrimination

 

A Palestinian may feel that they have very limited rights under Israeli occupation.

 

A back person in the south before emancipation may have no rights, and be subject to torture and death without legal recourse

 

A Jew or Gypsy in Nazi Germany was subject to intentional extermination.

 

 

I don't think there is a clear place to draw the line