Honestly, this is somewhat overstated don’t you think? “Oppression of women universal” Really? I mean REALLY? Where is this going on other than say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia? Oh gosh I guess that sounds so Islamophobic…
At any rate I am truly curious what you think is oppression in this day and age?
As to the 50s, I am not sure anyone is glorifying that era other than to say that there was relative economic prosperity, life was much simpler then and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As to women being ‘oppressed’ in the 50s, my mother got a PhD in Biology and was able to work with top research scientests. No one told her she couldn’t be a scientist because she was a female. This was 50 years ago, not in the dark ages. I agree that there were expectations of women then and fewer women went to college or had professional careers. So there are options opened. OTOH we have far more irresponsible behavior, drugs, unwed mothers, men abandoning their families, broken families, abortions. Not everything “progressive” has been a positive. Each era had its advantages and its disadvantages. On balance though I don’t think women in this country have ever truly known OPPRESSION in comparison to the countries where religions other than Christianity and Judaism prevailed. We are all very blessed to be born in the USA
Lisa
Oppression of women to me, means men making the rules that women (not necessarily them) have to live by. It still exists, everywhere I can think of but to widely varying degrees and we all have different personal experiences to relate in that regard. It’s not simply about career opportunities by any means.
To me, it exists here mainly in form of social mores and ways of thinking (by both men AND women), the more overt forms of discrimination having improved dramatically over the years. Just in the last few days on this board, I have participated in several discussions that hinge on women and sex and have witnessed posters insulting women for their sexual behavior or putting the onus for moral sexual standards squarely on the shoulders of women. Compare this to times that a male politician is caught with his pants down - I have never seen any of them called words comparable to ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ and the arguments generally vary from “my party is more moral than your party” to “no one is perfect so we must forgive”.
Worse yet, in multiple discussions on mandatory ultrasound legislation, I have witnessed a considerable number of posters (of both sexes; gender prejudice is no respecter of one’s gender) use the old “she’s already agreeing to worse than that argument” to justify mandatory vaginal ultrasounds. For clarity, that mindset was once used to minimize sexual assaults on “loose” women based on the idea that since they were already consenting to sex with a string of partners, they should not object to one more.
I also cannot fail to mention the recent curious choice of legislators in selecting a panel of men to discuss contraceptive coverage for women! To me, that illustrated the old “do as I say but not as I do” strategy of the male figure in society, to a ‘t’. I’m not arguing in favor of the mandate, but simply questioning how it was that women couldn’t seem to be found to argue against it. Around that same time, we had a flashback to the not so enlightened past when one presidential candidate’s supporter made the infamous “aspirin between the knees” statement; I watched his apology afterward and it was clear even then the poor guy had no clue why his “joke” was so offensive.
We’ve come a long, long way but still have far to go. Violence (sexual and otherwise) against women is much less acceptable but still very widespread, and probably not given as much priority as it should be. Women victims of domestic violence are not routinely blamed or ignored as once used to be the case, but there are still attitudes which could use tweaking. The priority and resources we give to crimes such as sexual assault/abuse and human trafficking alone, is an indication of how much things have changed and how much they still need to.
Yes, there are less barriers now in education and careers but getting a degree or a post is only half the game. Even in politics, we could make considerable headway if people would focus less on what women candidates (and wives of public figures) look like rather than what they stand for. It’s instructive to remember that some countries with overtly oppressive restrictions on women, have been ***governed by a woman *** without impacting dramatically the lot of their female citizens: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, come to mind.
The fault lies with both sexes, IMO. In some cultures with much more brutal forms of female oppression, it has been noted that women with positions of authority in the social hierarchy are, paradoxically, the very ones who perpetuate traditions that subjugate women to their male counterparts. Practices which are not just oppressive, but either reprehensible or criminal (or both), such as bride burning, female infanticide, female circumcision and forced marriage are partly or totally instigated and carried out by such women (mothers, in-laws, respected elders).
So, while all may not agree that psychological domination and overt cruelty both fit the definition of female oppression, I think they represent the opposite extremes of a cultural phenomenon which needs to be consigned to the ash heaps of history.
, we see the matriarchal system claiming it can outdo the patriarchy of a free-market system, not abused “capitalism” we see so rampantly today. It then gloriously fails while still checking the bloc 
. Eventually, to survive, it must, ironically, return to a capitalist system (patriarchal role), though more often than not it seeks to blend the two.