BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[lucy]

Who are you referring to when you say "you?"

Not me, obviously, since i didn't post here yet

Do you consider yourself a "feminist?"
Yes.
What is your definition of one?
A woman who doesn't accept that she's being paid 25% less for the same work as a guy. A woman who doesn't accept that she has to get a job and still care for the family and the home all alone. Luckily there are more and more men who realize that working 12 hours a day isn't what they want. The problem that most companies expect exactly that remains, thou.
Do you have a negative or positive view of feminists in general?
Highly positive. I wouldn't be where i am without the countless women who have fought for equality in the past, and still do.
Does feminism affect your day to day? How does it play into your BSDM lifestyle?
Hmm, day to day? Not really. I grew up in a time when being able to have a choice was normal for a girl. So i think a lot of things my mother had to struggle for are just normal for me.
Concerning BDSM it's about the same. I think feminism has made it possible for me to chose to submit, even if at the first moment one would think that's contradictory. And i sure had a problem with it, for quite some time, until i realized that submitting myself doesn't mean i can't be a strong woman (not a good description at all, but i can't think of a better one) at the same time.

I admit i have no idea what the current gender discussion is in the States. I do know however, that here one topic of the feminist discussion and political movement is about bringing fathers to take responsibility for raising their children together with the mother. Simply because children need both. And don't give me that crap with "quality time" spent by mostly absent fathers with their children. Time spent with children has no different qualities. You're either there with them or you aren't. Working 12 hours a day and leave caring for the family and the home to the wife just doesn't work. For anybody.
Maybe the guys got scared away from taking that responsibility by feminists, maybe it's today's jobs are so much more demanding than they used to be. Whatever it is, it's not good.

Oh, and just a side note: Giving your child to a daycare so you can work as a mother doesn't make you a bad mother at all (provided it is a well run daycare). It's been proven over and over that children who spent time in a daycare have overall better social/verbal/motoric skills than children who stayed home all day.
So, to play the advocatus diaboli: Are moms who stay home to raise their kids and don't bring them to a daycare bad moms? (or dads, since those exist too)

[damyanti]

Let me spell down my stance, because apperently no one here bothers to look at feminism beyond sterotypes of pop culture.

I admire women who live life on their own terms. I admire women of remarkable spirit. I admire women who have values and live according to them.

To me it is not about one thing. It is about the freedom of choice.

To some women it feels natural to stay at home and care for their children. Some of them I love and like. Some are wonderful women full of wisdom and strenght, some are lazy bimbos. All of whose choice I respect.

To some women those things feel unnatural. To some Femininity is about much more than being able to bear children and find a husband. Some want a great career, living life to the full and travelling the world. And are repulsed by an idea of being (solely) a sex object.

To say that one thing or another is more natural, to call those who think differently "illogical" when I can produce just as many examples to refute this statement as you can to support it, so dont even bother we will end up filling the entire forum, is vile. You can argue that you didnt say that "I dont have a choice", but it has been strongly implied that my choice is unnatural and therefor wrong.

The word "feminism" comes from one of the most beautiful words for a woman "femme".

Feminism really began as a term in France (feminisme) around the end of the 1800s. However, the principals behind this actual term - i.e., the struggle for equality - have been around since the beginning of the Western world. It came to the U.S. at the beginning of the 1900s via an article about a French Suffragist named Madeline Pelltier. But it didn't come into popular usage until the 1960s or 1970s. At that time, women's liberationist was actually the preferred term, but that started to get a bad name, so it was abandoned for feminism. Now, that has a bad name. However, what this example shows, and what I believe, is that the name is in many ways irrelevant because it's what's behind the name, i.e. equality, that is frightening to people. Equality commonly refers to the idea of equal treatment.
Therefore, we should stick with the name. Read the work of Nancy Cott for more on the history of the word.


Feminism is a discourse that involves various movements, theories, and philosophies which are concerned with the issue of gender difference, advocate equality for women, and campaign for women's rights and interests.

It is not one thing "or" another, it is all things feminine.

Personally I believe in common sense and golden middle, but that is beside the point.

You say you are not feminists?

One of the strongest examples of feminist activism is an organization called Concerned Women for America. It was founded in 1979. by Beverly LaHaye, the wife of fundamentalist Baptist minister and Moral Majority co-founder Tim LaHaye, after she saw Barbara Walters interviewing Betty Friedan. Friedan made the claim that her views represented those of a great many American women. LaHaye jumped up and declared, "Betty Friedan doesn't speak for me and I bet she doesn't speak for the majority of women in this country."

Though CWA is a multi-issue organization, its "special role" in the Christian Right has been that of an exemplary foil to the women's movement: the good, pro-family, "spirit-controlled" women, who, in LaHaye's words, are "truly liberated" because they are "totally submissive" to their husbands. CWA activists, though they may appear to be showing dangerous signs of independence, are in fact doing the will of their husbands and their Christian duty to promote pro-family values.

They sure fit nicely into your "emasculating militant" mold. (and because some here cant recognize it, this was sarcasm).



This article originally appeared as a "First Person" column in the Emory Report on March 4, 1996

"How many times have you heard someone say, "I'm not a feminist, but . . . . ." Fill in the blank: I agree that men and women should earn equal pay . . . I believe that sexism still exists . . . I agree that women should have access to birth control, regardless of age or marital status and so on and so forth. I've heard it often enough to conclude that these days women in all walks of life may be engaged in the practice of feminism but many won't call themselves feminists. Why is that and does it matter?

According to Susan Faludi, author of Backlash, the fear and loathing of feminism has been a "perpetual viral condition" in our society. Its symptoms subside and then resurface periodically. The flare-ups, just like the one we seem to be experiencing now, always seem to be triggered by the perception that women have made some inroads in the pursuit of equal rights.

Some say feminism is outdated. Others say it just doesn't work for everyone. Some say we've become too political, too organizational, too theoretical -- that we've lost our grassroots functioning. Others would prefer picking and choosing their causes within the women's movement.

The truth is that feminism has been wrought with controversy and schisms since its inception. For me one of the best things about feminism has always been its elbow room for dissension and its embrace of open communication. We don't all look alike. Why should we all think alike? The bad thing, however, is that every time we disagree on something, someone says, "Look at those women. They just can't get along."

In my generation, known as the "second wave," we came to feminism as adults, perhaps through a personal experience that converted us, or via a long, organic process. We listened to each other's stories -- often very different, but usually with shared themes -- and experienced a kind of rebirth. Young women of today, on the other hand, were born into a feminism with many different, and often seemingly contradictory, images. Some learned from the media. Others learned from teachers, books, mothers and sisters. Some of them identify themselves as the "third wavers."

The second wave worked to pass, enforce, and restore legislation to prohibit sex discrimination on the job and in schools. They worked fiercely so that we women could have free control over our bodies and access to full reproductive care. The hard lesson is this: the work is not over. Older and younger generations of feminists are in the trenches together these days fighting to remove the threats to these basic freedoms. And many are joined in an effort to support women candidates for public office so we can increase the numbers of women in decision-making positions.

But even among these two groups that share a commitment to social change, there is plenty of tension. Why is that? I don't profess to know all the reasons, but judging from the conversations I've been a part of, it seems to me that much of the controversy lies in the perception of an identity. In the earlier days of the movement, before it was so large (yes, folks, contrary to what you hear, feminism still beckons and burgeons) and so diverse, the notion that there was a correct way to be or look like a feminist was much less common. Nevertheless, a narrow stereotype developed over the years. It was fueled by racism, homophobia and classism inside and outside of the movement and garnered favor by the press and the political right. Unfortunately it also gains strength from people who consider themselves feminists.

It is no surprise to me that so many of the younger women, born into these schisms and stereotypes, shunned the feminist label that we wear as the pride of our identity. Some, like the second wavers, are choosing to recast the concepts and broaden the boundaries. I think that's a good thing. Many of my friends who, like me, have always rejected the notion of a shared definition of feminism, recognize that these women are offering us more choices. Choice has always been the power of feminism.

But there are other women who just don't want to be part of a political movement. They don't want to be considered revolutionary, or God forbid, man-haters. (That's another interesting point: Feminists have been alternately accused of hating men and of wanting to be just like them!) Well, in terms of the changes needed to create a society where women can live a full, self-determined life, we may need to be revolutionary! As to man-hating, I quite honestly don't know any feminists who sit around engaged in idle male bashing. Most of us are too busy doing more important things. Neither do we wish we were men. On the contrary, we celebrate our womanhood.

So while I've never been exactly sure of how to construct modern feminism, I am fairly certain about what it means to me. For me, personally, feminism has been the proactive opposition to patriarchy and sexist oppression. It is my belief in and fight for women's full participation in society, our equal access to the same rights, privileges, pay and status that men have historically enjoyed. There is much more. But anything less is just not acceptable to me.

Maybe to the extent that institutions accommodate women's roles, to the extent that feminism challenges discrimination and exclusion of women, it's relatively easy for most women (and men) to embrace. Just don't call them all feminists. It's okay to call me one, though."

[hopperboo]

I especially love women who live their lives one way, like have a job. But then tell me how all societies flaws are a blame of a working mother.

I think a lot of society flaws are due to the mother being out of the picture. Or being absent when they do finally come home. (That and of course marriages breaking up). A woman can have a career and still be a great mom. It's about the quality of the parenting when they get home and how much time is really spent at home with the child. In my opinion of course.

Do you know how my husband calls this thread? Jealousy thread!

Some of us are that strong, some of us can keep up and those that cant...- they are "ladies" and "not feminists".

So 'ladies' who aren't feminists (or do not consider themselves such) are jealous of those women who are hardcore feminists?

I am not jealous of a feminist woman. I am very happy with the thought of staying home and raising my children whenever that time comes.

A woman is a woman. One is a lady if they act as such.

I do concern myself with my career. I am one of, if not the best in my field. I take HUGE pride in that. I concern myself with my husband and my child just as much. My son is loved, well taken care of, accomplished and well behaved. I spend more time with him, than most "stay at homes" do.

Well good for you. (And in case that came off in a sarcastic manner, it's not sarcasm).

How exactly do you know how much time a stay at home mother spends with her child/children?

I do not think I am "equal in all ways" to a man. I am. I proved it.

Am I better than all men in all things? No. But I am better than most men in most things, that includes intelligence and (physical) strength.

I said they are equal on different ground. In different ways. I never said they deserved less respect than a man.

And do you know why there arent any Navy SEAL "females", beacuse women are NOT ALLOWED to be Navy SEALs!!!

Yeah, because 99.9% of women couldn't handle it physically. And I think that is being generous.

Every single one of them fought for equal rights, for fair treatment of themsleves and other women.

I never said a woman shouldn't have fair treatment and equal rights.

So I dont need anyone to tell me how "good" and "perfect" place the world was for women back then, I heard the true "hard facts" from their lips and diaries. And each of them looked and behaved like a lady, in a manner you will never live up to.

I never said the world was good and perfect. Children were brought up with better morals and values than today's children though. And I certainly don't think that is all due to women not raising their children, but I do think it's a big part of it.

I most certainly never chased my husband or any man. And once you get past all the romantic crap, the truth of the matter is - my husband married me because I wasnt a WAG, because I wasnt with him for his money. Because I didnt need him to take care of me, in any way, because he was fed up with all the little subs and their "rescue me" sob stories. [I]He married me because I was His equal.

So you think a stay home mother just wants a man for his money? Lovely. I think it's ironic it is that feminists want equal rights for women, though if a woman chooses to be a stay home mother than they are somehow 'lower class' than a working mother and a feminist woman.

[AdrianaAurora]

So you think a stay home mother just wants a man for his money? Lovely. I think it's ironic it is that feminists want equal rights for women, though if a woman chooses to be a stay home mother than they are somehow 'lower class' than a working mother and a feminist woman.

I am a working mother.

I don't think a woman who stays at home is "lower class".

But lets look at the reality:

A million times repeated scenario - a boy and a girl hook up, get married, they have children and she is the one who stays at home.

I deal with and see all types of stay-at-homes wives/mothers on a daily basis. With some, I am friends and we talk about everything.

But if I have to discuss something important, and especially if its money/business related, her opinion - whether you like it or not - at the end doesn't matter. And I have nothing to do with that. Her husband naturally takes over the conversation, he talks to me as an equal, but sidelines his wife. And this guys aren't chauvinists! They are model and loving husbands and fathers, some even ask for their wives opinion, but then they just decide over it, because he knows better, , even when they dont. And remember, these are just vanilla couples. They never assume they know better than me.

Back to my example, boy will carry the girl on the palm of his hand, until he finds one younger and more interesting. Boom, divorce!
Do you know what half of the people (usually conservative types, the kind that speak against "feminists" here) say, (this is based on countless examples, I can provide transcripts), in short - she is just a leach, he is the one who earned the money! Its the feminists and liberal types that say, she is the one who supported and enabled (the bastard) to do that, raised his kids, kept his house - she is entitled to half.

So now the boy and the girl are divorced, and where does that leave her? Her sense of identity is crushed. If she is really lucky, she got a fer alimony settlement and he is willing to pay it without a fuss; but people will still talk about it behind her back. If she is not so lucky, she will have to get a job and what will be her prospects, or live of benefits.

IMO, on this I am with men. Regardless of which party initiated the divorce, I don't think He should be expected to pay spousal support to a woman who is no longer his wife. And its still men who who usually pay alimony, because men are usually bigger earners!

p.s. 99.9% of men cant handle SEAL training, so whats your point? That because you couldn't, its fer to that one woman who can, that she isn't even given a chance? Nice.

[MMI]

I am a working mother.

I don't think a woman who stays at home is "lower class".

But lets look at the reality:

A million times repeated scenario - a boy and a girl hook up, get married, they have children and she is the one who stays at home.

I deal with and see all types of stay-at-homes wives/mothers on a daily basis. With some, I am friends and we talk about everything.

But if I have to discuss something important, and especially if its money/business related, her opinion - whether you like it or not - at the end doesn't matter. And I have nothing to do with that. Her husband naturally takes over the conversation, he talks to me as an equal, but sidelines his wife. And this guys aren't chauvinists! They are model and loving husbands and fathers, some even ask for their wives opinion, but then they just decide over it, because he knows better, , even when they dont. And remember, these are just vanilla couples. They never assume they know better than me.

Back to my example, boy will carry the girl on the palm of his hand, until he finds one younger and more interesting. Boom, divorce!
Do you know what half of the people (usually conservative types, the kind that speak against "feminists" here) say, (this is based on countless examples, I can provide transcripts), in short - she is just a leach, he is the one who earned the money! Its the feminists and liberal types that say, she is the one who supported and enabled (the bastard) to do that, raised his kids, kept his house - she is entitled to half.

So now the boy and the girl are divorced, and where does that leave her? Her sense of identity is crushed. If she is really lucky, she got a fer alimony settlement and he is willing to pay it without a fuss; but people will still talk about it behind her back. If she is not so lucky, she will have to get a job and what will be her prospects, or live of benefits.

IMO, on this I am with men. Regardless of which party initiated the divorce, I don't think He should be expected to pay spousal support to a woman who is no longer his wife. And its still men who who usually pay alimony, because men are usually bigger earners!

p.s. 99.9% of men cant handle SEAL training, so whats your point? That because you couldn't, its fer to that one woman who can, that she isn't even given a chance? Nice.

My God! If you truly believe that, you are sooo sexist!! No - I don't believe you do belive it truly. You are making a point by exaggeration, surely.

That's ok then. Feminist propaganda.

But, for your information, I am aware of many women who "control the purse strings" - it probably divides up into equal numbers. (Even wifey quizzes me on what I've used my credit card for sometimes ...)

[AdrianaAurora]

You have all these preconceived notions about who Feminists are. And yet it is you who constantly is trying to make this into that men and women are enemies. I don't see it that way, I think men are wonderful creatures, that doesn't mean that I am blind about how things really are. All I would like is for the society to outgrow the point where I have to defend my right to have a job, hold the position of power and earn my own money. Its pathetic that I still have to.


... is necessary because they have no other useful role in society than to be "provider".

Thats not true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My God! If you truly believe that, you are sooo sexist!! No - I don't believe you do belive it truly. You are making a point by exaggeration, surely.

That's ok then.

You do have other uses.

Everybody knows that men are better cooks. And while is possible without you, its not nearly as fun. I do need someone to . And some of you are actually nice to look at

I am aware of many women who "control the purse strings" - it probably divides up into equal numbers. (Even wifey
quizzes me on what I've used my credit card for sometimes ...)

How people choose to negotiate their relationship between their four walls - I couldn't care less.


But when you say that women shouldn't work - to make room for someone less capable - thats sexist bullshit. It wakes my inner Domme, . Men and women are entitled to the same (job) opportunities and may the best candidate win.

[hopperboo]

I don't think a woman who stays at home is "lower class".

Yes you do. One just has to read your posts to realize this.

Back to my example, boy will carry the girl on the palm of his hand, until he finds one younger and more interesting. Boom, divorce!
Do you know what half of the people (usually conservative types, the kind that speak against "feminists" here) say, (this is based on countless examples, I can provide transcripts), in short - she is just a leach, he is the one who earned the money!

Then I am hoping to be a leach. I want the ability to raise my own children.

p.s. 99.9% of men cant handle SEAL training, so whats your point? That because you couldn't, its fer to that one woman who can, that she isn't even given a chance? Nice.

I am not a supporter of women being in the Special Ops. SEAL or otherwise.

[AdrianaAurora]

I am not a supporter of women being in the Special Ops. SEAL or otherwise.

You seem to think that you are better than women who choose to find something meaningful in working outside of the house, after marriage and kids. And yet you find us threatening. You might want to ask yourself why.

Might I point out, that you have a choice whether or not to stay at home. How dare you presume that there is not a single woman out there capable of being a SEAL. She should be entitled to make that choice for herself. And given an opportunity to prove herself.

If you like, we can apply your double standard to you and see how it feels - I am not in support of women like you being in the payed workforce. You cost money. Money is wasted on your training - and then one day you just don't show up at work. Its women like you that make the question, "are you planning to have a baby and getting married soon?" a legitimate one and yet employers who ask are called chauvinistic and sexist. It results in lesser pay for all women. You cost those "young males" their jobs. And he hates feminists for it, .

[MacGuffin]

Denuseri - funny how the men are avoiding this thread like a plague huh?
Well just to give men some equal opportunity on this topic I'll throw in my two cents worth.

Denuseri - To say that we are in effect the same is preposterous. Especially when the reality however is that we are in fact different in a great number of ways. The theory is in effect parenthitically impossible by definition.
Of course we are not the same denu, we only have to look between our legs to know that. But equal in this context means equal rights and opportunities. I am sure you would agree with that concept. If not then let's start by taking the vote away from women.

Orchidsoul - The term 'feminist' lends itself to actively pursuing freedoms of women.
Yes spot on - and rights and opportunities etc.


It seems to me that the problem in this whole thread is what one understands by the term feminist. It was originally intended as orchidsoul said, but largely due to the media focusing on the activities of the more militant elements within the movement the word has come to be popularly associated with extremism. We can find dozens of similar examples where a word has been hijacked by the media and come to imply something else eg. Islamic Fundamentalism.

I don't think there is anybody who disagrees with equal rights for women. Problems come in how this is best achieved while still being fair to men and other interested parties eg employers.

As regards women throughout history well history covers a pretty big area. Again I don't think there is any doubt over historical facts that in some societies women have been severely disadvatanged whilst in others have enjoyed relatively more rights and freedoms.

The primordial argument against giving woman the vote is that that vote would not represent physical force - Sir Almroth Edward Wright

[MMI]

... funny how the men are avoiding this thread like a plague huh?

I haven't been avoiding this: I just hadn't noticed it. Topics on feminism rarely interest males.

And, to be honest, I haven't read the whole thread. It's too long now to catch up on - I don't have the time. It probably means that what I have to say has already been said and moved far beyond, but I still want to say it. Just to see what happens. The original posting (although apparently addressed exclusively to women) said, Answer what you want, ignore what you don't, add anything you think deserves to be covered. I think that permits me to chip in.

First, I should say, I'm hostile towards feminism. I can't justify my position: feminism just gets under my skin. That's another reason to ignore it. Feminism, to me, is the female equivalent of what used to be dubbed "male chauvinism." Male chauvinist pigs, actually, but "pigs" was added out of spite.

To me, feminism is a theory. It's a political theory which holds that males have always and intentionaly regarded women as inferior and have therefore subjugated them, and at times, owned them. It therefore advocates "equality," but I sometimes see that as an attempt to gain an advantage: for example, men only organisations are discriminatory, but female only organisations are not - they are woman's right, they are necessary to restore imbalance, they are necessary to prevent woman from having to cope with man's unending and unwanted sexual advances.

They ban competition and contests in schools (where they have become the ruling majority) because females prefer to co-operate than to compete. And the education system is also becoming increasingly feminised. Boys no longer receive the discipline necessary to make them work as hard as girls do, but female teachers are unable to deliver it.

Women are increasingly inclined to raise children on their own, denying their kids necesssary male contact as they grow up.

The workplace is becoming increasingly feminised. Equal pay is a good thing, as is equal opportunity. But from my perspective, males' salaries have been held back because there are so many married females entering - flooding - the workforce to earn extra money, whom the employers can pay less. Already there are masses of unemployed young males, who are increasingly disaffected and who have few prospects ahead of them. No prospects, that is, apart from crime and violence.

Women have invented an academic study of their own sexual history. The implication is they regard the rest of history as "male history" (and therefore sexist and an impediment to female advancement) but it isn't, it's human history - reflecting the gradual evolution of the race from primitive "ape" to members of a modern and advanced society.

History is history, and facts are facts. I cannot deny the truth of much of the original proposition. But I deny the word "always". And I reject the suggestion that all males have believed in their inate superiority. I haven't, for one, and I grew up in the 50's and 60's, before The Female Eunuch appeared. I always regarded women as women and men as men - the obverse and reverse of the coin of humankind.

The suggestion that men are rapists, predators, pervets is an outragous slander on half of humanity. However you cut it, there is no way that 50% of the people on this world meet that description. A few do, and feminists blacken the whole male sex by extension.

I know "modern girls" don't think that way, and still have legitimate complaints that they are not "fully equal". I long for the time when they are, and can acknowledge it. Maybe they'll be able to treat men as equals then.

As for BDSM and feminism? I have never entertained the two ideas in my head at the same time.

[lucy]

They ban competition and contests in schools (where they have become the ruling majority) because females prefer to co-operate than to compete. And the education system is also becoming increasingly feminised. Boys no longer receive the discipline necessary to make them work as hard as girls do, but female teachers are unable to deliver it.

You're right. Boys need male rolemodels. And women can't provide that. But i don't think male teachers were actually forced out of schools. They went to get more lucrative jobs, probably. Besides all that, schools should not be responsibe to raise kids, but to educate them. Raising the kids is their parents job. And unfortunately, the men tend to be much more at work than back home, with their kids.

The workplace is becoming increasingly feminised. Equal pay is a good thing, as is equal opportunity. But from my perspective, males' salaries have been held back because there are so many married females entering - flooding - the workforce to earn extra money, whom the employers can pay less. Already there are masses of unemployed young males, who are increasingly disaffected and who have few prospects ahead of them. No prospects, that is, apart from crime and violence.

So i should step down from my job, find me a husband, have a couple of kids and stay home? Just so a guy who spent his whole youth with his playstation while i worked and studied and learned can have it? Do i understand that right?
Besides, there are always prospects apart from crime and violence. But i think the youngsters need to learn that. And i also think that "victimizing the offenders" doesn't really help anyone, least the one who need help most, in this case the young unemployed males.

I know "modern girls" don't think that way, and still have legitimate complaints that they are not "fully equal". I long for the time when they are, and can acknowledge it. Maybe they'll be able to treat men as equals then.

Yes, i fully second that.

[AdrianaAurora]

[QUOTE=MMI;726460]

First, I should say, I'm hostile towards feminism. I can't justify my position: feminism just gets under my skin. That's another reason to ignore it. Feminism, to me, is the female equivalent of what used to be dubbed "male chauvinism." Male chauvinist pigs, actually, but "pigs" was added out of spite.

You are certainly entitled to your sentiment.

Pigs? How about - whore, worthless piece of trash, you are not a real woman...

Female chauvinism is equal to male chauvinism; and it has about as much place in Feminism as does terrorism in Islam.

I did call some men chauvinists, because they were. I am not proud of it, but I did, silently in my head (I would never give them the pleasure) call some men pigs. I never used the two terms together. Do you know what we mean when we call men pigs? It means we usually had our heart broken, and what we really mean is, "all men hurt you". Its not rational, but love rarely is.

To me, feminism is a theory. It's a political theory which holds that males have always and intentionaly regarded women as inferior and have therefore subjugated them, and at times, owned them.

Feminism is a social "theory", not a political one.

It therefore advocates "equality," but I sometimes see that as an attempt to gain an advantage: for example, men only organisations are discriminatory, but female only organisations are not - they are woman's right, they are necessary to restore imbalance, they are necessary to prevent woman from having to cope with man's unending and unwanted sexual advances.

Ever occurred to you that it feels "like an attempt to gain advantage" because you had it so long and you don't want to give it up? You are for equality, you would just like to be the ones who determine what that is.

They ban competition and contests in schools (where they have become the ruling majority) because females prefer to co-operate than to compete. And the education system is also becoming increasingly feminised. Boys no longer receive the discipline necessary to make them work as hard as girls do, but female teachers are unable to deliver it.

Women make up 52 percent of the world's population, I suppose the shocking thing of those girls daring to aim for higher eduction might seem like "the education system is also becoming increasingly feminised".

Females prefer to co-operate than to compete? In the above statement you said that feminists are trying to "gain an advantage", so how is lack of competition our fault?

Women are increasingly inclined to raise children on their own, denying their kids necesssary male contact as they grow up.

You mean like those women who use pregnancy to hook a man into marriage? Women who have a batch of children by just as many men, who whore around (but its not PC to call them what they are)? Serial divorcées? Those who trash their ex husbands, but talk to me about religion, marriage and my place? Yes, those women exactly fit the bill of feminists.

Everything else is just intellectual, but this statement to me feels personal. What I love the most about my husband is how good of a father he is. We have been through thick and thin, and I can tell you one thing - we are staying together. To me there is no greater sanctity than marriage, and yet I see all this women who potrey themselves as "real women/ladies" yet go from one husband to another. And if by any chance something happened between the two of us and we ended up divorced, our kids would make the unbreakable bond, I would do everything in my power to remain friends or at least civil. And even if I ended up hating his guts, our kids would never hear a word against him from lips.

The workplace is becoming increasingly feminised. Equal pay is a good thing, as is equal opportunity. But from my perspective, males' salaries have been held back because there are so many married females entering - flooding - the workforce to earn extra money, whom the employers can pay less. Already there are masses of unemployed young males, who are increasingly disaffected and who have few prospects ahead of them. No prospects, that is, apart from crime and violence.

So what exactly am I supposed to do with my time? Run around town, shopping and looking for bargains? I hate shopping. And I have no need for it, I am on a mailing lists of some major designer houses, they send me preview catalogs, I pick what I want and they deliver it in my size. I have a housekeeper. My son goes to loads of activities and an excellent school. Me working creates at least a dozen jobs.

How about those "young males" start behaving like men and start taking responsibility for their own actions and start earning things by working for them. Just like I did, three times harder (!) because of my looks, the color of my hair and because I am a woman. How about - I do all the work and "the male" can take the credit, that would be equal, right.

The reason I make more money than most men is because I am damn good at my job. I have a head for business and negotiations. So I work on a "special contract". There are not that many women working in my field, but those that are, most of them are paid less than their male counterparts. But instead of taking it with the boss, they hate my guts, cant tell you how that makes me feel crushed.

Women have invented an academic study of their own sexual history. The implication is they regard the rest of history as "male history" (and therefore sexist and an impediment to female advancement) but it isn't, it's human history - reflecting the gradual evolution of the race from primitive "ape" to members of a modern and advanced society.

History is history, and facts are facts. I cannot deny the truth of much of the original proposition. But I deny the word "always".

We agree on this. So if this is the advanced society, why do some keep trying to turn back the clock?


And I reject the suggestion that all males have believed in their inate superiority. I haven't, for one, and I grew up in the 50's and 60's, before The Female Eunuch appeared. I always regarded women as women and men as men - the obverse and reverse of the coin of humankind.

No, not all males, there were exceptions like Francis Bacon. Not all man treated women as dirt. But 99% treated women with patronizing condescension, some women rose above that. And how did they do that, how did they earn "full" respect? By showing "balls".

Female Eunich? ROTFLMF(thats feminist)AO. I love my Husbands balls. I love that He is a man enough to handle the whole of me, I love that He can do that without me having to pretend to be dumber, weaker or diminish myself in any way so He can feel stronger. He doesn't need an edge, He is simply the best always.

The suggestion that men are rapists, predators, pervets is an outragous slander on half of humanity. However you cut it, there is no way that 50% of the people on this world meet that description. A few do, and feminists blacken the whole male sex by extension.

Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

Over the last two years, more than 787,000 women were the victim of a rape or sexual assault. (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.Department of Justice, 1996.)

The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)

One of the most startling aspects of sex crimes is how many go unreported. The most common reasons given by women for not reporting these crimes are the belief that it is a private or personal matter and the fear of reprisal from the assailant.

Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)

The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

In 1994-1995, only 251,560 rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials -- less than one in every three. (National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

And thats just U.S.


I know "modern girls" don't think that way, and still have legitimate complaints that they are not "fully equal". I long for the time when they are, and can acknowledge it. Maybe they'll be able to treat men as equals then.

There are men who are "feminists" too. My Husband proudly calls Himself one. He is at the Library under the Demon Dom nick, so you can check out His stand on things. Funny, how real men such as Him never complain about feminists.

If anything Feminism also gave new opportunities to men, such as to stay at home, spend more time with their children...

I am a feminist, my poise and decorum is always in place and to Him I am priceless. Am I a lady or not? ROTFLMFAO, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.






I have no beef with you MMI, you just summarized in a really articulate and comprehensive way the crap I have to deal with every single day of my life. I just wish you could be me for one day, to see what it feels like.

[MMI]

First, I should say, I'm hostile towards feminism. I can't justify my position: feminism just gets under my skin. That's another reason to ignore it. Feminism, to me, is the female equivalent of what used to be dubbed "male chauvinism." Male chauvinist pigs, actually, but "pigs" was added out of spite.

You are certainly entitled to your sentiment.

I know

Pigs? How about - whore, worthless piece of trash, you are not a real woman...

None of that is worse than the names women call men. It's just name-calling, like gigolo, pimp, bastard, nancy-boy (referring to a straight guy). What I call you or you call me doesn't justify - or even go part way to justifying - ostracising the whole male sex, as many feminists, starting with Germaine Greer, do.

Female chauvinism is equal to male chauvinism; and it has about as much place in Feminism as does terrorism in Islam.

Good comparison. It has no place there: yet it is there.

I did call some men chauvinists, because they were. I am not proud of it, but I did, silently in my head (I would never give them the pleasure) call some men pigs. I never used the two terms together.

In the 60's, God help me, I would have supported you, had you said it out loud. Was that chauvinism? I don't know. Now I would have to pause to work out who, in any given situation, was the oppressed.

Do you know what we mean when we call men pigs? It means we usually had our heart broken, and what we really mean is, "all men hurt you". Its not rational, but love rarely is.

Yes, I suppose I knew that. But I also know you don't always use pig in that sense

To me, feminism is a theory. It's a political theory which holds that males have always and intentionaly regarded women as inferior and have therefore subjugated them, and at times, owned them.

Feminism is a social "theory", not a political one.

Then it's a social theory that has been politicised

It therefore advocates "equality," but I sometimes see that as an attempt to gain an advantage: for example, men only organisations are discriminatory, but female only organisations are not - they are woman's right, they are necessary to restore imbalance, they are necessary to prevent woman from having to cope with man's unending and unwanted sexual advances.

Ever occurred to you that it feels "like an attempt to gain advantage" because you had it so long and you don't want to give it up? You are for equality, you would just like to be the ones who determine what that is.

I consider that a preposterous remark that simply reinforces my stated position.

They ban competition and contests in schools (where they have become the ruling majority) because females prefer to co-operate than to compete. And the education system is also becoming increasingly feminised. Boys no longer receive the discipline necessary to make them work as hard as girls do, but female teachers are unable to deliver it.

Women make up 52 percent of the world's population, I suppose the shocking thing of those girls daring to aim for higher eduction might seem like "the education system is also becoming increasingly feminised".

No it's not shocking. But it will have far-reaching consequences. If women replace men in all fields of society (and I believe they could, by virtue of their willingness to unite in a common cause, and their tendency to give preference to other females) males will find themselves marginalised; left to pick up heavy things and kill spiders, or to lay around watching daytime tv (they won't even do housework then!). They will become demotivated and won't bother learning even basic things. It's happening already in council estates around the land.
Females prefer to co-operate than to compete? In the above statement you said that feminists are trying to "gain an advantage", so how is lack of competition our fault?

Actually, I made those points in two separate statements. But the advantage is gained because co-operation, which suits females, is encouraged, while competition, which suits males, is actually stifled.

Women are increasingly inclined to raise children on their own, denying their kids necesssary male contact as they grow up.

You mean like those women who use pregnancy to hook a man into marriage? Women who have a batch of children by just as many men, who whore around (but its not PC to call them what they are)? Serial divorcées? Those who trash their ex husbands, but talk to me about religion, marriage and my place? Yes, those women exactly fit the bill of feminists.

I don't think I said any of that. No, I'm sure I didn't. Are you trying to help me make my case? Or are you putting words into my mouth so you an then refute them?

What I meant was, many women these days prefer a single life and choose to live alone, bringing up thier children by themselves, or with the help of their mothers.

A happy man is one with a woman to look after him; a happy woman is one without an albatross around her neck.

Everything else is just intellectual, but this statement to me feels personal. What I love the most about my husband is how good of a father he is. We have been through thick and thin, and I can tell you one thing - we are staying together. To me there is no greater sanctity than marriage, and yet I see all this women who potrey themselves as "real women/ladies" yet go from one husband to another. And if by any chance something happened between the two of us and we ended up divorced, our kids would make the unbreakable bond, I would do everything in my power to remain friends or at least civil. And even if I ended up hating his guts, our kids would never hear a word against him from lips.


The workplace is becoming increasingly feminised. Equal pay is a good thing, as is equal opportunity. But from my perspective, males' salaries have been held back because there are so many married females entering - flooding - the workforce to earn extra money, whom the employers can pay less. Already there are masses of unemployed young males, who are increasingly disaffected and who have few prospects ahead of them. No prospects, that is, apart from crime and violence.

So what exactly am I supposed to do with my time? Run around town, shopping and looking for bargains? I hate shopping. And I have no need for it, I am on a mailing lists of some major designer houses, they send me preview catalogs, I pick what I want and they deliver it in my size. I have a housekeeper. My son goes to loads of activities and an excellent school. Me working creates at least a dozen jobs.

Look, I'm not attacking you. I don't know enough about you even if I wanted to. I'm attacking feminism.

Now, should women stay at home, or go shopping, or whatever instead of men? If that's your question, my answer is, if it's a choice between a man doing the job or a married woman doing it, then give it to the man. Because the woman has more choices than the man has. He works, or he does nothing. She works and she makes a home, or she makes a home.

None of the choices in life are good ones. But if you have more choices, then you are more fortunate.

How about those "young males" start behaving like men and start taking responsibility for their own actions and start earning things by working for them.

Fat chance! Besides, they can't compete with better educated, less rebellious, females who work for less pay. Easier to steal

Just like I did, three times harder (!) because of my looks, the color of my hair and because I am a woman. How about - I do all the work and "the male" can take the credit, that would be equal, right.

Whatever

The reason I make more money than most men is because I am damn good at my job. I have a head for business and negotiations. So I work on a "special contract". There are not that many women working in my field, but those that are, most of them are paid less than their male counterparts.

Precisely my point: but don't blame men for ganging up together to keep women's pay low. They don't - as I said before, men don't co-operate. But your employer isn't going to offer women high pay if they will meekly accept low pay, just like your employer won't offer a male employee a higher salary if it can get away with paying him a lower one.

But instead of taking it with the boss, they hate my guts, cant tell you how that makes me feel crushed.

If that's true (have they said they hate your guts? And if so, is your salary really the reason they do?) then they must sit there brooding with resentment, just like all the women you say we oppress

Women have invented an academic study of their own sexual history. The implication is they regard the rest of history as "male history" (and therefore sexist and an impediment to female advancement) but it isn't, it's human history - reflecting the gradual evolution of the race from primitive "ape" to members of a modern and advanced society.

History is history, and facts are facts. I cannot deny the truth of much of the original proposition. But I deny the word "always".

We agree on this. So if this is the advanced society, why do some keep trying to turn back the clock?

Who's doing that?


And I reject the suggestion that all males have believed in their inate superiority. I haven't, for one, and I grew up in the 50's and 60's, before The Female Eunuch appeared. I always regarded women as women and men as men - the obverse and reverse of the coin of humankind.

No, not all males, there were exceptions like Francis Bacon.

Just him? Maybe he was pretending ... did you think of that?

Not all man treated women as dirt. But 99% treated women with patronizing condescension, some women rose above that. And how did they do that, how did they earn "full" respect? By showing "balls".

Then I must admit what clever girls they were.


Female Eunich? ROTFLMF(thats feminist)AO. I love my Husbands balls. I love that He is a man enough to handle the whole of me, I love that He can do that without me having to pretend to be dumber, weaker or diminish myself in any way so He can feel stronger. He doesn't need an edge, He is simply the best always.

It isn't feminist? Then I stand corrected. Good oh, for your husband, by the way. He's the man!

The suggestion that men are rapists, predators, pervets is an outragous slander on half of humanity. However you cut it, there is no way that 50% of the people on this world meet that description. A few do, and feminists blacken the whole male sex by extension.

Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

Over the last two years, more than 787,000 women were the victim of a rape or sexual assault. (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.Department of Justice, 1996.)

The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States were raped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)

One of the most startling aspects of sex crimes is how many go unreported. The most common reasons given by women for not reporting these crimes are the belief that it is a private or personal matter and the fear of reprisal from the assailant.

Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)

The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

In 1994-1995, only 251,560 rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials -- less than one in every three. (National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

And thats just U.S.

... and just numbers. A recital of numbers culled from the internet. Taking just one of your examples: 72 women in 100,000 were raped in 2007 according to FBI figures pubished in 1996 (there's forward planning for you, I bet there are more than the normal number of women in that Department!).

That's 0.072% of the female population

Now what proportion of the male population does that represent, in order to find the number of rapists there are? I'm guessing. But not much more or less than 0.07%, I bet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now supposing that figure is reflected in the whole population, then it can be estimated that the proportion of males in the US who have committed rape (based on the estimated number of women who have been raped) must be about 1 tenth of 1 percent, or one in a thousand.

Assuming the male population of the USA is 152,000,000 (and that includes old men and children) then the actual number of men in the USA who have NOT committed rape must be in the region of 151,848,000.

I could have got my maths wrong, but it seems to say one thing loud and clear:

NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS


I know "modern girls" don't think that way, and still have legitimate complaints that they are not "fully equal". I long for the time when they are, and can acknowledge it. Maybe they'll be able to treat men as equals then.

There are men who are "feminists" too. My Husband proudly calls Himself one. He is at the Library under the Demon Dom nick, so you can check out His stand on things. Funny, how real men such as Him never complain about feminists.

Your suggestion by implication that I am not a real man because my views differ from your husband's is unfounded. And highly sexist, I would add.

If anything Feminism also gave new opportunities to men, such as to stay at home, spend more time with their children...

To become more feminine? It won't happen: not universally. Most men would leave home rather than become homemakers (for which, read housewives)It's foolish to believe otherwise.

I am a feminist, my poise and decorum is always in place and to Him I am priceless. Am I a lady or not? ROTFLMFAO, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Frankly, I don't either. It's been an effort to remain interested to reply to all your points, but thank-you for taking my objections seriously, even if you think I am trying to diminish you by voicing them.


I have no beef with you MMI, you just summarized in a really articulate and comprehensive way the crap I have to deal with every single day of my life. I just wish you could be me for one day, to see what it feels like.

Nor have I any with you. But I 'm not sure changing places with you would do any good. I'm not sure you are really representative of womankind. It may be impertinent of me to say so, but that's the impression I've gained from this correspondence. In principle, however, I'd do it. Then you'd find that being a man isn't all it's cracked up to be either.

[AdrianaAurora]

I'm not sure you are really representative of womankind. It may be impertinent of me to say so, but that's the impression I've gained from this correspondence.


Precisely my point, (and I like impertinent people). You cant box me, I always rise above. I exercise my importance with more than whats between my legs. (as it has been suggested here that women have always done that historically). If you took the right to vote from women and a right of employment, at least the latter part, wouldn't apply to me. Some here would dance a marry jig, but what about all those average women who just want to work at their average job and have a few choices in life.

Women choose to raise their children on their own? Some do, but that number is very small. The number of men that leave their wife and children, the number of men that doesn't and refuses to pay child support...

My Husbands father was one such "gentleman", His mother raised Him and His brother on her own and worked two jobs doing so. I suppose it was her fault. And yet she managed to raise a man who is about as much of a mans man that one can be.


Nor have I any with you. But I 'm not sure changing places with you would do any good. In principle, however, I'd do it. Then you'd find that being a man isn't all it's cracked up to be either.

LOl, its been done.

Property tycoon Charles Kane is believed to be the only person in the UK to have undergone two sex change operations; the first to turn him into a woman and the second to turn him back into a man after he realised he'd made a horrible mistake. (Not the most normal of individuals, but his experience gives a very interesting perspective.)

"At first it was very enjoyable being a woman, especially being a beautiful woman in business.

"People notice you and it is much easier to make your presence felt at a meeting. I was flattered by the attention.

"I became much more creative as a person, and less aggressive. Whereas, once as a man it had taken me seconds to make a decision, I would think things through much more carefully, weighing up all the options before deciding what to do.

"People completely underestimate the effect of male and female hormones. Speaking from my own experience, they affect every part of your life, physically and emotionally.

"And then there is the sex. As a man, sex was a very physical and more enjoyable experience, but as a woman it was much more dependent on my mood and emotions.

"As a man, I thought about sex every day, but as a woman if I hadn't had sex for a couple of months I wasn't really bothered.
"Sex as a woman isn't as good anyway. It is not as intense."

"The worst part about being a woman is being treated as a sex object. I became very irritated when men I was just not interested in kept coming up to me with the worst chat-up lines I'd ever heard,"

"In fact, I found being a woman rather shallow and limiting. So much depends on your appearance, at the expense of everything else. I wasn't interested in shopping.

"My female friends would spend hours shopping for clothes, trying on different outfits. "But having been a man I knew exactly what would suit me and appeal to men. I could walk into a shop and be out again in five minutes with the right dress.

"Nor have I ever been interested in celebrity magazines or the things that interest other women, but when I tried to talk to men about blokey things they didn't take me seriously."

"Also, because I'd once been a man, I knew exactly how they thought and responded to women, so there were no surprises and no mystery for me. It all became rather boring.

"Something else I found difficult to cope with were the moods and depression which I believe were caused by taking the female hormone oestrogen.

"As a man, I was never depressed. If something bothered me, I would simply shrug it off and move on. As a woman, I felt as if I was on a rollercoaster of emotion.

"A disagreement with a boyfriend or friend would affect my mood for days."

"So nothing has really turned out the way I hoped."

I have no desire of emasculating men, both male and female perspective is needed in the work place. But to suggest that men should be given a head start just because they are male - . And what is really interesting is that most of it is just a false perception - male superiority, preferential treatment, better pay and all that is still very much "safe" in the possession of men.

(And just a wild guess here, but you are from UK?)

[leah06]

Ever occurred to you that it feels "like an attempt to gain advantage" because you had it so long and you don't want to give it up? You are for equality, you would just like to be the ones who determine what that is.

I consider that a preposterous remark that simply reinforces my stated position.

I don't understand why the remark is preposterous. Certainly it is within the realm of possibility that men have had so many advantages for so long that women's attempts to achieve an even playing field are viewed as attempts to gain an unfair advantage. . .

Now, should women stay at home, or go shopping, or whatever instead of men? If that's your question, my answer is, if it's a choice between a man doing the job or a married woman doing it, then give it to the man. Because the woman has more choices than the man has.

. . .Like, say, for example, here. You seem to see a married woman's working outside the home as taking an unfair advantage of the asserted "fact" that she has more choices than a man.

I might point out that if she doesn't WANT to stay home then the claimed superfluity of choices doesn't really mean that much. And, of course, if the world were structured as you prefer (and as it used to be structured, BTW - women were not allowed to hold many jobs after they got married, and they certainly didn't get equal pay, in part because the man "needed to support a family") - if the world were structured as you prefer, she would NOT have the choice of working outside the home, so you have neatly solved the perceived unfairness of a woman's having, supposedly, more choices, by depriving her of any meaningful choice.

If that's true (have they said they hate your guts? And if so, is your salary really the reason they do?)

That's just mean.

[MMI]

Ever occurred to you that it feels "like an attempt to gain advantage" because you had it so long and you don't want to give it up? You are for equality, you would just like to be the ones who determine what that is.

I consider that a preposterous remark that simply reinforces my stated position.

I don't understand why the remark is preposterous. Certainly it is within the realm of possibility that men have had so many advantages for so long that women's attempts to achieve an even playing field are viewed as attempts to gain an unfair advantage. . .

It is preposterous because I and my sex are being accused of wanting to control who is to have "equalty" and who isn't. I am aware of no man or group of men who have that power. Only society does.[

Now, should women stay at home, or go shopping, or whatever instead of men? If that's your question, my answer is, if it's a choice between a man doing the job or a married woman doing it, then give it to the man. Because the woman has more choices than the man has.

. . .Like, say, for example, here. You seem to see a married woman's working outside the home as taking an unfair advantage of the asserted "fact" that she has more choices than a man.

I might point out that if she doesn't WANT to stay home then the claimed superfluity of choices doesn't really mean that much.

Most women don't WANT to be tied to the home and most of those women don't WANT to be wage slaves either. If they are married they can choose the lesser of the two evils. If they DO want to do either, then they will exercise their choice.

Men's choice if they want to work, is to go to work. If they don't want to, they must go to work anyway, and compete with women who will accept lower wages because they are not the main wage earner in their family.

And, of course, if the world were structured as you prefer (and as it used to be structured, BTW - women were not allowed to hold many jobs after they got married, and they certainly didn't get equal pay, in part because the man "needed to support a family") - if the world were structured as you prefer, she would NOT have the choice of working outside the home, so you have neatly solved the perceived unfairness of a woman's having, supposedly, more choices, by depriving her of any meaningful choice.

Then we're both unhappy.

I submit that men have a right to be allowed to be providers and I fear that if feminism prevents them from doing so, they will become resentful and, ultimately, they will reject feminist society by leaving it or overpowering it.

If that's true (have they said they hate your guts? And if so, is your salary really the reason they do?)

That's just mean.

It was a valid question: I was meant to be impressed by the power and influence AdrianaAurora wields over these disgruntled males, and I wondered if their hatred (her word) truly was due to the pay difference, because I have never hated any person - man or woman - simply because he or she earned more than I did. I also wonderd why AdrianaAurora wasn't making sure pay differences due to sex weren't being eliminated in her company. The questions remain unanswered.

Perhaps I was mean to phrase it that way. But, then again, what do you think of someone who impugnes my masculinity because I don't share her husband's views on this matter?

"If men can't provide, the "Great Sexual Bargain" struck in prehistoric times is finished. Over. "

The Sexual Contract, also known as the Mighty Hunter theory, was always a myth. Early anthopologists studied primitive hunter-gatherers with Victorian eyes and concluded that the hunters were providing for the tribe while the women messed around with digging-sticks. Twentieth Century researchers went back and actually counted and measured what people contributed, and discovered that most of the tribes' food came from the women's gathering. Hunting provided an occasional high-protein feast, for which the women praised the men extravagantly, told them they were wonderful providers and everyone would starve without them, then sent them off hunting again so the women could get on with their work in peace.

Very interesting and something I didn't know. Perhaps twenty-first century researchers will discover that our evolution into the dominant species was nothing to do with the protein in the prey that the male hunters occasionally brought back, but to the carrion that the women scavenged while the men were away ...

I would also like to see the records showing how the women showered false praise on the men to boost their egos. Clearly they invented writing much earlier than mere men did, probably written in modern American English, too. How else would the researchers have known? What a shame the skill was was lost. No doubt, men burned all their books.

I think I've said quite enough on this topic now, so I shall not make any further contributions on this thread.

[MMI]

I'm not sure you are really representative of womankind. It may be impertinent of me to say so, but that's the impression I've gained from this correspondence.

Precisely my point, (and I like impertinent people). You cant box me, I always rise above. I exercise my importance with more than whats between my legs. (as it has been suggested here that women have always done that historically). If you took the right to vote from women and a right of employment, at least the latter part, wouldn't apply to me. Some here would dance a marry jig, but what about all those average women who just want to work at their average job and have a few choices in life.

Forgive me for putting you in boxes: it makes reading these posts easier.

And I'm sorry - it's probably me, but I haven't followed your argument here, other than that you are different from, and perhaps more successful than, most other women.

Women choose to raise their children on their own? Some do, but that number is very small. The number of men that leave their wife and children, the number of men that doesn't and refuses to pay child support...

The number is not that small these days, and it is growing at an appreciable rate. The number of children in primary (and even secondary schools) who are living in a home where there is no permanent adult male presence is already significant and it will rise. And I am led to believe this is the consequence of positive choices by the children's mothers

Nor have I any with you. But I 'm not sure changing places with you would do any good. In principle, however, I'd do it. Then you'd find that being a man isn't all it's cracked up to be either.

LOl, its been done.

Property tycoon Charles Kane ... realised he'd made a horrible mistake.

Poor guy: neither fish nor fowl. What am I to make of that?

... to suggest that men should be given a head start just because they are male ...

... is necessary because they have no other useful role in society than to be "provider".

It's probably completely inappropriate to compare humans with other animals and insects, but can you think of any female dominated species where males are not expected to bugger off and die once the mating season is over - unless, that is, they are to become dinner. And of those species, is it also true that, of the females, one of them alone, the queen, has the right to reproduce and the remaining females just work for her?

I'm no natural historian, and I don't really believe that that is the brave new world feminism is leading us towards, but ...

. And what is really interesting is that most of it is just a false perception - male superiority, preferential treatment, better pay and all that is still very much "safe" in the possession of men.

No! In the possession of the employer. You appear to have influence in your company. You are better paid than your male colleagues, and they hate you for it. Yet you admit there are other women who are not paid as much as you. Why don't they hate you for it too? And why aren't you using your influence to make damned bloody sure that their pay is lifted to the same level as their male counterparts?

Could it be that if pay costs rose, profits would fall, and bonuses/pay awards would be affected unless everyone worked much much harder to cover the increases? Are you on a bonus?

And just a wild guess here, but you are from UK?

Yes, I'm British. Is that relevant?

[AdrianaAurora]

Yes, I'm British. Is that relevant?

Yes, because reading your post was like reading a Daily Mail column. And yes, because you falsely assume that the male-female situation in other countries is anywhere near of what "Nu-Labour" has done to Britain.

And you didn't get my "frankly, my dear I don't give a damn" hint, so you are obviously not from Texas, lol.

[MMI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Yes, I'm British. Is that relevant?


Yes, because reading your post was like reading a Daily Mail column. And yes, because you falsely assume that the male-female situation in other countries is anywhere near of what "Nu-Labour" has done to Britain.

And you didn't get my "frankly, my dear I don't give a damn" hint, so you are obviously not from Texas, lol.

As a socia1ist (who despises New Labour as much as Thatcherism) that Daily Mail jibe was so far below the belt, it made my eyes water. Well done, my dear. You are a fine adversary.

I have no trouble about unmarried mothers choosing to live off state benefits rather than be supported by a transient man - after all, they are just doing what natural selection equipped them to do: choose the most reliable provider for them and their offspring. Were I in that position, I'd choose the State over most men (myself included ... I've been unemployed and partly supported by my wife). Any man I chose in preference to the state would have to be quite special.

You're right that I didn't get the Gone with the Wind reference: I still don't.

SCARLETT: But if you go what'll I do?"
RHETT: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"

Scarlett was fickle, not feminist, and Rhett was not chauvinist except in a gentlemanly way.


And you misrepresent me to say I think men and women are enemies. Feminists probably regard men as enemies, not the other way round. I am irritated by feminism, but I am not about to crush it. Most men and women just get on with their lives, and rub along together nicely.

Take away the ability to be a provider, then men have no useful function in society, apart from sex. Charles Kane says sex, as a woman, isn't much fun anyway (I confess that surprised me - perhaps he wasn't a "proper" woman down there). And you have pointed out that sex is possible without men. So, eventually, will be reproduction.

You say men are good cooks. I don't know that for a fact. At least, not that they are better cooks than women are. And ...cooking??? So what? that's just burning food to a greater or lesser degree. Even I can burn toast. Cooking doesn't signify.

If men can't provide, the "Great Sexual Bargain" struck in prehistoric times is finished. Over. Men and women will have to inter-relate in quite different ways. Men will have no right to sex with any woman and must take it where they can. Women will have no right to be supported during pregnancy and motherhood, and must survive on their own, with their children, come what may.

How people choose to negotiate their relationship between their four walls - I couldn't care less

The point I thought you were making was that all men sidelined their women when it came to making decisions.

Men and women are entitled to the same (job) opportunities and may the best candidate win.

Society, on the other hand will be the loser, with disaffected men living on the margins, perhaps in some kind of lawless subculture, or perhaps, just drawing state benefits paid for by working women.

[MMI]

This paper might interest everyone participating in this discussion:

http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

[leo9]

"If men can't provide, the "Great Sexual Bargain" struck in prehistoric times is finished. Over. "

The Sexual Contract, also known as the Mighty Hunter theory, was always a myth. Early anthopologists studied primitive hunter-gatherers with Victorian eyes and concluded that the hunters were providing for the tribe while the women messed around with digging-sticks. Twentieth Century researchers went back and actually counted and measured what people contributed, and discovered that most of the tribes' food came from the women's gathering. Hunting provided an occasional high-protein feast, for which the women praised the men extravagantly, told them they were wonderful providers and everyone would starve without them, then sent them off hunting again so the women could get on with their work in peace.

[Torq]

OK,,ALLLLL

I see its that time again for my "FAIR WARNING"

Please if you wish to comment in this thread make 100% sure you,,,,,,

STAY ON TOPIC

There will be NO name calling or direct comments to or about one-another,,,,

ALLLL Opinions welcome ABOUT THE TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be Well

T

[Kuskovian]

"I have wondered sometimes if a man to be a man must not master a woman and if a woman to be a woman must not know herself mastered."
Outlaw of Gor - 206


As personified with the passing of the amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting women's sufferage:

Without men supporting it "feminism" would have never gained any ground.

The relationship between man and woman and ergo between dominance and submission existed long before any illusion of feminist thought.

The struggle for achieveing such forever elusive and unobtainable qualities such as "equality" is a simple extension of the struggle for dominance and it too will have it's "ebb and flow". Yin and Yang may be disturbed or imbalanced from time to time; yet allways equalibrium returns of it's own accord.

It is the industrialization of the world which has truely emasculated the better part of our culture. Technology has out-paced our evolutionary development ever since the first primordial fire was started by Prometheus.

Do not blame the women for seeking to replace the dominance they find lacking in the male of the species with her own, they are after all only doing what is natural.

Humanist theory is more in keeping with my own preceptions of events despite the extremities of the feminist movement or the recoil from it. Such is the way the world works to re-establish balance.



"Culture decides what is truth, but truth, unfortunately for culture, is unaware of this. Cultures, mad and blind, can die upon the rocks of truth. Why can truth not be the foundation of culture, rather than its nemesis? Can one not build upon the stone cliffs of reality rather than dash one's head against them? But how few human beings can think, how few dare to inquire, how few can honestly question. How can one know the answer to a question which one fears to ask?"
Explorers of Gor - Page 11

[Pearlgem]

I have to point out that yin and yang is not about dominance and submission but truly about the co existing and balance of opposites, neither one of which can exist or thrive without the other. If I am 'dark' and ''silence' and 'below' then I am that which makes 'light' and 'sound' and 'above' meaningful, or to put another way, utterly meaningless without me.

Why do you suppose that the 'natural' order of things is for males to dominate females? Because you think it's always been so? Those books? I guess you'll never change your beliefs about that but I would simply say that this is just one orthodoxy among many that, like many orthodoxies, is worth challenging.

[thepast]

Just to clarify YET AGAIN...

STAY ON TOPIC. If you quote the part of a previous post that was clearly OFF TOPIC, your post will be pulled. USE SOME COMMON SENSE folks.... Enough with the jabbing & the jousting. Post on topic, or move on to other threads.


delia

[Torq]

OK, Folks,

It appears obvious that folks can't stay on topic.

The last half-a-dozen posts have been removed and relocated to a thread in the Politics area.

IF this thread is going to remain open it WILL STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FINAL WARNING TO ALLL

T

[his_girl_l]

Quick summary to start with - of course i am immensely appreciative of previous generations of women who have managed to win voting rights, (almost) equal work, pay and education opportunities and our rights to birth control etc and determination over our own bodies for the lucky few women who live in the western world. But it probably wouldn't have happened (and is yet to happen) in a society where the men who held power to begin with didn't value women, educate their own daughters and allow them a place in the political process.

And as other people have commented, the whole issue of consent and bdsm would be very different without women having control of their own bodies and lives. Does bdsm as we would recognise it even exist in countries without equal rights or the leisure time we all (male and female) enjoy in the west to explore our sexuality?

BUT. i'm not sure if feminism is still relevant in my society (australia, but i relate it to USA, england, most of europe as well).

i really do think we are in a position where women can achieve pretty much anything they want to if they commit to it. We have equal access to education and in my opinion all other opportunities flow from that.

Women seem to have become our own worst enemies - i have been judged very harshly by women for my lifestyle choices and never (to my knowledge) by men.

When i got married i hadn't finished my degree (still haven't, but that's another story) and my husband was just starting up his own law practice. The logical thing to do seemed for me to take on the administrative and secretarial side of the business, as it would have cost more to pay someone else to do it than i was then in a position to earn. And it continued that way through the births of our 3 children until we separated.

The judgement, hostility and downright rudeness i experienced from his female colleagues, in both professional and social settings was intense.

i was even told by one of these women that i was a waste of the resources that society had put into raising and educating me.

Even though i did all the administrative work for the business, because i did it from home after the birth of our first child so i could raise her and try to keep the household running as well i was dismissed as a brainless house wife, a gold digger, a leach. This when i returned to the office (it was in the process of being moved to home) the day after i got out of hospital after having my first baby, child on breast.

i thought had feminism was about giving women choices and supporting them in those choices. And i'm sure originally it was. But one of the most important choices a woman can make is to be a mother and raise her children. And all around me i see women belittled for that choice or outright denied it because our economies have become based around two income households. If two incomes weren't the norm, things like house prices would go down because it would be normal for a household to have less money to put towards a mortgage. Wages would go up because removing women from the labour market while they were raising their children would increase competition for jobs and raise wages. i know many women who would love to stay home with their kids but can't because everything in our society is now based around the presumption of two incomes.

i would never judge a woman for her choice to work outside the home - but i have been very harshly and openly judged for my (and my ex husband) choosing for me to work from the home and take care of my family and home as well as our business.

And, back to topic, this has given me a very negative view of the current generation of feminists. Reproductive rights were a big part of what feminists in the 50s and 60s fought for. i don't feel that mine are respected by society, when i am either belittled for or expected to outsource my mothering.

End of rant. Sorry, it's something i feel strongly about.

layla

[AdrianaAurora]

I am truly sorry for your experience layla, mine has been the same only from the opposite side. I cant even count how many times I was called a "bad mother" or "you are not a mother at all" by women who stay at home.

When you write things like this, and its a very simplified equation, it fills me with horror.

If two incomes weren't the norm, things like house prices would go down because it would be normal for a household to have less money to put towards a mortgage. Wages would go up because removing women from the labour market while they were raising their children would increase competition for jobs and raise wages. i know many women who would love to stay home with their kids but can't because everything in our society is now based around the presumption of two incomes.

I do think that women should have a right to longer maternity leave - and ironically its something many feminist organizations are fighting for today - but most (sooner or later) like to get back to work.
There are many problems in our society, but they are not a blame of feminists.

As for our bdsm thing most of our "liberated" (lol) friends hardly even blinked, while those who live in a more traditional set up...lets just say we no longer see them or at least as little as possible.

[his_girl_l]

Sorry if i generalised - i didn't mean to judge anyones situation, quite the opposite.

i just feel that, probably for the most part with the best of intentions on behalf of government and other regulators, womens choices are being limited.

And that's really the last thing any women would want (in a general sense, at least).

i fully intend to get back to work at some point - but when i have 3 kids under 5 is NOT the right time for me, although i'll probably finish my degree part time in the meantime.

i actually talked to a woman once who lied about her baby boys age, said he was 6 weeks old when he was actually only 4 weeks, so she could get him into day care. She was a well payed lawyer whose husband also worked and she had 3 months paid maternity leave and 3 months more unpaid if she chose to use it. She just didn't think she could make partner if she was out of the office for much more than a month. i think that is SO sad.

I admit the part of my post you quoted was a sweeping statement, and i'm sorry. i stand by the general premise, but things are never that black and white.

[AdrianaAurora]

Oh I wasn't criticizing you layla, on the contrary! You make a very good point and the issues you name are very real. And I agree with those.

My only beef with this entire thread has been the insistence on the "black and white" view (of feminists/feminist movement) and as you point out things are never that simple.

(I forgot to say it before ) Welcome to the Library,


Adriana