hrsetrdr said: Wow, where did that come from? "Socially suppressed"? Western cultures are observably very woman-centric, while at the same time projects very negative images of men from all directions, in society. I'll agree that women have been conditioned/socialized by the '70's feminist movement, and that has helped them to realize their own potential in the science, commercial and political arenas. Men have "moved-over" and accepted women in the "male-dominated" fields when said women have shown their abilities. The flip-side of that coin is, that the villianization of males has become Institutional, with even commercial interests now portraying males as inept, bubbling and shallow, in media advertising.
;)
Quite simply, my statement regarding women as a socially supressed class came from the past three years of study I have undertaken - via an Arts degree - studying sociology, history, women's studies, anthropology, and political science - amongst other disciplines - which all seriously question the extent to which women's status and lot in life has changed via the developments of the mid-to-late twentieth century, and which all stress that women have not only historically been oppressed by society, but that their full interaction within society continues to be supressed. Yes, since the 70s we have seen some major changes and advances in the lot of women, but we have also seen a hell of a lot of anti-feminist governments come into power since that time who have helped to effectively erode such changes. Not to mention the general social backlash to feminism that has meant that those women who do attempt to stand up for women-centered causes are most often demonised and silenced.
I would argue that western society is not women-centric at all. Many areas of society continue to assume male predominance and supremacy, and fail to consider or represent women - a simple example being the relative lack of women within parliaments, legal systems, top positions in business, science, *computing*, etc.. And yes, you could say 'well there are *some* women in these positions' - but overall statistics show that women are continually prevented from reaching these heights. Academically, women in places like Australia (where I live) are shown to perform better, with women graduates outnumbering men - but nevertheless, a notable glass ceiling prevents women from reaching the peak social positions. So I would therefore argue that our society does not hold up women as better than men, and has not changed to be "women-centric", but rather continues to believe that men are "better for the job", than women - and by extension, that women are not as capable, intelligent or worthy as men, socially.
You said: "I'll agree that women have been conditioned/socialized by the '70's feminist movement, and that has helped them to realize their own potential in the science, commercial and political arenas."
That is not what I said. I said that women are socialised by society *to distance* themselves from such disciplines as science, and commercial and political arenas. Yes, the 70s has helped *some* women to realize their potential in these areas, but by and large women are *still* encouraged to take on stereotypically "feminine" pursuits such as being a nurse instead of a doctor, a secretary instead of a businessperson, etc, etc. And, these positions are quite simply not as socially respected, when compared to that which a male doctor or lawyer or politician recieves, thus perpetuating women's position as socially inferior to men.
I therefore disagree with your claim that, "Men have "moved-over" and accepted women in the "male-dominated" fields when said women have shown their abilities," as figures show that in many realms this just *does not* occur.
You said: "The flip-side of that coin is, that the villianization of males has become Institutional, with even commercial interests now portraying males as inept, bubbling and shallow, in media advertising."
Yes, there is some advertising out there that portrays men as inept, bubbling and shallow - but I would argue that there is a hell of a lot more advertising presenting *women* in such ways, than there is of men. Women are continually objectified by the media, with *feminists* continually being villianized whenever they speak out against the entrenched mysogyny that such imagery conveys. I don't recall seeing any advertising which "villianizes" men in the same way, nor objectifies them to the same level.
In this, your claims that men are somehow socially disadvantaged now - based most on negative portrayals you've seen of men in the media - are a little too simplistic, as they fail to recognize the full breadth and history of the issue.
Cheers, zoetrope.
