Well, many JW men treat their wives well. Some elders obviously treat women well and with respect. I have no reason to assume JW men are significantly more cruel to women than any other group of people one can find.
This is essentially like claiming slavery is not repressive because there exists slave owners who treat their slaves well. In the Roman empire, it was not unheard of that masters freed their slaves (sometimes in their will), and also gave them substantial sums of money. Some such freed slaves became prominent members of the community.
Yet, I think all would agree that the institition of slavery was cruel, inhuman and oppressive like few other institutions.
In the same way, JW women are essentially considered the property of their husbands. Ok, he is expected to treat hos wife fairly and with love, but why should he be considered the "head" in the first place if they were really equals?
The WT arrangment for family and the congregation gives ample opportunity for the oppression of women. That is an obvious fact. If she is repressed, or even mistreated, there is nothing she can do, since even the ultimate way out -- divorce or disassociation -- will lead to many adverse reactions and punitive measures. True, if she is grossly mistreated (how hard does the man have to hit her to qualify for this standard?) she can separate from her husband, but then she is expected to live the rest of her life unmarried. If that is not repression, what is?
I also think back on the WT illustrations trying to justify the "headship arrangment" by arguing that every ship needs a captain. I hope those retards making up such "arguments" have never been married.
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate." - Occam