Essay on 'Five Faces of Oppression' by Iris Young Summary

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Essay on ‘Five Faces of Oppression’ by Iris Young Summary

In her article Five Faces of Oppression, Iris Young provides an explanation of the term oppression as used by new left social movements in the United States, and consequently, its meaning. In this paper, I will summarize exploitation as one of five faces of oppression that Young uses to comprehensively and universally define whether a social group is oppressed or not. I will also summarize one of her exploitation arguments regarding women’s oppression. I will discuss an objection that could be used to invalidate Youngs argument and how Young can reply. I will then argue that while an objector raises significant flaws in Youngs argument, Young does have a strong response to the objection. I will then conclude that, indeed, Young is right, and part of the contemporary exploitation of women stems from the unfair transfer of power from women to men.

Oppression, according to Young, refers to an inhibition of a group through a vast network of daily practices, attitudes, assumptions, behaviors, and institutional rules (Young 275). Young offers five conditions that comprehensively and universally capture the concept of oppression across all social groups. One of the conditions is exploitation. I will focus on Youngs argument that womens exploitation derives from the principle of transfer of powers from women to men. According to Young, part of womens oppression derives from the fact that women transfer the fruits of their labor to men.

Youngs argument for womens oppression is deductive. Young begins from the premise that, in society, women work for men. Young continues to proclaim that, by working for men, women are often excluded from engaging in privileged activities, for instance, engaging in income-generating activities. Instead, women, as Young suggests, are confined to domestic work, including cooking, child-rearing, and fulfilling men’s sexual desires, among others. At this juncture, Young advances her argument by claiming that without engaging in privileged activities, women are, therefore, forced to depend on men for sustenance. It is this dependency, as per Young, that serves as a basis of oppression among women by men.

An objector to Youngs argument may provide several claims to invalidate Youngs argument about women’s oppression. The objector could achieve this through logic, in particular, by invalidating Youngs first premise and subsequent premises, and consequently, the conclusion. Let me explain how such an objection might work.

Based on statistics, the objector could begin by proclaiming that, as opposed to the pre-enlightenment period, women no longer work for men. The objector could go ahead and show that, with women’s enlightenment and empowerment today, women of the 21st century engage in formal and paid labor (Moore 523). The objector could provide the fact that some women, nowadays, earn more than men in general, including their husbands. In this regard, therefore, the objector could go ahead and proclaim that women of today engage in privileged activities and do not, therefore, depend on men for sustenance. Again, despite women being independent and engaging in privileged activities, women’s oppression continues to persist, in a markedly increased manner and advanced ways. In light of the above viewpoints, the objector could easily discredit Youngs argument by saying that Youngs argument is erroneous, and therefore, invalid.

Young can easily respond to the objectors argument. Young could begin by showing how the objectors claims are narrowly focused. Young can propose that women, in one way, or another continue to work for men. Through evidence, Young can show that men own a majority of organizations that women work in, and therefore, women do indeed work for men. Again, a majority of women engaging in paid labor hold low-level positions and are often supervised by men. For such positions, women earn meager earnings. Considering the economic hardships of the 21st century, with limited revenue, Young can clearly show by evidence that the majority of women often look up to their husbands for sustenance. In this regard, Young can easily show the fact that women depend on men either at work or at home, and are, therefore, subjects to them. This subjectivity, in turn, results in oppression among women.

In light of the above discussion, it is worth pointing out that even with women’s enlightenment and empowerment, women, in one way or another, continue to work for men. This can be illustrated through the fact that men continue to dominate over women, both at home and at work. This domination often brings about subjectivity. The fact that women are subjects to men serves as a strong basis for women’s oppression.

Overall, we have seen Youngs argument on the issue of women’s oppression, an objection to it, as well as a response to the objection. I think that Young’s case is relatively strong and that the objectors argument is narrow-focused, and therefore, fails to consider the bigger picture. In particular, it fails to acknowledge that women, though they engage in work, they are rarely superiors, and in most cases, hold low-level positions in the workplace. They are, therefore, lowly paid, as evidenced by gender pay gaps. Consequently, they partly look up to their husbands for sustenance. In both ways (work and home), women are dominated by men. This forms a significant basis for women’s oppression.

Click Here To Order Now!