First off, Q: let me make sure that you're clear on the fundamental miscommunication we were having (because I found it!). Any time I said something along the lines of "Women shouldn't think that they are oppressed simply because they are women" or "oppression does not occur against a woman simply because she's a woman" you translated that to: "Women should not feel oppressed simply by being born a woman" or "Oppression does not inherently go along with being a woman." This is absolutely 100% not what I meant, and I did not realize that you thought that was what I meant until I read through our last two detailed posts to each other. What I meant is that I do not believe certain facets of society cause oppression towards women due to the fact that these certain facets of society are backed by the ideal/belief that women are inherently inferior, ie: A woman should not feel that oppression occurs simply because she's a woman. Do you see how 2 different interpretations of that statement are possible? You and I just cognitively structured the sentence differently.
Obviously I don't think that there are some women out there, who if were isolated from society, would feel oppressed. That makes absolutely no sense! You can't be oppressed without some other factor causing you to feel oppressed (what you labeled as manifestations of oppression, or "dependent variables"). Of course I agree with you that there are dependent variables that cause a woman to feel oppressed! I do not think that women feel oppressed sans some manifestation of oppression arising from some facet of society, and I do not think that ANY "feminist" theories are based off of this notion. The hold up we had is that you kept explaining that to me, I told you I got it, but then I went on to say something that completely nullified my claim to understanding your point, so you went on to explain it again and fight my position by re-explaining, and I was just like "Wtf I get it dammit!" It's pretty clear why that resulted in frustration for both of us. I'm really sorry you interpreted my words that way.
K, one little thing....yes, there's a contradiction here, as I said, I'm out, but I came back....
How do you know that the 'women are inherently inferior' outlook is the cause, not the effect, of such manifestations of oppression by forces in society?
Well I just typed up this whole post and have now realized that I could interpret your last post in a different way. I don't know which way you meant though, so I'll just leave this as is and take my chances. Anyway...
Chicken: Women are inherently inferior outlook.
Egg: Women are oppressed/[suppressed].
Well, I don't really know if the chicken or the egg came first (well I do from a biological standpoint, but let's just stick to the typical usage of that metaphor), but I don't really understand why that matters when I don't even think the chicken exists anymore in the first place. I think women believe in the chicken, even when it's not there, and the reason women believe in this is due to the egg, and then they take their believed existence in a chicken and use that to explain why the egg is there. In other words, I think that some women perceive society to be claiming that women are inherently inferior and such women have this perception as a result of some kind of oppression that they feel. Some of these women who have this perception reason that any oppression they feel is due to the (perceived) notion that society deems them inferior. Those are the perceptions some "feminists" possess, and I stand by my claim to that.
In other words: I understand that women are treated (or perceive themselves to be treated) as inferiors...(Of those two possibilities, I do believe that each occurs), and thus inadvertently become inferior (or start perceiving themselves as inferior or perceive society's outlook on them as inferiors)...(and of those 3 possibilities, I do not believe that the first has occurred). To this, I'd say that in some (perhaps many) instances, it is possible and legitimate for a woman to perceive herself as being treated like an inferior and thus it's also possible/legitimate for a woman to perceive society's view of her as an inferior. I think instead of fighting that view that women are inferior, however, we should be fighting the perception that women have of how society views them and the way in which women interpret and respond to how society treats them, as I stand by the claim that their perceived view of society's ideals does not accurately represent reality.
[Systematically] Treating them inferior, where the forces allow for this inferior treatment to deepen, until an idea arises [or they start to perceive an idea], that, hey, they truly inherently inferior.
Insert the bolded, and you've identified the problem.
They are inherently inferior, so they can be treated so, in the face of such forces.
This perception of societal ideals is flawed, but I think a lot of "feminists" have this perception and operate under it. That's what I think the problem with "feminism" is, as this perception is not an accurate representation of reality.
How do you determine which it is?
Well I still stand by the claim that it's neither, honestly, as I don't believe that American society deems women inherently inferior. I can give you some reasons (based on something other than personal experience, don't worry) for why I don't think that, if you want...
And that whole post applies to American society, not societies in which women are clearly viewed as inherently inferior.
That post required an inordinate amount of Ti. I may have lost myself somewhere...hopefully I made sense though? I seriously may have just responded to my own inaccurate interpretation. Argh.
I feel like you may have been referring to the idea that women/feminists believe that society could start deeming them inferior because they are being treated as inferiors in some facets of society, thus women/feminists believe that have to fight these facets of society in order to prevent society from eventually deeming them as inherently inferior. If you meant that, then I don't really know where to go from there. That's a perfectly legitimate stance to have (and measures to fight/prevent such treatment are in place), but I don't believe the kind of feminists to which I'm referring have solely that stance. If they did, then they wouldn't be making claims along the lines of "Men/society do/does perceive us as inferiors; it's true, they do!", and they do make such claims.
I took that on like a gazillion tangents (sorry?). I'm actually getting pretty sick of this discussion, as it's starting to get draining to think about all the ways in which you and I could possibly be interpreting each other, but if you have a decent response I'll give it thought and probably respond, but if you're done, let me know.